The benefits of active-passive combinations

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
Post Reply
Topic Author
n00b_to_investing
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:37 pm

The benefits of active-passive combinations

Post by n00b_to_investing »

would you pick as your core holding ?
PRIMECAP VPMCX
PRIMECAP Core VPCCX and
Capital Opportunity VHCOX
Last edited by n00b_to_investing on Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
gkaplan
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:34 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Which Vanguard Active Fund ?

Post by gkaplan »

None.
Gordon
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 11786
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Which Vanguard Active Fund ?

Post by cheese_breath »

If you wanted a fund from among these choices Capital Opportunity VHCOX would have to be the one since the other two are closed to new investors.

But the real question is, why do you want an active fund?
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
pkcrafter
Posts: 15461
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:19 am
Location: CA
Contact:

Re: Which Vanguard Active Fund ?

Post by pkcrafter »

VHCOX



Paul
When times are good, investors tend to forget about risk and focus on opportunity. When times are bad, investors tend to forget about opportunity and focus on risk.
Topic Author
n00b_to_investing
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:37 pm

Re: Which Vanguard Active Fund ?

Post by n00b_to_investing »

in process of moving to a 3 fund portfolio. the interest is purely theoretical. I came across this paper at Vanguard https://institutional.vanguard.com/iwe/pdf/FASRBT.pdf
would Primecap ODYSSEY qualify as alternatives ?
User avatar
3CT_Paddler
Posts: 3485
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:28 pm
Location: Marietta, GA

Re: Which Vanguard Active Fund ?

Post by 3CT_Paddler »

n00b_to_investing wrote:I came across this paper at Vanguard https://institutional.vanguard.com/iwe/pdf/FASRBT.pdf
That paper seems to do a poor job of building a logical case for going 50/50 active vs passive.
Under the right circumstances, active and passive components can
complement each other by moderating the swings between the extremes
of relative performance. Such a combined strategy can help avoid the
pangs of regret that your clients might otherwise experience when one
approach trumps the other.
???
User avatar
Aptenodytes
Posts: 3786
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:39 pm

Re: Which Vanguard Active Fund ?

Post by Aptenodytes »

n00b_to_investing wrote:in process of moving to a 3 fund portfolio. the interest is purely theoretical. I came across this paper at Vanguard https://institutional.vanguard.com/iwe/pdf/FASRBT.pdf
would Primecap ODYSSEY qualify as alternatives ?
I had not seen that paper before. I have to say it is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

The factual content of the paper is "Adding indexing to active portfolios can help temper risk." Well, duh. Adding indexing to ANYTHING will temper risk. Adding indexing to lighting your money on fire will temper risk.

The innuendo of the paper is "There is a strong argument in favor of combining the two approaches." Well, no. There's absolutely no evidence in the paper to support this. That's like saying "There is a strong argument in favor of investing some of your money in index funds and lighting the rest on fire." It is argument by innuendo and it is misleading and irresponsible.

To put it another way, the benefits of active-passive combination accrue only to people who are starting 100% active. For people in your case, from a starting position that is 100% passive, there is no tangible benefit to adding active funds.

The paper alludes to an intangible benefit, though they direct the message to portfolio advisers, not individual investors. The paper says
Such a combined strategy can help avoid the pangs of regret that your clients might otherwise experience when one approach trumps the other.
So if you think that you are the kind of person who is susceptible to becoming unstable if you read about active mutual funds outperforming your passive portfolio and taking self-destructive actions as a result, then maybe you should set aside a portion of your portfolio to some "hot" active fund. If this is the rationale for the strategy, however, note that it is completely speculative. The papers cites no evidence whatsoever that people who invest in this way are less likely to become unhinged than fully passive investors. My intuition is that they would be more likely to go full-Cramer, because their attention is going to be focused on the hot fund's performance and they will be likely to continually revisit their choice of that fund. Myself, for example, I have absolutely no clue what the hot mutual funds are -- I couldn't even hazard a guess what their returns or who markets them. I'm just not paying attention to that signal.
manwithnoname
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:52 pm

Re: The benefits of active-passive combinations

Post by manwithnoname »

goodenoughinvestor
Posts: 295
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 10:33 am

Re: The benefits of active-passive combinations

Post by goodenoughinvestor »

manwithnoname wrote:But VG promotes its actively managed funds.
The key word is "promote"--it is to Vanguard's benefit to enroll customers in their active funds. Doesn't mean it's best for the investor.
manwithnoname
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:52 pm

Re: The benefits of active-passive combinations

Post by manwithnoname »

goodenoughinvestor wrote:
manwithnoname wrote:But VG promotes its actively managed funds.
The key word is "promote"--it is to Vanguard's benefit to enroll customers in their active funds. Doesn't mean it's best for the investor.
VG also promotes index funds. Does that mean that index funds are not best for investors?
User avatar
Aptenodytes
Posts: 3786
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:39 pm

Re: The benefits of active-passive combinations

Post by Aptenodytes »

goodenoughinvestor wrote:
manwithnoname wrote:But VG promotes its actively managed funds.
The key word is "promote"--it is to Vanguard's benefit to enroll customers in their active funds. Doesn't mean it's best for the investor.
I just skimmed one of the linked papers. My take is that Vanguard is doing a good job at minimizing the potential harm to investors who choose their actively managed funds through a smart, disciplined strategy, but that it does not think they add value.

The paper I read (https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/s356.pdf) provided evidence that investors who invested in each of the company's 15 active funds between 1997-2012 would have done OK, 50 basis points of annualized returns ahead of the benchmarks. That's comforting to Vanguard management which I presume wants to minimize overall harm to its customers. But I found it unusable information from a personal perspective. Can you imagine a single investor on the planet who would invest in each of the active funds?

If Vanguard had the courage of its convictions and really believed the implication of this paper, it is clear that the overwhelming obligation would be to create a fund of funds consisting of a weighted average of shares in all the company's active funds. That's the only sure way to reap the 50 bp advantage. That they have not done so provides very strong evidence to me that they do not in fact believe these results. If they did believe them, and still refrain from creating this fund of funds, they are flushing value down the toilet. They are not value-flushers, so I can only conclude that they don't believe this stuff.

On balance I think the Vanguard approach works because the fund managers are forced to deviate only modestly from a passive strategy. We know that if you aren't a nut-job you can approximate a passive fund with several dozen individual stocks. My guess is that's all that's going on here -- people who aren't crazy are putting together diversified portfolios. That the aggregate effect is modestly better than the benchmark is most likely, to my intuition, a random effect, not proof that their managers have figured out the secret.

Absolutely none of this provides evidence for deviating from a passive approach.
User avatar
tludwig23
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:27 pm
Location: 48deg46"23"N 122deg28'21"W

Re: The benefits of active-passive combinations

Post by tludwig23 »

manwithnoname wrote:
goodenoughinvestor wrote:
manwithnoname wrote:But VG promotes its actively managed funds.
The key word is "promote"--it is to Vanguard's benefit to enroll customers in their active funds. Doesn't mean it's best for the investor.
VG also promotes index funds. Does that mean that index funds are not best for investors?
Um, no. Your conclusion is illogical.

If I go running because I believe it is good for me, and I also eat doughnuts, it doesn't mean I think doughnuts are good me.
That's what I do: I drink, and I know things. --Tyrion Lannister
manwithnoname
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:52 pm

Re: The benefits of active-passive combinations

Post by manwithnoname »

tludwig23 wrote:
manwithnoname wrote:
goodenoughinvestor wrote:
manwithnoname wrote:But VG promotes its actively managed funds.
The key word is "promote"--it is to Vanguard's benefit to enroll customers in their active funds. Doesn't mean it's best for the investor.
VG also promotes index funds. Does that mean that index funds are not best for investors?
Um, no. Your conclusion is illogical.

If I go running because I believe it is good for me, and I also eat doughnuts, it doesn't mean I think doughnuts are good me.
But is running better for you in the long run? I know people who have had heart attacks while running or exercising. One died on the tennis court. Another died while on an exercise bike. Several had a heart attack while jogging.

You are making a subjective decision of which investment option is better based on your analysis but that is your opinion. Its logical to you but not others.

Only principle that determines whether investment analysis/IPS is correct is buy low, sell high.
User avatar
tludwig23
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:27 pm
Location: 48deg46"23"N 122deg28'21"W

Re: The benefits of active-passive combinations

Post by tludwig23 »

manwithnoname wrote:
tludwig23 wrote:
manwithnoname wrote:
goodenoughinvestor wrote:
manwithnoname wrote:But VG promotes its actively managed funds.
The key word is "promote"--it is to Vanguard's benefit to enroll customers in their active funds. Doesn't mean it's best for the investor.
VG also promotes index funds. Does that mean that index funds are not best for investors?
Um, no. Your conclusion is illogical.

If I go running because I believe it is good for me, and I also eat doughnuts, it doesn't mean I think doughnuts are good me.
But is running better for you in the long run? I know people who have had heart attacks while running or exercising. One died on the tennis court. Another died while on an exercise bike. Several had a heart attack while jogging.

You are making a subjective decision of which investment option is better based on your analysis but that is your opinion. Its logical to you but not others.

Only principle that determines whether investment analysis/IPS is correct is buy low, sell high.
I'm having a hard time following your (lack of) knowledge.

First, it doesn't matter if running is better for you in the long run. That is irrelevant to my example. (By the way, there is overwhelming evidence that regular aerobic exercise does increase both the quality and quantity of life.)

Second, I didn't make any decision regarding investments at all. (By the way, there is plenty of objective evidence--try reading thi site!)
That's what I do: I drink, and I know things. --Tyrion Lannister
goodenoughinvestor
Posts: 295
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 10:33 am

Re: The benefits of active-passive combinations

Post by goodenoughinvestor »

My point was that just because a company is promoting or marketing a financial product doesn't mean it makes sense for my portfolio. That's why I'm reading and learning from bogleheads--for objective advice.
User avatar
Aptenodytes
Posts: 3786
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:39 pm

Re: The benefits of active-passive combinations

Post by Aptenodytes »

goodenoughinvestor wrote:My point was that just because a company is promoting or marketing a financial product doesn't mean it makes sense for my portfolio. That's why I'm reading and learning from bogleheads--for objective advice.
Your point was clear; others' heads got clouded.

By the way, although there's no logic in pursuing the "active-passive combination" idea the OP referred to, there is at least one compelling reason I can think of to use an active fund, and that's if you think an asset category has a discernible risk premium or diversification benefit but there are no viable index funds that track it. In such a case you would have a logical argument for investing in a harm-minimized active fund. For people who lack access to ETFs, the international small-cap category could be argued to constitute such a case (and Vanguard International Explorer would be the relevant harm-minimized active fund).
User avatar
neurosphere
Posts: 5205
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: The benefits of active-passive combinations

Post by neurosphere »

manwithnoname wrote:
goodenoughinvestor wrote:
manwithnoname wrote:But VG promotes its actively managed funds.
The key word is "promote"--it is to Vanguard's benefit to enroll customers in their active funds. Doesn't mean it's best for the investor.
VG also promotes index funds. Does that mean that index funds are not best for investors?
There are hundreds of fund families which have both active and passive funds. Every one of these fund families promotes both their active and passive funds. Ford promotes both their pickups as well as their sub-compacts. Who cares what they promote? It up to us to decide which is best for us.

In the case of investing, low-cost wins in the long run, that's pretty clear, regardless of who promotes what. If a large-cap active fund can beat the cost of an SP500 ETF (0.05% if using Vanguard Admiral shares), then I would certainly consider it for my portfolio. If a an active small cap value fund can match or beat the 0.1% cost of VBR, then I would strongly consider that fund too.
If you have to ask "Is a Target Date fund right for me?", the answer is "Yes" (even in taxable accounts).
User avatar
Taylor Larimore
Posts: 32842
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
Location: Miami FL

Managed Fund or Index Fund ?

Post by Taylor Larimore »

If I have a similar choice, I will chose the index fund. Here's why:

http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSoc ... px#3464336

Best wishes.
Taylor
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
User avatar
Kenkat
Posts: 9549
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: The benefits of active-passive combinations

Post by Kenkat »

In 1998, I picked Primecap and Windsor II as core holdings. Other funds considered were the Index 500 fund, and a 50/50 split between Growth Index and Value Index - which because of the poor choice of the Barra indexes ended up being the same as the Index 500. I wanted to split growth and value so I went with the active funds.

I began posting on the old Morningstar forum shortly after that. I've read these "Vanguard active funds what is Vanguard thinking active funds are terrible" threads for 15 years. And after all that, I've come to one conclusion - cost is the only thing that matters and Vanguard's active funds are low cost. So - you are probably fine either way.

I do realize there are some additional advantages to index funds, but it's not like Vanguard is totally out to left field with their active offerings.

The above core has performed very very well over the past 15 years and I still hold it. Luck? I don't know, but the funds are underpinned by their low cost advantage and that is what Vanguard brings to the table - in both their index and active offerings.
manwithnoname
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:52 pm

Re: The benefits of active-passive combinations

Post by manwithnoname »

kenschmidt wrote:In 1998, I picked Primecap and Windsor II as core holdings. Other funds considered were the Index 500 fund, and a 50/50 split between Growth Index and Value Index - which because of the poor choice of the Barra indexes ended up being the same as the Index 500. I wanted to split growth and value so I went with the active funds.

I began posting on the old Morningstar forum shortly after that. I've read these "Vanguard active funds what is Vanguard thinking active funds are terrible" threads for 15 years. And after all that, I've come to one conclusion - cost is the only thing that matters and Vanguard's active funds are low cost. So - you are probably fine either way.

I do realize there are some additional advantages to index funds, but it's not like Vanguard is totally out to left field with their active offerings.

The above core has performed very very well over the past 15 years and I still hold it. Luck? I don't know, but the funds are underpinned by their low cost advantage and that is what Vanguard brings to the table - in both their index and active offerings.
I have owned Windsor II for several years because of its value strategy and kept it during the 08-09 decline. Admiral shares have .27ER. I agree that cost is the only thing that matters. For last 10 years Windsor II Admiral shares have slightly exceeded the performance of the Russell 1000 Value index with 0.75% better performance than the S & P 500 which has a .05ER. I recognize that sometimes value funds beat index funds and some times index funds beat value funds but I am satisfied with Windsor II.
Post Reply