Why the Active vs Passive Debate is Different for Fixed Income
There’s been an ongoing debate about passive strategies vs active strategies in equities and fixed income. While passive strategies have generally proven to outperform in equities, the same is not true for fixed income. In fixed income, active managers have outperformed. Over the last decade, the average active intermediate-term bond fund has outperformed its benchmark, 60% of the time.
According to Guggenheim, this can be partially attributed to risk mitigation strategies which are not available in passive funds. Another factor is that the equity markets are much more efficiently priced than fixed income since there is more price discovery, publicly reported financials, and a smaller universe of securities. Equities are also dominated by market-cap, weighted indices.
Relative to equities, there is much less information about fixed income securities, less liquidity and price discovery, a larger market at $55 trillion vs $44 trillion, and many more securities especially when accounting for different durations and credit ratings. Additionally, less than half of fixed income securities are in the Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index (Agg) benchmark. All of these factors mean that there are more opportunities to generate alpha by astute active managers.
Finsum: There is an ongoing debate on whether active or passive is better for fixed income. Here’s why Guggenheim believes that active will outperform against passive.
- bonds
- fixed income
- active etfs
- active management
- risk
