Commenting on the review, Steven Tang said it was the largest sector review undertaken by Zenith as it includes all Global, Regional, Country (ex-Australia), Global Small Companies and Index funds.

The Zenith 2011 International Shares Sector Review appraised 180 International Shares products and confirmed:

• 12 were rated HIGHLY RECOMMENDED; and
• 39 RECOMMENDED.

The key changes to the Recommended List post the review include the addition of 7 new funds across various categories, 2 upgrades and 5 downgrades for existing funds.
x
Steven Tang noted that it is often assumed that investors are willing to pay higher fees for active management based on the skill of the underlying manager and consequent presumed outperformance of a passive benchmark. However, it is logical to assume that this ability to outperform is contingent on the manager being truly active i.e. adopting positions away from the passive benchmark.
x
“Zenith believes that the international share sector affords the greatest scope for active management, relative to all other sectors, given the size and breadth of the investable universe,” added Steven Tang.

The post Zenith reviews international shares sector appeared first on AdviserVoice.

While recent research from Standard & Poor’s (S&P)1, announced this week, shows that most active Australian equities managers are failing to beat the index, Aviva Investors is one of the few managers to deliver outperformance over 1, 3 and 5 years.

S&P’s research found that for the five years to December 2010, more than 70 per cent of actively managed Australian equity funds underperformed the S&P/ASX 200 Accumulation Index.

The short-term figures were equally unsettling for investors: 81 percent of actively managed Australian equity funds underperformed the S&P/ASX 200 Accumulation Index in the year to end-December 2010.

Conversely, all of Aviva Investors’ actively managed Australian equities funds that have a 5-year track record have significantly outperformed their benchmarks over the 3 years and 5 years to December 2010.

In addition, Aviva Investors’ short-term performance numbers are also impressive with every fund significantly outperforming their benchmarks in the 12 months to December 2010.

“For many investors, it is clearly disappointing to hear that they are paying active fees to their investment manager to not even meet the index, never mind outperform it,” said Aviva Investors Head of Equities Glenn Hart.

“At Aviva Investors we are proud to say that we have delivered excess returns to our investors over both the long-term and the short-term. We do not believe that investors should have to choose between either short-term or long-term outperformance and have shown that the right manager can deliver both.”

Mr Hart said that this investment outperformance has been achieved by focusing on quality, in-house research.

“We believe markets are inherently inefficient and this results in stocks sometimes trading away from their underlying valuation for a period of time. We seek to exploit these mispricing opportunities by looking for stocks which are out of favour with the market.

“Our decision to invest is based on a detailed bottom-up analysis of the company’s future prospects, in which we have formed an in-house valuation which is significantly different to the consensus. We believe that adherence to this approach should produce consistent outperformance of the benchmark over the medium-to-long term in all but extreme market conditions.”

Professional Selection Australian Equities – Strong outperformance as at 31 December 2010

Investment returns are based on exit to exit prices of Professional Selection units, are net of management fees and assume reinvestment of all distributions. Past performance is not a guide to or indication of future performance.

The post Bucking the trend in active asset management appeared first on AdviserVoice.

PIMCO’s actively managed bond funds continue to outperform both local and global equities though market conditions are set to become challenging for fixed interest as the world economy recovery post GFC gathers pace.

As the market anticipates growth in the US in particular, PIMCO believes short-term rates are set to rise in the global developed world in 2012 with spikes already evident in long-term rates. However, PIMCO believes the changing climate provides scope for active managers to demonstrate their value and act as both an income generator and stabiliser for portfolios.

Peter Dorrian, Head of Global Wealth Management at PIMCO, said actively managed bonds will continue to produce steady returns to income conscious investors in a challenging environment.

“The need for bonds remains essential as the risk rally is likely to run out of steam mid-year,” he said.

“We believe fixed interest has a place in every portfolio, regardless of the economic environment. All investors should retain exposure to the asset class as a diversifier and as an important means of lowering overall portfolio volatility,” Mr Dorrian said.

The PIMCO Australian Bond Fund has continued to perform strongly, outperforming the Australian share market by almost eight per cent as measured by the ASX 200 over calendar 2010. The fund also outperformed over three and five year periods.

The outperformance of PIMCO’s bond funds has also included global markets. The EQT PIMCO Global Bond Fund outperformed the Australian share market over one, two, three and five year periods including a 15.67% return in calendar 2010.

“Over a five-year period, PIMCO’s Australian and global bond funds have comprehensively outperformed the ASX 200. The results show bonds can outperform equities with less volatility,” Mr Dorrian said.

While past returns are no guarantee of future returns, funds such as the Australian Bond Fund and Diversified Fixed Income Fund should continue to provide value for investors.

“In difficult investment environments, active management of fixed interest can help ensure clients’ funds are more effectively administered through superior macroeconomic forecasting, adjusting portfolio duration and strong credit analysis capabilities,” he said.

The post PIMCO’s bond funds outperform equities; head winds highlight the importance of active management appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Fixed interest manager PIMCO Australia’s EQT Diversified Fixed Income Fund has been awarded a ‘Highly Recommended’ rating by Lonsec, in its first rating of this fund.

The actively managed DFI fund provides a broadly diversified exposure to domestic and international fixed interest markets by investing 50% in the PIMCO Australian Bond Fund and 50% in the PIMCO Global Bond Fund. The fund will at times also have a modest allocation to high yield and emerging markets debt.

“This rating primarily reflects Lonsec’s regard for the depth and quality of PIMCO’s investment team which is focused on top down and bottom-up analysis. Lonsec believes PIMCO benefits from a well established top down and bottom up portfolio construction process with highly formalised and disciplined decision making covering duration, yield curve and sector positioning, driven by its Global Investment Committee,” said Andrew Coutts, Lonsec senior investment analyst.

The global portfolio is managed in the US by PIMCO founder Bill Gross, with the domestic portfolio managed by Rob Mead.

“Lonsec regards Rob Mead as a quality investment professional with significant experience in the industry and with PIMCO,” Mr Coutts said.

The Lonsec review “notes that the Fund has exhibited the strongest track record in the Lonsec Peer Group of outperformance across both ‘down’ (63%) and ‘up’ (68%) markets over the three years to November 2010, with ‘all’ markets outperformance for the Fund also being 67% compared to the Lonsec Peer Group’s average of 49%.”

Lonsec notes the Fund’s ‘total return’ approach implies a degree of indifference as to the source of returns either from income/distributions (e.g. coupons) or growth (e.g. asset price growth).

“This may result in significant active positions away from the benchmark in an attempt to add value for investors,” said Mr Coutts. The Manager believes that focusing on the on longer term (3-5 year) secular trends presents better opportunities for the Manager to outperform relative to the broader market.

“Lonsec is pleased with PIMCO’s renewed emphasis on risk management, including the development of advanced risk management and portfolio monitoring systems,” Mr Coutts said.

The fund is managed to maximise total returns, with a target tracking error of 2-3% relative to a composite benchmark, which comprises the Barclays Capital Global Aggregate Bond Index hedged to Australian dollars and the UBS Australian Composite Bond Index.

The post PIMCO Diversified Fixed Income Fund earns ‘Highly Recommended’ rating from Lonsec appeared first on AdviserVoice.

The world’s largest bond manager, PIMCO, has forecast a positive investment outlook for Australia, due to its fiscal and monetary policy flexibility and its relatively clean banking sector, which differentiates it from most of its developed world peers. This comparative advantage is set to continue and in this climate quality Residential Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBS) stand out as offering attractive relative value, according to Rob Mead, PIMCO Head of Portfolio Management, in the fund manager’s 6-12 month cyclical outlook.

“The comparative advantage between Australia and its developed world peers has been enhanced over time, especially as fiscal positions in the developed world are forecast to diverge further, with Australia expected to be comparatively better off,” Mr Mead said.

As a result, Australia has presented more of a credit opportunity than an interest rate opportunity for most of 2010, and only recently have opportunities reappeared in Australia’s interest rate structure, he said.

“Having already raised rates by 150 basis points (1.5%) since the crisis lows, the Reserve Bank of Australia retains its mild hawkish tone.

“PIMCO continues to believe the RBA will raise rates towards 5%, implying a tightening bias, versus a New Normal neutral rate expectation, which would be approximately 4.75%. However, with the Australian dollar trading close to parity with the US dollar, near-term pressure for the RBA action is reduced slightly,” Mr Mead said.

“As global credit markets have rallied strongly, carefully selected Australian residential mortgage backed securities continue to stand out as offering potential attractive relative value, especially when considering the majority of Australian RMBS naturally de-leverage over time and are self liquidating as mortgages are paid down.”

“While some commentators have claimed Australian housing has become a bubble, various RMBS features provide downside risk mitigation against potential house price volatility. In particular, increased subordination on current vintage RMBS securities provides a cushion for investors while declining loan to value ratios in older vintage RMBS securities provides further protection,” Mr Mead said.

Advice for investors

Mr Mead said investors should look to generate real investment returns with manageable levels of risk using active management.

“Given the RBA’s inflation management credibility, which has realised a CPI rate of approximately 2.5% for the past 15 years, Australian investors have an excellent opportunity in the current markets to earn real (net of inflation) returns of 3%-4% via Australian bonds or global bonds hedged to Australian dollars.

The investment landscape is also expected to remain volatile, which provides active managers with significant opportunities to obtain alpha for investors through both top down and bottom up drivers.

“Investing passively in this environment or with too narrow a focus could result in lower return expectations,” Mr Mead said.

The post PIMCO forecasts positive outlook for Australia: quality RMBS stand out as key investment opportunity appeared first on AdviserVoice.

The models, which operate under a managed investment scheme structure, are actively managed by Zenith on behalf of clients to ensure that the funds held in the portfolios and their weightings remain optimal over time.

Each model portfolio contains 8 – 15 of Zenith’s highest rated managed funds, with five risk profiles on offer (i.e. Conservative, Moderate, Balanced, Growth and High Growth).

Announcing the launch of the Zenith model portfolios, Zenith Associate Director Glen Franklin said, “The Zenith model portfolios provide a unique one-stop solution for advisers where they can have their client portfolios managed by Zenith’s highly experienced Adviser Services team, whilst at the same time drastically reducing the typical administrative requirements associated with making changes to client portfolios.”

“In addition, the underlying Linear Managed Account platform is a cutting edge, fully functioning administration platform that provides detailed portfolio valuations, portfolio performance and tax reporting for the client, with a pricing structure that is significantly lower than the major wraps”.

Linear Asset Management’s Managing Director Chris Hipkin added, “Zenith’s model portfolios will allow the wider financial planner network to utilise Zenith’s expertise in providing quality research.”

“Zenith’s strategic alliance with the Linear Managed Account platform will enable greater efficiency and functionality for advisers by highly researched diversified, multi-manager model portfolios, this is a great value add for clients”.

Some of the key benefits of the Zenith model portfolios are:

• Zenith model portfolios operate under a managed investment scheme structure. Therefore any portfolio changes can be made in a timely and efficient manner, without the need for individual Statements of Advice (SOA) and lengthy delays.
• Combined with the Linear Managed Account structure, Zenith’s model portfolios have the potential to revolutionise an advisers business from an efficiency and compliance perspective.
• All models are actively managed by the Zenith Adviser Services team, a team of professional investment analysts dedicated to the delivery of optimum portfolio construction.
• The multi-manager structure of the Zenith models enables Zenith to select what it considers to be “best-of-breed” funds for each asset class. This contrasts with single manager diversified funds where all asset classes are managed by a single funds management organisation that may not possess strong capabilities across all of these asset classes.
• Zenith’s five separate risk profile offerings ensure there is a Zenith model portfolio on offer to suit the risk appetite of most investors.
• Unlike a traditional multi-manager unit trust, the Managed Account structure used for the Zenith model portfolios ensures that clients retain the ownership of each of the underlying managed funds held within the model portfolio. Via the Linear Managed Account platform, clients can clearly see their unit holding in each underlying managed fund, as well as each fund’s individual performance.
• Quarterly reporting is provided, highlighting which underlying funds have been the key drivers of performance and providing a useful source of information for adviser discussions with their clients.

“Zenith has established and enviable reputation and track record within the financial services industry for innovation, consistency and service – and this has provided the solid foundation for client growth / retention.”

“The launch of Zenith’s model portfolios on the Linear Managed Account Platform will provide advisers an excellent facility and service to facilitate the attainment of their clients’ wealth creation and financial goals,” concluded Glen Franklin.

The post Zenith Launches its Model Portfolios on the Linear Managed Account Platform appeared first on AdviserVoice.

The debate over active versus passive management is not a new one. In the 1960s the world saw Eugene Fama develop the theory of the efficient market hypothesis and its role in asset allocation. The argument over whether the market can be beaten has continued to rage worldwide. If capital markets were at equilibrium, the case for active management would be non-existent.

Active management is defined as taking active positions in the market, based on observations of the market, macroeconomic factors and company specific news, with a view of outperforming the market benchmark. Active managers believe the market is not efficient and that securities can be mispriced and that superior returns can be generated by exploiting these inefficiencies.

Passive management, also known as indexing, usually involves investing in an index (such as the S&P/ASX 300) as a proxy, or taking individual stock positions with the same weightings as the market benchmark, in the belief that the market cannot be beaten. Passive management, compared to active management, requires fewer portfolio decisions. These fewer portfolio decisions can help to minimise transaction costs and the impact of capital gains tax. Generally speaking, index managers charge lower fees than active managers.

While historically, investors gained access to passive management via unlisted managed funds, the market has evolved so that now investors can gain access to indexing or passive management through exchange traded funds (ETFs). The ETF market in Australia is still in its early stage of growth. In the US and Europe, the ETF market has grown substantially over the years. In 2008 alone, over $US 200 billion was invested into ETFs.

In the bull market of 2004-2007, investors questioned the value of active managers, as many funds appeared to underperform the market (and in turn, passive managers). Active management will not always consistently add value and there are certainly market environments and sector conditions that are more conducive to outperformance. Some asset classes are better placed than others to provide sufficient opportunities for active managers to exploit.

In general, Lonsec believes that quality active management in equities and more generally, those assets managed on a global basis, is superior to passive management, if the aim is to maximise returns over time.

However, in some sectors, such as domestic listed property and domestic fixed interest, Lonsec believes the case for active management is less compelling. In these instances a passive approach may be appropriate.

This paper examines the factors impacting each asset class in relation to the active versus passive debate and the rationale behind Lonsec’s current views.

Equities

Lonsec believes that active management in equities is, in general, superior to passive management, if the aim is to maximise returns over time.

Historical evidence

Historically, active managers in Lonsec’s universe have added value in both Australian and global equities. The table below summarises the value added by the average and top quartile funds within Lonsec’s full universe of equity managers, over the past three and five years.

In most cases, the average active manager has been able to add value by way of excess returns above the market (and hence passive funds). It is important to recognise that all these results are post fees, so active managers have more than compensated for the active fee that they charge, by way of positive excess returns. However, investors should remember that an ‘average’ result hides a lot of variance within the fund universe – there will always be some funds that do even better and some that perform poorly.

When the universe is narrowed to examine the top quartile managers, the results are (not surprisingly) even more convincing. Results within higher growth sectors, such as Australian equity small caps, are particularly compelling, with the average manager consistently outperforming the market by 4% over the past three and seven years.

The results above also hide some variations in relative performance throughout a market cycle. Typically Lonsec has observed that active Australian equity managers tend to deliver better relative returns in sideways and falling markets and may struggle to keep pace with the market when it is rising strongly.

The bar chart below demonstrates this observation, with a majority (69%) of managers outperforming during the bear market, while most lagged during the rally.

In bull markets, such at that during 2004-2007, quality stocks may not rise as dramatically as highly leveraged or speculative stocks, or at best keep pace with the market. Often in bull markets investors are less discerning and general confidence in the market outweighs stock specific concerns. In markets where quality  (i.e. companies that exhibit strong fundamentals such as balance sheet strength) is not rewarded,, active managers typically find it more difficult to outperform the market and it can be harder for investors to distinguish between manager skill and luck.

Another example of this was seen during the late 1990s ‘tech bubble’, where many active managers were punished for being underweight in strongly performing new technology stocks, based on the view that their fundamentals were unsound. Although these managers underperformed as the market rose, as the bubble burst they began to outperform and more than recouped their previous losses.

Qualitative factors to consider

Some sectors, including small caps and emerging markets, are often more inefficient than the broader market, Lonsec believes that active management is more appropriate to maximise returns in these sectors. These markets are often under-researched by the investment community and can provide an opportunity for well placed active managers to capitalise on an information advantage that they may have.

In contrast, more developed and over-researched markets, such as the US large cap equity market, generally provide a more difficult environment for managers to deliver consistent outperformance. This is an important distinction to make, as much of the industry literature relating to the ‘Active versus Passive’ debate, makes reference to the poor returns of active managers in the US. Investors should remember that there are many other equity markets which provide opportunities for active managers, outside the US.

Passive managers are, by definition, style neutral. In contrast, active managers may choose to have a style or thematic tilt to their portfolio, depending on their stated process or view of the market at a certain point in time. The ability for active managers to bias their portfolios to certain factors can provide scope to increase returns in different economic conditions. For example, currently investors are increasingly concerned about the risks of inflation, as well as the threat of a sustained period of low economic growth, from the developed economies in particular. While they may not always get it right, active managers have the flexibility to position their portfolios to select securities, sectors and regions (in the case of global equities) that are in a better relative position to benefit from such themes.

Another important consideration is that passive global equity investing typically provides investors with market exposure in proportion with the MSCI World Index (the most standard benchmark referenced by Australian-domiciled global equity investors). This benchmark is constructed on a cap-weighted basis and is consequently dominated by the US – accounting for 55%. Furthermore, the benchmark does not include any exposure to emerging markets. In contrast, active managers can provide more diversified exposure to regional markets, including often material exposure to the higher growth emerging markets. Active managers have the ability to vary the exposure to each region, as they identify areas of opportunity and risk.

The following table summarises the regional positioning of a sample of active global equity funds, compared to the market MSCI benchmark.

Active managers also encompass a wide range of risk/return profiles, so asset allocation can be tailored to suit specific investor needs. Some active managers have a defensive approach and may have a bias to income, while others may be more growth oriented and more leveraged to cyclical upswings in an economy and market.

Property

The case for active management in Australian listed property (A-REITs) is not as compelling as some other asset classes. However, despite mixed performance results, Lonsec believes that, looking forward, there is greater scope for active global listed property managers to add value.

Historical evidence

The historical evidence in relation to listed property has been mixed.

With the exception of the last year, Australian and global property securities funds have failed to deliver positive performance, relative to their respective market benchmarks.

Qualitative considerations

The listed property sector in Australia is highly concentrated, with one stock (Westfield) comprising 39% of the S&P/ASX 300 A-REIT Index, as at March 2010 and the top five REITs in the sector making up approximately 75% of the index. There are only 23 stocks in the index in total, with many investors considering only half of those to be of investment grade.

What this means is that the opportunity set is very narrow and the skew of the sector to a dominant few stocks makes it more difficult for active managers to consistently add value, as they are required to take active positions across a ‘lumpier’ opportunity set. An active manager’s call on Westfield may have a disproportionate bearing on the contribution to active return (and risk) within the portfolio, given the dominance of that stock in the benchmark. If an investor is allocating to a true active A-REIT fund, then they need to be prepared to experience a return that is materially different to the market (either positive or negative).

Despite unconvincing performance results, looking forward the global property sector appears to provide a better opportunity for active managers to add value. The investible universe of securities is far more diverse, with a broad opportunity set of around 240 securities, across different geographic regions and sectors. On a global basis, Westfield comprises only 12% of the UBS Global Real Estate Investors Index and the top three REITs in the global sector make up only 15% of total market cap.

Country-specific factors can have a strong influence on the fortunes of regional property markets and this provides well resourced active global managers with scope to capitalise on the pricing inefficiencies that can arise. In this regard, Lonsec believes that it is possible to identify some active managers in this sector, with quality on-the-ground regional teams to enable them to cover the sector with sufficient depth of analysis.

While the qualitative case is supportive of an active approach to global property investing, quantitative results are, to date, less convincing. Lonsec will be monitoring the ability of active global property managers to achieve their stated objectives and to justify the active fee they charge.

Fixed Interest

The case for active management in traditional Australian fixed interest is not as compelling as some other asset classes. However, Lonsec does not extend this view to global products and believes that there is greater scope for global fixed interest managers to add value.

Historical evidence

Evidence has shown that in the past, Australian and global fixed interest managers have failed to add material value. The table below summarises the returns delivered by the average fund within Australian and global fixed interest respectively. A few points to note – recent performance has been strong, so there will be times when active managers do well. The global fixed interest sample size is small – only 4 managers – so these results need to be assessed with appropriate caution.

Qualitative considerations

There has historically been a relatively narrow opportunity set for Australian fixed interest. When coupled with the uninspiring performance evidence to date, it is difficult to make the case for active management within this sector at present. On this basis, within its model portfolios Lonsec has been recommending the use of a passive portfolio for domestic fixed interest. Lonsec is generally comfortable for this part of the portfolios to deliver a consistent, ‘no surprises’, benchmark-like return.

While the domestic universe has been relatively narrow, in line with the Government’s expansive fiscal policy, the amount of bonds on issue is expected to increase notably over the next few years. It is likely that the Australian fixed interest universe, as measured by the UBS Composite Bond Index, may increase from its current size of around $393 billion, to around $500 billion in three years time (Source: PIMCO). Such an expansion of the opportunity set may provide cause for Lonsec to revisit the ability of active managers to deliver sufficient returns (and do so consistently), to justify an active fee.

The results above also throw into question the merits of active management for global fixed interest. Certainly on historical performance results alone, active management is difficult to justify. However, consideration should be given to the opportunity set and particularly, how global debt markets have evolved over the past ten years. As the chart below shows, the global bond market has grown by a steady rate (an average of 14% per year), since 2001.

Growth of the global bond market

Source: PIMCO & Bank of International Settlements, As at 31/12/08

Global fixed interest is a much broader and deeper investment universe, with different shapes and levels of yield curves across regions, a greater range of sectors and many more corporate issuances available. This provides active managers with greater opportunities to add value via duration management, sector and regional rotation and credit selection. A broader opportunity set also allows managers to adequately diversify their portfolios. Lonsec believes that the ability for active managers to add value through security selection, sector rotation, regional selection and duration management will be relevant looking ahead, where issues such as sovereign risk become increasingly pertinent.

On this basis and taking a forward-looking approach, Lonsec believes that an active approach is warranted when investing in global fixed interest. Nonetheless, Lonsec will be monitoring the ability of active global fixed interest managers to achieve their stated objectives and to justify the active fee they charge.

A passive approach does not necessarily mean lower risk

There is sometimes a misconception that using an indexed or passive approach to investing is a lower risk strategy than utilising active managers. However, the devil is in the detail – it is important to define what is meant by ‘risk’.

If ‘risk’ is defined as deviations from the market (benchmark) then yes, a passive approach will ensure that the portfolio tracks more closely to the market and deviations (positive or negative) from the market return are expected to be low. This is captured by ‘tracking error’ – a measure of a fund’s return variability around the benchmark. However, it is important to remember that the market itself is certainly not immune from capital losses.

If ‘risk’ is defined as absolute deviations in returns, then passive funds are not necessarily less risky and in fact, there are many active funds that deliver returns with less absolute variability than passive funds. This is captured by ‘standard deviation’ – a measure of a fund’s absolute return variability.

Good examples are the following two global equity funds, both rated Highly Recommended by Lonsec. As the charts show, these funds have delivered returns with less return variability (standard deviation) than the market. The market is represented by the vertical axis (risk) and horizontal axis (return). So an outcome in the top, left quadrant shows a portfolio that has been less volatile than the market, with positive excess returns.

Snail trails of excess return and risk – rolling 3 years to 31 December 2009

Zurich Global Thematic Share Fund

Walter Scott Global Equity Fund

If ‘risk’ is defined as chance of capital loss, then passive funds are by no means less risky than active funds – although it will depend on the characteristics of the active fund. Many active funds will use defensive strategies, including increased exposure to cash, to protect the portfolio in volatile times and will often preserve more capital than passively managed portfolios.

Conclusion

The active versus passive issue is a long running debate and ultimately the decision to use either strategy depends on an investor’s objectives in terms of return seeking, risk management (although careful how we define ‘risk’), asset classes being used and ability to access both active and passively managed products.

The issue of cost is often cited as a reason for using passive funds, as passive funds are typically cheaper than active funds. However, the fee paid for investing in a product should only be an issue if the manager cannot recoup that fee through active returns.

When considering the case for active or passive strategies in each asset class, investors need to consider the opportunity set available to active managers. Historical results can provide some context around the ability of managers to consistently add value, but the future investment climate may be very different to the past.

Lonsec generally believes that active management is worth pursuing in equities and more generally, those assets managed on a global basis, if the aim is to maximise returns over time.

However, in some sectors, such as domestic listed property and domestic fixed interest, Lonsec believes the case for active management is less compelling. In these instances a passive approach may currently be appropriate.

The post Active vs Passive funds – the debate continues… appeared first on AdviserVoice.