Skill Matters in Active vs. Passive Debate

A skilled active manager can add notable value to investment portfolios compared with less-skilled managers and passive investments, according to a recent white paper from RidgeWorth Investments.

RidgeWorth’s research finds financial advisers don’t always consider how the individual skills of fund managers can impact investment returns for their clients—relying instead on more general fund characteristics to select investment products. While it’s clearly important to consider the merits of a fund’s general investment strategy, RidgeWorth contends that financial advisers can add to their own value proposition by identifying top fund managers and directing client assets to the active products they manage.

Understanding the role that individual manager skills play in fund performance can also better inform advisers’ decisions about pursuing active versus passive investments, the firm says. The white paper, “Large Cap Value Indexing Myth-Conceptions: Re-examining the Active versus Passive Management Debate,” suggests selecting a skilled active manager will add substantial value to portfolio returns over time—enough to make well-managed active strategies preferable to cheaper, index-based mutual funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs).

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

“Conventional wisdom often holds that the ‘average’ active manager has trouble consistently beating broad market benchmarks,” explains Mills Riddick, CIO of Ceredex Value Advisors and senior equity portfolio manager for the RidgeWorth Large Cap Value Equity strategy. “However, an effective large cap fund manager has the potential to outperform benchmarks, and to do so by a significant amount.”

Riddick observes that active managers do not need to outperform their respective benchmarks in every period to deliver stronger overall long-term performance. Rather, it is the frequency of higher returns through evolving market cycles that matters most in assessing active managers, he says.

The paper makes the argument that a skilled active manager can also provide valuable protection on the downside—protection not typically available in passive index products. So while skilled active management over the long term will drain more from net returns in fees and expenses, it should also reduce the risk of major loss in volatile periods. The important calculation, then, becomes whether the long-term expense of active management is greater or less than the protection that’s gained when markets go down.

Research compiled for the paper shows the industry is at something of a crossroads in active versus passive management. Between 2009 and 2013, nearly $37 billion flowed out of actively managed large cap value investments, while some $49 billion moved into large cap value ETFs and other indexed portfolios. The trend of moving money away from active funds slowed substantially in 2013, though, and on RidgeWorth’s analysis, could turn either way in 2014.

When choosing an active manager, the paper suggests an adviser should screen for manager tenure, performance consistency and a reasonable expense ratio. RidgeWorth also suggests investors should consider the opportunity costs associated with an indexed product, especially one is used in an important core portfolio allocation such as large cap value. When examining cost efficiency, a small savings in fund expenses may not be the best outcome if a higher-priced option delivers more than that savings provides in added return.

In assessing Morningstar’s universe of 310 actively managed large cap value funds, RidgeWorth identifies 61 funds, or about 24% of the large cap active universe, as being run by “top-performing managers.” The size of outperformance in this group is substantial, RidgeWorth says. On average, these managers delivered 5.73% more in return than the index across all rolling three-year periods and 13.74% more across all rolling five-year periods. This higher five-year return translates into an additional $1,374 in portfolio value for an initial $10,000 investment, which will likely be considered a high cost to pay for the ease of buying an index product.

The paper notes a number of useful criteria in addition to performance and information ratio that this top-performing group generally had in common:

  • Average portfolio manager tenure was 8.19 years, 31% longer than the average 6.25  years for the funds evaluated and 42% longer than the 5.79 years for the entire large cap value category;
  • Investment style was generally more consistent as measured by variance tracked by Morningstar’s Style Box analysis; and
  • Average fund expenses of 0.95% were notably lower than the 1.03% expenses of the evaluated funds.

To access this white paper, visit www.ridgeworth.com/news-insights/ridgeworth-research.

Judge Rejects Immediate Appeal for Church Plan Lawsuit

A federal court judge has denied a motion for immediate review by an appellate panel of one of the ongoing “church plan” cases.

Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California previously ruled that Dignity Health’s retirement plan was not a “church plan” as defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) (see “Court Weighs in on Church Plan Issue”). Dignity’s proposed interlocutory appeal challenges the court’s interpretation of the portions of the ERISA statute governing the church plan exemption.

Henderson noted in his opinion that U.S. Code Section 1292(b) permits a district court to certify an order for interlocutory review where the order involves: (1) a “controlling question of law”; (2) “as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion”; and (3) where an immediate appeal may “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

He first considered whether the issue Dignity seeks to appeal presents a “controlling question of law.” He noted that although there is no explicit definition for what constitutes a “controlling question of law,” examples include who are proper parties, whether a court has jurisdiction, and whether state or federal law should apply. For an issue to be considered “controlling,” its reversal need not terminate the litigation, but its resolution should “materially affect the outcome of litigation in the district court.

Henderson agreed with Dignity that an interlocutory appeal could significantly alter the course the litigation would take. However, he concluded that the issue proposed for appeal would not so materially affect the entire nature of the litigation, or its outcome, to justify interlocutory review.

Dignity asserts that the next step in this litigation would be to consider Dignity’s compliance with ERISA, and if the 9th Circuit were to later hold that Dignity is exempt from ERISA, that entire evaluation of Dignity’s ERISA compliance would have been unnecessary. Henderson said Dignity’s argument simplifies the myriad paths the litigation could take. He speculated if the 9th Circuit were to reverse, either on interlocutory appeal or in the regular course, on remand the court would be charged with applying the 9th Circuit’s interpretation of the statute to Dignity’s plan and again determining if Dignity’s plan is exempt. If Dignity’s plan were not exempt, the court would still have to consider Dignity’s ERISA compliance. If the Dignity plan was held to be exempt, the court would then have to consider the plaintiff’s claim regarding the constitutionality of such an exemption. 

Citing a prior 9th Circuit case, Henderson said in his view, the issue Dignity raises “involves nothing as fundamental as the determination of . . . whether state or federal law should be applied.” According to Henderson, a difference in ruling on which law to apply could require a complete repeat of the litigation and a resulting duplication of efforts and waste of resources. Similarly, a different ruling as to whether a court has jurisdiction, could invalidate an entire district court proceeding. He said the matter at issue in the Dignity case is not of such high stakes.

Henderson concluded that at most, if this issue were presented on interlocutory appeal and was reversed, some time could be saved at the district court. He noted that the 9th Circuit has squarely rejected construing a question as controlling merely because “it is one the resolution of which may appreciably shorten the time, effort, or expense of conducting a lawsuit.” 

He also concluded that given that the appeal could still be followed by further, more complicated litigation, there is no evidence an interlocutory appeal would even “materially advance the termination of the litigation”–§ 1292(b)’s third prong. 

Dignity also argued that the issue is a controlling question of law because interlocutory review could also benefit other pending cases involving the same statutory provision (see “Church Plan Lawsuits Could Reverse 30 Years of Precedent”). Henderson rejected this argument “because those other cases Dignity refers to are outside this Circuit and the 9th Circuit’s ruling would not be controlling in those cases.”

The latest decision in Rollins v. Dignity Health is here.

«

Continue Reading for Free
 

Register and get access to…
 

• Thought leadership on regulatory changes, economic trends, corporate success stories, and tactical solutions for treasurers, CFOs, risk managers, controllers, and other finance professionals.

• Informative weekly newsletter featuring news, analysis, real-world case studies, and other critical content

• Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders

• Critical coverage of the property casualty insurance and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor

Already have an account? Sign in Now