In mutual funds, there is little doubt that in the ever-raging debate between active and passive investors, the folks who believe in choosing their issues can learn something from the people who build funds to emulate an index.
The basic debate boils down to management acumen. Active investors believe a manager can add value, while the indexer believes the best way to capture the profits of the market is to buy the market, rather than trying to beat it.
The supporters of each strategy can learn from each other, particularly this time of year when many indexes are going through their annual or semi-annual “reconstitution” process.
Last week, the Russell Investment Group announced the preliminary annual changes being made on its broad-market Russell 3000. In all, 277 new names will go onto the index, replacing companies that failed to keep up with the market’s growth, were merged out of existence or taken private. Over the past 10 years, the average year has seen 405 names changed during the annual reconstitution.
When about 13 percent of the portfolio changes each year, one could question whether the passive indexing strategy actually takes an active bent. And it’s not just Russell’s benchmarks that are going through the process; Morningstar Inc. is in the process of its semi-annual recalibration of the Morningstar US Index. And a new benchmark, the Clear Spin-Off Index, is going through its semi-annual rejiggering.
The process is a form of active management, but done in an unemotional, detached sort of way. That’s where the lesson comes to light.
If the people behind the indexes did not make changes, their benchmarks would quickly stray from their real purpose, replicating a specific segment of the market. To remain passively invested actually requires some level of active management.
Obviously, the Russell changes sometimes highlight which industries are hot, the companies where the market value has grown to catapult them toward the upper echelons of the market.
That might seem like chasing what’s hot, but it is actually making sure the index reflects the companies that really are the largest, and letting the real world decide which stocks qualify for the list.
For individual investors, failing to periodically rebalance a portfolio – culling your winners and putting asset allocations back to their target levels – allows investments to get off track.
“There’s no question that ordinary investors can learn from this,” says Steve Wood, senior portfolio strategist at Russell. “If they picked an asset allocation, returning to those targets once a year – and doing it unemotionally – makes sure that their portfolio reflects the strategy they intended.”
Even an active investor should have rules for running money. Most investment advisers, for example, suggest rebalancing either once a year, or whenever the portfolio is 5 to 10 percentage points off course.
To see why it works, consider a simple example: Jack invests $10,000, splitting it equally between a broad market index fund and a general-purpose bond fund. If, over the course of a year, the stock side is up 20 percent while the bonds are up 5 percent, the portfolio will tilt. After that year, the money is not invested in two equal halves, but rather has 53 percent in stocks and 47 percent in bonds.
Says Wood: “You want to capture the expected performance and stop the drifting. It’s not timing the market, it’s just picking the time every year when you will make your changes, and having rules to follow so that you can make those changes easily and without emotion.”
Chuck Jaffe is senior columnist for MarketWatch. He can be reached at jaffe@marketwatch.com or Box 70, Cohasset, MA 02025-0070.
