DOCSLIB.ORG

Financial System and Corporate Governance Impacts of Passive Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Financial System and Corporate Governance Impacts of Passive Management Financial System and Corporate Governance Impacts of Passive Management Maureen O’Brien VP Segal Marco Advisors Julian Regan SVP Segal Marco Advisors June 12, 2018 Copyright © 2018 by The Segal Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Agenda The Rise of Passive Equity Management Objectives and Uses of Passive Management Market and Financial System Implications Corporate Governance: Voting Trends Over Time By Passive Managers Examples of Votes on Key Proposals By Passive Managers Takeaways Glossary “This the new realty of today’s stock market: Funds that track financial indexes have become a dominant force, and they can act as accelerants, adding to the market’s rise and fall” —New York Times, February 8, 2018 2 Background Passive vs. Active Investing Definitions Many Investors use a combination of passive and active investment strategies as a means of implementing their public markets asset allocation strategy. Active Management: An investment strategy that seeks to earn a higher return than the benchmark index return by holding and trading a subset of securities in an index based on price discovery and the exercise of discretion in selecting securities. Passive Management: An investment strategy that seeks to track the returns of an index, such as the S&P 500, rather outperforming it. A passive portfolio is typically implemented by holding the securities in an index in proportion to their weight. 3 Executive Summary Financial System Impacts of Passive Management Rise of Passive Equity Management (indexing) and Benefits The rapid rise of low cost equity indexing is helping investors implement increasingly cost effective investment programs At the same time, however, asset flows to passive management are raising questions about potential impacts on the U.S. financial system and the corporate governance movement. Impact on Capital Allocation As passive management’s share of the U.S. equity market has grown to an estimated 30% - 40%, investors and corporate boards are awakening to a market where capital flows to equity securities are almost as likely to be determined by index weights as by traditional measures of corporate performance. Financial System and Corporate Governance Concerns Against this setting, a growing number of experts and academics are raising concerns that concentration in the index fund industry, a decline in price discovery and the rise of exchange traded index funds (ETFs) are leading to concentrated control of U.S. public companies, contributing to market volatility and may lead to long-term changes in our markets. 4 Background Passive Management Response to Concerns about Market Impacts BlackRock Estimate: Global Equity Ownership (Trillions) $38.7 $11.9 $17.4 Index Funds Actively Managed Remaining Funds Source: Reuters, October 3, 2017 Passive Management Industry Response According to passive managers, data regarding passive management’s rising share of the U.S. equity market is inexact and may be overstated. Contrary to concerns expressed by some industry experts, passive managers believe active management will continue to play a significant role in setting equity prices. Growth in passively managed assets should create greater opportunity for active managers. Due to the fact that portfolio turnover is largely limited to rebalancing to match index weights, passive equity managers are motivated to act as long-term owners of U.S. companies. “…the question of whether the rise of passive investing is an existential threat to capitalism remains an open one.” —Bloomberg, August 23, 2016 Note: Sample information. Not all inclusive. 5 Background Ownership of U.S. Equities Ownership of Corporate Equities (2013) Other 8% ETFs 4% Hedge Funds 3% International Investors 14% Government Retirement Funds 8% Pension Funds (non-Public) 9% Mutual Funds 20% Households 34% Source: Federal Reserve Board, Lionshares and Goldman Sachs Global ECS Research. Public and private retirement funds reportedly own 17% of the U.S. equity market This does not include equities owned indirectly by public and private defined contribution plans that are held in mutual fund and other commingled investment vehicles “The big pools of equity owners in the world today are the pension funds. They're the policemen, they're the firemen, they're the teachers, they're the civil servants…” —Gary Cohn, White House Economic Advisor, September 1, 2017 6 Background Public Equity Ownership: Active vs. Passive Management Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 100 Largest Public Pension Funds Public Funds: Assets (Billions) FY 2016 Average Asset Allocation 3,785 47.6% 2,466 23.2% 24.9% 4.3% 2009 2017 Public Equities Fixed Income Alternatives / Cash/Other Real Estate Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Source: National Association of State Retirement Administrators (NASRA). Most public pension funds utilize a combination of passive (indexed) and active investment strategies to implement their public equity allocations. Indexing benefits public funds by enabling low cost exposure to markets where active management has been challenged to generate net-of-fee returns that exceed benchmarks. Individual and institutional investors flows from active to passive equity management have increased dramatically since the financial crisis due in part to performance and fees. 7 Background Passive vs. Active Equity Management Investment Program Roles Active Passive Strategy to achieve equity market exposure (beta) ● ● Potential to add return above benchmark (alpha) ● Lower cost ● Return objective: outperform benchmark return ● Return objective: match benchmark return ● Exposes investor to tracking error ● Limited tracking error relative to index ● Demand for active management varies across investors depending on tolerance for tracking error, time horizon, market efficiency and return, risk and cost objectives. A recent study found that over half of global non-corporate pension funds manage 40% or more of their equities passively. “In many ways, this stampede toward passive investing…is uncharted territory.” —New York Times, February 9, 2018 Note: Sources include BlackRock/Economist Intelligence Unit, March 2018. 8 The Rise of Passive Management Capital Flows Net Mutual Fund Flows (Billions) 2016 (est) (400) Active Mutual Funds Index Fund Flows 200 Index Fund ETFs 286 Source: Bloomberg.com, U.S. ETFs 2017 Outlook By matching holdings and weights to an index (e.g. Russell 1000), passive management minimizes costs, while limiting or eliminating tracking error Public pension funds have utilized indexing to gain exposure to more efficient parts of the capital markets at a low costs for decades What is new are the trillions in asset flows from active management to traditional index funds and to index exchange traded funds (ETFs) “Most of today’s 1,800 ETFs are less diversified, carry greater risk, and are used largely for rapid-fire trading – speculation, pure and simple.” —John C. Bogle CFA Publications, January/February 2016 9 The Rise of Passive Management Growth of Equity Index Mutual Funds EQUITY INDEX FUNDS MARKET SHARE* 34% 16% 4% 0% 1985 1995 2005 2015 Source: CFA Publications. John C. Bogle. January/February 2016 Indexed mutual fund assets increased from $55 billion or 4% in 1995 to $4 trillion or 34% in 2015 due in part to active management performance following the crisis. A Moody’s study predicted that passively managed assets will exceed actively managed assets by 2024. “…perhaps we shouldn’t be shocked if an investment method that encourages us to use as little discernment as possible ends up being too good to be true.” —Is Passive Investment Actively Hurting the U.S. Economy? The New Yorker, March 9, 2016 Source: Fichtner, Heemskerk and Garcia-Bernardo, Cambridge University Press, April 25, 2017. 10 The Rise of Passive Management Historical Performance Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 % Active Managers Underperforming U.S. Equity Active Funds Outperformance Benchmark Periods Ended 2017 February 1, 1998 - January 31, 2018 U.S. Large Cap Core U.S. Mid Cap Core U.S. Small Cap Core 60% 91.1% 85.0% 86.3% 88.8% 84.2% 80.5% 63.0% 32% 44.4% 47.7% 5 Yr 3 Yr 1 Yr Down Markets Up Markets Source: SPIVA Scorecard Source: Morningstar, February 28, 2018 In the wake of the global financial crisis, most active equity managers have been challenged to outperform their benchmark index amid rising markets (Exhibit 1). Proponents of active management and industry research supports the case that active management performs better in down markets (Exhibit 2). 11 The Rise of Passive Management Reasons for Active Manager Underperformance CFA Survey Reasons for Active Manager Underperformance Active managers' lack of opinion diverstity 5% Lack of thorough analytical due diligence 5% Other 10% Concentration of top performing stocks 10% Active managers' short-termism 13% Managers cannnot compete with market intellegence 15% Benchmark, stylebox and tracking error constraints 18% Higher Expenses of Active Management 24% Sources: CFA Institute, Jason Voss, CFA, October 2015 Reasons for recent active manager underperformance include fees, market efficiency, low interest rates, stock price correlations driven by macroeconomic factors (e.g. monetary policy) and benchmark constraints, among other reasons. According to an October 2015 CFA publication survey, the top reason for active managers’ underperformance was higher fees relative to passive (see above). 12 The Rise of Passive Management Investment Management Fees Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Mutual Funds Hypothetical Management Fees (%): Average Expense Ratio: 2016 Active vs. Passive Passive
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Our Approach to Equity Investing Generation to the Next)
    VIEWPOINTS OCTOBER 2015, ISSUE 2 Our Approach to Equity Investing The ongoing debate between active versus passive management (also called “indexing”) in the context of equity investing may never be fully resolved. While the purpose of this Viewpoints is not an attempt to resolve the debate, we will briefly touch on the differences between these two approaches and the reasoning behind our approach to equity investing. At Houston Trust Company, we believe both approaches have merit, and each may be useful in achieving a given client’s needs and overall portfolio objectives. However, for the vast majority of our clients, we believe core holdings of high-quality, individual stocks managed (at reasonable cost) by independent, third party investment professionals offers a greater degree of flexibility, control and transparency, and can deliver competitive returns over long periods of time with lower volatility than passively managed index mutual funds. Indexing and Active Equity Active equity management, in contrast to indexing, Management Defined seeks to exploit perceived market inefficiencies in an attempt to outperform the underlying index, or In theory, passive equity investing entails simply benchmark, over time. The degree of outperformance replicating the holdings in an underlying index by is commonly referred to as a manager’s “alpha” purchasing the same securities in the same weights (i.e. the value-added return in excess of the appropriate as the index. In practice, however, what the investor benchmark which is attributable to the manager’s actually owns is a financial instrument, the return of skill). In simple terms, long-only active equity which reflects the return of the particular index (S&P managers will attempt to earn positive excess returns 500, EAFE, etc.) that the instrument is designed to by overweighting underpriced securities/industry replicate.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Risk Adjusted Returns in Core-Satellite Portfolios: Changing the Conversation to Benefit the Smaller Investor by J
    Comparison of Risk Adjusted Returns in Core-Satellite Portfolios: Changing the Conversation to Benefit the Smaller Investor by John A. Molster, Jr. A dissertation submitted to the faculty of Wilmington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Business Administration Wilmington University October 2018 Comparison of Risk Adjusted Returns in Core-Satellite Portfolios: Changing the Conversation to Benefit the Smaller Investor by John A. Molster, Jr. I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standards required by Wilmington University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Business Administration. Signed ___________________________________________________ John L. Sparco, Ph.D., Chairperson of Dissertation Committee Signed ___________________________________________________ Ruth T. Norman, Ph.D., Member of the Dissertation Committee Signed ___________________________________________________ Mary B. Lavoie, D.B.A., Member of the Dissertation Committee Signed ___________________________________________________ Kathy S. Kennedy-Ratajack, D.B.A. Dean, College of Business Table of Contents List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii Dedication .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Active Management and Market Efficiency: a Summary of the Academic Literature
    Active Management and Market Efficiency: A Summary of the Academic Literature Executive Summary This paper reviews the empirical evidence on trends in market efficiency in the United States and the role that active management plays in creating market efficiency. Efficient markets are among the cornerstones of developed economies. In an efficient market the prices of securities, on average, reflect the value of the assets underlying the securities. More efficient markets have three primary advantages: they encourage broader investor participation, they make diversifying risk easier and they encourage capital formation. Active management is the driver of market efficiency. Active managers perform research on issuers, analyze assets underlying securities and assess values. Through the buying and selling process, active managers establish the market prices for securities. By contrast, passive managers are usually “price takers” rather than “price makers.” Therefore, in the broadest terms, an increase in the amount of active management will lead to greater market efficiency, while an increase in passive management will reduce market efficiency. A body of academic literature studies how the increase in passively-managed assets – and the concomitant decrease in actively-managed assets – has affected market efficiency. Taken together, these studies suggest that: pricing efficiency has declined, return comovement has increased, securities prices are more volatile, liquidity has decreased and liquidity exhibits greater comovement. We believe that additional studies covering the most recent periods would be useful, as would studies that take a comprehensive view of indexing and that study the effect of indexing on IPOs. ACTIVE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL WHITE PAPER / MARKET EFFICIENCY: A SUMMARY OF THE ACADEMIC LITERATURE Introduction Efficient markets are among the cornerstones of developed economies.
    [Show full text]
  • Swiss Asset Management Study 2020 an Overview of Swiss Asset Management
    1 Inhaltsverzeichnis Inhaltsverzeichnis Swiss Asset Management Study 2020 An Overview of Swiss Asset Management Editors Jürg Fausch, Thomas Ankenbrand Institute of Financial Services Zug IFZ www.hslu.ch/ifz 1 Table of Contents Swiss Asset Management Study 2020 Table of Contents Preface 2 Executive Summary 3 1. Definition & Framework of Asset Management 5 2. The Swiss Asset Management Environment 12 3. Asset Management – An International Perspective 39 4. Asset Management Companies in Switzerland 47 5. Active versus Passive Investing – A Differentiated View on a Heated Debate 69 6. Conclusion & Outlook 77 7. Factsheets of Asset Management Companies in Switzerland 78 Authors 108 References 109 Appendix 120 2 Swiss Asset Management Study 2020 Preface The asset management industry is a growing segment of the Swiss financial center and offers a differentiating value proposition relative to private banking and wealth management. The strong expertise in asset manage- ment is highly relevant for Switzerland since it helps to diversify and complete the Swiss financial center. In this regard, the Asset Management Association Switzerland has the goal to further establish Switzerland as a leading provider of high quality asset management services and products domestically and abroad. In this context, the following study provides a comprehensive overview of the current status and various develop- ments in the Swiss asset management industry and consists of two parts. The first part starts with Chapter 1 in which a definition of asset management is provided and the methodological framework of the study is outlined. Chapter 2 gives an overview of the environment and discusses the political/legal, economic, social and technolog- ical developments relevant for the asset management industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Large Cap Equity Fund
    North Carolina Supplemental Retirement Plans Annual Review FEBRUARY 2013 Table of Contents • Defined Contribution Trends – Streamlining Investment Choices – DC Spend Down • Service Provider Disclosures – ERISA 408(b)(2) Regulations • Fee Review – NCSRP Fees – Stable Value Fund Fees • GoalMaker Discussion (Separate Slides) • Considering Other Fund Lineup Options • Fund Performance Review •Disclaimer MERCER 1 Defined Contribution Trends Trends for Large Plan Sponsors • Streamline number and types of investments offered – Combine style-specific (value/growth) choices for participants - Removes need to rebalance among styles - One fund choice that includes multiple underlying strategies across the style spectrum • Focus on retirement income MERCER 3 Streamlining Investment Choices • Research has shown that participants are neither good at making their own investment choices nor happy about this responsibility • Limited participant understanding remains one of the most significant challenges for plan sponsors • Plan sponsors are looking to: – Reduce redundant investment choices – Blend styles and managers – Lower risk for participants • Offering limited options allows clear and simple communication of plan • Allows each participant to create a portfolio that fits their risk tolerance and time horizon MERCER 4 Custom Funds Sample Large Cap Multi-Manager Structure Large Cap Equity Fund • Combining strategies with low or negative excess return correlations are expected to reduce the Index tracking error and increase the fund’s expected 5% information
    [Show full text]
  • The Structure and Performance of the Money Management Industry
    JOSEF LAKONISHOK Universityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ANDREI SHLEIFER Harvard University ROBERT W. VISHNY Universityof Chicago The Structure and Performance of the Money Management Industry IN 1990 TOTAL FINANCIAL assets in U.S. capital markets amounted to $13.7 trillion, of which $3.4 trillion was equities, and the rest were bonds, government securities, tax-exempt securities, and mortgages. These financial assets were held by two principal types of investors: individuals and institutions. The New York Stock Exchange defines an institution as a firm that employs professionals to manage money for the benefit of others (firms or individuals). At the end of 1990, $6.1 trillion of the total U.S. financial assets was held by institutions. Both the amount of institutional assets and the fraction of the total they represent have increased sharply over the past 30 years. In 1950, for example, institutional assets comprised $107 billion out of a $500 billion total, or 21 percent compared with 45 percent in 1990.1 The growth of institutional ownership of equities has paralleled their growth in the ownership of other financial assets. In 1955 institutions owned 23 per- cent of equities compared with 77 percent owned by individuals; in We thankSEI Corporationand Denise Handwerkerfor providingthe dataand Gilbert Beebower,Michael Duncan, Vasant Kamath, Christopher Schwartz, and Ron Skleneyfrom SEIfor theirinsights. We wouldalso like to thankGene Fama, Oliver Hart, Stewart Myers, GeorgePerry, Jay Ritter,and JeremyStein for helpfulcomments and Peng Tu and Randy Pollackfor researchassistance. Computing support was providedby the NationalCenter for SupercomputingApplications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 1. These numbers are from the Institutional Investor Fact Book published by the New York Stock Exchange.Jean Tobin of the NYSE kindlyprovided the latest figures.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Vs. Passive Portfolio Management
    Page 1 of 2 Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. Jeff Ahrens Director - Investments 580 California Street, 23rd Fl San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 438-3076 [email protected] http://fa.opco.com/jeffahrens Active vs. Passive Portfolio Management One of the longest-standing debates in investing is over the company and its securities, it's difficult if not impossible to gain relative merits of active portfolio management versus passive an advantage over any other investor. As new information management. With an actively managed portfolio, a manager becomes available, market prices adjust in response to reflect tries to beat the performance of a given benchmark index by a security's true value. That market efficiency, proponents say, using his or her judgment in selecting individual securities and means that reducing investment costs is the key to improving deciding when to buy and sell them. A passively managed net returns. portfolio attempts to match that benchmark performance, and Indexing does create certain cost efficiencies. Because the in the process, minimize expenses that can reduce an inves- investment simply reflects an index, no research is required for tor's net return. securities selection. Also, because trading is relatively infre- Each camp has strong advocates who argue that the advan- quent--passively managed portfolios typically buy or sell secu- tages of its approach outweigh those for the opposite side. rities only when the index itself changes--trading costs often are lower. Also, infrequent trading typically generates fewer Active investing: attempting to add value capital gains distributions, which means relative tax efficiency. Proponents of active management believe that by picking the Popular investment choices that use passive management are right investments, taking advantage of market trends, and at- index funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs).
    [Show full text]
  • Active Vs. Passive Management: the Elusiveness of Alpha to the Modern Hedge Fund" (2017)
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Senior Theses Honors College 5-2017 Active vs. Passive Management: The luE siveness of Alpha to the Modern Hedge Fund Robert Wesley Long Jr Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/senior_theses Part of the Finance and Financial Management Commons Recommended Citation Long, Robert Wesley Jr, "Active vs. Passive Management: The Elusiveness of Alpha to the Modern Hedge Fund" (2017). Senior Theses. 204. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/senior_theses/204 This Thesis is brought to you by the Honors College at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Long 1 Active vs. Passive Management: The Elusiveness of Alpha to the Modern Hedge Fund By Robert Wesley Long Jr Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation with Honors from the South Carolina Honors College May 2017 Approved: Colin Jones Director of Thesis Justin Young Second Reader Steve Lynn, Dean For South Carolina Honors College Long 2 Table of Contents Thesis Summary................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Hedge Fund Structure and Media Portrayal Fee Structure ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting Active Share
    Lazard Insights Interpreting Active Share Erianna Khusainova, CFA, Senior Vice President, Portfolio Analyst A number of studies and articles have emerged claiming that most Summary active managers underperform their benchmarks and investing in index funds and passive exchange-traded funds (ETFs) is a better • While the value of active management has been called into question, the aggregate performance alternative. However, some of these studies included “closet indexers,” of active managers improves when excluding funds that claim to be active, but in reality, are very similar to the so-called closet indexers, which can be identified index. The inclusion of these funds may lead to inaccurate results. by low active share. In addition to the traditionally used tracking error metric, Martijn • Active share is an important metric that helps Cremers and Antti Petajisto¹ introduced a new statistic for measuring determine how different a portfolio is from its benchmark. Together, tracking error and active active management called active share. Their research demonstrated share complement each other to make a more that funds with the highest active share significantly outperformed robust assessment of an active manager’s process. their benchmarks, both before and after fees. In other words, if you • The active share metric has limitations since it exclude closet indexers, active management’s aggregate results improve. is susceptible to several considerations, such So, what exactly is active share? It is the portion of a portfolio that is as the structure of the benchmark used and the dynamics of an individual portfolio construction invested differently than its benchmark. More precisely, active share is process.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Modern Portfolio Theory Still Modern?
    A reprinted article from July/August 2020 Is Modern Portfolio Theory Still Modern? By Anthony B. Davidow, CIMA® © 2020 Investments & Wealth Institute®. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. JULY AUGUST FEATURE 2020 Is Modern Portfolio Theory Still Modern? By Anthony B. Davidow, CIMA® odern portfolio theory (MPT) This article addresses some of the identifies a few of the more popular assumes that investors are limitations of MPT and evaluates alter- approaches and the corresponding Mrisk averse, meaning that native techniques for allocating capital. limitations. For MPT and PMPT (post- given two portfolios that offer the same Specifically, it will delve into the follow- modern portfolio theory), the biggest expected return, investors will prefer ing issues: limitation is with respect to the robust- the less risky portfolio. The implication ness and accuracy of the data used to is that a rational investor will not invest A What are the various asset allocation optimize. Using only long-term histori- in a portfolio if a second portfolio exists approaches? cal averages of the underlying asset with a more favorable profile of risk A What are the limitations of each classes is a flawed approach.Long -term versus expected return.1 approach? data should certainly be considered—but A How should advisors evolve their what if the future isn’t like the past? MPT has a number of inherent limita- approaches? tions. Investors aren’t always rational— A What is the appeal of a goals-based The long-term historical annual return and they don’t always select the right approach? of the S&P 500 has been 10.3 percent portfolio.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Vs. Passive Portfolio Management
    Page 1 of 2 Lowell Weiss, WMS, J.D. 31500 Northwestern Hwy Suite 150 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 248-932-5450 [email protected] Active vs. Passive Portfolio Management One of the longest-standing debates in investing is over the company and its securities, it's difficult if not impossible to gain relative merits of active portfolio management versus passive an advantage over any other investor. As new information management. With an actively managed portfolio, a manager becomes available, market prices adjust in response to reflect tries to beat the performance of a given benchmark index by a security's true value. That market efficiency, proponents say, using his or her judgment in selecting individual securities and means that reducing investment costs is the key to improving deciding when to buy and sell them. A passively managed net returns. portfolio attempts to match that benchmark performance, and Indexing does create certain cost efficiencies. Because the in the process, minimize expenses that can reduce an inves- investment simply reflects an index, no research is required for tor's net return. securities selection. Also, because trading is relatively infre- Each camp has strong advocates who argue that the advan- quent--passively managed portfolios typically buy or sell secu- tages of its approach outweigh those for the opposite side. rities only when the index itself changes--trading costs often are lower. Also, infrequent trading typically generates fewer Active investing: attempting to add value capital gains distributions, which means relative tax efficiency. Proponents of active management believe that by picking the Popular investment choices that use passive management are right investments, taking advantage of market trends, and at- index funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs).
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Risk
    Invesco Aim Portfolio Principles RETHINKING Back to Basics: Conservative Cornerstones RISK for the Full Market Cycle Market turmoil has caused many investors to wonder whether modern portfolio theory (MPT) has failed us. After all, one of its key doctrines — diversifi cation — seemed to be of little benefi t during the downturn as correlations increased across asset classes and styles. In our view, MPT has not failed, but it’s time to re-examine how we implement asset allocation. Our conservative cornerstone investment strategy is based on three key tenets: downside protection, diversifi cation beyond style boxes and complementary use of passive and active management. We believe these strategies can form a solid basis for a broader allocation. Key points 1 Conservative cornerstone core equity investments seek to enhance downside risk management. This is crucial for long-term wealth creation and improving the investor experience. More meaningful diversifi cation may be achieved through complementary 2 investment disciplines, such as offense and defense, rather than relying solely on traditional style boxes. 3 Conservative cornerstones can anchor conservative core-satellite allocations by complementing passive indexing with active management. 1 Downside protection Bottom Line Bear markets are a reality of market cycles and should always be considered in portfolio construction. An investment strategy that seeks stronger downside protection may • Bear markets should always be amplify the power of wealth compounding over time, improve the client experience and considered in portfolio construction. help investors avoid costly panic-driven sell decisions at market bottoms. • Conservative, low-beta strategies may offer protection in downturns, Conservative, low-beta strategies may offer protection in downturns potentially creating a larger asset Chart 1 illustrates two different portfolio strategies — a high-beta portfolio that captures base on which to compound wealth 120% of the downside and a low-beta strategy that captures 80% of the downside.
    [Show full text]