Passive versus active: It needs no debateBY JOHN DYALL | THURSDAY, 10 AUG 2017 9:12AMHave 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
Advisers expect growth despite uphill challenges
Despite the current headwinds involving market uncertainties, rapid digitisation and the ageing population, financial advisers remain optimistic about what they can achieve over the next few years, a new report finds. However, the growth will not be captured easily.
Diversa drags Praemium into First Guardian lawsuit
Praemium and its subsidiaries are now caught up in the ASIC-led First Guardian legal saga, having been thrown in the mix by Diversa Trustees.
Poor succession plans expose advice firms to crisis events: Report
Most financial advice practices are ill-prepared to manage the sudden death or permanent disablement of a principal, according to new research, underscoring widespread gaps in succession and contingency planning.
Capstone joins forces with PictureWealth to form $22bn FUA planning network
PictureWealth Group has inked a landmark deal with national advice licensee Capstone Financial Planning, forming a combined business with 360 financial advisers and $22 billion in funds under advice.
Further Reading
Cover Story

Advice with soul
SACHA BURCHGART
FOUNDER AND FINANCIAL PLANNING SPECIALIST
BURCHEART
FOUNDER AND FINANCIAL PLANNING SPECIALIST
BURCHEART
Though she initially tried, Sacha Burchgart couldn't escape the call of a career in financial advice; it just took staring down her own mortality to see what's possible when you do things differently. Jamie Williamson writes.









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.