Lipper research indicates that active managers’ relative performance improves when volatility increases – but not in emerging markets.
- Markets are anticipated to be experiencing heightened volatility and stock dispersal.
- These are supposed to be conditions favouring active management: a thesis Lipper tested across funds tracking four large global equity indices.
- The more liquid and better researched the markets are, the better this relationship holds up.
I’ve been reading a lot of reports that this is going to be a good period for active fund managers. Many of these reports, you may be surprised to learn, come from active fund managers themselves.
Market volatility can aid stock pickers
My innate cynicism aside, market volatility can be the stock picker’s friend. For example, you would expect a widening dispersal of security returns to be reflected in a wider range of fund returns for the same period, and research does indeed back this up.
That doesn’t necessarily work in favour of active management per se, however, as assuming an equal distribution of returns around the benchmark, there will be as many losers as winner.
Nevertheless, dispersal of returns is supposed to be fertile ground for active fund managers. This stands to reason – if returns are tightly clustered around that of the index, then even the best fund managers will have a hard time outperforming by much, particularly when costs are considered.
Managers may mitigate these effects by holding off-benchmark positions, often to a high proportion of the portfolio.
This works well as long as the wind blows in favour of that portion of the portfolio, but when it doesn’t and your investors find that the boring blue-chip fund, they thought they were holding wasn’t quite that… well, we can all think of examples.
And the longer in the tooth we are in this game, the longer that list of fallen stars.
Legions of Migginses
So, let’s stick with the assumption of active managers selecting, more or less, from the index universe. This rule should apply. Of course, as stated above, the reverse also applies, in that if some funds are holding the securities significantly outperforming the benchmark, others hold those underperforming.
Unless it’s the legions of Mrs Miggins holding the dogs in her self-select Isa.
That’s not the case, as all the average return relative to benchmark for the active funds analysed over the 20 years is negative for all four indices. This isn’t a screaming buy case for passive fund management, as, barring our Mrs Migginses, some funds have to hold a balance of the losers.
It is, however, a case for good fund selection: you need a solid methodology to identify those funds more likely to outperform: something like – shamelessly talking our own book – the Lipper Leaders scores, to pick a randomly chosen example.
Nevertheless, the received wisdom remains that active managers have the potential to deliver outperformance more in periods of high stock dispersal, with one research paper from 2010 finding “The outperformance of the most relative to the least active funds is also concentrated in months of high dispersion.”
Is this still the case, and is it true uniformly across markets?
Testing for outperformance
We took the standard deviation of four large equity indices – well-followed ones, to provide the greatest number of funds – as a proxy for cross-sectional return dispersal and how this correlated to the out- or underperformance of the funds1 benchmarked to them over a 20-year period.
If the thesis is true, outperformance in periods of high dispersal will be indicated by a positive correlation between outperformance and standard deviation. The correlation is indeed positive across three of the four we looked at, albeit to varying degrees.
The strongest correlation is for the S&P 500 TR (0.43). That’s not a strong correlation, but with many other factors impacting on performance, it would be odd if it were. It is, however, positive and not insignificant.
The U.S. is, of course, the world’s largest and most liquid equity market. It’s also its most heavily researched one.
Next comes the FTSE 100 TR (0.34): again, well researched and liquid, albeit not to the same degree as the US, and then MSCI AC World TR USD (0.27).
However, the MSCI EM Emerging Markets TR USD is negatively correlated (-0.11). It also has the largest average underperformance over the period (-3.52 percent, with the lowest being -0.09 percent for the FTSE 100). Note that the average active return relative to the benchmark is negative for all indices.
Why is the MSCI EM an outlier?
Without digging a lot further, and likely adding some qualitative elements to this quantitative analysis, it’s hard to say. But it could well be that research coverage does add value.
This does suggest that it’s harder to add value through active management in emerging markets, even in conditions of high dispersal, where active managers are supposed to come into their own.
Based on this sample, the overall thesis seems to hold up for three out of four of the indices. Of course, it’s not a case of “everybody has won and all must have prizes” in active management; bigger winners, even if more active managers beat the benchmark, also imply bigger losers.
Chart 1: Correlation of relative returns to standard deviation and average annualised relative performance
Republication or redistribution of LSE Group content is prohibited without our prior written consent.
The content of this publication is for informational purposes only and has no legal effect, does not form part of any contract, does not, and does not seek to constitute advice of any nature and no reliance should be placed upon statements contained herein. Whilst reasonable efforts have been taken to ensure that the contents of this publication are accurate and reliable, LSE Group does not guarantee that this document is free from errors or omissions; therefore, you may not rely upon the content of this document under any circumstances and you should seek your own independent legal, investment, tax and other advice. Neither We nor our affiliates shall be liable for any errors, inaccuracies or delays in the publication or any other content, or for any actions taken by you in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2023 London Stock Exchange Group. All rights reserved.
The content of this publication is provided by London Stock Exchange Group plc, its applicable group undertakings and/or its affiliates or licensors (the “LSE Group” or “We”) exclusively.
Neither We nor our affiliates guarantee the accuracy of or endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider, advertiser, sponsor or other user. We may link to, reference, or promote websites, applications and/or services from third parties. You agree that We are not responsible for, and do not control such non-LSE Group websites, applications or services.
The content of this publication is for informational purposes only. All information and data contained in this publication is obtained by LSE Group from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human and mechanical error as well as other factors, however, such information and data are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. You understand and agree that this publication does not, and does not seek to, constitute advice of any nature. You may not rely upon the content of this document under any circumstances and should seek your own independent legal, tax or investment advice or opinion regarding the suitability, value or profitability of any particular security, portfolio or investment strategy. Neither We nor our affiliates shall be liable for any errors, inaccuracies or delays in the publication or any other content, or for any actions taken by you in reliance thereon. You expressly agree that your use of the publication and its content is at your sole risk.
To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, LSE Group, expressly disclaims any representation or warranties, express or implied, including, without limitation, any representations or warranties of performance, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, accuracy, completeness, reliability and non-infringement. LSE Group, its subsidiaries, its affiliates and their respective shareholders, directors, officers employees, agents, advertisers, content providers and licensors (collectively referred to as the “LSE Group Parties”) disclaim all responsibility for any loss, liability or damage of any kind resulting from or related to access, use or the unavailability of the publication (or any part of it); and none of the LSE Group Parties will be liable (jointly or severally) to you for any direct, indirect, consequential, special, incidental, punitive or exemplary damages, howsoever arising, even if any member of the LSE Group Parties are advised in advance of the possibility of such damages or could have foreseen any such damages arising or resulting from the use of, or inability to use, the information contained in the publication. For the avoidance of doubt, the LSE Group Parties shall have no liability for any losses, claims, demands, actions, proceedings, damages, costs or expenses arising out of, or in any way connected with, the information contained in this document.
LSE Group is the owner of various intellectual property rights ("IPR”), including but not limited to, numerous trademarks that are used to identify, advertise, and promote LSE Group products, services and activities. Nothing contained herein should be construed as granting any licence or right to use any of the trademarks or any other LSE Group IPR for any purpose whatsoever without the written permission or applicable licence terms.