Disclaimer

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.

By clicking Proceed I confirm that I am a professional investor and that I have read, understood and accept the terms of use for this website.

Decline
Deactivating and reactivating active share

Deactivating and reactivating active share

08-02-2017 | From the field

A 2015 study challenged the usefulness of active share. The authors found that funds with a high active share typically have small-cap benchmarks, while low active share funds tend to have large-cap benchmarks. The intuition is that if a large-cap fund takes a position in a stock such as Apple, it immediately introduces a significant amount of overlap with its benchmark, in which Apple also has a large weight.

  • David Blitz
    David
    Blitz
    PhD, Executive Director, Head of Quant Selection Research

A 2015 study by AQR researchers* challenged the usefulness of active share. The authors found that funds with a high active share typically have small-cap benchmarks, while low active share funds tend to have large-cap benchmarks. The intuition is that if a large-cap fund takes a position in a stock such as Apple, it immediately introduces a significant amount of overlap with its benchmark, in which Apple also has a large weight.

The authors argued that sorting funds according to active share is equivalent to sorting according to benchmark type, and that the question should be whether active share is effective for funds that share a given benchmark type. Empirically, they found no reliable statistical evidence that high active share funds outperform low active share funds after controlling for benchmark type.

A few months later, Cremers** and Petajisto*** wrote separate responses to AQR’s criticism of their active share measure. They both acknowledged that active share works for half the benchmark types but not for the other half. However, they pointed out that not every benchmark type contains the same number of funds, and that the benchmark types for which active share is effective contain the vast majority of funds.

Cremers even took a critical look at AQR’s retail funds, noting that they have a relatively low active share and a rather unimpressive performance track record, wondering if that might explain their dislike of the active share measure. All in all, it seems that the debate about active share is likely to continue.

*Frazzini, Friedman & Pomorski, “Deactivating Active Share”, working paper.
**Cremers, “AQR in Wonderland”, working paper
***Petajisto, “Response to AQR’s Article Titled ‘Deactivating Active Share’, working paper

Stay informed on Quant investing with monthly mail updates
Stay informed on Quant investing with monthly mail updates
Subscribe
From the field
From the field

Our researchers publish many whitepapers based on their own empirical studies; they also follow quantitative research done by others.

Read all articles
Subjects related to this article are: