Speaker 1: Welcome to Inside Active, a podcast about active managers that
Speaker 1: goes beyond side bites and headlines and looks deeper into
Speaker 1: their processes, challenges and philosophies and security selection. I'm David Cohne,
Speaker 1: I lead mutual fund and active Research at Bloomberg Intelligence.
Speaker 1: Access to markets has changed dramatically over the past decade.
Speaker 1: Strategies that were once hard to reach are now being
Speaker 1: delivered through ETFs models and new structures designed to scale.
Speaker 1: But as access expands and raises a different set of
Speaker 1: questions about capacity outcomes and whether making something more accessible
Speaker 1: changes would investments actually get Today? I wanted to explore
Speaker 1: what that means for active management and how the industry
Speaker 1: is balancing innovation with discipline. Joining me to discuss that
Speaker 1: is A'm A Palia, Executive Vice president in chief business
Speaker 1: officer for State Street Investment Management. Anna. Thank you for
Speaker 1: joining me today.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me, So let's.
Speaker 1: Dive right in. Do you think the industry has moved
Speaker 1: past the whole active versus passive debate or kind of
Speaker 1: you think it's still as a useful framing.
Speaker 2: Oh my goodness, I really hope that the industry is
Speaker 2: now past the active versus passive debate because as you
Speaker 2: as you may know, and I'm sure that you know
Speaker 2: it really, really well, we have been talking about this
Speaker 2: for the last thirty years, active versus passive, which became
Speaker 2: a musual fans of versus ETFs. Ultimately, it's not really
Speaker 2: an either or one is better than the other. Is
Speaker 2: really a matter of understanding how to use active strategies
Speaker 2: and passive strategies when building a portfolio. I also think
Speaker 2: that the industry is a lot of really good world
Speaker 2: educating clients, educating investors about the differences between the content
Speaker 2: and the technology. The idea of rapper is a technology.
Speaker 2: It's not a content, It's just the meme by which
Speaker 2: content is delivered to investors. Now historically IDA so only passive,
Speaker 2: hence the debate active versus passive. But in the end,
Speaker 2: the idea of rapper is just a phenomenal technology that
Speaker 2: is really upgrading the way by which we deliver content
Speaker 2: to our clients.
Speaker 1: So if we go a little further, do you think
Speaker 1: half of has gone too far anywhere where it's actually
Speaker 1: made markets less efficient, you know, creating opportunities for active.
Speaker 2: I don't think that. I don't think that passive has
Speaker 2: gone too far. I think that passive is doing exactly
Speaker 2: what the passive is designed to do. Passive was born
Speaker 2: as a market exposure in a way that is cost effective,
Speaker 2: tax efficients and allows investors to get a slice of
Speaker 2: the market. Passive is really meant to be predictable. So
Speaker 2: the way you are looking passive to a portfolio is
Speaker 2: using an old book. I don't take passive has gone
Speaker 2: too far. I actually think that there are other opportunities
Speaker 2: for ass IF to continue to innovate, even if the
Speaker 2: market is becoming more and more crowded as we go.
Speaker 1: And so if we kind of talk about how you
Speaker 1: active and passive both places, do you think that clients
Speaker 1: still have a misunderstanding of active management today? You know
Speaker 1: what they're actually asking for that you know doesn't necessarily
Speaker 1: lead to better outcomes?
Speaker 2: Well, you know, David, returns are incredibly important, and I
Speaker 2: do believe that active management is struggling not because of
Speaker 2: the legal wrapper, but because the benchmarks are incredibly strong.
Speaker 2: We have seen several years of very strong epudy markets,
Speaker 2: especially US domestic epity markets, and it has been really
Speaker 2: hard for active managers to outperform the benchmarks. So I
Speaker 2: do think that the investors are driven by the outcome.
Speaker 2: They are driven by returns. And at a time when
Speaker 2: it's really easy to go in and out of a
Speaker 2: fund or to trade the ETFs out of digital wealth platforms,
Speaker 2: redoos are becoming incredibly important. I don't think that investors
Speaker 2: have the patients that they had before to say, well,
Speaker 2: the active strategy is underperforming. I'm gonna wait for the explanation.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna give it another year, two years, or five years.
Speaker 2: We live in an environment in which investment choices are
Speaker 2: the fingertips of our investors. And I think that the
Speaker 2: patience of longer term investors and that we saw in
Speaker 2: the last decade is slowly evaporating and showing very strong returns,
Speaker 2: showing a very strong strategy that generates alpha is the
Speaker 2: key between an investor choice between an active strategy and
Speaker 2: a passive exposure product.
Speaker 1: So one of the things we've noticed is, you know,
Speaker 1: especially kind of this kind of rebound and active management,
Speaker 1: you know where Pastor was kind of dominating for quite
Speaker 1: a while. And you know, obviously the VTF structure helps
Speaker 1: a lot. You know, it's you know, investors prefer that,
Speaker 1: but you know, we kind of looked at feet compression
Speaker 1: is another issue that I think has kind of helped
Speaker 1: active along. Do you think that fee compression has improved
Speaker 1: the quality of active management or you know, is there
Speaker 1: kind of a flip side where you know, it's less
Speaker 1: revenue and could make it harder to invest in talent.
Speaker 2: You know. The way I look at that is really simple.
Speaker 2: Investors are winning here because these active and passive I
Speaker 2: have some usual funds. The dynamic that we have been observing,
Speaker 2: especially in the last decade, really showed that for active
Speaker 2: managers to outperform their benchmarks and to have a favorite
Speaker 2: allocation within a client portfolio, they have to show competitive
Speaker 2: fees and they have to show outstanding performance. And I'm
Speaker 2: not just talking about you know, top half or top
Speaker 2: one third. You have to show very good, strong performance
Speaker 2: top desile to begin with. So to me, in this
Speaker 2: competitive environment, investors of really the winners because everything is
Speaker 2: fully transparent. Pis right there. You can get a slice
Speaker 2: of the sm P five hundred four as little as
Speaker 2: two paces points. And if active managers cannot beat the
Speaker 2: s m P five hundred and charge more than that,
Speaker 2: it's going to be really really hard for that strategy
Speaker 2: to have a favorite place in a client portfolio. However,
Speaker 2: the other thing that is happening is that really strong
Speaker 2: as locators are winning. We have seen that the new
Speaker 2: flexibility and the exemptive orders that the SEC has approved
Speaker 2: have opened the door to active strategies finding a place
Speaker 2: in the DF rapper. We have seen that with a
Speaker 2: mutual fund that WEDF conversion. We will see it and
Speaker 2: more and more again with the EDF share classes of
Speaker 2: mutual funds. So strong active strategies based on fundamentals, with
Speaker 2: a very strong truck reper that wrap, you know, very
Speaker 2: modern technology like itty apps is really going to continue
Speaker 2: to drive. And we have seen the results last year
Speaker 2: where five hundred and eighty billion dollars of net new
Speaker 2: assets in the ETF industry. We're really originating out of
Speaker 2: active strategies, either through conversions or new fund launchers. Now,
Speaker 2: not all active strategies are creative. Well, again, performance is paramounts.
Speaker 2: It's not a coincidence that there is a big difference
Speaker 2: between the growth of a fixed income activity apps and
Speaker 2: the growth of equity activity apps. In fixed income you
Speaker 2: can really use very thoughtful and very strategic active por
Speaker 2: foreign management strategies to us perform most of the benchmarks,
Speaker 2: and this is why active fixed income is going faster
Speaker 2: than active equity. But in the end, you know, performance
Speaker 2: is really going to drive flows.
Speaker 1: So if we you know, we talk about you know
Speaker 1: why active ETFs are doing so much better than active
Speaker 1: mutual funds. But can you think of a reason which
Speaker 1: would make an act strategy work better in a mutual
Speaker 1: fund as opposed to an ETF.
Speaker 2: Well, there are a number of reasons for that. I'm
Speaker 2: not saying I'm not saying that the ETFs are always
Speaker 2: the best possible rapper for a given strategy. The first
Speaker 2: thing that you have to look at is capacity. We
Speaker 2: you know at State Street Investment Management that we operate
Speaker 2: a wide platform aware. We are very much wrapper aware,
Speaker 2: and I don't like to see rap proagnostic because I
Speaker 2: think about proagnostic is a little bit of a mistake.
Speaker 2: Rapper aware being a rapper aware. It's really important we
Speaker 2: offer our capabilities a true ETFs. Some usual funds CI
Speaker 2: is in separate mandates. So for us, it's really relevant.
Speaker 2: We don't have a view about what wrapper is best
Speaker 2: for a certain strategy, But what is really important is
Speaker 2: one what the client wants, what type of clients we
Speaker 2: are going to offer strategies to and capacity. Ultimately, when
Speaker 2: we make a decision about launching an ETF, we always
Speaker 2: have to ask ourselves what happens if we become the
Speaker 2: victims of our own success? What happens if this fund
Speaker 2: becomes widely successful and we're going to be able to
Speaker 2: operate this strategy yart of fifty billion dollars one hundred
Speaker 2: billion dollars over one hundred billion dollars Because unlike mutual funds,
Speaker 2: you cannot close an ETF, you cannot suspend the redemptions.
Speaker 2: The DF is going to have to continually trade. The
Speaker 2: EDF is going to have to be open for peacemas
Speaker 2: and provide a daily liquidity. And if there are strategies
Speaker 2: based on maybe concentrated strategies or securities that are less
Speaker 2: liquid then what you would like to see in an ETF,
Speaker 2: then the EDF may not be the best of rapper. Again,
Speaker 2: it's not the one in the other. There are some
Speaker 2: nuances that you have to take into account during the
Speaker 2: product development process.
Speaker 1: If we go a little deeper on that, you know,
Speaker 1: you know, as as a managers think about capacity and scalability,
Speaker 1: and you know, especially for firms that haven't made the
Speaker 1: move yet. How do flows play a role? I guess
Speaker 1: you know, even something like model portfolios, which can drive
Speaker 1: flows at scale. How how do you think about that
Speaker 1: that when it comes to capacity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well you have to think about capacity, and there
Speaker 2: are many different lenses because our product innovation journey is
Speaker 2: not just that the manufacturing level. So capacity is not
Speaker 2: just about the building a fund, launching a usual fund,
Speaker 2: launching NDF. If you are launching andF, you have to
Speaker 2: think about how is this product going to be consumed.
Speaker 2: Mother portfolios are certainly gonna play a role that is
Speaker 2: going to be more and more important in the next
Speaker 2: three to five years because technology is making it possible
Speaker 2: for small clients to use moder portfolios and it tfs
Speaker 2: play a big role in there. But I'm also thinking
Speaker 2: about directing, daxing, directing vaxing and those you know taxa
Speaker 2: alpha generating platforms are using dfs. Some of them are
Speaker 2: are also using the musual funds, but most modern portfolios
Speaker 2: that we see are really using dfs as building blocks.
Speaker 2: So you have to look at many different dimensions of liquidity,
Speaker 2: in many different dimensions of flows. How much of the
Speaker 2: flow do you expect to come from mother portfolios, from
Speaker 2: directingdxing platforms, from digital world. That's the distribution network that
Speaker 2: is growing faster than wealth and institutional and those investors
Speaker 2: not buying usual funds, they buy dfs. So what type
Speaker 2: of strategies do you want to put the market And
Speaker 2: are you reasonably sure that the combination of the wealth
Speaker 2: institutional model, portfolios, direct indexing and digital wealth is not
Speaker 2: going to cause this funder to lose its liquidity and
Speaker 2: you know the strength of the Weber may be compromised.
Speaker 1: That makes sense. We switch scares just a little bit.
Speaker 1: I just want to talk about launching active products. And
Speaker 1: you know, when you're evaluating a potential launch of a product,
Speaker 1: you what separates a real need from just, you know,
Speaker 1: product proliferation.
Speaker 2: That's such a good question because last year we have
Speaker 2: seen a lot of product proliferation. I believe that the
Speaker 2: ETF market so something like one and seventy seven and
Speaker 2: new products are coming to market in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: But of those products, only a handful were able to
Speaker 2: cross one hundred billion dollars in one billion dollars in
Speaker 2: in the first twelve months of their life. And the
Speaker 2: reason for data is pretty simple. Launching products is easy.
Speaker 2: Launching the right products is not really easy. And I
Speaker 2: do think that those sponsors of those asset managers that
Speaker 2: are able to generate that type of growth, asset managers
Speaker 2: that do not innovate for the sake of innovation, they
Speaker 2: are able to step away from these vanity projects where
Speaker 2: you know, I have a great idea, I can manage
Speaker 2: a great portfolio, so I'm going to build it and
Speaker 2: they will can build it and they will come, or
Speaker 2: really doesn't work in an IF flaw and for what
Speaker 2: it's worth, it doesn't even work in a musual fund land.
Speaker 2: So we have pretty much moved the way from a
Speaker 2: manufacturer standpoints. Whenever we start a product innovation journey, we
Speaker 2: don't start from our own capabilities. We start from the
Speaker 2: other end of the process, which is the client. Everything
Speaker 2: is very much data driven. We look at flows, we
Speaker 2: look at the bottom up assessment of what we hear
Speaker 2: from clients on the ground. With you're you know, we
Speaker 2: have a very stronger salesforce puts on the ground every
Speaker 2: day talking to clients and bringing that intelligence back into
Speaker 2: our innovation hub. And whenever we assess gaps in markets,
Speaker 2: so this is where this is where our process starts.
Speaker 2: It doesn't start from the manufacturing side. It starts from
Speaker 2: our clients and then we work backwards. We try to
Speaker 2: build that capability and we also ask ourselves are we
Speaker 2: best in class with this? We have built a platebook
Speaker 2: that is really successful when it comes to partnerships. We
Speaker 2: don't have to be best in class of everything. You know,
Speaker 2: we know exactly where our strengths are. We know etrs,
Speaker 2: we know liquidity, we know secondary markets, we know primary markets.
Speaker 2: This is this isn't very much the strength of our platform,
Speaker 2: but if there are things that we are not already created,
Speaker 2: so we don't have an issue saying we are gonna
Speaker 2: call a friend here and we are gonna partner with
Speaker 2: somebody who is a best in class at this particular thing.
Speaker 2: We partnered with a Bridge order to bring us into
Speaker 2: it apps. We partnered with Apollo to bring a private
Speaker 2: credit to it apps. We partnered with Galaxy to bring
Speaker 2: digital assets into it apps. So for us, it's really
Speaker 2: about filling a gap and then working backwards so to
Speaker 2: understand who has the cababilities to deliver about them.
Speaker 1: So if we think about the next wave of innovation,
Speaker 1: do you think you could be coming from asset classes
Speaker 1: like private markets or how I guess you would say
Speaker 1: strategies are packaged and distributed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't really look at asset classes a versus strategies. Again,
Speaker 2: we look at we look at investors needs, and we
Speaker 2: follow the money because when you follow the money, you
Speaker 2: are never wrong. You know exactly what our clients are buying,
Speaker 2: and it gives you an idea of what particular teams
Speaker 2: they are focusing on today, but may driver flows in
Speaker 2: the future, and those teams may be low cost, it
Speaker 2: may be income. If you look at the biggest drivers
Speaker 2: of flows in the first four months of this year,
Speaker 2: which is also something that we have seen in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five, so this is not just a change in trends,
Speaker 2: we see that half of the flows come from low
Speaker 2: cost low cost exposure. I don't know if this is
Speaker 2: going to change when a market markets start to crack,
Speaker 2: and right now we have had the luxury of living
Speaker 2: in a period of stronger everydy markets, so low cost
Speaker 2: has really been a driver. Fifty percent of the assets
Speaker 2: are really originated out of the desire to add as
Speaker 2: slice of the market at a very low price. Income
Speaker 2: is the need for income and not limiting that to
Speaker 2: dividends is what has really because the and propelled the
Speaker 2: proliferation of the income oriented products. So we have seen
Speaker 2: many of these examples in market, but also we have
Speaker 2: seen buffer dtfs really taking a fair share of flows
Speaker 2: the last year and this year, stemming from clients desires
Speaker 2: to control the downside a little, even if they are
Speaker 2: compromising the upside slightly. So what we do is really
Speaker 2: move away from as a classes and really look at
Speaker 2: these teams as a classes specific. If I really were
Speaker 2: to go there, I would tell you that the fixed
Speaker 2: InCom is a big focus of ours because we do
Speaker 2: believe that the active selection matters when it comes to
Speaker 2: fixed INCAM and we will continue to look at opportunities
Speaker 2: to innovate in active fixed income opposs trough usual funds
Speaker 2: of dfs.
Speaker 1: Okay, I do want to focus on one as a
Speaker 1: class for just a second. I do kind of want
Speaker 1: to go back to the private markets because products like
Speaker 1: Priver just really interesting to me, and you know, trying
Speaker 1: to bring less liquid exposures into you know, a more
Speaker 1: accessible rapper. You know, I know, I'd love to know
Speaker 1: and my listeners would love to know what had it changed.
Speaker 1: I guess internally to make something like it possible, that's a.
Speaker 2: Really good question. Two things have to change, price, transparency,
Speaker 2: and liquidity. Now, when we started working on prive or
Speaker 2: prive industry, it's really fifty to fifty. When we started
Speaker 2: working on these funds, we formed a number of beliefs.
Speaker 2: Belief number one is that private markets and public markets
Speaker 2: will converge. We have seen this movie before, we have
Speaker 2: watched it. It sounds like a rep heat of what
Speaker 2: we observed with senior loans, emergeny markets, emergy markets, debts.
Speaker 2: You know, those markets were inaccessible, ill liquid and then
Speaker 2: slowly that liquidity was created and markets conversion. And we
Speaker 2: do believe that this is the beginning of the journey
Speaker 2: between a public market and private markets. We also formed
Speaker 2: another belief which is especially when it times to private credit,
Speaker 2: private credit can still command the higher yells compared to
Speaker 2: the more traditional public side of credit. And we also
Speaker 2: believe that quality matters, so selection matters. Not all private
Speaker 2: credit is created equal. And when we built this fund,
Speaker 2: we really thought about fixing an exposure that provides out
Speaker 2: performance compared to the benchmark. With the inclusion of a
Speaker 2: private credit component. Now, our partnership with Apolo really helped
Speaker 2: us make ourselves comfortable when it comes to the liquidity
Speaker 2: so a'poloys providing a liquidity backstop to the funds. So
Speaker 2: in cases in which we decide that we want to
Speaker 2: sell those assets, I've always agreed to buy them back
Speaker 2: Upolo is also giving us price transparency. We get three
Speaker 2: puts a day on each one of those assets from Apolo.
Speaker 2: We value those acsets internally independently of the bole, and
Speaker 2: we also hire an independent data because we are not
Speaker 2: satisfied with the first two sets of data, so we
Speaker 2: converge all of these different data points and we come
Speaker 2: up with a pricing that we believe is in bigadiva
Speaker 2: of the value of the security, and we put that
Speaker 2: price on our website. Again, the transformative thing about this
Speaker 2: product is that we are providing a level of transparency
Speaker 2: about these assets that did not exist before. And thirty
Speaker 2: years ago when the first idiods were launched, what we
Speaker 2: discovered was that a transparency enables arbitrash, and arbitrash makes
Speaker 2: everybody honest. So I mean, we have seen this fund
Speaker 2: the first of all, delivering the results that we expected
Speaker 2: to see right now the fund is outperforming, is benchmarkt
Speaker 2: in a way that is meaningful. We are talking about
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety five basis pints depending on the period, and
Speaker 2: we are really satisfied and pleased with the liquidity of
Speaker 2: the assets that were including the private segment of the portfolio.
Speaker 2: So we didn't go one hundred percent pilots because we
Speaker 2: don't think the market is right for that. We don't
Speaker 2: think that there is enough liquidity to support a fund
Speaker 2: that is one hundred percent private and provides daily liquidity.
Speaker 2: But we do believe that we are at the beginning
Speaker 2: of the journey, and that journey is going to end
Speaker 2: in three years or five years in a place where
Speaker 2: we are going to have price transparency, we are going
Speaker 2: to have liquidity, and investors will really be able to
Speaker 2: take advantage of that. I mean, in the end, the
Speaker 2: mission of ETFs over the last thirty years has been
Speaker 2: one of democratizing access. It has not been passive. I
Speaker 2: mean people people always equate the ETFs so with passive,
Speaker 2: that's not the mission of this product. The mission of
Speaker 2: this product is breaking down bar years democratizing access to
Speaker 2: financial instruments and democratizing accessor to the active performance of
Speaker 2: private markets is going to be the X frontier of
Speaker 2: this market.
Speaker 1: But for now, if investors are looking at prove, should
Speaker 1: they consider that a fixed income exposure where they're getting
Speaker 1: access to both public and private as opposed to know,
Speaker 1: an alternative allocation in their portfolio.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a really good question. We don't consider that
Speaker 2: an alternative a location. We build this fund and we
Speaker 2: continue to market this fund is a reinvention of court plus.
Speaker 2: We really looked at the core plus category. We didn't
Speaker 2: want to do a court plus plus, but we said
Speaker 2: if we are able to incorporate that is additional eels
Speaker 2: and to this portfolio, we will be able to ramagic
Speaker 2: cored cluss a reinvent cored cluss. So this is not
Speaker 2: going to be something that fits the also bucket in
Speaker 2: a client portfolio. To me, this is a compliment to
Speaker 2: the fixed income exposure where if you are looking for
Speaker 2: a core CLUS allocation, this fund is going to give
Speaker 2: you cord clus the same risk profile or a similar
Speaker 2: risk profile of traditional core class strategies with the other
Speaker 2: benefit of the additional private yield.
Speaker 1: You know, one thing you had mentioned is democratizing the markets,
Speaker 1: and I guess My question is how does the active
Speaker 1: management fit into that mission? You know, just giving it.
Speaker 1: You know, I should say historically higher cost structure. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously fees are going down, but I guess how do
Speaker 1: you view that as part of it?
Speaker 2: Yes, well, alpha s paramount. Usually when investors look at
Speaker 2: the returns, they look at returns net of fees. So
Speaker 2: if you can, if you can deliver outstanding returns net
Speaker 2: of fees, fees are going to become a relevant I mean, ultimately,
Speaker 2: fees are really important. If you are producing mediocre returns
Speaker 2: and the fiz are eating gap on the returns, this
Speaker 2: is our investors are gonna look at S and P
Speaker 2: five hundred to business points and this is what I get.
Speaker 2: I get the performance of the S and P five hundred.
Speaker 2: I only have to pay two pips for that. But
Speaker 2: if you have strong active merchants. You know, I am
Speaker 2: an IDF geek, so everybody looks at me as the
Speaker 2: passive goal, but I am not at all a supporter
Speaker 2: of passive I am a supporter of good performance and
Speaker 2: good returns for our investors because this is our purpose,
Speaker 2: this is why we do what we do. And if
Speaker 2: active managers can generate the outstanding our fuck and beat
Speaker 2: their benchmark and can provide the net of visa outstanding
Speaker 2: returns for their clients. They can charge as much as
Speaker 2: they want, but if they cannot do that, they are
Speaker 2: gonna have to, you know, come down to what the
Speaker 2: edf lands suggest as being the average price of the
Speaker 2: medium price for a certain strategy, and they need to
Speaker 2: be able to deliver those retorts those fees. The market
Speaker 2: is becoming more and more competitive, but we continue to
Speaker 2: see active strategies of being deployed in an IDIF wrapper
Speaker 2: that is not just a single digit advisory fees, So
Speaker 2: good performance can command the higher fees.
Speaker 1: So if we, I guess, separate the active equity and
Speaker 1: active fixed income because when I look at managers and
Speaker 1: aggregate it's it's actually the same thing with ETFs and
Speaker 1: mutual funds. You know, the active tincom managers tend to
Speaker 1: do a lot better. They have a lot it's easier
Speaker 1: for them to outperform the benchmarks versus the active equity
Speaker 1: And if we need to if we think about active
Speaker 1: management over the next decade, do you think it's kind
Speaker 1: of a performance issue that they need to stay relevant?
Speaker 1: I guess it is.
Speaker 2: It is one of the percenter performance issue. If I
Speaker 2: were an active manager, I would be much more focused
Speaker 2: on performance then on his because again the benchmarks are
Speaker 2: incredibly strong. We had the benchmarks passive benchmarks are by
Speaker 2: no means passive. There is no such a thing as
Speaker 2: pushing a button and the portfolio rebalances. Index providers put
Speaker 2: a lot of thoughts, technology and strategy in the build
Speaker 2: out of an index. Indesses come in so many different
Speaker 2: shapes and forms where the line between active and passive
Speaker 2: is becoming very blurry. Where do you put systematic induses?
Speaker 2: Where do you put smart beta indices? It's h It's
Speaker 2: a combination of dynamic strategies, root based, root based approach
Speaker 2: and transparency. So with the induses evolving so fast and
Speaker 2: benchmarks being so strong, the true active managers, the real ones,
Speaker 2: are gonna be the ones that can generate ARPHA. And
Speaker 2: you know it's not impossible. Last year, one third of
Speaker 2: active manager so beat their benchmark in the airy side.
Speaker 2: In the fixed income side, it was around forty five
Speaker 2: or forty seven percent. As so, as you said, in
Speaker 2: active fixed income there is a better opportunity to be
Speaker 2: the benchmark, but beating the benchmark spartamount.
Speaker 1: Well, I think this is a great place to end,
Speaker 1: but this is a lot of fun. Anna, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining me, Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: I also want to thank our listeners. If you like
Speaker 1: the episode, please share, subscribe and leave a review. And
Speaker 1: if you'd like to see more of our research on
Speaker 1: the terminal, please go to bifund go for funding Active
Speaker 1: Research until our next episode. This is David Combe with
Speaker 1: inside Active st