Active management under pressure as US funds underperform

The alpha from active funds management was a massive -1.2 per cent before fees for US funds in 2008, a figure eight times below the average of 15 bps over 18 years, according to research by CEM Benchmarking.

 

Mike Heale, partner at CEM Benchmarking, said 2008 was a very bad year in many respects, including the contribution from active management.

On average he said the 156 US funds on the CEM database returned -24.6 per cent, with -23.4 per cent due to the asset mix, and -1.2 per cent from active management.

“This is one of the worst years over the 18 years we have been collecting data,” Heale said. “And if costs of active management are included then the contribution was -1.7 per cent.”

Sponsored Content

What adds more significance to the result is that during the last major equity market downturn in the early 2000s, the effect was the opposite, with active management adding significant value.

According to Heale, across the entire database, there has been a significant increase in the use of active management in the past 10 years, with passive management decreasing from 25 to 21 per cent in that time.

In addition to large negative returns in 2008, costs continue to trend higher.

On the CEM database, total fund costs for 2008 were 42 bps, up from 37 bps the year before.

“This is quite a big increase. Underpinning it has been a move towards more expensive asset classes such as private equity and hedge funds, and a move towards external active management which is more expensive by far. But there has also been a trend which is specific to 2008 which was a 25 per cent tumble in assets which meant economies of scale were lost.”

Despite this 2008 effect, total costs are trending up. In 1999 total fund costs were 27 bps and in 2008 they were 42 bps.

According to Heale the longer term implications of the 2008 trends will be more of a focus on plan design and funding.

CEM’s global database includes more than 500 public and private sector funds from Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand and the US, with assets ranging from $100 million to more than $408 billion in size and represents nearly $6 trillion in total assets.

Its US database analyses 156 funds, with a total of $1.8 trillion in assets, and a median asset size of $3 billion and an average of $11.3 billion.

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

Why integrated reporting makes sense: Robert Eccles

Robert Eccles has been trying to change the nature of corporate reporting for more than 20 years. He has been an advocate for supplementing financials with information on non-financial factors that are leading indicators of financial results – such as product development, customer satisfaction and the development of intangible assets. The premise is those companies

Opportunities in Europe

Investors and academics agree that political developments in Greece are important because they may shape how financial markets will respond to future political situations in the Eurozone. But according to Olivier Rousseau, the executive director of the FFR, the French pension reserve fund, there is more hype outside of the Eurozone on the implications of

More evidence big is better in pension funds

A pension fund that has 10 times more assets under management has on average 7.67 basis points lower annual investment costs according to a working paper from authors at De Nederlansche Bank, that explores the relationship between pension fund size and investment costs. Written by Dirk Broeders, Arco van Oord and David Rijsbergen the paper

European investment plan requires public private collaboration

The two largest institutional investors in the Netherlands, PGGM and APG, have responded to the European Commission’s investment plan, urging the commission to call on institutional investors to collaborate on the investment proposal. However they also warn that institutional investors are not just a “subsidising entity” and the Juncker Plan is best executed as a

Why Andrew Ang joined Blackrock

Andrew Ang believes factor investing is a more efficient way to organise a portfolio as it allows liquid and illiquid strategies to be managed across the portfolio. It also has the added benefit of honing managers on value creation. He’s been working with a handful of investors while Professor of Finance at Columbia University on

The power of engagement

It is called the “CalPERS’ Effect” but it could easily be called the asset owner effect, or the institutional investor effect, or the power of engagement effect. Wilshire, which is a consultant to the $300 billion Californian fund CalPERS, has provided an update on its study measuring the effect of engagement on a targeted list of companies called the Focus List.

Previous