logo
Actively managed but truly more profitable?

Actively managed but truly more profitable?

Opinion
Negative consumer sentiment in Canada toward anything American-made has not stopped one of the world's largest investment managers from launching products north of the border.
JP Morgan Asset Management, based in New York, recently introduced a new actively managed exchange-traded fund (ETF), specially designed to provide Canadian investors with access to its world-leading U.S. stock-picking managers.
'Actively managed ETFs are what we do well and that expertise is what we're bringing to Canada,' says Jay Rana, head of Canadian adviser business at J.P. Morgan Asset Management in Toronto.
Part of the storied U.S. investment bank J.P. Morgan Chase, the asset manager oversees US$3.7 trillion, among largest money managers in the world. It recently brought a stock-picking strategy for the U.S. stock market to Canada in an ETF wrapper that doesn't even exist in that form in the U.S.
'It is truly a core U.S. equities position for investors' portfolio,' Rana says about the JPMorgan US Core Active ETF (JCOR).
It is the fifth actively managed ETF launched in Canada in the last year by J.P. Morgan. Yet the others — JPMorgan U.S. Equity Premium Income Active ETF (JEPI), JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income Active ETF (JEPQ), JPMorgan U.S. Growth Active ETF (JGRO) and JPMorgan U.S. Value Active ETF (JAVA) — all have U.S.-listed ETF twins, providing a track record of their performance.
The new JCOR ETF, launched in June, has a mutual fund twin in the U.S — and its long-term history is impressive. Its JPMCB U.S. Active Core Equity Fund (the mutual fund version) has beaten its benchmark index, the S&P 500, over the last 15 years. Albeit, it has done so by a little more than a half-percentage point.
Yet it is impressive all the same given the S&P Spiva Scorecard report on mutual fund performance shows more than 90 per cent of actively managed U.S. equity funds do not beat their benchmark over 10-year periods.
Rana chocks up the performance to J.P Morgan's experience and size. 'At J.P. Morgan, we do have an advantage across a number of asset classes just as a result of our scope and reach.'
Yet its recent launches of active ETFs is part of a larger trend. What was once almost strictly a passive product with low management fees, often a 10th of the cost annually of a similar mutual fund, the market is now seeing a wave of new active products, says Prerna Mathews, Mackenzie's vice-president of ETF product Strategy in Toronto.
'Active ETFs now make up almost 35 per cent of total assets under management of all ETFs in Canada,' says Mathews, noting Mackenzie is a Canadian leader in actively managed ETFs.
Among those new funds on the market is the Mackenzie U.S. Low Volatility ETF (MULV) launched last year. 'The demand is there because a lot of advisers see these as better portfolio tools.'
What's more, she notes active management could come in handy in the years ahead.
Investors likely face many challenges: a volatile U.S. administration and ongoing trade strife, persistent inflation, swelling debt, environmental degradation and geopolitical unrest.
As well, the U.S. market is highly overvalued. It remains heavily weighted to big tech stocks. As such, a passive strategy mirroring the S&P 500 performance will certainly benefit when big tech does well, as it has recently, but it will also fall with big tech, which dominates the market.
Active management, according to one report by a top European active management asset firm, could help mitigate the many risks. Simply, active managers can navigate risks while seeking out opportunities a passive strategy can't, Rana says.
'Active management can assess and respond to complex risks and adjust portfolios in real-time,' he says.
What's more, one of the knocks against active management strategies has been fee costs. Mutual funds run by active managers can charge, for example, two per cent per year for a U.S. stock market fund. Yet that fee often hinders performance. It is difficult to beat a broad-based benchmark like the S&P 500 when you're consistently two per cent behind.
That said, its U.S. mutual fund version of J.P. Morgan's JCOR ETF did so well because its MER, or management expense ratio (average annual fee cost), is 0.4 per cent. The Canadian ETF, by the way, charges 0.44 per cent as an annual fee.
Still, a Winnipeg portfolio manager specializing in ETF strategies for private clients is skeptical the growing trend of actively managed ETFs will benefit investors.
'I've heard the same argument for decades that passive ETFs may not work because of the environment we're in,' says Alan Fustey, portfolio manager with Bellwether Investment Management.
The premise 'this time will be different' and active managers will rise to the challenge is constantly bandied about by the industry, but it rarely materializes consistently, says Fustey.
That's simply because it is incredibly hard for even professionals to beat big, broad markets like the S&P 500 and the TSX Composite Index. With passive investing, you are just trying to capture the market performance for a low cost, today often less than 0.10 per cent.
Wednesdays
A weekly dispatch from the head of the Free Press newsroom.
'The reason it's so hard to outperform those indices is that everyday winners get marked up and losers get marked down,' he says. 'And no one can predict which shares are going to be the winners long-term and which ones will be the losers long-term.'
Of course, don't expect the debate to die. But you can expect more active ETF launches, especially as investors fret about what lies ahead, Rana says.
'We believe active management can play a pivotal role in this environment.'
Joel Schlesinger is a Winnipeg-based freelance journalist
joelschles@gmail.com
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

GOLDSTEIN: Canada's retaliatory tariffs having little impact on U.S.
GOLDSTEIN: Canada's retaliatory tariffs having little impact on U.S.

Toronto Sun

time2 hours ago

  • Toronto Sun

GOLDSTEIN: Canada's retaliatory tariffs having little impact on U.S.

Prime Minister Mark Carney greets U.S. President Donald Trump during an arrival ceremony at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alta., on June 16, 2025. Photo by STEFAN ROUSSEAU/POOL / AFP via Getty Images The practical problem Prime Minister Mark Carney faces in negotiating a new trade and security deal with President Donald Trump is that Canada is firing blanks with its retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account The issue, as Carney noted in explaining why 'dollar-for-dollar' tariffs against the U.S. won't work — after he initially supported them while running for the Liberal leadership — is that the U.S. economy is 10 times the size of Canada's. That means that Canadian counter tariffs on $95.4 billion worth of U.S. goods to date, along with the 'buy Canadian' campaign urged by the federal government, are having little real-world impact on the U.S. economy. Writing in The Hub last month, University of Calgary economics professor Trevor Tombe, said that in April — the latest data available — the total economic decline in the U.S. due to Canada's retaliatory measures, 'represents about $3.8 billion in missed Canadian purchases from U.S. firms. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'While that sounds substantial, the scale of the U.S. economy puts it into perspective: with a nominal GDP of nearly $30 trillion in U.S. dollars — or about $41 trillion in Canadian dollars — this loss amounts to just 0.1% of monthly economic activity' meaning, 'these early signs suggest the impact on the U.S. economy is minimal.' Regarding the voluntary consumer boycotts of American-made products, and buying Canadian ones instead, Tombe wrote: 'While individual choices may have shifted behaviour at the margins, the data reveal no consistent or large-scale changes in imports outside of tariffed goods. 'More data in the months ahead may tell us more. But for now, the conclusion is clear: while retaliatory tariffs had measurable effects on Canadian trade flows, and consumer boycotts — however well-intentioned — reflected genuine public anger with the U.S., neither has yet produced any meaningful economic impact south of the border', which was the Carney government's stated aim. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Similarly, Carleton University economics professor Vivek Dehejia told iPolitics in February that politicians urging Canadians to buy Canadian-made products over U.S. ones was 'tokenism'. 'It's a nice idea and it's nice there's been an uptick in patriotism and nationalism, but I don't think it's realistic. 'We simply can't replace everything that we import from the U.S. because we're a much smaller economy. 'I don't think it's going to cause much damage to the U.S. economy … it's not going to fix our problem.' That's why Carney, criticized by former Liberal cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy for taking a 'bootlicking' approach to Trump's demands — easy for him to say since he's not on the hot seat — has already made numerous concessions to the U.S. president in order to avoid an all-out economic war which Canada would lose. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The latest was Carney scrapping Canada's digital services tax last Sunday, after Trump threatened to end trade and security negotiations with Canada over the DST last Friday. Carney has also delayed retaliation against Trump doubling tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to 50% last month, pending the outcome of the now-resumed negotiations for a trade and security deal between Canada and the U.S. by July 21. In other measures to appease Trump: Carney introduced the 'Strong Borders Act' to 'keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl, and crack down on money laundering' in deference to Trump's demands about border security. He announced Canada would meet its long-neglected NATO target of spending 2% of annual GDP on defence by March 31, 2026, another Trump demand, and said Canada would also comply with Trump's demand to increase spending on defence to 5% of GDP by 2035. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. He suspended counter-tariffs on some U.S. goods for six months on the grounds Canadian industries needed time to adjust. None of this is surprising given that Canada is the smaller economic partner in negotiations with the U.S. It appears to have succeeded — at least temporarily — in avoiding the full range of tariffs that Trump could launch against Canada, which Carney hopes to avoid by reaching a deal with him by July 21. Read More This prior to the launch of negotiations on the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade scheduled for next year. To be fair, Trump launched this trade war against Canada and many other countries, not the reverse, and he thinks nothing of violating existing trade agreements. That said, Carney's actions on this issue since becoming prime minister are fundamentally different from the 'elbows up' rhetoric he campaigned on during the federal election. RECOMMENDED VIDEO Crime Toronto Blue Jays Canada Other Sports Editorials

Microsoft lays off 4 percent amid AI push, joins wider tech cutbacks
Microsoft lays off 4 percent amid AI push, joins wider tech cutbacks

Canada News.Net

time3 hours ago

  • Canada News.Net

Microsoft lays off 4 percent amid AI push, joins wider tech cutbacks

REDMOND, Washington: Microsoft is the latest tech giant to announce significant job cuts, as the financial strain of building next-generation AI capabilities begins to reshape workforces across the industry. The company said this week it will lay off nearly 4 percent of its global workforce—roughly 9,000 jobs—as it looks to streamline operations and control costs. With around 228,000 employees as of June 2024, Microsoft had already trimmed headcount in May, affecting about 6,000 workers. Bloomberg News reported last month that the company was planning additional cuts, particularly in sales. The layoffs come as Microsoft commits to massive investments in AI. The company has pledged US$80 billion in capital spending for fiscal 2025, much of it earmarked for building and scaling AI infrastructure. But these investments have begun to weigh on profitability—its June quarter cloud margins are expected to shrink compared to last year. To offset these pressures, Microsoft said it would "reduce organizational layers with fewer managers" and streamline its products, procedures, and roles. The Seattle Times was the first to report the layoffs. Separately, Bloomberg News reported that Microsoft's King division, based in Barcelona and known for developing the Candy Crush video game, is also cutting about 10 percent of its staff, or around 200 employees. Microsoft confirmed to Reuters that the gaming division had been affected by the layoffs, though it clarified that the job cuts do not impact the majority of the unit. Other major tech companies making aggressive AI bets have also implemented job cuts. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, said earlier this year it would reduce about 5 percent of its "lowest performers." Alphabet's Google has laid off hundreds of workers in recent months, and Amazon has trimmed roles across several business lines, including its books division, devices and services, and communications teams. Across Corporate America, a combination of economic uncertainty and rising costs has prompted companies to restructure, streamline, and prepare for further financial pressure. Microsoft's latest move underscores how even the most profitable players are making hard choices to sustain their AI ambitions.

Spending on restaurants takes a bite out of ability to save for a home
Spending on restaurants takes a bite out of ability to save for a home

Calgary Herald

time4 hours ago

  • Calgary Herald

Spending on restaurants takes a bite out of ability to save for a home

Take a pass on the costly steak dinner and save more for a down payment. A new survey examining the impact of spending choices has suggested that Calgary first-time buyers seeking to save up for a home would need to forgo 40 years of steak dinners at a restaurant to come up with a 20 per cent down payment on the average priced home. Zoocasa recently released a report with tongue — or maybe steak bite — firmly planted in cheek to illustrate how Canadian first-time buyers' spending habits impact their ability to save for a down payment. Article content Article content It points to Statistics Canada data showing households spend on average about $3,351 annually on dining out and delivery, or about $65 a week. Article content Article content Article content The national realty firm then compared how many years, based on that sum, it would take if a first-time buyer instead saved the money for a down payment to purchase the average-priced home. Article content In Calgary, it would take about 40 years to save about $133,000, or roughly 20 per cent of the average priced home of about $667,000. Article content That's slightly above the national average of 41 years to come up with about $138,000 for a down payment for the average priced home in Canada of about $666,000. Article content If that seems like a long time, consider Greater Vancouver, where the average price exceeds $1.268 million. There, it would require a buyer to go without restaurant visits and takeout for 76 years to come have a 20 per cent down payment of about $254,000. Article content Zoocasa notes that giving up this discretionary expense can help individuals save more for a down payment, but the strategy is obviously not sustainable or practical. Article content

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store