Robeco logo

Disclaimer

De informatie op deze website is uitsluitend bedoeld voor professionele partijen. Een professioneel belegger is: een belegger die beroepsmatig over voldoende kennis, deskundigheid en ervaring beschikt om de financiële risico’s van de zelf genomen beleggingsbeslissing(en) adequaat in te schatten.

Bezoekers van deze website dienen zich ervan bewust te zijn dat zij zelf verantwoordelijk zijn voor naleving van alle in hun eigen land geldende wetten en voorschriften.

Door op Akkoord te klikken, bevestigt u dat u een professionele belegger bent. Indien u op Niet akkoord klikt, wordt u doorverwezen naar de omgeving voor particulieren.

21-02-2017 · From the field

Active weight instead of active share?

A 2015 study1 argues that a simplified measure of activeness, termed active weight, is even more effective than active share. Unlike active share, it does not need to assume an appropriate benchmark index, but simply compares the weights of the stocks held by a fund with the weights these stocks would have had if they had been weighted in proportion to their market capitalizations.

    Auteurs

  • David Blitz - Chief Researcher

    David Blitz

    Chief Researcher

The empirical results presented in the study support the claim that active weight is more effective than active share, and captures something different. However, it may be prone to the same issues that plague active share. For instance, active weight also tends to be higher for small-cap funds than for large-cap funds, and it is unclear how effective the measure is within these categories. It is also unclear what would happen if we adjusted active weight appropriately for differences in active risk and fee levels.

Footnote

1Doshi, Elkamhi & Simutin, “Managerial Activeness and Mutual Fund Performance”, Review of Asset Pricing Studies 5 (2), 2015, pp. 156-184

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