For over thirty years, the principles outlined by William Sharpe in his influential work, *Arithmetic of Active Management*, have significantly shaped investment strategies. Published in the Financial Analysts Journal in 1991, Sharpe’s ideas have become essential for proponents of passive investing. His argument was straightforward: the costs associated with active management lead to underperformance compared to passive investing.
Sharpe argued that before accounting for expenses, both active and passive strategies yield identical market returns.
However, once fees are deducted, the active approach becomes a zero-sum game, potentially resulting in negative returns. This notion has fueled the popularity of index funds and served as a cautionary tale for investors regarding the value of paying for active management.
Table of Contents:
The facts
While Sharpe’s conclusions provided a compelling narrative against active management, they were based on a somewhat simplistic interpretation of the market. The reality is more complex. Markets are not static; they continually evolve, influenced by the actions of active managers. Scholars like Lasse Heje Pedersen have presented a more nuanced view, demonstrating how active management can enhance market efficiency and development.
Understanding the dynamic interplay
To illustrate the dynamics, consider a scenario with one hundred investors: half adopt a passive strategy while the other half engage in active management. The passive investors hold their positions, while active investors trade among themselves, incurring management costs. Over time, the active group may find their overall returns diminish due to these fees. This concept has been echoed by other financial figures, including Warren Buffett, who warned that “returns decrease as motion increases.”
However, this framework does not reflect the inherent evolution within markets. Companies undergo changes—issuing new shares, merging, or even failing—resulting in a constantly shifting landscape. Pedersen’s work emphasizes the importance of these changes, suggesting that active management is not merely about redistributing returns but about fostering new opportunities and efficiencies within the market.
Active management as a catalyst for value creation
In his 2018 article, *Sharpening the Arithmetic of Active Management*, Pedersen provided evidence that even if all investors ceased trading, the market would still experience change. He noted the average annual turnover for U.S. equities is about 7.6%, while for bonds, it approaches 20%. This indicates that ongoing market activity is inevitable, driven by both active managers and the need for passive investors to rebalance their portfolios. Thus, the market is inherently dynamic.
The ripple effects of informed trading
Active managers are crucial in identifying misallocations of capital. When they recognize companies misusing resources or those with high-return potential, their actions can redirect capital flows toward more productive enterprises. This reallocation of resources is vital for economic development and innovation. Active management, therefore, plays a crucial role beyond mere trading—it actively contributes to the discovery of value and the efficient functioning of markets.
Moreover, the fees associated with active management should not be viewed solely as a cost but as an investment in the broader economic ecosystem. By facilitating capital flow toward productive ventures, active managers help ensure that markets reflect the true value of companies, enhancing overall market efficiency.
Revising the narrative: a partnership of approaches
Ultimately, the contrasting views of Sharpe and Pedersen represent a broader conversation about the relationship between active and passive management. Rather than being antagonistic, these strategies can be seen as partners within the investment ecosystem. Active management introduces dynamism, leading to better price discovery, while passive investing provides cost efficiency and stability.
Pedersen’s insights offer a corrective lens for assessing active management’s role. Understanding that markets are evolving systems allows for a greater appreciation of the value active management brings. This shift in perspective fosters a more harmonious coexistence of active and passive strategies, ultimately benefiting all market participants.
