|
R I V E R P O I N T |
|
R E P O R T |
Active vs. Passive
Investing
Indexing,
a form of passive investing, has attracted a lot of attention lately, as evidenced
by the explosion of literally hundreds of ETFs
(exchange traded funds) now in the marketplace. These “funds” own, or simulate
owning, all the securities contained in a specific index such as the Standard
and Poor’s 500 Index or the Russell 3000 Index.
One
of the traditional arguments for indexing has centered on the low fees charged
by these funds which can be attributed to the fact that there is no investment
manager actively making investment decisions.
Rather, changes are made in these funds as individual securities are
either added or deleted from the indexes themselves. Indexing is considered to be passive in
nature expressly for this reason. But if
an investment advisor covers his fees, he can be worth his weight in gold to a
client. An investment advisor will meet
with a client on an ongoing basis, analyze every aspect of the client’s
specific financial situation, customize an investment portfolio that reflects
the client’s unique goals and risk tolerance and continue to monitor and
make changes as appropriate. Needless to
say, this will never happen with an index fund.
Another
argument for indexing is rooted in the Efficient Market Theory which holds that
stock prices generally reflect all that is publicly known about a company. Thus, theoretically, an investor is better
off buying a fund that tracks the entire market than one attempting to find
undiscovered stock gems. While it has
proven a challenge to outperform the indexes over time, there are strategies that have produced higher
returns and with less risk than the indexes.
This suggests that the market might not be entirely efficient.
An
article by Vern Hayden entitled “The Death of Indexing” in the Journal of Financial Planning in June 2004 referenced John Bogle of Vanguard Funds, acknowledged to be the
“father of indexing”. In it,
Mr. Bogle himself admitted that over the long haul,
investors in actively managed funds would have earned higher returns –
and taken less risk – than those who put money into the company’s
famed index funds.
Active
management even makes more sense from a tax-advantage standpoint. Combining a reliable stock selection strategy
with a disciplined portfolio process that maximizes expected after-tax returns
has proven to consistently add value over an index on an after-tax basis. In fact, research shows that portfolios
constructed using this methodology could have added one percent to two percent
in after-tax returns above an index, over a ten year period with negligible, if
any, incremental risk.
Active
management has grown more favorable as investors increasingly look for value in
today’s uncertain market environment.
At RiverPoint, we have demonstrated to our clients that the powerful
combination of successful active management and tax efficiency provides an
overall return that beats passive management from both a performance and a client
service standpoint.
Predicting the Weather?
Over
the past few years, the general level of interest rates has risen from
historical lows. In early 2003 the 10-year
U. S. Treasury bond was yielding less than 3.5% and is now yielding just over
5%. While yields are still low on a
relative basis, rising rates typically signal an impending economic
slowdown. Conventional wisdom holds that
higher rates mean trouble for both investors and the economy. Companies are forced to pay more interest on
their debts, threatening profits.
Without fat corporate profits to fund large scale capital spending,
economic growth can slow. Consumers cannot
afford the goods they could with “cheaper money”, further hampering
economic growth. Implicitly, higher
rates signal expectations of higher inflation which reduces the future purchasing
power of today’s earnings – not to mention the present-value of the
principal due at bond maturation.
Finally, higher rates on “risk-free” U.S. Treasury bonds
lessen the appeal of riskier assets such as equities and corporate bonds.
This
time, however, “things might be different” as many economic wonks
are wont to say. As stated earlier,
interest rates are still low on a historical basis; ten year obligations have
averaged a yield in the vicinity of 5.25% for nearly two centuries. In addition, given that interest rates have
been falling since the early 1980’s, a rise in rates is probably more a
question of “when” rather than “if”. Some even argue that in this age of financial
globalization higher rates could be a sign of economic strength. In the past, foreign investors would buy only
U.S. Treasuries (bond yields move inversely to prices so buying bonds raises
the price and lowers the yield) which would lower rates. Nowadays, these investors are more willing to
invest in riskier securities, which is a sign of their growing comfort with global
financial markets and the stability therein.
Finally, bond yields are still less than the earnings yield on the
S&P 500 (roughly 5.9% based on trailing 12-months earnings). According to some market practitioners, this
is a sign that stocks still have room to appreciate before bonds become a more
attractive alternative.
At
this point, it is difficult to say with any confidence what the immediate
future holds for the
|
Market Summary |
6/29/07 |
YTD Price Change |
|
Dow Jones Industrial
Average |
13,408 |
7.6% |
|
Nasdaq Composite |
2,603 |
7.8% |
|
Standard &
Poor’s 500 Index |
1,503 |
6.0% |
For information about
RiverPoint Capital Management or to view our report archive visit us at www.riverpointcm.com.