Active and Passive Management Statistics: Which One Performs Better?

When managing investments, there is a constant debate about active and passive management strategies. Active management constantly buys and sells securities to outperform the market, while passive management tracks a market index.

Proponents of active management argue that it allows for greater potential returns, while advocates of passive management point to lower fees and often comparable performance. This article will explore the statistics behind both approaches to help investors make informed decisions regarding their investment strategy. 

Overview of Active and Passive Management

Active and passive management are two investment strategies that differ in their approach to selecting and managing investments. In active management, a portfolio manager makes investment decisions to outperform a benchmark index. In contrast, passive management involves investing in a portfolio of securities that tracks a benchmark index.

Definition of Active Management

Active management involves making investment decisions to outperform a benchmark index. This strategy involves a portfolio manager actively selecting and trading securities based on their research and analysis. The portfolio manager may also use other techniques like market timing and sector rotation to achieve their investment objectives.

Active management is typically connected with higher fees than passive management. This is because active management requires more research and analysis and higher trading costs. However, active management can also lead to higher returns than passive management if the portfolio manager successfully selects suitable securities.

Definition of Passive Management

Passive management involves investing in a portfolio of securities that tracks a benchmark index. This strategy involves little to no research or analysis, as the portfolio is designed to replicate the benchmark index’s performance. Passive management is typically connected with lower fees than active management, requiring less research and analysis.

Passive management is often used with index or exchange-traded funds (ETFs). These funds are designed to monitor a specific benchmark index and are popular with investors who want to achieve broad market exposure with low fees.

Active and passive management decisions are based on an investor’s risk tolerance, investment objectives, and investment horizon. While active management may lead to higher returns, it also involves higher fees and may not consistently outperform the benchmark index. On the other hand, passive management may be a better choice for investors who want to achieve broad market exposure with low fees.

Historical Performance Comparison Between Active and Passive Management

Historical performance is often used as a benchmark to compare active vs. passive management. In equity markets, active management has struggled to outperform passive management consistently.

Based on an S&P Dow Jones Indices study, relatively few active managers can outperform passive managers, either short-term or long-term, over any given period. The study found that the accurate measure of successful active management is whether a manager or strategy can deliver above-average returns consistently over multiple periods.

In bond markets, the story is slightly different. While active management consistently struggles to outperform passive management, the gap between the two is narrower than in equity markets. A report on the performance measurement of long-term mutual funds by Taylor & Francis Online found that measuring bond fund performance is one of the significant models of mutual fund performance.

According to S&P Global, the percentage of active funds underperforming the benchmark increased over longer-term investment horizons in both equity and bond markets. For instance, 82%, 90%, and 86% of active managers could not beat their benchmark over the 3-, 5-, and 10-year horizons, respectively.

Equity Markets

The data shows that active management in equity markets has consistently struggled to outperform passive management over time. Based on the S&P Dow Jones Indices study, only a few active managers have achieved above-average returns consistently over multiple periods. This has led to a growing interest in passive management, particularly in the form of index funds and ETFs.

Bond Markets

The gap between active and passive management is narrower in bond markets than in equity markets. While active management struggles to outperform passive management consistently, the difference between the two is less significant. Measuring bond fund performance is one of the major models of mutual fund performance, according to the review by Taylor & Francis Online.

Overall, historical performance data suggests that active management in equity and bond markets has consistently struggled to outperform passive management over time. While the gap between the two is narrower in bond markets, the trend towards passive management is growing in both markets.

Market Share and Growth of Active and Passive Management

According to a Statista report, the global share of actively managed exchange-traded funds (ETFs) has declined since 2017. In 2023, the share of actively managed ETFs is expected to be around 26%, while passive ETFs are projected to account for 74% of the market. This trend will probably continue in the coming years, with passive ETFs gaining market share.

The decline in active management market share is attributed to the underperformance of actively managed funds compared to their passive counterparts. Active fund managers charge higher fees for their services, but they have yet to consistently be able to outperform the market. As a result, investors have been shifting their assets to passive funds, which offer lower fees and are designed to track the performance of a benchmark index.

Passive management has been increasing in recent years, with the market share of passive ETFs surpassing active ETFs in 2018, according to a Bloomberg report. Passive ETFs are designed to monitor the performance of a benchmark index, such as the S&P 500, and offer lower fees than actively managed funds.

Passive management has been gaining popularity among investors because of its low fees and simplicity. Passive funds are easy to understand and offer broad exposure to a market or segment of a market. In addition, passive funds are less risky than actively managed funds because they are not dependent on the performance of a single fund manager.

Despite the growth of passive management, some experts believe there is still a place for active management in the market. Active managers can add value by identifying mispricings in the market and taking advantage of them. However, they must consistently outperform the market to justify their higher fees.

Cost Analysis-Expense Ratios

The expense ratio is one of the main dissimilarities between active and passive management. Passive funds have lower expense ratios compared to active funds. This is because passive funds do not require as much research and analysis to manage as active funds.

As per the study of S&P Global, the standard expense ratio for actively managed funds was 0.67% in 2020, while the average expense ratio for passively managed funds was 0.13%.

Investors must consider the expense ratio when choosing between active and passive funds. The expense ratio can significantly impact the overall return on the investment. However, if the same investor invests in a fund with an expense ratio of 0.1%, the investor will earn $990 in returns.

Cost Analysis-Transaction Costs

Transaction costs are another factor that investors need to know when choosing between active and passive funds. Active funds have higher transaction costs compared to passive funds. This is because active funds require more buying and selling of securities to achieve their investment objectives.

Transaction costs can significantly impact the overall return on the investment. According to a study by the CFA Institute, the average transaction cost for actively managed funds was 0.53% in 2020, while the average transaction cost for passively managed funds was 0.03%.

Investors must consider the transaction costs when choosing between active and passive funds. The transaction costs can eat into the overall return on the investment. However, if the same investor invests in a fund with a transaction cost of 0.1%, the investor will earn $990 in returns.

Pros and Cons of Active and Passive Management

Pros of Active Management

1. Potential for higher returns than passive management: Active managers aim to outperform the market by making strategic investment decisions based on research and analysis.
2. Adapting to changing market conditions: Active managers can adjust investment portfolios based on current economic trends and market opportunities.
3. Personalised investment strategies: Active managers can tailor investment strategies to meet specific client objectives and risk tolerance levels.

Cons of Active Management

1. Higher fees: Active management typically incurs higher fees than passive management, reducing overall investment returns.
2. Increased risk: Active management involves the usual buying and selling of securities, which results in higher levels of volatility and risk in the portfolio.
3. Potential for underperformance: Despite the goal of outperforming the market, active managers may only sometimes be successful in generating higher returns than the market average. 

Pros of Passive Management

1. Lower costs: Passive management typically has lower fees than actively managed funds, as less trading and research are involved.
2. Diversification: Passive management usually involves investing in a broad market index or ETF, providing instant diversification to reduce risk.
3. Less emotional decision-making: With passive management, investors are not constantly reacting to market conditions or trying to time the market, which can result in better long-term performance.
4. Predictability: Since passive management is based on a set investment strategy, investors can more easily forecast their investments’ performance over time.

Cons of Passive Management

1. Limited flexibility: Passive managers cannot adjust their investment strategy based on market conditions or individual stock performance, which may result in missed opportunities for higher returns.
2. Lack of personalised strategies: Passive management may need to consider an individual investor’s goals, risk tolerance, or financial situation.
3. Potential underperformance: In a volatile market or during rapid change, actively managed funds may outperform passive funds by taking advantage of opportunities or avoiding potential risks.
4. Limited ability to outperform the market: Although passive management can deliver consistent returns, due to its passive nature, it may need to be able to outperform the market in the long run. 

Investor Behaviour and Decision-Making

Investors often decide whether to choose active or passive management for their investments. While active management may seem the better option, statistics show it is only sometimes the case. According to S&P Global, relatively few active managers can outperform passive managers over any given period, either short-term or long-term.

Despite this, many investors still choose active management due to behavioural biases such as overconfidence, familiarity, and loss aversion. Overconfidence can let investors believe they have the skills to consistently outperform the market, even though the statistics show otherwise.

Familiarity bias can cause investors to choose active management simply because it is more familiar, even though passive management may be a better option. Loss aversion can cause investors to fear missing out on potential gains and, therefore, choose active management, even though the risks may outweigh the rewards.

To combat these biases, investors can use goal-based investing, which focuses on achieving specific goals rather than beating the market. This can assist investors in making more rational decisions and choosing the best investment strategy suited to their needs.

Impact of Technological Advancements on Active and Passive Management

Technological advancements have profoundly impacted the investment industry, particularly active and passive management strategies. With the advances in algorithms and artificial intelligence, passive management has become more efficient and cost-effective. In contrast, active management has needed help to keep pace with these technological advancements.

One of the key benefits of passive management is that it relies on algorithms and mathematical models to track market indices. This approach eliminates human bias and emotions from investment, resulting in more consistent returns. In addition, passive management strategies are typically less expensive than active ones since they require less research and analysis.

On the other hand, active management strategies rely on human expertise and intuition to identify mispricings in the market and generate alpha. However, with the increasing complexity and speed of financial markets, it has become increasingly challenging for active managers to outperform their benchmarks consistently. Research has shown that most active managers underperform their benchmarks over the long term.

Despite these challenges, some active managers have leveraged technological advancements to improve performance. For example, some managers have started using machine learning algorithms to analyse large datasets and identify patterns in market behaviour. Others have begun using natural language processing to analyse news articles and social media feeds to gain insights into market sentiment.

Conclusion

The debate between active and passive management strategies continues to be complex and ongoing within the investment community. While both approaches have their own pros and cons, it is essential for investors to carefully determine their financial goals, risk tolerance, and investment horizon before deciding on a particular strategy.

Ultimately, the best strategy may vary based on individual circumstances and market conditions. Investors should implement thorough research, seek professional advice, and remain vigilant in monitoring their investments to make well-oriented decisions that align with their financial objectives.