A snippet from Thresher's "Elusive Alpha in Fixed Income" paper. As our CIO says, "Instead of delivering alpha, the performance of the average core and core plus fixed income manager is simply a function of having more risk versus the benchmark over time. In other words, it doesn’t really matter what core managers say or do, the evidence shows they are running strategies that are riskier than the Agg. Bottom-up, top-down, it all looks the same at a high level."
Chief Investment Officer | Institutional Fixed Income | Hedge Funds | Asset Management | Liability Driven Investment
“Yeah, it’s all beta but what’s the alternative?” I’ve heard this often in my conversations with institutional investors. Beta drives returns in the core fixed income space. If you want a big institution running your core money that’s by and large what you get. Here’s a chart that helps visualize the problem. The purple line is the excess return of the Bloomberg Aggregate Index over Treasuries. The other two lines represent the excess returns (vs the Agg) of the average core and core plus managers in eVestment over the same period. As you can see, the three lines track each other closely over the 15+ year period. When the Agg generates negative or positive returns versus Treasuries, the average active manager generates negative or positive returns versus the benchmark (source: eVestment and Bloomberg). What does this tell you? Instead of delivering alpha, the performance of the average core and core plus fixed income manager is simply a function of having more risk versus the benchmark over time. In other words, it doesn’t really matter what core managers say or do, the evidence shows they are running strategies that are riskier than the Agg. Bottom-up, top-down, it all looks the same at a high level. We explore this concept in more detail in our “Elusive Alpha in Fixed Income” paper (see comments below for link to paper).