| |
|||
| |
|||
| |
|
||
Many people are led to believe that active managers can provide a greater advantage and higher value to investors in the small-cap versus large-cap market, thus resulting in a larger alpha. A large alpha infers that the stock or mutual fund has performed better than would be expected based on its volatility or risk, suggesting that active management is the reason for the better than expected performance. Richard M. Ennis and Michael D. Sebastian constructed a sample of 128 products from the Mobius Group M-Search database, a small-cap database of institutional commingled funds and composites of separate accounts. They concluded that this so-called small-cap-alpha advantage is actually the "small-cap-alpha myth." At first view, it appears that a small-cap alpha advantage does exist. When looking at the ten-year period ending June 30, 2001, their research showed that the median portfolio in their sample outperformed the Russell 2000 Index by 4.04%. But a more accurate picture formed when they delved deeper. When three important
performance evaluation methods were considered, the alpha diminished to
virtually zero. These performance evaluation errors include 1) neglecting
to account for management fees, 2) comparing the portfolio to an inappropriate
benchmark, and 3) overlooking survivorship bias.
When considering all
three performance evaluation errors, Ennis and Sebastian concluded that
the true median alpha in their sample is "likely to be zero or
negative, not 4%." They summarized that there is "no
support for the claim that active management of small-cap portfolios is
any more fruitful than it is for large-cap portfolios." In other
words, forget about it! Focus on the only important question of investing:
"what asset allocation of index funds is most appropriate for you?"
Source: "The Small-Cap-Alpha Myth", Richard M. Ennis, CFA; Michael D. Sebastian, Ennis Knupp + Associates, September 2001 (www.ennisknupp.com).
|
|