Tag Archives: active vs. passive

Risk-Adjusted SPIVA® Scorecard: The Evaluation of Active Managers’ Performance Through a Risk Lens

Evaluating active managers’ performance through a risk lens is rooted in modern portfolio theory (MPT), which states that the expectation of returns must be accompanied by risk—the variation (or volatility) around the expected return. MPT assumes that higher risk should be compensated, on average, by higher returns. Institutional investors tend to be interested in risk-adjusted Read more […]

Performance Analysis of Liquidated Funds in Brazil – Part II

In this blog, we estimate the impact of survivorship bias on the performance of active equity funds in Brazil compared with the benchmark, the S&P Brazil BMI. We do so by replicating the outperformance report from the SPIVA® Year-End 2017 Latin America Scorecard, while removing all the liquidated and merged funds. We noted in a Read more […]

Active Management’s Dynamic Exposures to Size and Value Style Factors

In prior blogs,[i] we discussed the return contribution of mega-cap securities in 2017, as well as the impact of style classifications that may give small-cap active managers more autonomy to invest in significantly different risk exposures. In this blog, we look at active factor risks taken by active managers across three market-cap ranges against the Read more […]

Introducing the Persistence Scorecard for Latin America

Following similar studies performed by S&P Dow Jones Indices on active funds in the U.S. and Australia, we introduce the Persistence Scorecard to the Latin America region. The two aforementioned studies have demonstrated that top-performing active funds have little chance of repeating that success in subsequent years. To determine if similar conclusions can be made Read more […]

Why Indices Matter to SMSF Trustees

I spent a recent weekend at the Self-Managed Superannuation Fund (SMSF) Expo talking to SMSF trustees about indices. While I often spend Monday through Friday talking indices, to spend Saturday and Sunday chatting about indices was something new. The SMSF Association hosted the first SMSF Expo in Australia, attracting over 1,500 people over the three-day Read more […]

Performance Analysis of Liquidated Funds in Brazil

Since 2015, S&P Dow Jones Indices has been reporting on the performance of actively managed equity funds in Brazil through the S&P Indices Versus Active (SPIVA®) Latin America Scorecard. Aside from the performance of the funds, we observed that a significant number of Brazilian equity funds have liquidated or merged within the past five years. Read more […]

The Impact of Style Classification on Active Management Performance in 2017: Part 2

In our previous blog, we highlighted the contribution to domestic equity market returns by mega-cap stocks in 2017 and the implications for active management. In this blog, we focus our discussion on investment style classification. Specifically, we analyze the impact of the style classification scheme on managers’ performance analysis, such as in the SPIVA® U.S. Read more […]

Visualizing the SPIVA® Europe Scorecard

The S&P Indices Versus Active (SPIVA) Europe Year-End 2017 Scorecard is composed of a rich dataset of active fund performance figures and insights for those wishing to participate in the active versus passive debate. The coverage and detail in the report may be extensive, but the conclusions needn’t be complex. By visualizing the data as Read more […]

The Impact of Size on Active Management Performance in 2017: Part 1

U.S. equity markets finished 2017 on a strong note, with the S&P 500® returning 21.83% during the one-year period ending on Dec. 31, 2017. This was followed by the S&P MidCap 400® and S&P SmallCap 600® returning 16.24% and 13.23%, respectively. Despite market-cap weighting being a dominant form of indexing, equal weighting has outperformed on Read more […]

How Did Australian Active Funds Perform in 2017?

The SPIVA® Australia Scorecard reports on the performance of actively managed Australian mutual funds against their respective benchmark indices over various investment horizons. In the year-end 2017 report, we extended the analysis to 15 years. In 2017, the majority of Australian funds in most categories underperformed their respective benchmarks, apart from the Australian A-REIT category. Read more […]