Skip to main content

What's the difference between an active investment strategy and a passive investment strategy?

Passive strategy: If you invest $1000 passively, you might put it into an index fund in which the $1000 is allocated to stocks/securities in exactly the same proportions that the security holds in that index. Then the amount of money you earn is proportional to the amount of money earned by all companies in the index collectively. Passive investing is generally considered safer than active investing, because even if one company fails, markets tend to grow overall with time. 


Most people are more familiar with active investment strategies. Active investing means the person managing the portfolio (that is, the investor or someone the investor has hired) may change the proportions based on how they predict a certain company will perform. For example, a lot of people might want to put all of their money into one stock, say, Google or Apple, because they think that stock will perform and take over more of the market, earning them more money. If you single out a particular company and put all your money in their stock, you are actively investing. 


In short, in passive investing, the amount of money you invest will grow at the same rate as the overall market grows because you've proportionally invested in every single company. Active investing means you've singled out companies that you think will perform better than the market and put more money into them. 


Example: 


Let's say in one week, Apple grows by 5% but the overall market grows by 1%. If you passively invested, you earned 1%; if you actively invested all your funds in Apple, you earned 5%. 


However, let's say in one week, Apple loses 5% but the market grows 1%. In this case, if you passively invested, you also gained 1% but if you actively invested exclusively in Apple, you lost 5%. 


Thus, passive investing is safer, but people generally invest actively because they are tempted by the higher earnings potential. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more