NEW YORK ( TheStreet) -- Generally speaking, I don't like contradictions. They get under my skin.
That's why I get uncomfortable when financial professionals start prattling on about actively managed ETFs. "The best of both worlds" is a commonly cited advantage.
To my way of thinking, it's the worst of both worlds: That is, higher costs and, as far as I can tell, inferior performance.
I noted with some degree of sinister appreciation that the
maintained and published by Ron Rowland, president of Capital Cities Asset Management, contains 21 of the 42 actively managed ETFs.
The Deathwatch revolves primarily around trading volume. So the designation speaks mostly to popularity rather than success. Still, with names like
getting into the actively managed ETF space with recent the launch of the
Pimco Total Return ETF
, I feel this is something that needs to be nipped in the bud.
Actively managed ETFs are, in most instances, a bad idea. Perhaps there's a case to be made when an actively managed ETF gives you access to some highly specialized expertise and provides a dramatic discount on the fees that would be required to acquire certain securities through individual trades.
That aside, I think I'll stick with my original assertion.
First, they come with higher costs and generally higher portfolio turnover, and that's always bad. I haven't done an exhaustive study but the actively managed ETFs I have looked at seem to deliver underperformance.
The other reason for my aversion to actively managed ETFs is their complexity. When I think about them, I often remember the commercial where the check-out clerk asks the customer if he wants a paper or plastic bag, causing total paralysis.
"So do you want active or passive ETFs...?"