.png)
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
Do 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 MoreAre American Companies Better than European Ones?
If we again go back and start the clock on January 1, 1980, and stop it thirty years later on December 31, 2009, we see that the S&P 500 generated annual total returns (with dividends) of 11.5%. During that exact same period, guess what the annual returns of the MSCI Europe were? Also 11.5%. This last decade, however, things have gotten out of whack.
Read MoreArchegos, Disclosure, and Price Discovery
This had a lot to do with bad banking, but most to do with an overzealous client. Meanwhile, it had very little to do with holdings disclosure. Sure, our kneejerk reaction is (always) for more regulation, because we want to believe that some regulatory response will immediately solve all our future problems. But we should question this intuition.
Read More
