It’s been said that a picture can be worth a thousand words. So can an Excel chart.
We wanted to graphically depict what Bill Sharpe taught us over 20 years ago in The Arithmetic of Active Management.[1] Here the Nobel Prize winner explained mathematically that the average actively managed dollar will equal the return on the average passively managed dollar in every single instance, and – importantly – that for every relative winner there is a relative loser.
It’s actually very easy to build a simple spreadsheet to portray exactly this. Below, we’ve created a theoretical three stock index, with seven funds having varying exposure to each name in the index. Then we’ve built a T+1 case with a random number generator giving us share prices for each name in the index, and the resulting absolute and relative outperformance of each individual fund, as well as for the average individual fund.
If we turn our calculation off, and press F9, hold it down, we can then visualise a dynamic infographic representing the concept that Bill was expressing all those years ago (I am sure some young buck fluent in Python or R – like @dollarsanddata – can do this much more elegantly). The bottom line is that the absolute returns are going to be all over the place, but the average relative return, mathematically, is always zero.

FOOTNOTES
DISCLAIMER
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the post’s author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Albert Bridge Capital, or its affiliates. This post has been provided solely for information purposes and does not constitute an offer or solicitation of an offer or any advice or recommendation to purchase any securities or other financial instruments and may not be construed as such. The author makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information in this post or found by following any link in this post.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Politics of Passive Investing
Most of us in the finance world are well aware of the evolution of “passive” equity investing over the years, and have witnessed its tremendous growth. Some of us have asked questions about it. We’ve asked is it all good? Is it mostly good? Are some aspects perhaps bad? Are some really bad?
Read MoreIf Growth Stocks Sell Off Will They Bring Value Stocks Down with Them?
Growth stocks crushed just about everything from 2017 through 2021. Not that they necessarily will, but if they do give back some or all of their gains, given their weightings, times will be tough for broader indices. But what about the value names within them, will they sell off in sympathy as well? Of course no one knows, including ourselves, but we take a quick look at behavior of value names as the tech bubble sold off from 2000 through 2002. This example may be worth some consideration.
Read MoreDo Short Term Flows Permanently Affect Share Prices?
I’d like to think that prices can get out of whack for some period of time, and in that window, the nimble, unbiased, fundamental stock picker can take advantage of overreactions and underreactions. If they don't, then the M&M propositions truly hold, and I don’t have a meaningful job. However, if this paper is right, and it is only flows that matter, then while the M&M theorems are overturned, I don't have a meaningful job either. If it is all about flows, then I shouldn't play the game.
Read More