For advisor use only. Not for use with investors.

For decades, investors have framed the portfolio construction debate as a binary choice: passive for cost efficiency or active for potential outperformance. That distinction is becoming increasingly outdated. 

Practical experience suggests that building a foundational core of competitively priced active exchange traded funds (ETFs) can offer a more balanced solution. One that seeks better risk-adjusted returns while still respecting a clearly defined fee budget.

At the heart of this approach is a simple idea: fees matter, but so does how risk is managed. Competitively priced active ETFs sit at the intersection of these two priorities, combining the structural advantages of ETFs with the discretion and judgment of experienced portfolio managers.

Cost is a constraint, not the objective

The long-standing argument for passive investing is straightforward. Lower fees may leave more of an investor’s gross return intact, which could compound meaningfully over time. This logic is sound but incomplete. Fees are only one side of the equation. What also matters is net return per unit of risk, not simply the lowest expense ratio.

Competitively priced active ETFs challenge the notion that investors must choose between cost discipline and active decision-making. Many active ETFs are now priced closer to passive strategies than to traditional mutual funds, making them viable core holdings rather than niche satellite exposures. 

“By anchoring a portfolio around these vehicles, investors can maintain fee awareness while reintroducing flexibility where it matters most,” says senior portfolio consultant Eric Dzuba.

Risk is not static; portfolios shouldn’t be either

Traditional market-cap weighted indices embed risks that are often invisible in rising markets. Concentration risk, style drift, and unintended factor exposures can all accumulate quietly within a passive core. 

“When markets correct, those risks may surface all at once,” says Dzuba.

Active ETFs offer the ability to manage risk dynamically. Portfolio managers can trim over concentrated positions, reallocate away from deteriorating fundamentals, or emphasize quality and balance sheet strength during periods of stress. Importantly, this does not require aggressive market timing. Incremental, risk-aware decisions made consistently have the potential to improve downside outcomes, a key driver of improved risk-adjusted returns. 

“Avoiding large drawdowns reduces the hurdle required to recover capital, allowing compounding to work more effectively over a full market cycle,” he says.

The core has evolved

Historically, active strategies were relegated to satellite roles due to higher fees. The ETF wrapper has changed that calculus, making active ETFs suitable not just as complements, but as foundational building blocks. When used at the core, they can provide broad market exposure with a layer of risk management that purely passive strategies lack.

A common concern is that adding active management even at lower costs will inevitably push portfolio fees higher. In practice, the opposite can be true when portfolios are designed intentionally.

Replacing higher cost mutual funds or expensive factor ETFs with lower cost active ETFs can reduce overall fees while improving portfolio construction. Moreover, using active ETFs at the core may reduce the need for multiple overlapping satellite strategies, simplifying the portfolio and keeping total costs in check.

“The key is not to eliminate fees, but to allocate them efficiently; paying for skill where it has the greatest potential to improve outcomes, and avoiding unnecessary complexity elsewhere.”

A better potential trade off for long-term investors

Risk adjusted return is ultimately about trade offs. Passive strategies optimize for cost but accept all the risks of the index, good and bad. High fee active strategies may offer more flexibility, but often struggle to justify their expense over time.

Competitively priced active ETFs occupy a pragmatic middle ground. They acknowledge the importance of fees while recognizing that markets are not perfectly efficient and that risk can be managed more thoughtfully than an index allows. Over full market cycles, this balance has the potential to lead to smoother return paths, lower volatility, and improved investor outcomes without exceeding a disciplined fee budget.

Building a foundational core of low-cost active ETFs is not about chasing alpha or abandoning passive principles. It is about evolving portfolio construction to reflect today’s realities: concentrated markets, tighter fee scrutiny, and a growing emphasis on risk-adjusted outcomes.

“For investors focused on long-term success, this approach offers a compelling proposition. Cost control where it matters, active judgment where it counts, and a portfolio better aligned with the realities of risk and return.”