Passive versus active: It needs no debateBY JOHN DYALL | THURSDAY, 10 AUG 2017 9:12AM Have we entered the post-truth world in discussing passive versus active investing? There has been a lot of talk recently about the rise of passive versus active in equities investing. Upgrade your subscription to access this article
Join the growing community of financial advisers
with unlimited access to our latest news, research and analysis of the industry.
Become a premium subscriber today. |
Latest News
Former financial adviser charged in alleged $160k super fraud case
|Former financial adviser Abdullah Popal has been charged with alleged fraud offences in Sydney's north-west, accused of hoodwinking five individuals out of over $160,000 from their self-managed super funds (SMSFs).
Reducing super tax cap to $2m 'a concern': FAAA
|The FAAA has voiced concerns over the Labor government's proposed superannuation tax, saying if they are negotiating with the Greens, a reduction in the cap to $2 million would be problematic.
FAAA calls for stronger consumer protections in advice reforms
The Financial Advice Association of Australia (FAAA) has opposed collective charging for "always complex and costly" retirement planning advice and emphasised the need for consumer protection in the provision of super nudges in its submission to Treasury on the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes (DBFO) ...
Adviser numbers jump in March quarter: Rainmaker
The March quarter saw the highest number of financial advisers join the sector in the last seven years to reach 15,982, according to Rainmaker Information.
Further Reading
Cover Story
Moving mountains
MAGDELINE JACOVIDES
FOUNDER AND FINANCIAL ADVISER
MAZI WEALTH
FOUNDER AND FINANCIAL ADVISER
MAZI WEALTH
On top of running a successful practice, Mazi Wealth founder Deline Jacovides is a fierce advocate for closing the superannuation gender gap and has built a highly popular social media presence that takes financial literacy to the next level. She tells Karren Vergara where her passion comes from and how she integrates it all with family life.
Expert Feed
Redefining Pathways: What financial planning can learn from accounting's bold move
When I traded my Chartered Accountant hat for a career in financial planning, I didn't just switch professions - I gained a new perspective on the evolving ...
'Chameleon ETFs': Still groundbreaking and here to stay?
It was coined as a 'gamechanger' - an ETF that can be bought and sold on the ASX or Cboe Australia but that can also be applied for, and redeemed, directly ...
Now is the time to be brave
Recently, the first Delivering Better Financial Outcomes bill passed in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, marking a significant step forward ...
Why philanthropy is an important conversation advisers should have with clients
Financial advisers are in the box seat to assist clients with their philanthropy, yet a lot still don't raise the topic with clients.
Passive investment is perfect for advisers that don't know what they are doing. Our in-house blend of active managers has consistently performed better than the equivalent passive counterparts & for less risk on the same asset allocation.
Employed passive Business Develop Managers struggle to understand this because all of their research compares to the "average" active manager. Well there's enough rubbish investment funds out there that pull the average down. A fairly simple comparison is merely looking at the average returns for well rated funds. The moral of the story is don't be slack in your fund selection. Ensure you are with a well rated fund & for the public ensure you are with an adviser that can explain the differences in funds to you.
John, well balanced of both side's arguments and representations. My main beef with comparisons of the two is that it assumes one can (and does) invest in an entire universe of active managers. This seems absurd to me as we cannot do so. Its result is meaningless for investors making an informed appraisal.
It also infers advisers and researchers have no means of value-adding in sorting out the entire universe...which seems an unlikely assumption (though not proven) as well.
Second it should remove active managers that are 'index huggers' at an active price. Say an R2 score over 80 longer term?
Third, yes weightings should be applied if doing like for like, but even then the flaw of point one renders it all useless anyway.
Its interesting to view the performance of active managers that gain the bulk of inflows only against the index over 3 and 5 year rolling periods - of say international Australian domiciled funds since 2000.