Explore the core principles of active portfolio management, including the search for alpha, fundamental law of active management, and best practices for strategy implementation.
Active portfolio management is often viewed as the great quest in the investment world: everyone wants to “beat the market,” but only some manage to do it consistently. In this section, we’ll explore the core ideas that underpin active management, such as the pursuit of alpha (excess return above a benchmark), the Information Ratio (IR), and the Fundamental Law of Active Management. We’ll also walk through examples of active strategies, discuss transaction costs and capacity constraints, and share a few personal anecdotes and tips along the way.
Before we jump in, let’s clarify a few key terms. We’ll use them often, so keep them in mind:
• Active Management: An investment approach that attempts to outperform a benchmark index by selecting securities (security selection) or timing markets (market timing)—or both.
• Passive Management: A strategy that aims to replicate market returns by holding a benchmark or index, essentially accepting market performance rather than trying to beat it.
• Alpha (α): The excess return above a benchmark that active managers seek to generate.
• Information Ratio (IR): A measure of active performance relative to the active risk taken.
• Fundamental Law of Active Management: A framework describing how skill, breadth, and implementation come together to determine a manager’s expected performance.
Let’s take a closer look at how this all comes together.
Active management has a simple (though not easy) goal: Go beyond what a passive alternative would yield. Passive management, on the other hand, says, “Why try to outsmart markets that are already quite efficient? Let’s just match the market at minimal cost.”
• Passive Management: Suppose you buy the S&P 500 Index through an ETF, and you just sit on it. That’s it. No fancy trades, minimal fees, market-level return net of expense ratio.
• Active Management: Let’s say you have a hunch that a certain tech stock is underpriced. Or you think the energy sector will outperform after a policy change. You adjust your portfolio accordingly, hoping these bets deliver alpha.
The main driver behind active management is alpha potential. If a manager believes they have superior information, better models, or a more nuanced view of a certain market (or sub-sector) than the rest of the crowd, they might successfully capture that edge. Of course, it’s easier said than done—most professional money managers struggle to consistently outperform their benchmarks in the long run.
The Information Ratio is a cornerstone metric for evaluating an active manager’s skill relative to the extra risk they take versus a benchmark.
In formula terms, the IR is often written as:
Where:
Essentially, it measures how well the manager transforms active risk into active return. A high IR means the manager generates a decent amount of excess return for each unit of active risk; a low IR suggests otherwise.
The Sharpe Ratio is:
Where \( r_f \) is the risk-free rate and \( \sigma_p \) is the standard deviation of the portfolio’s total returns. The Sharpe Ratio focuses on total risk, while the IR specifically focuses on active risk relative to a benchmark. If your job is purely to outperform a benchmark, the IR is often more relevant.
The Fundamental Law of Active Management (attributed largely to Grinold and Kahn) connects four powerful concepts:
The Fundamental Law of Active Management states, in simplified form:
In words: Your IR is roughly the product of your skill (IC), times the square root of the number of independent bets you make (BR), times your ability to implement those bets (TC). We can visualize this with a simple Mermaid diagram:
graph LR
A["Manager Skill <br/>(Information Coefficient)"] --> B["Number of <br/>Independent Bets (Breadth)"]
B["Number of <br/>Independent Bets (Breadth)"] --> C["Implementation <br/>(Transfer Coefficient)"]
C["Implementation <br/>(Transfer Coefficient)"] --> D["Information <br/>Ratio (IR)"]
The moral of the story is that even with top-notch skill, a manager might not deliver strong performance if they lack breadth or can’t fully implement their insights due to capacity constraints, regulatory constraints, or other portfolio restrictions.
Sector rotation strategies involve tilting the portfolio toward sectors expected to outperform under certain economic conditions and away from sectors expected to underperform. For instance, an active manager might decide that consumer discretionary will benefit from rising consumer sentiment, while utilities might lag during an expansion. By periodically rotating allocations, the manager aims to capture relative outperformance.
• Example: Let’s say you’re convinced technology stocks will skyrocket because of a new wave of artificial intelligence adoption. You overweight the tech sector, underweight everything else. If your timing is good and your research is accurate, you earn alpha.
Style investing is about categorizing stocks into value, growth, momentum, or other characteristics, and then systematically overweighting or underweighting based on those style factors.
• Value Investing: Emphasizes stocks trading below their intrinsic worth based on fundamentals. Idea: eventually, the market will realize these stocks are “cheap,” and the prices will rise.
• Growth Investing: Focuses on companies with high growth potential, possibly with elevated valuations. The theory is these companies could keep expanding sales and earnings and justify their higher prices.
Let’s say your research finds that value stocks are historically cheap relative to their sector norms and typically do well in the aftermath of recessions. You overweight those stocks, hoping for revaluation. This is a classic example of an active bet.
Another approach is to ride the trend—stocks (or any other assets) that have performed well over the past 3–12 months tend to continue outperforming in the short term. Momentum strategies buy winners and sell (or short) losers, at least until the trend fades.
• Example: If you see a biotech stock that’s rallied for the past six months with consistently positive clinical trial news, you might guess the positive drift will continue. That’s the essence of momentum investing.
Now, here’s the ugly truth that has frustrated many an active manager: Even if your skill is top-notch, transaction costs and management fees can eat away at your alpha. I distinctly recall my early days working with a small-cap strategy: we had all these brilliant stock picks, but as we traded in illiquid markets, transaction costs sometimes devoured a chunk of our outperformance. It was an eye-opener.
• Transaction Costs: Costs include commissions, bid-ask spreads, market impact, and the opportunity cost of placing large orders in markets with limited liquidity.
• Management Fees: High management fees reduce net returns to clients. If your active strategy charges 2% but only outperforms by 2.5%, you might end up delivering just 0.5% net alpha—if everything goes perfectly.
In extremely efficient or liquid markets, the cost of trading can be relatively modest, but as you stray into niche or less liquid markets in search of alpha, trading expenses often creep up. Skilled managers can manage their turnover (i.e., the frequency of trades) and carefully enter and exit positions to mitigate these costs.
A less obvious concept is capacity. A strategy that shows spectacular returns on a $50 million portfolio may not seamlessly scale to $5 billion. Here’s why:
• Liquidity Limits: Some assets (like thinly traded small-cap stocks or certain derivatives) can’t accommodate large buy or sell orders without moving the market itself. When your trade is so large that you affect the price, you may get less-attractive fills.
• Diminishing Breadth: As you become bigger, you might have to concentrate in fewer securities or broaden into areas outside your core expertise. Both can hamper performance.
• Regulatory or Risk Constraints: A manager of a huge fund might face additional regulatory oversight or risk constraints, restricting the manager’s ability to trade freely.
Think of it like trying to turn a small speedboat versus a giant cargo ship. The speedboat can zip around quickly to capture small, fleeting opportunities, whereas the cargo ship needs more space and time to maneuver.
Active portfolio management is a balancing act between seeking alpha and controlling all sorts of real-world frictions. A manager’s success depends on:
• Skill (Information Coefficient)
• Breadth (How many independent bets they can effectively make)
• Transfer Coefficient (How effectively they apply their insights)
• Active Risk (Tracking error taken relative to the benchmark)
• Controlling Transaction Costs & Fees
• Managing Capacity Constraints
No single ingredient ensures success on its own. Instead, it’s about combining them in a balanced way, often with a detailed investment process designed to capture opportunities and manage risk.
• Design a Structured Investment Process: Clear definitions of how ideas are generated, tested, and sized can improve consistency.
• Maintain Realistic Expectations: Overconfidence in skill or ignoring transaction costs can ruin your actual results.
• Watch Style Drift: Don’t let your stated style morph into something else without a solid rationale. If you’re a “value” manager, for instance, keep your approach consistent unless you have a well-thought-out strategy shift.
• Monitor Capacity Proactively: It’s easy to ignore capacity constraints when you’re relatively small, but a strategy can stop working once it grows too large.
• Manage Risk Dynamically: If your tracking error is too high, you could occasionally shoot the lights out, but you could also crash hard. Conversely, too little active risk means you’re essentially a closet indexer.
I’ll never forget the day I realized that “winning” in active management isn’t just about finding that magical undervalued stock. It’s equally about not losing your gains to fees, taxes, liquidity problems, and all sorts of daily challenges. One time, our team used a sector rotation approach that, on paper, seemed bulletproof—until we discovered how large our trading costs were each quarter. We ended up scaling down monthly trades to quarterly adjustments to manage those costs. The end result? Our alpha improved simply by trading less frequently.
So, yes, there are many moving parts here. But that’s what makes active management both challenging and (for many) fun. If you’re a numbers nerd or thrive on puzzle-solving, figuring out how to blend these elements can be deeply satisfying.
• CFA Institute Program Curriculum, Level II, readings on Active Portfolio Management.
• Grinold, R. C., & Kahn, R. N. (1999). Active Portfolio Management: A Quantitative Approach for Producing Superior Returns and Controlling Risk.
Important Notice: FinancialAnalystGuide.com provides supplemental CFA study materials, including mock exams, sample exam questions, and other practice resources to aid your exam preparation. These resources are not affiliated with or endorsed by the CFA Institute. CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are registered trademarks owned exclusively by CFA Institute. Our content is independent, and we do not guarantee exam success. CFA Institute does not endorse, promote, or warrant the accuracy or quality of our products.