Getting More From Your Equity Allocation

SUMMARY

  • Investors have traditionally employed a “core-satellite” framework in building their equity allocation, with the core consisting of market-cap-weighted indexes and the satellites represented by a handful of stock pickers. In a high-return environment, this structure often met investors’ targets even if the active managers underperformed.
  • Looking ahead, we think returns will be lower and that investors should consider strategies that both diversify their equity exposure and offer the potential for higher and more consistent returns.
  • The growing number of investment options to complement or even replace traditional passive and active strategies include smart beta solutions for the passive portion, while systematic active and portable alpha strategies offer compelling options for the active portion.
  • Systematic active equity strategies may offer more reliable excess returns than traditional stock picking because they seek to benefit from the discipline of an unemotional, rules-based decision-making process while sharing many of the same investment objectives.

It’s no secret that the past few years have witnessed a pivot away from traditional active equity management and into index funds and other passive vehicles. With equities delivering strong returns since the post-crisis bottom in 2009, simple exposure to equity beta, or the market’s return, has been enough for many investors to achieve their return targets. But we believe that will change in the coming years, with equity returns likely to be significantly lower compared to recent levels (see Figure 1).

A lower-return environment suggests the need for alpha, but this creates a challenge for investors, as excess returns have been difficult to find. Numerous studies have pointed to the failure of traditional active managers to deliver market-beating returns. A recent study by Morningstar revealed that only 14% of U.S. large cap managers outperformed their passive counterparts over 10 years, and only about 30% of managers outperformed in the perceived less efficient areas of small cap, international and emerging markets.

Figure 1