Equity markets have long made the case for indexing. With liquid trading, broad coverage, and well-researched prices, passive equity strategies consistently outperform the majority of active managers—especially after costs. But fixed income is different.

Bond markets are more opaque, fragmented, and often distorted by central bank intervention. Index construction itself is flawed, overweighting the most indebted issuers rather than the most creditworthy. As a result, even evidence-led investors sometimes make an exception for active management in bonds.

In this post, we explore whether that exception is justified. We examine the structural differences between equity and bond markets, the empirical performance of active bond managers using SPIVA’s 2024 scorecard, and the emerging role of systematic strategies that bridge the gap between active and passive. As we’ll see, whilst there are reasons to question bond indices, the long-term data still challenge the promise of active alpha.

Value or growth? It’s one of investing’s most enduring questions. Growth stocks like Apple and Nvidia promise future riches, whilst value stocks—often out-of-favour firms like Ford or BP—appear cheap today. History suggests that value has delivered higher long-term returns, but not without discomfort.

Some believe that the value premium reflects added risk; others see investor bias and overreaction. As John Cochrane jokes, everyone wants the higher returns of value stocks—until they find out which ones they’d actually have to buy. ‘There you go,’ he says, ‘that’s the value premium.’

Despite recent challenges, the case for value remains compelling—especially when valuation gaps are wide. Tools like Research Affiliates’ Asset Allocation Interactive, which I highly recommend, highlight its long-term potential.

When it comes to systematic investing, the labels can be misleading. Index fund. Smart beta. Factor strategy. Quant active. These terms are often used interchangeably, but behind them lie profoundly different beliefs about how markets work—and how best to capture returns.

This post dives beneath the surface to explore the investment philosophies of seven major firms: Research Affiliates, AQR, Dimensional, Avantis, Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street. Some believe markets are efficient and best owned passively. Others think anomalies exist—persistent patterns like value, momentum or low volatility—that can be systematically harvested.

Same data, same markets. But radically different interpretations.

If you’ve ever wondered why one firm tilts towards small-cap value, another reweights by fundamentals, and another just hugs the benchmark, this breakdown is for you.

Understanding these differences isn’t just academic—it shapes how portfolios are built, how returns are earned, and what risks investors take on along the way.

DIY investing has never been easier. With low-cost index funds, digital platforms, and a wealth of financial content online, going it alone is now a real option. But just because you can manage your money yourself, does that mean you should?

Research suggests that investors who work with a financial adviser often end up better off—not because of superior fund picking, but because advisers provide structure, planning, and behavioural discipline. Studies show that advised households accumulate significantly more wealth over time, with UK data from the International Longevity Centre showing gains of over £40,000 in total assets for those who took advice.

This post explores the real value of financial advice: from detailed lifetime cash flow modelling and tax optimisation, to helping clients avoid poor decisions during market turmoil. The goal isn’t outperformance—it’s clarity, confidence, and long-term alignment.