October 27, 2016
The active/passive management conversation doesn't have to be a debate. Those are better left to the politicians. As MFS Co-CEO Michael Roberge says in his October 18 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, investors can choose both. And they may want to consider that, given the potential diversification benefits of having active alongside passive in their portfolios.
With active management facing criticism of late, Mike sheds some light on the rhetoric and how to recognize a manager with skill. He also makes a compelling case for active's risk management capabilities and the importance of excess return in an environment fraught with return-generating challenges.
Investors know this. In a recent survey conducted by MFS, nearly three-quarters of professional investors surveyed in the US cited strong risk management as an important criteria when selecting actively managed investments
So passive has its place. Active has its advantages. And there are some real merits to a "bipartisan" portfolio. Here's what Mike has to say:
*Source: MFS 2016 Thought Leadership Study: Active Management & Time Horizon Research, 15 September 2016
The views expressed are those of the author and are subject to change at any time. These views are for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a recommendation or solicitation or as investment advice from the Advisor.
This content is directed at investment professionals only.