Active portfolio management has historically been characterized by strategies that diverge from a chosen benchmark in pursuit of superior returns. However, this approach is undergoing re-evaluation, with a growing emphasis on more nuanced metrics to gauge true investment skill. The concept of Tracking Error (TE), defined as the standard deviation of excess returns, is pivotal in this discussion, quantifying the active risk taken against a benchmark. It is increasingly recognized that a deeper understanding of active risk is essential, as different investors have varied objectives. While high TE strategies might appeal to those seeking distinctive, style-specific alpha, lower TE approaches are gaining traction for their potential to demonstrate consistent excess returns through genuine stock selection expertise.
The traditional paradigm of active management often involved fund managers making significant deviations from their benchmarks, hoping these bold bets would lead to outperformance. This "benchmark-chasing" mentality, while prevalent, has frequently led to inconsistent results and can obscure the real talent of a manager. The authors, Joshua Lisser and Geoff Tomlinson, CFA, propose a shift in perspective. They argue that excessive benchmark bets can, in fact, backfire, suggesting that a more measured approach, characterized by lower active risk, may be a more effective way to demonstrate a manager's true skill in identifying promising stocks.
Tracking Error (TE) serves as a critical measure in this revised framework. It quantifies the volatility of a portfolio's returns relative to its benchmark, providing insight into the degree of active risk being undertaken. A higher TE indicates greater divergence from the benchmark, implying more aggressive active decisions. Conversely, a lower TE suggests a portfolio that closely mirrors its benchmark while still aiming for outperformance. The article posits that for core equity allocations, managers who can generate consistent excess returns with a lower TE are demonstrating a superior, more reliable form of alpha generation.
This re-evaluation extends to understanding the diverse nature of active risk. The authors stress that not all active risk is created equal, and investment outcomes are not universally desired. For certain investors, particularly those interested in capturing specific style-driven alpha, strategies with a higher TE can be appropriate. These strategies are designed to capitalize on distinct market segments or investment philosophies, accepting a greater divergence from the benchmark in pursuit of specialized returns. However, for broader core equity portfolios, where stability and consistent outperformance are often paramount, the focus shifts to managers who can deliver alpha with more controlled active risk.
Therefore, the emphasis is shifting towards evaluating active managers not solely on their ability to beat a benchmark, but on how they achieve that outperformance. Managers demonstrating lower tracking error, coupled with consistent excess returns, are increasingly seen as exhibiting superior stock-picking skill. This nuanced view acknowledges that while aggressive, high-TE strategies have their place for specific investment goals, the consistent generation of alpha with controlled risk is a hallmark of truly skilled active management, especially for foundational equity holdings.
