Contrary to intuition, even a fully systematic, rules-based investment strategy benefits from an active ETF structure. This approach avoids third-party index licensing fees and provides crucial flexibility to delay rebalancing during volatile market events, a cumbersome process for index-based funds.

Related Insights

Trying to beat the market by active trading is a losing game against professionals with vast resources. A simple, automated strategy of consistently investing in diversified ETFs or index funds mitigates risk and leverages long-term market growth without emotional decision-making.

To compete with behemoths like Vanguard, new ETFs must focus on boutique strategies that are too complex, differentiated, or capacity-constrained for trillion-dollar managers. Competing on broad, scalable market beta is futile; the opportunity lies in specialized areas where expertise and smaller scale are advantages.

Active management is more viable in emerging markets than in the US. The largest EM ETF (EEM) has a high 0.72% expense ratio, the universe of stocks is twice as large as the US, and analyst coverage is sparse. This creates significant opportunities for skilled stock pickers to outperform passive strategies.

A truly passive portfolio would own all global financial assets in proportion to their market value. However, this is impossible because many assets, like government-held bonds or restricted foreign stocks, are not available to public investors, making every real-world index fund an active bet.

The dominance of low-cost index funds means active managers cannot compete in liquid, efficient markets. Survival depends on creating strategies in areas Vanguard can't easily replicate, such as illiquid micro-caps, niche geographies, or complex sectors that require specialized data and analysis.

Given the known flaws in EM benchmarks (duration, currency, instrument type), it's possible to construct a passive, rules-based strategy to correct them. This 'smart beta' approach can systematically deliver a better Sharpe ratio than the underlying index, even if absolute returns are lower before leverage.

A major structural disadvantage of ETFs is the inability to close the fund to new capital. Unlike mutual funds or SMAs, an ETF cannot stop inflows. This makes the structure inappropriate for strategies with limited capacity, such as those focused on micro-cap stocks, where large inflows would harm performance.

An effective strategy combines passive management for low-dispersion public equities with active management for high-dispersion private markets. For publics, tax-managed passive funds generate reliable tax alpha. For privates, active selection is crucial to capture significant outperformance from top-quartile managers.

Contrary to the belief that indexing creates market inefficiencies, Michael Mauboussin argues the opposite. Indexing removes the weakest, 'closet indexing' players from the active pool, increasing the average skill level of the remaining competition and making it harder to find an edge.

The key question for institutions isn't "how do we access the best managers?" but "what is unique about us that facilitates privileged access to assets or managers?" This shifts the focus from picking to leveraging inherent advantages.