Most retirement plans offer a menu of index funds and active funds. The active funds typically comprise brand name, "institutional quality" managers. They are in essence a safe bet from a performance, business and career risk perspective. They will likely deliver somewhere between 1% outperformance to -2% underperformance (which incidentally is acceptable). They are the proverbial closet indexers. You may wonder what is their role. If they can't and aren't trying to generate genuine outperformance (alpha), then why use them. I think the reason is as alluded to previously (business, career and performance risk management) but also because they serve several other important purposes.
Namely, they provide the potential for outperformance (an important psychological factor). And they do provide some degree or potential of downside mitigation. Both of which meet the needs of most investors to believe that their fund is being managed by an expert and provides them with a positively skewed opportunity set.
Hard to know whether this is a cynical take on active managements role or simply the reality, which although it is unlikely to deliver alpha, actually does provide investors with a degree of comfort.
If plan providers were to offer "genuinely active" managers then the outcomes could be a real mess. The hit rate on finding and getting a genuinely active manager who then outperforms is pretty low. Not worth the risks and hassles associated with it.
Genuinely active = relatively new fund (less than 3 years old), concentrated bets, small amount of assets under management.
No comments:
Post a Comment