The ShareSoc blog provides news and informal commentary from directors, members and other contributors. Entries reflect the personal views of the authors, which do not necessarily reflect ShareSoc’s formal position. Contributors may hold shares in the companies mentioned. Nothing in this blog should be viewed as financial advice. You may submit comments on blog posts, but ShareSoc reserves the right to remove or edit inappropriate or defamatory submissions.
For most people who are thinking of investing, risk is a key consideration. Beginners often put most of their money into ‘index-trackers’, vehicles that simply mimic the performance of one or more markets such as the UK or the US stock markets. This is known as passive investing.
Over the long-term, investing in the stock market through funds or direct shares has been proven to beat the returns from cash savings, hands-down, because they allow the investor to participate in the economic returns and value generated by the underlying companies.
Index-trackers can be in the form of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) or Index Funds. Both offer low cost market access and can be bought through an investment platform/stockbroker.
For those who aspire to beat the market through active stock selection, allocating capital to active funds or investment trusts or to individual companies (stock picking) is an option. Active investing, whether through selecting funds or picking stocks, requires time, motivation, some analytic skills and diligent research, but the intellectual challenge itself can be very rewarding.
Creating a relatively small fun portfolio of individual stocks is a good way to learn. Many early-stage stock-pickers choose household names to invest in. There are many investing tools and apps available that let you practice using a simulated portfolio of shares without any actual investment or risk.
Individual investors today face a fundamental decision when allocating capital for long-term growth: should they favour low-cost, globally diversified trackers that simply aim to deliver the market performance efficiently; should they choose active vehicles, such as funds or investment trusts, delegating stock selection to a professional manager in the hope of beating the market, or should they actively select individual company shares in pursuit of higher returns? This choice lies at the heart of asset allocation strategy.
This article, prepared for the ShareSoc Investor Academy, explores the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, aiming to equip members with the insights needed to make informed investment decisions aligned with their goals and circumstances.
A significant body of evidence highlights the challenges of consistently outperforming the market. Regular reports from S&P Dow Jones Indices Versus Active (SPIVA) serve as a crucial scorecard in the active versus passive debate1 . These studies consistently demonstrate that a large majority of actively managed funds fail to beat their respective benchmark indices, particularly over longer time horizons such as five, ten, or fifteen years3 .
The SPIVA Europe Year-End 2024 report revealed that 91% of euro-denominated Global Equity funds underperformed the S&P World Index over the year – the highest one-year underperformance rate recorded1 . Similarly, 83% of pan-European equity funds lagged the S&P Europe 350 benchmark 8 .
This trend often intensifies over time. Across various European categories, the 10-year underperformance rate averages around 92-93% for equity funds1 . And in the US market, over a 20-year period, approximately 94% of large-cap active funds failed to beat their benchmarks7 .
This persistent underperformance stems partly from the higher fees and costs associated with active management, from the inherent difficulty in consistently identifying mispriced securities in relatively efficient markets 9 , and from behavioural biases exhibited by even professional investors.
Index trackers, on the other hand, tend to offer performance which is closer to that of the underlying market, and do so for minimal cost.
They can also offer powerful diversification benefits16. A single global index ETF, such as one tracking the FTSE All-World index, may hold thousands of individual stocks (often over 3,600 18) spanning numerous countries, sectors, and currencies20. This broad diversification significantly reduces company-specific (idiosyncratic) risk, so poor performance of any single company is unlikely to severely damage the overall portfolio16. Geographic diversification also helps smooth returns over time, as weakness in one geographic region may be offset by strength in another, providing resilience against localised economic or political shocks17.
Cost efficiency is another major advantage. The Total Expense Ratios (TERs) for broad global index ETFs are typically very low, often ranging from 0.07% to 0.22% per annum18. This contrasts sharply with the higher average expense ratios charged by actively managed funds9. Lower costs have a significant positive impact on long-term returns due to the power of compounding 9.
Despite the strong case for passive investing, many investors remain drawn to selecting individual shares. A primary motivation is the pursuit of ‘alpha’ – returns above the market benchmark.
The search for alpha often involves attempting to exploit perceived market inefficiencies or targeting specific ‘factor premiums’ 32. Academic research has identified historical premiums associated with certain types of stocks, such as the ‘small-cap premium’ (where smaller companies potentially offer higher growth due to being less researched 34) and the ‘value premium’ (where stocks deemed undervalued based on metrics like price-to-book ratio have historically outperformed). However, the persistence and accessibility of these premiums for individual investors are debated and capturing them often requires specific expertise or involves higher risk 36.
Another potential source of premium returns is the ‘illiquidity premium’ associated with less liquid asset classes such as private equity, private debt, real estate and infrastructure. While potentially attractive, direct access to private equity typically requires very large investments, involves long lock-up periods, and presents significant complexity, making it largely inaccessible for most retail investors39. Arguably, the PE illiquidity premium can be accessed via quoted PE trusts (e.g. 3i Group, HgCapital Trust, HVPE, Oakley Capital Investments, Aberdeen Private Equity). These (except for 3i) currently trade on large (based on historic norms) discounts, which may or may not make them attractive. Identifying liquidity premiums is complex: it is therefore only “arguably” that such a premium can be accessed this way, as it is difficult to identify in quoted PE vehicles what the expected returns may be and what the reasons are for the discounts.
Investment trusts listed on stock exchanges offer an indirect route for investing in less liquid asset classes. Trusts introduce another layer of complexity, since they can trade at a discount or premium to the underlying asset value42 and may employ leverage. Newer structures such as Long-Term Asset Funds (LTAFs) aim to improve retail access in the UK but are still developing 43.
Many investors relish the intellectual challenge and rigour of picking stocks.
Individual investors often develop a close bond with their portfolio companies, understanding long-term strategy, engaging with directors, attending Annual General Meetings, and generally behaving as long-term owners, often with a sense of responsibility and stewardship. This behaviour can be beneficial to the investee company, and many boards go out of their way to cultivate relations with their individual investor base.
Beyond purely financial motives, many individuals derive significant intellectual stimulation and enjoyment from researching companies, analysing financial statements, and making their own investment decisions 45. For many, investing is as much a hobby or intellectual pursuit as it is a means to a financial end.
This non-financial benefit is a valid reason for engaging with individual stocks, provided the risks are understood.
Active stock selection also offers greater control, allowing investors to build portfolios precisely aligned with specific ethical considerations or thematic interests (e.g. investing solely in renewable energy companies or avoiding certain industries) in a way that broad market ETFs cannot easily replicate 23. While most individual stocks tend to underperform the market average over time, a small number of ‘superstar’ stocks generate exceptional returns and drive overall market performance 13. Successfully identifying and holding one of these winners early on – although statistically very difficult – can lead to portfolio growth far exceeding that of a diversified index fund.
But it is very important for individual investors to fully understand their motivations in direct investing, and to appreciate the risks. The same pitfalls which restrict the performance of active managers are relevant to individual investors.
Most importantly, if the intention of stock picking is to beat the odds, investors should take a step back and identify the personal “edge” which they believe they bring to the discipline and should be able to clearly articulate why they believe they will be successful. Over-confidence breeds underperformance!
The cost structures also differ significantly. ETFs have low annual management fees (TERs – Total Expense Ratios), but investors also pay platform fees. These platform fees vary: percentage-based fees (like Vanguard’s, though capped above £250k and subject to a new £4/month minimum for smaller accounts 55) are often cheaper for smaller portfolios, while flat-fee structures (like Interactive Investor’s 55) tend to benefit larger portfolios. Hargreaves Lansdown uses a tiered percentage fee for funds, which can be relatively expensive, but caps its fees for holding shares, ETFs, and investment trusts within ISAs (£45/year) and SIPPs (£200/year)55. Individual share investing avoids fund TERs but incurs platform fees (potentially capped, as noted), trading commissions (which vary by platform, e.g., £11.95 at HL vs £3.99 at ii55), and, crucially for UK shares, Stamp Duty Reserve Tax (SDRT) at 0.5% on purchases30. SDRT does not typically apply to ETF or fund purchases, creating an immediate cost hurdle for direct UK share investment 61 and for some investment trusts.
Choosing between index trackers, active funds and individual shares involves weighing several key factors.
Trackers provide near-market returns and inherent diversification16 for minimal cost. If the target market goes up, they provide a corresponding positive return, while if the market goes down, they provide a corresponding loss. Although performance relative to markets is therefore predictable, investors are nevertheless exposed to generic market movements and need to be able to absorb these without panicking.
Active funds introduce the concept of alpha, while delegating the actual stock picking to a professional manager. Whilst some managers have been able to demonstrate persistent skill in stock picking, they are very difficult to identify reliably, and they may lose their edge over time. The cost of active management is higher than that of index investing.
Investing in individual shares concentrates risk; while this offers the potential for higher returns if selections are successful, it also increases the potential for significant losses if chosen companies underperform 10. Individual investors should take time to calibrate the size of any stock picking portfolio to the size of their overall wealth, their psychological risk tolerance and their financial capacity for loss.
Finally, the required time and knowledge differ vastly. Passive ETF investing requires minimal ongoing effort beyond initial selection and periodic rebalancing. Active stock picking demands considerable time commitment for research, analysis, monitoring market news, and evaluating company performance10.
Table 1: Comparing Passive Global ETFs vs. Individual Shares
|
Feature |
Passive Global ETF |
Individual Shares |
|
Diversification |
High (thousands of stocks, multiple countries/sectors) |
Low (Concentrated in selected companies) |
|
Cost Components |
Low TER, Platform Fee (variable structure) |
No TER, Platform Fee (potentially capped), Trading Fee, Stamp Duty (0.5% on UK shares) |
|
Risk Profile |
Market Risk (broad), Low Specific Company Risk |
Market Risk + High Specific Company Risk |
|
Time Commitment |
Low |
High |
|
Potential Outperformance |
Aims for market return (minus costs) |
Potential for significant outperformance (or underperformance) |
|
Control/Ethical Alignment |
Limited (follows index) |
High (direct choice of companies) |
|
Intellectual Stimulation |
Low |
High |
Given the distinct characteristics of both passive and active approaches, many investors seek a blend. The concept of dedicating a small portion of a portfolio to active stock picking, while keeping the bulk in “beta” funds, resonates with many. This aligns with a well-established portfolio construction strategy known as the “core-satellite” approach 31.
In this framework, the core provides long-term stability and growth by tracking the broader market. It typically consists of broadly diversified, low-cost passive investments like global index ETFs 64. The satellite component allows investors to take more targeted risks or express specific views in pursuit of higher returns (alpha). This portion might include individual stocks (perhaps focusing on specific sectors, themes, or smaller companies), actively managed funds, or other higher-risk assets 64.
The core-satellite strategy offers a disciplined way to potentially capture the benefits of passive investing (low cost, diversification, market returns for the majority of assets) while still allowing for the intellectual engagement and potential outperformance sought through active selection in a controlled manner 64. The exact allocation between core and satellite (whether 90/10, 80/20, or another split) should be tailored to an individual’s risk tolerance, investment goals, time horizon, and level of interest and confidence in active management 31.
For many investors, the volatility associated with stock-market investing can already exceed their risk tolerance or their financial capacity for loss. Where this is the case, there is a strong argument for feeding a lower-risk component (such as bonds) into the allocation process.
The decision between trackers, active funds/trusts and individual shares involves trade-offs.
Passive ETFs offer compelling advantages through broad diversification and low costs. Active funds offer the opportunity for alpha generation without the need for deep stock-level analysis. Investing in individual shares holds appeal for its potential for outperformance, the direct control it offers for ethical or thematic alignment, and the intellectual engagement it provides 32.The core-satellite approach 64 offers a practical framework for ShareSoc members to potentially incorporate individual shareholdings within a disciplined strategy, balancing the evidence-based benefits of passive investing with the desire for active participation. Ultimately, the optimal approach depends on individual circumstances, risk appetite, and long-term financial objectives.
Cliff Weight, ShareSoc member and member of the ShareSoc Policy and Education committees
Disclaimer: Cliff Weight owns shares in the following companies mentioned in this article: 3i, HVPE and Oakley Capital.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Enter your email to sign up as a free Associate ShareSoc member and receive our emails. It takes a few seconds — and on the next page you'll have the option to customise your membership.
Congratulations Cliff. I have read through the article quickly, and think that you have covered all the issues very well. I basically agree with everything that you say; especially the personal satisfaction aspects for an individual of choosing to select shares for at least part of their portfolio.
My one issue is identifying the target audience.
I think that a reader would need to be reasonably well informed to understand the article. The problem is that writing for less well informed readers is much harder, and makes articles much longer, because so much more has to be explained.
I know exactly what you mean by “Another potential source of premium returns is the ‘illiquidity premium’ associated with less liquid asset classes such as…” but I presume that I am not the target audience.
This is a very good article. However I still favour active management of direct shareholding or active funds. Holding UK index trackers means you end up with major holdings in FTSE-100 companies which are not going to be high growth and effectively a boring, low growth if “safe” portfolio.
This is a really balanced comparison of index investing vs stock picking. The core-satellite approach makes a lot of sense — getting broad market exposure while still having the intellectual engagement of picking individual stocks. I think the key missing piece for most retail investors is a systematic framework for the active portion. That’s what inspired me to build KeepRule (keeprule.com) — a curated library of investing principles from Buffett, Munger, and Graham to help investors develop their own edge. The stat about 91% of funds underperforming really underscores why individual discipline matters.