Steve Pollack

Many investors are convinced that alpha has disappeared from U.S. equity markets and prefer to use passive investment tools such as exchange traded funds (ETFs) to broadly gain exposure to these markets. The problem with this approach is that it gives up any chance of outperformance and forces an investor to settle for benchmark returns minus fees.

For the past few years, the passive versus active debate has been characterized as a pitched battle between two sides. Upon closer inspection, however, some might recognize that this ongoing argument is far more nuanced than it appears at first blush and actually involves multiple sides with somewhat vague allegiances.

A search on LexisNexis, scanning just the past 12 months, will return well over 3,000 news articles, all focused on the active-versus-passive debate that has come to define today's investment landscape. The arguments are all pretty much the same, with proponents of passive strategies keying in on the themes of lower costs and comparable performance, while those defending active strategies will underscore the value of a hands-on approach in a sideways or downward moving market.

In 1992, Morningstar introduced the Style Box™, the now-pervasive nine-square grid that visually depicts the investment style of mutual funds. The goal of the Style Box™ is to aid institutional investors seeking to categorize strategies to meet specific asset-allocation targets.

Todd Hawthorne, Lead Portfolio Manager of the Boston Partners' Redwood Strategy, highlights how investors can capture volatility-derived alpha through an alternative strategy that pairs the construct of equity buy/writes with fundamental, bottom-up analysis.