Displaying items by tag: active

Save the risky business for the movies.

With little risk linked to it, active fixed income is one reason investors are attracted to it, according to assetnvesting.net.

What’s the scoop here? Well, it guarantees the capital of investors and reduces --  and not just a little – the insecurity that it can dispense in the event that if, for one thing, an equity investment’s opted for.

It doesn’t stop there. Additionally, the fixed income shells out a return. While it might not be robust when weighed against other investments, it boasts a reputation ahead of time. That matters since, because of it, investors are positioned to previously know the results it will secure. For conservative investors, it’s what they opt for first.

And talk about versatility. Tactical responses to a cocktail of market climates and shifts in regimes are facilitated by an active approach, according to troweprice.com. On top of that, it dishes out the flexibility to leverage pricing anomalies and dislocations that a volatile climate might generate. Additionally, curve positioning could be a good idea to mull.

Category: Eq: Market, 

Keywords: active, investors... etc.

The Great Debate. 60 Minutes’ Point Counter Point.

Call it what you want, but over time, there’s been a perpetual back and forth over this: should investors leverage active or passive strategies when committing dollars in fixed income markets, according to wellington.com.

Problem is, in light of the diatribe, a question remains: is the investor hitting the mark in terms of their investment goal or merely maintain a scent on a particular benchmark. The main issue, then, is whether investors are all In on the “appropriateness” of fixed

A perpetual discussion among those in financial services: active opposed to passive investment, according to ftadviser.com.

On one hand, as far as fees are considered, passively managed funds are viewed as easier on the wallet. Conversely, active managers purportedly offer valuable expertise; that’s why their rates are slightly higher.

Also asked is why large bond allocations might be the hands of investors. Is it for income? If so, do they want to fork over money to a manager to provide that little extra?, the site continued.  

During a recent Goldman Sachs webcast, advisors were surveyed and asked by VettaFi: “When it comes to fixed income investing, do you believe in active management, passive management, or a mix?” according to etftrends.com.

Fifty five percent touted a cocktail of active and passive, while 36% firmly fell into the passive camp. Active drew nine percent.

While active strategies still are in vogue and when it comes to their relative upside,, advisors must have their antenna up, according to data from VettaFi.

(New York)

Asset allocation as it has traditionally been conceived has taken a beating over the last few years, and especially since the start of the pandemic. The old 60/40 allocation model has been cast aside for years, and investors are using many new techniques to allocate, such as factoring. However, one easy-to-implement and effective way to think about allocation is the balance of active and passive investments one holds. Active investments, when well done, can offer long-term outperformance. However, they also have more significant risks. Accordingly, this can be the risk/upside portion of a portfolio, while passive strategies, which are almost by definition more diversified, can be more of a hedge.

FINSUM: This not only makes sense in equities, but this consideration about active vs passive holds across different asset classes as well.

(New York)

It has taken a long time for bond ETFs to begin getting even a tiny bit of the attention stock ETFs have gotten, but the trend has finally taken hold in earnest, and that s good news for investors. While active bond funds have done well in recent years (perhaps due to it being considered easier to outperform a bond index than a stock index), bond ETFs have now started to surpass them in growth. This is adding much more liquidity to bond funds, which benefits investors substantially. Both active and passive bond funds have taken in over $200 bn each in 2019.

FINSUM: While “liquidity mismatch” worries will continue to linger, the fact is that bond ETFs make a lot of sense (perhaps even more than stock ETFs?) because they circumvent minimum-buy and illiquidity issues, allowing many more people to access hard-to-reach corners of the bond market.

(New York)

It has been a decade in the making, but it finally, unceremoniously, happened. The AUM in passive investment vehicles, like ETFs, has finally overtaken that in actively managed ones, like mutual funds. As of August 31, money in passive funds totaled $4.27 tn, just a touch higher than the $4.25 tn in actively-managed funds. In a good summary of the overall change in landscape, the Wall Street Journal says “That shift lowered the price of investing for individuals, reduced the influence of stock pickers and turned a handful of Wall Street outsiders into the biggest power brokers in the industry”.

FINSUM: Every advisor reading this column knows exactly why this happened, but it is nonetheless a landmark moment. It is also perhaps a warning sign—which side is driving the market?