The Costs of Active Management

By Larry Swedroe | Sep 7, 2009 |

When William Sharpe wrote his paper “The Arithmetic of Active Management,” he demonstrated that active investors must earn the same rate of return as passive investors in aggregate. The difference was that the costs of active management would cause active investors to underperform passive investors as a whole. But how much does active management cost? Would you believe about $80 billion per year?

Professor Kenneth French studied this in his 2008 study “The Cost of Active Investing.” French compared the costs of investing in U.S. stocks (fees, expenses and trading costs) with an estimate of costs if everyone invested passively. The difference is the cost of active management. Here’s what he found:

  • The value-weighted cost of all mutual funds (active and passive) fell from 2.08 percent of assets under management in 1980 to 0.95 percent in 2006. The decline is mostly explained by passive funds (including ETFs) increasing share from 1 percent to more than 12 percent.
  • As you would expect, institutional costs are dramatically lower. The value-weighted costs for institutions fell from 0.34 percent in 1980 to 0.23 percent in 2006. Institutional costs declined for two reasons. First, the costs they pay for active and passive investments declined. Second, institutions shifted a large portion of their U.S. equity holdings from active to passive.
  • The average annual hedge fund fee was 4.26 percent of assets. The average for investors who buy through funds of hedge funds is 6.52 percent because they pay two layers of fees.

French estimated that the total cost of investing in 2006 was 0.75 percent of the value of all NYSE, Amex and NASDAQ stocks. This includes the fees and expenses paid for mutual funds, the investment management costs paid by institutions, the fees paid to hedge funds and funds of funds and the transaction costs paid by all traders.

He also estimated that if all investors paid passive fees and there were no hedge funds, the cost of investing would have been just 0.09 percent. The difference between the actual and passive estimates measures the cost of active investing. Based on a market capitalization of about $12 trillion, active investors transfer about $80 billion annually from their own wallets to the purveyors of actively managed products and market makers.

It’s important to note that despite the enormity of the costs, French’s estimate may be too low. It doesn’t account for the incremental burden of higher taxes incurred by active investors with taxable holdings.

French made the important observation that the cost of active investing is not a pure loss to society — the price discovery activities of active managers improves the accuracy of financial prices and allows for an efficient allocation of capital. The good news for passive investors is that you get to be “free riders,” benefiting from the activities of active managers without paying the costs.

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    MarkWolfinger

    09/07/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    The argument of passive vs. active does not consider this:

    If EVERYONE invested passively, there would be no natural buyers or sellers of any stocks. The market would come to an end.

    That is not a good thing. Thus, IMHO, calculating what the fee would be if 'everyone' invested passively is absurd.

  •  
    2

    larry swedroe

    09/08/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    Mark
    First, we are an incredibly long way from being where everyone is passive. Individual investors have only about 15 percent of their funds passive and institutions something less than 40 percent.

    Second, it is also extremely unlikely that everyone would go passive. Overconfidence is just too common a human trait.

    Third, even if all investors would become passive that does not mean there would be no trading as you state. There would always be companies buying other companies for example. Also investors during their withdrawal phase must sell stocks so there are sellers. And there are individuals who would be exercising and selling stock options. And there are life events that cause people to buy or sell, like inheritances, deaths, divorces, etc.

    Fourth, IMO it is important to understand the price society is paying for all the price discovery activities of active management. And it is also important for investors to know that they don't have to pay it. Like college students put on team projects who rely on the others to do the work, investors can choose to be free riders and get all the benefits but pay none of the costs.

    Fifth, here is another interesting point. Despite the dramatic shift to passive investing over the last 30 years since indexing was "invented" the amount of trading has actually gone way up. What has happened is that the remaining active players are trading more and more. So that even if the percentage of investors going passive continues to increase, which IMO is almost a certainty, that does not mean that the amount of trading must fall.

    Sixth, the bottom line is that we should celebrate the Jim Cramer's of the world for encouraging others to be active investors--they help keep the market highly efficient. And we get to ride free on their shoulders.

  •  
    3

    jimkopas

    09/08/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    Larry, I'm a big fan of your blog. I had a quick question in regards to passive investing.

    Over the last 10 years the passive investor has lost money on his investments as the total return S&P 500 has annualized roughly -.65% since June of 1999. Many people believe we might see another "trading range" type market in the next decade to come. Do you believe that Active Wealth Managers add value to their clients during those Bear market periods?

  •  
    4

    larry swedroe

    09/08/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    Jim

    First, glad you enjoy the blog and find it helpful

    Second, there are lots of myths about active investing. One is that while indexing works well in "efficient" asset classes like US large caps, active management works better in "inefficient" asset classes like small caps and emerging markets. That is simply wrong. It makes no difference what the asset is because indexing wins not because of market efficiency, or active investors are "dumb". Instead indexing (passive investing) wins because of lower costs.

    So it doesn't matter which asset class, or whether the bull is rampaging or the bear is out of its hibernation, active management, in aggregate, must be a loser's game.

    If you are interested, the first chapter of my book, The Successful Investor Today: 14 Simple Truths You Must Know When You Invest, discusses this issue in great detail. It shows the arithmetic of active investing and it shows the failure of active management to win whatever the asset class.

    However, the short answer is provided by Nobel Laureate William Sharpe who put it this way in his famous paper, The Arithmetic of Active Management:

    If ?active? and ?passive? management styles are defined in sensible ways, it must be the case that:

    (1) before costs, the return on the average actively managed dollar will equal the return on the average passively managed dollar and

    (2) after costs, the return on the average actively managed dollar will be less than the return on the average passively managed dollar

    These assertions will hold for any time period. Moreover, they depend only on the laws of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Nothing else is required. To repeat: Properly measured, the average actively managed dollar must underperform the average passively managed dollar, net of costs. Empirical analyses that appear to refute this principle are guilty of improper measurement.

    I hope that is helpful.



  •  
    5

    larry swedroe

    09/08/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

  •  
    6

    MrRosemary

    09/08/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    In general, I agree with you about indexing -- provided you pick a good index. While picking an actively managed product is taking a leap of faith into the ether, I have noticed that there's a huge divide between index products.

    While the actively managed fund is only as good as the manager, the passively managed fund is only as good as its index. And some indices are just crap.

  •  
    7

    larry swedroe

    09/08/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    Rosemary

    I basically agree. There are poorly designed indices like the original Russell 2000 indices because they could be "gamed" by active managers, generating alpha at the expense of indexers.

    Those should be avoided. Indexing has its strengths--low cost, low turnover and tax efficiency. But it can have weaknesses--forced turnover, leading to tax inefficiency. There are ways to improve on pure indices, and that is what the funds of Dimensional Fund Advisors have done--designed structured portfolios that give investors the exposure to the ASSET CLASS (not index) that they desire and do it in more efficient ways, avoiding or minimizing the negatives of pure indexing. That is what I personally invest my equity allocation in.

    The "cost" is you accept what is called Tracking Error (look different from popular index). Smart investors don't care about random tracking error. They care about long term returns.

    I hope that is helpful

    Best wishes
    Larry

  •  
    8

    Nathan Hale

    09/15/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    Very good post, Larry. I remember reading the French paper when it came out, and thinking that it understated the total costs of the financial system because he didn't include less direct costs, such as the costs of our advisory system.

    And worrying about what would happen if everyone indexed strikes me as about as silly as Alan Greenspan worrying in 1998 about what would happen if our government kept running surpluses -- would that those were the only things we had to be concerned about.

  •  
    9

    mzhuang

    09/18/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    Larry,

    Can you explain how Russell 2000 indices can be gamed?

    Michael Zhuang

  •  
    10

    larry swedroe

    09/19/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    It could be gamed because everyone knew ahead of time which stocks would leave (have to be sold by pure index funds) and which stocks would enter at the reconstitution date (have to be bought by pure index funds). Thus, the active managers would buy and sell ahead of the index funds who would lose. That is why Vanguard eventually abandoned this really bad index as its benchmark.

    This is also why a well structured passive asset class fund can outperform an index fund ---the index fund only cares about matching its index, it doesn't want to risk tracking error. A passive asset class fund could attempt to avoid the problems of the index, but in return it accepts random tracking error. The investors in this type fund must accept and understand that the TE will be random, sometimes good and sometimes bad, but in long term it should help to avoid the costs of pure indexing (like forced turnover, realization of ST gains in taxable accounts).

    DFA has long used intelligent design to add value over pure index funds.

  •  
    11

    mzhuang

    09/19/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    Larry,

    It's good you explain that here. Most people can't distinguish the fine difference between passive investing and index investing.

    I visited DFA a week ago, and they had invited me to their intro conference next month. I am glad I am in the fold (or so I thought), there are many ways DFA adds value that are scientifically sound.

    The sad thing is, it almost takes someone who enjoy reading academic research papers to fully appreciate DFA's approaches. There are just not too many investors like that out there.

    Michael Zhuang

  •  
    12

    larry swedroe

    09/20/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    Michael,
    I agree completely.
    Best wishes
    Larry

  •  
    13

    javieruno

    10/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    Larry,

    Thanks for this great article.

    Could you explain how you come up with the percentages of
    passive vs. active fund management? (i.e. 15% of individuals'
    funds are passively managed vs. 40% for institutions)

    I am a student at the Wharton School, and I am interested in
    following the long term trend of active vs. passive fund
    allocation.

    Many thanks,
    Javier

  •  
    14

    larry swedroe

    10/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    Javier, the data comes from various surveys. And the estimates differ somewhat but they are all in that area.

    Note that 20 years ago the figures were much lower, only about 1% for individuals and 10% for institutions if memory serves.

  •  
    15

    javieruno

    10/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    Thanks Larry.

    In my view, those figures are of paramount importance to the
    investment management industry. As you mentioned above,
    there will always be a certain percentage of funds actively
    invested (because everyone cannot be free-riding everyone).
    The question is, at what level will the ratio of active vs.
    passive allocation stabilize?

    An article posted in June on FT.com mentioned that net sales
    of mutual funds were -6bn in Q1, vs. +7.7bn for ETFs. At
    that rate, we should be reaching an equilibrium in the not too
    distant future.

    If you can recall which data provider keeps track of these
    type of numbers (Morningstar? Strategic Insight?), I would be
    curious to know.

    Regards,
    Javier

  •  
    16

    larry swedroe

    10/26/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    Javier
    We are a long way from anywhere close to mostly passive let alone all passive.

    Here is data I dug up

    As recently as 25 years ago, only around $1 billion was invested in passive funds. By 2004, the amount invested was over $3 trillion and represented as much as 40 percent of institutional funds (i.e., pension plans and endowment funds).

    Rob Kozlowski, ?Indexed Assets Pass $3 Trillion Mark for First Time,? Pensions & Investments (March 22, 2004).

    Best
    Larry

  •  
    17

    javieruno

    10/27/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The Costs of Active Management

    Many thanks Larry.

    Javier

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement

Larry Swedroe

Larry Swedroe is principal and director of research for The Buckingham Family of Financial Services. He has authored or co-authored seven books, including The Only Guide to a Winning Investment Strategy You'll Ever Need.

Larry Swedroe

Larry Swedroe is a principal and the director of research for Buckingham Asset Management and BAM Advisor Services. He has also worked with Prudential Home Mortgage and Citicorp, totaling nearly 40 years of managing financial risks for major corporations and advising individuals on ways to do the same.

His opinions and comments expressed on this site are his own and may not accurately reflect those of the firm.

track your portfolio