Article

What Drives Active Share? Active Stock Selection or Active Stock Weights

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Active Share is a popular measure of active management. However, it is not clear what drives Active Share. To improve our understanding, we decompose Active Share into Active Stock Selection (ASE) and Active Stock Weights (ASW). ASE captures portfolio weights in stocks outside the portfolio benchmark and correlates positively (88%) with Active Share. ASW captures portfolio weight deviations from market capitalization weights and correlates negatively (-55%). Furthermore, we find some evidence that ASE positively predicts performance, while ASW negatively predicts performance. Our results suggest that the benefits of Active Share stem from the selection decision rather than the weighting decision. Abstract Active Share is a popular measure of active management. However, it is not clear what drives Active Share. To improve our understanding, we decompose Active Share into Active Stock Selection (ASE) and Active Stock Weights (ASW). ASE captures portfolio weights in stocks outside the portfolio benchmark and correlates positively (88%) with Active Share. ASW captures portfolio weight deviations from market capitalization weights and correlates negatively (-55%). Furthermore, we find some evidence that ASE positively predicts performance, while ASW negatively predicts performance. Our results suggest that the benefits of Active Share stem from the selection decision rather than the weighting decision.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
This article relates Active Share to the fund manager's individual stock-picking skill, conviction, and opportunity. I propose a new formula for Active Share that emphasizes that a fund's Active Share is reduced only through overlapping holdings with its benchmark. I show why and how to adjust the expense ratio for the level of Active Share and the cost of investing in the benchmark. I conclude that Active Share matters for the performance of actively managed funds. Investors should not pay (too) much for low-Active Share funds, which generally underperform. But there is no evidence that high-Active Share funds as a group have underperformed, and patient managers with high Active Share have been quite successful.
Article
Average stock returns for North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific increase with the book-to-market ratio (B/M) and profitability and are negatively related to investment. For Japan, the relation between average returns and B/M is strong, but average returns show little relation to profitability or investment. A five-factor model that adds profitability and investment factors to the three-factor model of Fama and French (1993) largely absorbs the patterns in average returns. As in Fama and French (2015, 2016), the model's prime problem is failure to capture fully the low average returns of small stocks whose returns behave like those of low profitability firms that invest aggressively.
Article
Among high active share portfolios—whose holdings differ substantially from their benchmark—only those with patient investment strategies (with holding durations of over two years) on average outperform, over 2% per year. Funds trading frequently generally underperform, including those with high active share. Among patient funds, separating closet index from high active share funds matters, as low active share funds on average underperform even with patient strategies. Our results suggest that U.S. equity markets provide opportunities for longer-term active managers, perhaps because of the limited arbitrage capital devoted to patient and active investment strategies. The Online Appendix is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2810798.
Article
The authors investigate "active share," a measure meant to determine the level of active management in investment portfolios. Using the same sample that was used by Cremers and Petajisto (2009) and Petajisto (2013), they find that active share correlates with benchmark returns but does not predict actual fund returns; within individual benchmarks, active share is as likely to correlate positively with performance as it is to correlate negatively. Their findings do not support an emphasis on active share as a manager selection tool or an appropriate guideline for institutional portfolios.
Article
In this paper, the authors use monthly holdings to study timing ability. These data differ from holdings data used in previous studies in that the authors' data have a higher frequency and include a full range of securities, not just traded equities. Using a one-index model, the authors find, as do two recent studies, that management appears to have positive and statistically significant timing ability. When a multiindex model is used, the authors show that timing decisions do not result in an increase in performance, whether timing is measured using conditional or unconditional sensitivities. The authors show that sector rotation decisions with respect to high-tech stocks are a major contribution to negative timing. © The Authors 2011. Published by Oxford University Press [on behalf of the European Finance Association]. All rights reserved.
Article
A closet indexer is more likely to meet a value-weighted investment benchmark by value weighting the portfolio. Following this intuition, we introduce a simple measure of active management, the absolute difference between the value weights and actual weights held by a fund, summed across its holdings. This proxy captures managerial skill: active funds outperform passive ones by 2.5% annually. Compared with known measures of skill, our proxy robustly predicts fund flows, asset growth, factor-adjusted performance, and value added. Its predictive ability is orthogonal to that of other measures and is robust to controlling for volatility timing, past performance, and style. (JEL G10, G12, G14, G20, G23)
Article
This article develops and applies new measures of portfolio performance which use benchmarks based on the characteristics of stocks held by the portfolios that are evaluated. Specifically, the benchmarks are constructed from the returns of 125 passive portfolios that are matched with stocks held in the evaluated portfolio on the basis of the market capitalization, book‐to‐market, and prior‐year return characteristics of those stocks. Based on these benchmarks, “Characteristic Timing” and “Characteristic Selectivity” measures are developed that detect, respectively, whether portfolio managers successfully time their portfolio weightings on these characteristics and whether managers can select stocks that outperform the average stock having the same characteristics. We apply these measures to a new database of mutual fund holdings covering over 2500 equity funds from 1975 to 1994. Our results show that mutual funds, particularly aggressive‐growth funds, exhibit some selectivity ability, but that funds exhibit no characteristic timing ability.
Article
Mutual fund manager excess performance should be measured relative to their self-reported benchmark rather than the return of a passive portfolio with the same risk characteristics. Ignoring the self-reported benchmark results in different measurement of stock selection and timing components of excess performance. We revisit baseline empirical evidence fund performance evaluation utilizing stock selection and timing measures that incorporate the self-reported benchmark. We introduce a new factor exposure based approach for measuring the – static and dynamic – timing capabilities of mutual fund managers. We overall conclude that current studies are likely to be misstating skill because they ignore the managers’ self-reported benchmark in the performance evaluation process.
Article
I sort domestic all-equity mutual funds into different categories of active management using Active Share and tracking error. I find that over my sample period until the end of 2009, the most active stock pickers have outperformed their benchmark indices even after fees and transaction costs. In contrast, closet indexers or funds focusing on factor bets have lost to their benchmarks after fees. The same long-term performance patterns held up over the 2008-2009 financial crisis, and they also hold within market cap styles. Closet indexing increases in volatile and bear markets and has become more popular after 2007. Cross-sectional dispersion in stock returns positively predicts average benchmark-adjusted performance by stock pickers.
Article
We propose that fund performance can be predicted by its R2, obtained from a regression of its returns on a multifactor benchmark model. Lower R2 indicates greater selectivity, and it significantly predicts better performance. Stock funds sorted into lowest-quintile lagged R 2 and highest-quintile lagged alpha produce significant annual alpha of 3.8%. Across funds, R2 is positively associated with fund size and negatively associated with its expenses and manager's tenure. © 2013 The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] /* */
Article
This paper identifies five common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. There are three stock-market factors: an overall market factor and factors related to firm size and book-to-market equity. There are two bond-market factors, related to maturity and default risks. Stock returns have shared variation due to the stock-market factors, and they are linked to bond returns through shared variation in the bond-market factors. Except for low-grade corporates, the bond-market factors capture the common variation in bond returns. Most important, the five factors seem to explain average returns on stocks and bonds.
Article
We introduce a new measure of active portfolio management, Active Share, which represents the share of portfolio holdings that differ from the benchmark index holdings. We compute Active Share for domestic equity mutual funds from 1980 to 2003. We relate Active Share to fund characteristics such as size, expenses, and turnover in the cross-section, and we also examine its evolution over time. Active Share predicts fund performance: funds with the highest Active Share significantly outperform their benchmarks, both before and after expenses, and they exhibit strong performance persistence. Nonindex funds with the lowest Active Share underperform their benchmarks. The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org, Oxford University Press.
Article
Despite extensive disclosure requirements, mutual fund investors do not observe all actions of fund managers. We estimate the impact of unobserved actions on fund returns using the return gap—the difference between the reported fund return and the return on a portfolio that invests in the previously disclosed fund holdings. We document that unobserved actions of some funds persistently create value, while such actions of other funds destroy value. Our main result shows that the return gap predicts fund performance.
Article
Mutual fund managers may decide to deviate from a well-diversified portfolio and concentrate their holdings in industries where they have informational advantages. In this paper, we study the relation between the industry concentration and the performance of actively managed U.S. mutual funds from 1984 to 1999. Our results indicate that, on average, more concentrated funds perform better after controlling for risk and style differences using various performance measures. This finding suggests that investment ability is more evident among managers who hold portfolios concentrated in a few industries. Copyright 2005 by The American Finance Association.
Article
We use a new database to perform a comprehensive analysis of the mutual fund industry. We find that funds hold stocks that outperform the market by 1.3 percent per year, but their net returns underperform by one percent. Of the 2.3 percent difference between these results, 0.7 percent is due to the underperformance of nonstock holdings, whereas 1.6 percent is due to expenses and transactions costs. Thus, funds pick stocks well enough to cover their costs. Also, high-turnover funds beat the Vanguard Index 500 fund on a net return basis. Our evidence supports the value of active mutual fund management. Copyright The American Finance Association 2000.
Article
Using a sample free of survivor bias, the author demonstrates that common factors in stock returns and investment expenses almost completely explain persistence in equity mutual funds' mean and risk-adjusted returns. Darryll Hendricks, Jayendu Patel, and Richard Zeckhauser's (1993) 'hot hands' result is mostly driven by the one-year momentum effect of Narasimham Jegadeesh and Sheridan Titman (1993), but individual funds do not earn higher returns from following the momentum strategy in stocks. The only significant persistence not explained is concentrated in strong underperformance by the worst-return mutual funds. The results do not support the existence of skilled or informed mutual fund portfolio managers. Copyright 1997 by American Finance Association.
Deconstructing Active Share
  • J Fulkerson
Fulkerson, J., and Riley, T. (2015). "Deconstructing Active Share," Loyola University Maryland and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Working paper.
The Search for Outperformance: Evaluating Active Share
  • T Schlanger
  • C Philips
  • K Labarge
Schlanger, T., Philips, C., and LaBarge, K. (2012). "The Search for Outperformance: Evaluating Active Share," Vanguard.