The information contained in the website is solely intended for professional investors. Some funds shown on this website fall outside the scope of the Dutch Act on the Financial Supervision (Wet op het financieel toezicht) and therefore do not (need to) have a license from the Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM).
The funds shown on this website may not be available in your country. Please select your country website (top right corner) to view the products that are available in your country.
Neither information nor any opinion expressed on the website constitutes a solicitation, an offer or a recommendation to buy, sell or dispose of any investment, to engage in any other transaction or to provide any investment advice or service. An investment in a Robeco product should only be made after reading the related legal documents such as management regulations, prospectuses, annual and semi-annual reports, which can be all be obtained free of charge at this website and at the Robeco offices in each country where Robeco has a presence.
A 2015 study* argues that a simplified measure of activeness, termed active weight, is even more effective than active share. Unlike active share, it does not need to assume an appropriate benchmark index, but simply compares the weights of the stocks held by a fund with the weights these stocks would have had if they had been weighted in proportion to their market capitalizations.
The empirical results presented in the study support the claim that active weight is more effective than active share, and captures something different. However, it may be prone to the same issues that plague active share. For instance, active weight also tends to be higher for small-cap funds than for large-cap funds, and it is unclear how effective the measure is within these categories. It is also unclear what would happen if we adjusted active weight appropriately for differences in active risk and fee levels.
*Doshi, Elkamhi & Simutin, “Managerial Activeness and Mutual Fund Performance”, Review of Asset Pricing Studies 5 (2), 2015, pp. 156-184