Comparative effectiveness of active and passive investment strategies
No Thumbnail Available
Files
Date
2025
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
NHCE
Abstract
This comprehensive study examines the comparative effectiveness of active and passive investment strategies through rigorous analysis of 50 mutual funds over a five-year period (2019-2023), incorporating performance data, cost structures, and behavioral insights from 500 investor surveys. The research addresses the fundamental question of whether active management's potential for outperformance justifies its higher costs and increased complexity compared to passive investing's systematic market exposure approach.
The analysis reveals a nuanced investment landscape where passive strategies demonstrate clear superiority in risk-adjusted, after-cost returns for most investors over extended time horizons. While active funds generated marginally higher gross returns averaging 12.4% compared to 11.8% for passive funds, this 0.6 percentage point advantage becomes meaningless when adjusted for risk and costs. Passive funds achieved superior Sharpe ratios of
1.12 versus 0.84 for active funds, indicating better risk-adjusted performance. Most significantly, the substantial cost differential—active funds averaging 1.75% expense ratios compared to 0.30% for passive funds—creates a compounding disadvantage that dramatically impacts long-term wealth accumulation.