Active management

Active management, in the traditional sense, is the use of a human element, such as a single manager, co-managers or a team of managers, to actively manage a fund's portfolio. Active managers rely on analytical research, forecasts, and their own judgment and experience in making investment decisions on what securities to buy, hold and sell. The opposite of active management is passive management, better known as "indexing.” 
Another type of active management is quantitative investing, where instead of picking individual stocks or bonds for a portfolio one at a time based on in-depth research, the manager uses data and computer models to select groups of securities with certain desired characteristics. An example of this would be factor investing. Other ways to label these two end-member approaches to active management are 'discretionary' versus 'systematic'.AQR, Systematic vs. Discretionary, 2017, viewed May 20, 2020.
==Active management's results==
===Equities===
Canadian mutual funds with active management have a hard time beating their benchmarks over five years, as shown by the following table:
Percentage of funds outperforming the index over five years, as of June 30, 2020; June 30, 2015; and June 30, 2010
Fund category 	Comparison index 	Mid 2020S&P Dow Jones, SPIVA® Canada Scorecard Mid-Year 2020, viewed January 1st, 2021. (%)	Mid 2015S&P Dow Jones, SPIVA® Canada Scorecard Mid-Year 2015, viewed December 26, 2015 (%)	Mid 2010S&P Dow Jones, SPIVA® Canada Scorecard Q2 2010, viewed December 30, 2015 (%)
Canadian equity 	S&P/TSX Composite 	3 	23 	1
U.S. equity 	S&P 500 (CAD) 	9 	3 	9
International equity	S&P EPAC LargeMidCap (CAD)	19 	4 	12
The ten year numbers are typically worse, with for example only 5% of actively managed funds beating their benchmark in the US equity category.
===Fixed income===
Actively managed fixed income mutual funds do not have a good record of beating their benchmarks in Canada either. Over ten years as December 31, 2014, one study found that 0% of short term bond funds funds beat their benchmarks, whereas 4% of medium term bond funds did. Over five years, the figures were 2% and 4%.Vanguard Research, The case for index-fund investing for Canadian investors, April 2015, viewed December 26, 2015
More recent data is available for bond funds in the US. At year-end 2021, about 2% of active mutual funds in the "Government Long Funds" category beat their benchmarks over a 15 year period, whereas about 20% did so in the "Government Intermediate Funds" and "Government Short Funds" categories. S&P Dow Jones, SPIVA® U.S. Scorecard, Year-end 2021, viewed April 23, 2022. Further, only about half these funds 'survived' over the 15 year period.
==Causes of active management underperformance==
The basic explanation of why active managers underperform their benchmarks on the aggregate is the fees: "the aggregate portfolio of actively managed U.S. equity mutual funds is close to the market portfolio, but the high costs of active management show up intact as lower returns to investors".Fama EF, French KR (2010) Luck versus Skill in the Cross Section of Mutual Fund Returns, Journal of Finance 65:1915-1947, available on SSRN. This was first stated by Sharpe in a paper called "The arithmetic of active management".Sharpe WF (1991) The arithmetic of active management, Financial Analysts Journal 47:7–9, available on the author's website.
==Selecting active managers==
Some active managers may beat their benchmarks in particular years, or even consistently over a series of years.Passive money management strategy actively crushing stock pickers | Breakout - Yahoo Finance Yahoo Finance Nevertheless the retail investor still has the problem of discerning how much of the outperformance was due to skill rather than luck, and which managers will do well in the future.John Bogle, Bogle on Mutual Funds: New Perspectives for the Intelligent Investor, Dell, 1994, ISBN 0-440-50682-4 In a paper on US mutual funds called "Luck versus skill in the cross-Section of mutual fund returns", Fama & French state that "few funds produce benchmark-adjusted expected returns sufficient to cover their costs". In other words, there is some evidence of skill before fees, but not so much after fees.
As the saying goes, "past performance is not indicative of future results". Star managers can leave their funds, or their outperformance suddenly vanish. A commonly cited US example is Peter Lynch's Magellan fund, which did have benchmark-beating performance over many years, even when analyzed through the lens of a three-factor model. Unfortunately the fund managers that succeeded Lynch did not have any statistically significant 'alpha' (outperformance).French B (undated) One of the most successful active managers of all time shows why active management doesn’t work, Retirement Researcher, viewed June 20, 2020.
S&P found that "(...) of the Canadian Equity funds that finished in the top quartile in terms of cumulative returns for the period from June 2010 to June 2015, only 8.3% finished in the top quartile for the period from June 2015 to June 2020. In fact, it was more likely for a top-quartile fund to close its doors or change style (25% combined) than to remain in the top quartile."S&P SPIVA, Canada Persistence Scorecard: Mid-Year 2020 December 10, 2020, viewed January 1st, 2021.
==Why does it persist?==
If there is little evidence of manager skill after fees in equity mutual funds, why does active management persist, especially the high-fee type marketed to retail investors? There are several possible explanations. 
*A behavioral explanation is that individual investors using actively managed funds may be subject to overconfidence or optimism biasFoster FD, Warren GJ (2015) Why Might Investors Choose Active Management?, Journal of Behavioral Finance 16, DOI 10.1080/15427560.2015.1000331, available on ResearchGate, i.e. they hope to beat the market and they perhaps erroneously believe that they will be able to select an outperforming manager, and then exit the fund before outperformance vanishes. 
* Some investors might find it difficult to believe that investing is one of rare areas in life where hard work (trying to beat the market with active management) is unlikely to produce better results than perceived 'laziness' (passive management).JB Heaton, GL Pennington (2019) How active management survives. Financial Planning Review 2: article e1031, DOI 10.1002/cfp2.1031
* Another explanation is that investors are responding to "external influences such as marketing efforts or the recommendations of advisers". 
* Finally, there may be non-financial benefits to picking active managers. For example, if an investor picks an active manager that ends up outperforming before fees (although probably not after fees), that investor might still feel smarter than average and brag about returns (before fees).Hersh Shefrin being interviewed in 2021 by the Rational Reminder podcast, episode 167.
==See also==
*Smart beta
==References==
==External links==
* Chevreau J (2020) Can active management pay for itself in fixed-income funds?, MoneySense
* AQR podcast: Fundamental... or Quant?
* Rational Reminder podcast: Episode 103: Picking an active manager (...): "tracing the evolution of the definition of Alpha (excess risk-adjusted returns) found in different key papers, where at each new contribution to the definition, the window for actually achieving Alpha gets smaller"
* Vanguard, In pursuit of alpha: Evaluating active and passive strategies, 2017: "The average fund generates negative net alpha"; "there is no evidence of year-over-year persistence of outperformance among fund managers"
Category:Glossary