Active share white paper

April

W ELLINGTON M A N AGEM EN T
2011

Solutions

Active Share: Predicting Alpha and Risk
By S u m m ar y
Kent Stahl, CFA As one of our 35-year equity veterans has often said, “The best way to beat a benchmark is to be
Director, Investments and
Risk Management as different from it as possible.” Simply put, active share quantifies this difference. What’s more,
a growing body of evidence suggests that active share is highly predictive of alpha potential.
Gregg Thomas, CFA
Director, Risk Management Thus far, however, the research has focused only on US-oriented mutual funds in aggregate.
While the general conclusion is that high active-share managers have performed well overall,
Tom Simon, CFA, FRM
Manager, Risk Management very little research has been done on whether this is the case across investment categories. In
addition, almost no research has been done on the potential benefits of active share as a risk
measure and on whether pursuing high active-share strategies is practical within the typical
institutional investment framework.

This paper summarizes our research on the predictive capabilities of active share within key
investment categories in terms of both alpha potential and relative risk. Our key findings are:

High active-share managers have outperformed low active-share managers across a
variety of equity categories, particularly US all-cap, global, and international.

Active share forecasts alpha well in most categories, with the exception of large-cap
growth and small-cap stocks.

Active share is comparable to projected tracking risk as a tool for forecasting relative risk.
High active-share managers experience more significant drawdowns, and may not be
practical for many institutions.

Diversified high active-share strategies tend to improve alpha while minimizing
drawdowns associated with high active-share managers.

FOR BROKER DEALER USE ONLY—NOT FOR USE WITH THE PUBLIC


Background may be explained in part by the fact that the late 1990s were
For the better part of a decade, Wellington Management has associated with incredibly high stock-specific volatility due
utilized active share in various internal peer review settings to the TMT (technology, media, and telecom) bubble and, as
with our equity portfolio teams, as a gauge of “money at a result, many managers began to employ more sophisticated
risk” in our client portfolios. Active share is the sum of the risk-control techniques. This was also a period when the
absolute value of all the overweights and underweights in a nine-style-box-evaluation framework (large/mid/small by
portfolio relative to a benchmark, divided by 2. As an exam- growth/value/ core) was becoming more widely adopted by
ple, if Cisco is 2% of an index and the manager has a 4% the mutual fund industry. Thus, managers were, to an extent,
position in the stock, this would be counted as 2% in active forced to control risk to stay within their box. More recently,
share. If the manager does not own Cisco, this would also the percentage of US-oriented equity mutual funds with
count as 2% in active share. After completing this calculation active share greater than 80% has remained relatively con-
for every stock in the portfolio and the benchmark, these stant at about 20% of all funds.
absolute weighting differences are summed and the total is
divided by 2. An index fund would have an active share of A More Detailed Picture of Active Share
0%, while a portfolio that does not own any stocks within While previous studies like Professor Petajisto’s have inter-
the benchmark would have an active share of 100%. mixed investment styles, most institutions allocate assets
across more narrowly defined categories. Therefore, to further
New York University Professor Antti Petajisto, one of the lead-
assess the merits of active share, we developed a proprietary
ing researchers of active share, has done much to popularize
peer risk database. Though it is similar to databases used in
the concept among investment industry practitioners. In his
most academic studies in that it relies on mutual fund hold-
2010 paper, “Active Share and Mutual Fund Performance,”
ings (all mutual funds with more than $10 million in assets
Professor Petajisto draws on broadly available mutual fund
were included), it is built with a broader array of information
holdings data to map the decline of high active-share funds
to test other relationships and investment types. Based on
from the 1980s to the present. As Figure 1 shows, during the
this database, Figure 2 shows the percentage of equity mutual
1990s, the percentage of US-oriented equity mutual funds
funds with active share greater than 80% in some of the main
with high active share dropped by an astounding 70%. This
categories considered by institutional investors.

About the Authors
The members of the Investments and Risk
Management team focus on investment trends and
major risks across our equity, asset allocation, and
fixed income products, platforms, and clients. They
are actively involved in portfolio oversight pro-
cesses and conduct style, performance attribution,
correlation, risk, and capacity analysis across the
firm’s portfolios. In addition, Kent Stahl and Gregg
Thomas are portfolio managers for multi-manager
solutions offered by the firm. Tom Simon serves as Kent Stahl, CFA Gregg Thomas, CFA Tom Simon, CFA, FRM
Director, Investments Director, Risk Manager, Risk
an analyst for these multi-manager solutions.
and Risk Management Management Management

Wellington Management 2 Solutions


Figure 1 Figure 2

Percent of Mutual Funds with Active Share A Closer Look at Investment Categories
Greater Than 80% Has Declined Significantly
Percent of Mutual Funds with Active Share
Greater Than 80%
70 100
60 90
80
50 70
40 60
Percent

Percent
50
30 40
20 30
20
10
10
0 0
80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 US US US US US Global EAFE
Large- Large- Large- All Small
Cap Cap Cap Cap Cap
Source: Petajisto, “Active Share and Mutual Fund Performance,” 2010. Core Growth Value

Source: Wellington Management Peer Risk Database, as of December 31, 2010.
In market segments where benchmarks are more concentrated
— and where risk control is more important — fewer mutual
funds had high active share. Specifically, in large-cap equity Figure 3
categories, roughly 1 in 5 funds had an active share greater
than 80%. However, in broader, less constrained categories, High Active-Share Managers Have Added More
such as multi-cap or global equity, the majority of funds had Value Over Time
a relatively high active share. So, the lack of managers with
Annualized Difference in Value Added
high active share observed in Professor Petajisto’s research 7
appears to be limited to larger-cap US equity segments. 6
5
4
High Active-Share Managers
Percent

3
Have Outperformed
2
Using our database, we also discovered that high active- 1

share managers have shown a tendency to outperform low 0
-1
active-share managers in most of the primary institutional
-2
investment categories, but not all. In our analysis, we grouped US US US US US Global EAFE Average
all funds within a category into quintiles based on their Cap Cap Cap Cap Cap
active share at year-end 2002, 2005, and 2007. We then com- Core Growth Value

pared the difference in the before-fee returns between the 3 Years 5 Years 8 Years
top 20% of managers in terms of active share and the bottom
20% through the end of 2010. Figure 3 shows the difference in Source: Wellington Management Peer Risk Database, based on holdings at the
beginning of the period. As of December 31, 2010.
returns over the various time periods.

Taking the average alpha across all categories, high active-
share managers outperformed low active-share managers
by 2% annually for the 3-year period and by approximately
1.5% annually for the 5- and 8-year periods. The difference
was most notable in the more broadly defined categories,



including US all-cap, global equity, and international equity. ity. Therefore, while active share is a very useful tool, it does
In US large-cap growth and US small cap, the difference was have limitations in predicting alpha in certain categories.
small or inconsistent over time.
Does Active Share Forecast Relative Risk?
Active Share as a Predictor of Alpha We also investigated the usefulness of active share as a
To evaluate the significance of active share as a predictor of forward-looking risk measure relative to another commonly
alpha potential, we ranked all funds within a category based used metric: tracking risk. Specifically, we evaluated the
on their active share as of year-end 2007 and then compared rank correlation between the active share of the various
the results with the rank of their alpha over the following funds at year-end 2007 and the realized tracking risk rank of
three years ended December 31, 2010. Figure 4 shows the the funds over the ensuing three years ended December 31,
rank correlation of active share and alpha potential. 2010. We then compared the results with the rank correlation
between the predicted tracking risk at year-end 2007 (based
A rank correlation of greater than ~0.20 is considered statisti-
on BARRA’s tracking-risk metric) and the realized track-
cally significant (99% confidence). Accordingly, active share
ing risk over the three years ended December 31, 2010. The
appears to be an excellent predictor of alpha potential in most
results are shown in Figure 5.
categories. The exceptions are large-cap growth and small-cap
equity. Large-cap growth tends to be a category where the Overall, both metrics have a very high rank correlation with
median manager is likely to have a high beta bias. Consumer future realized tracking risk. While projected tracking risk
staples stocks, which represent a large weight in the index is slightly superior and more consistent than active share
and have lower beta characteristics, tend to be a consistent in forecasting risk, the incremental difference in predic-
underweight for growth managers. During the global finan- tive capabilities is relatively small given the effort and cost
cial crisis, this beta bias appears to have dominated the involved in determining projected tracking risk.
relative return profile of the universe, making active share
In addition, one reason we have used active share in our
less relevant. In the small-cap segment, most managers tend
internal review settings is that it is consistent over time as
to have a high active share, so there is less predictive capabil-
a measure of relative risk. Most other commonly used risk

Figure 4 Figure 5

A Strong Signal of Value Added Predicting Risk: Active Share Versus Tracking Risk

Rank Correlation with Value Added, 2008 – 2010 Rank Correlation with Realized Tracking Risk, 2008 – 2010
0.4 1.0
99% Confidence 0.9 Active Share YE07 BARRA T-Risk YE07
0.3
0.8
0.2 0.7
0.1 0.6
Percent

Percent

0.5
0
0.4
-0.1 0.3
0.2
-0.2
0.1
-0.3 0.0
US US US US US Global EAFE Average US US US US US Global EAFE Average
Large- Large- Large- All Small Large- Large- Large- All Small
Cap Cap Cap Cap Cap Cap Cap Cap Cap Cap
Core Growth Value Core Growth Value

Active Share Year-End 2007
Source: Wellington Management Peer Risk Database, based on holdings at the



measures tend to use historical information in determining not just the number of names but also the types of names a
risk, and thus the results can vary significantly depending manager owns that determines active share. In fact, many of
on the time period sampled. For example, we calculated the the highest active-share strategies at Wellington Management
tracking risk for approximately 100 of our equity strategies at often own well in excess of 100 securities.
the end of the second quarter of 2009, just after the financial
A common question we receive is whether concentrated
crisis ended. We then rolled back the clock and recalculated
funds do just as well as high active-share funds. To address
the tracking risk using the same portfolios and benchmarks
this, we ranked each fund based on the number of holdings
from 2009 but with the risk model from the second quarter
at year-end 2007 and then compared the result with the alpha
of 2007. The projected risk levels dropped by half using the
realized over the following three years ended December 31,
earlier model! Clearly, risk increased precipitously during
2010. Figure 6 shows the rank correlation between the num-
this period, and risk models continue to be an important ele-
ber of names and alpha as compared to the rank correlation of
ment in the mosaic of information that we use to evaluate
active share and alpha in each of the major Lipper categories.
our strategies. However, active share lessens the ambiguity in
interpreting time period-dependent results of risk models like In every single category, active share had a higher rank cor-
this, as it should be constant as long as the manager is invest- relation with future alpha than the concentration level, as
ing consistently. measured by the number of names. Clearly, there is a relation-
ship between the two metrics, but concentration alone does not
Is a Concentrated Portfolio Required fully explain the strong forecasting ability of active share.
for High Active Share?
Many assume that high active share is synonymous with port- Is Historical Tracking Risk A Good Proxy
folio concentration. Concentrating a portfolio is one method
for Active Share?
for creating high active share as it generally forces a manager Since active share is not widely available in institutional
to make larger bets on individual securities. However, it is universes, many use historical tracking risk as a proxy for
identifying high active-share managers. But while many
high active-share managers have high realized tracking risk,
Figure 6 so do many low active-share managers. As an example, some
managers make large factor or industry bets while running
Active Share a Better Alpha Indicator highly diversified portfolios. Therefore, a manager’s active
Than Portfolio Concentration share may be low but the tracking risk can be quite high.
In addition, many high active-share managers have low to
Rank Correlation with Value Added, 2008 – 2010
0.5 moderate tracking risk. Diversified managers focused on
0.4 stock picking often exhibit this characteristic. Consistent
99% Confidence
0.3 with our other analyses, we ranked the three-year historical
0.2 tracking risk of all funds in our database as of year-end 2007
Percent

0.1 and compared the result with the rank of their alpha over
0
the ensuing three years ended December 31, 2010.
-0.1
-0.2 As shown in Figure 7, historical tracking risk is generally
-0.3 a poor predictor of future alpha potential. The relationship
US US US US US Global EAFE Average
Large- Large- Large- All Small was significant in only two of the eight categories analyzed.
Cap Cap Cap Cap Cap In addition, tracking risk tends to do poorly in many of
Core Growth Value
the broader categories where active share has a very strong
Active Share, Year-End 2007 relationship with alpha potential, like the global or US all-
Number of Names, Year-End 2007 cap areas. So, high alpha is not necessarily associated with
high tracking risk.




High active-share strategies also tend to be inherently
Figure 7
volatile. As an example, Figure 8 shows the median worst
one-year relative performance for the top 20% of active-share
Historical Tracking Risk: managers in the different categories of our database over the
A Poor Substitute for Active Share five years ended December 31, 2010. On average, over any
given 12-month period, high active-share managers have
Rank Correlation with Value Added, 2008 – 2010
0.4
experienced underperformance in excess of 10% relative
99% Confidence to their benchmark. For comparison, the average alpha draw-
0.3
down of all the managers over this period was about 6%.
0.2
Investing in high active-share strategies requires the ability
0.1
Percent

to withstand periods of significant underperformance in
0
pursuit of superior long-term returns.
-0.1
-0.2 Finally, there is no single “right” level of active share for all
-0.3 managers. As we have discussed, active share varies among
US US US US US Global EAFE Average different categories of managers. In the US large-cap space,
Cap Cap Cap Cap Cap an active share of 60% is fairly common. In highly diversi-
Core Growth Value
fied areas, like small cap, active share is often close to 90% as
Active Share, Year-End 2007 virtually every stock in the portfolio represents a significant
bet versus the benchmark weight. What makes a good level of
Realized Tracking Risk, 2005 – 2007
active share greatly depends on the peer investment universe
and benchmark used. Importantly, as with any risk metric,
beginning of the period. As of December 31, 2010. active share should be used in combination with other mea-
sures in order to gain more robust insights into portfolio risks.

Limitations of Active Share
As noted earlier, active share is not without limitations. Figure 8
Traditional style analysis and performance evaluation tools
are much less relevant to high active-share managers, as Drawdowns: The Achilles Heel of High Active-
stock-specific characteristics tend to dominate performance. Share Managers?
Style characteristics, like growth, value, or market cap, also
Worst One-Year Relative Performance, 2006 – 2010
change more frequently in high active-share strategies, 0
making them challenging to utilize within the nine-style- -2
box-evaluation framework that many have implemented. In -4
addition, the performance of high active-share strategies -6
Percent

tends to rely much more on manager skill than on process. -8
This may require a more qualitative manager selection -10
approach than most are accustomed to.
-12
Capacity for many of these approaches may also be con- -14
US US US US US Global EAFE Average
strained, which may effectively rule out this type of approach Large- Large- Large- All Small
for larger institutional investors. In addition, management Cap Cap Cap Cap Cap
Core Growth Value
fees are often relatively high given the active nature of these
strategies, and many high active-share strategies have short Source: Wellington Management Peer Risk Database, based on holdings at the
track records or are relatively small in terms of assets, limit- beginning of the period. As of December 31, 2010.
ing the ability to research them through traditional channels.



Retain the Alpha, Curtail the Risk be in the worst one-year alpha drawdown. For all diversi-
While we have seen that high active-share strategies on aver- fied strategies, the drawdown averaged around 7%. For the
age have greater risk potential, the evidence demonstrated high active-share/concentrated strategies, the worst one-year
in Figure 9 indicates high active-share strategies that are alpha drawdown averaged close to 12%. However, for high
also reasonably diversified tend to retain their edge in add- active-share but diversified strategies, the average alpha
ing value while significantly dampening alpha drawdowns. drawdown was around 8.5%. While marginally worse than
Figure 10 shows the average annual alpha and worst one-year the aggregate category of diversified strategies, the incre-
alpha drawdown for all funds in our peer universe segmented mental alpha over time of the diversified high active-share
between high active-share strategies with more than 100 subset warrants consideration.
names, high active-share strategies with less than 35 names,
and all strategies with more than 100 names over the five Using Active Share to Structure
years ended 2010, based on holdings as of December 31, 2005. Multi-Manager Portfolios
For six years, we have been using active share as a key ele-
Similar to earlier results, both categories of high active-share
ment in running US, global, and non-US multi-manager
strategies outperformed, with an edge to those owning
portfolios. The original concept was to create a high-alpha,
more than 100 stocks. However, the bigger difference may
high-capacity, all-weather portfolio that minimized the
big drawdowns that typically accompany strategies that
aggressively pursue total return. However, the challenge for
Figure 9
most multi-strategy portfolios is that they tend to be over-
Diversified High Active-Share Approaches diversified. We refer to this as “deworsification,” or paying
an active management fee for a closet index fund.
Average Annualized Alpha, 2006 – 2010
0.8 Active share has been a key element in helping us accom-
0.6 plish our objectives and avoid the closet-indexing concerns.
0.4 As a firm, we offer over 100 different equity strategies.
0.2
Within our multi-manager portfolios, we focus on a select
Percent

0
subset of these strategies that have very high active share;
-0.2
the median active share of the strategies we use is in excess
-0.4
of 90%. We ask all of the managers in our multi-manager
-0.6
-0.8
portfolios to avoid risk-control positions, as we manage risk
High AS and High AS and Names 100 through our approach to combining the managers. As a
Names 100 Names 35
result, most of the strategies we use are highly volatile and
Worst One-Year Relative Returns, 2006 – 2010 also have limited capacity, so they tend not to be those most
-6
commonly used in traditional investment channels.
-7
In combining managers, we require that each approach be
-8
an independent alpha generator. While we use many of our
Percent

-9 internally developed risk-management systems to evaluate
-10 this, one that we find very informative is the portfolio over-
-11
lap matrix. As an example, we calculate the portfolio overlap
between a strategy and every other approach in the portfolio.
-12
High AS and High AS and Names 100 We generally will not include any strategy where there is a
Names 100 Names 35




high degree of overlap with any other strategy. Figure 10 is Conclusion
the overlap matrix for the strategies included in our global Active share is a straightforward and effective tool for moni-
portfolio at year-end 2010. toring risk, evaluating managers, and structuring portfolios.
In almost all pairings, the overlap is less than 25%. In fact, Clearly, there are exceptions to every rule, as there are many
across all pairings, the average overlap is approximately great managers who have low active share and many poor
7%, which means that on average only a couple of stocks managers who have high active share. In this context, no
are held in common across the different pairings. In those single metric should ever be used in isolation as they all
few pairings where the overlap is moderate, this tends to be have strengths and weaknesses. But the empirical evidence
only a temporary phenomenon. While the overall portfolio is supportive of this tool as part of the mosaic of information
owns, on average, more than 400 stocks, nearly 80% of these that should be considered.
holdings are unique to an individual manager. Despite the
diversified nature of the portfolio, the active share is still
very high overall, as virtually every single position repre-
sents a significant active bet for the underlying manager
given the low overlap. By structuring portfolios in this way,
our experience has been that it is possible to retain the alpha
generation capability while limiting significant drawdowns,
consistent with the academic research.

Figure 10

Low Portfolio Overlap May Lead to Diversified Sources of Alpha
Overlap of Holdings (% of Equity Assets)
Select Global Global Global Global
Global Growth Opportunistic Special Diversified Global All Cap Global Select Contrarian
Value Horizons Value Equity Growth Opportunities Quality Equity Equity
Select Global Value
Global Growth Horizons
Global Opportunistic Value
Special Equity
Global Diversified Growth
Global All Cap Opportunities
Global Select Quality Equity
Global Contrarian Equity
Overlap
77% of holdings are unique to one strategy 25%

No stocks held by more than six of the managers 25 – 50%
50%

Holdings derived from representative accounts in each style. Shaded cells represent the percent of assets of the column heading that are contained in the row heading.
Source: Wellington Management, as of December 31, 2010.


Please make edits here, then open the Publication Template and re-link the graphic.


Notes



Notes



Wellington Management Company, llp | Boston | Chicago | Radnor, PA | San Francisco

Wellington Global Investment Management Ltd | Hong Kong | Beijing Representative Office

Wellington International Management Company Pte Ltd | Singapore | Sydney | Tokyo

Wellington Management International Ltd | London | Frankfurt

www.wellington.com

About Wellington Management Tracing our roots to 1928, Wellington Management is one of the largest independent investment
management firms in the world. We are a private firm whose sole business is investment management, and we serve as investment adviser for
institutional clients in over 50 countries. Our most distinctive strength is our commitment to proprietary, independent research — the foundation upon
which our investment approaches are built. Our commitment to investment excellence is evidenced by our significant presence and long-term track
records in nearly all sectors of the liquid, global securities markets.
Specific securities discussed are not necessarily representative of securities purchased, sold, or recommended for clients. It should not be assumed that any investment in the securities
discussed has been or will be profitable. Actual investments will vary for clients and there is no guarantee that a particular client’s account will hold any or all securities discussed.
This material is prepared for, and authorized for internal use by, designated institutional and professional investors and their consultants or for such other use as may be authorized by Wellington
Management Company, llp or its affiliates. This material and/or its contents are current at the time of writing and may not be reproduced or distributed in whole or in part, for any purpose,
without the express written consent of Wellington Management. This material is not intended to constitute investment advice or an offer to sell, or the solicitation of an offer to purchase
shares or other securities. Investors should always obtain and read an up-to-date investment services description or prospectus before deciding whether to appoint an investment manager or
to invest in a fund. Any views expressed herein are those of the author(s), are based on available information, and are subject to change without notice. Individual portfolio management teams
may hold different views and may make different investment decisions for different clients.
In the UK, this material is provided by Wellington Management International Limited, a firm authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). This material is directed only at
persons (Relevant Persons) who are classified as eligible counterparties or professional clients under the rules of the FSA. This material must not be acted on or relied on by persons who are
not Relevant Persons. Any investment or investment service to which this material relates is available only to Relevant Persons and will be engaged in only with Relevant Persons. Persons
residing in Austria and France are directed to contact only the Managing Director at Wellington Management International Limited in the United Kingdom for further information.
In Germany, this material is provided by Wellington Management International Limited, Niederlassung Deutschland, the German branch of Wellington Management International Limited, which
is authorized and regulated by the FSA and in respect of certain of its activities by the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht - BaFin).
This material is directed only at persons (Relevant Persons) who are classified as eligible counterparties or professional clients under the German Securities Trading Act. This material must not
be acted on or relied on by persons who are not Relevant Persons. Any investment or investment service to which this material relates is available only to Relevant Persons and will be engaged
in only with Relevant Persons. This material does not constitute financial analysis within the meaning of Section 34b of the German Securities Trading Act, does not meet all legal requirements
designed to guarantee the independence of financial analyses, and is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the publication of financial analyses. This material does not constitute
a prospectus for the purposes of the German Investment Fund Act, the German Securities Sales Prospectus Act or the German Securities Prospectus Act.
In Hong Kong, this material is provided by Wellington Global Investment Management Limited, a corporation licensed by the Securities and Futures Commission to conduct Type 1 (dealing in
securities), Type 4 (advising on securities), and Type 9 (asset management) regulated activities, on the basis that you are a Professional Investor as defined in the Securities and Futures
Ordinance. By accepting this material you acknowledge and agree that this material is provided for your use only and that you will not distribute or otherwise make this material available to a
person who is not a Professional Investor as defined in the Ordinance.
In Singapore, Wellington Management conducts its financial services business through Wellington International Management Company Pte Ltd (Registration Number 199504987R).
In Australia, Wellington International Management Company Pte Ltd (WIM) has authorized the issue of this material for use solely by wholesale clients (as defined in the Corporations Act 2001)
of WIM or of any of its related bodies corporate, or by wholesale clients who are considering investing in funds of which WIM or any of its related bodies corporate is an investment manager.
By accepting this material, a wholesale client agrees not to reproduce or distribute any part of the material, nor make it available to any retail client, without WIM’s prior written consent.
Wellington Management Company, llp is exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence (AFSL) under the Corporations Act 2001 in respect of financial services,
in reliance on class order 03/1100, a copy of which may be obtained at the web site of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, http://www.asic.gov.au. The class order exempts
a registered investment adviser regulated by the SEC, among others, from the need to hold an AFSL for financial services provided to Australian wholesale clients on certain conditions. Financial
services provided by Wellington Management Company, llp are regulated by the SEC under the laws and regulatory requirements of the United States, which are different from the laws apply-
ing in Australia.
In Japan, Wellington International Management Company Pte Ltd has been registered as a Financial Instruments Firm with registered number: Director General of Kanto Local Finance Bureau
(Kin-Sho) Number 428. WIM is a member of the Japan Securities Investment Advisers Association (JSIAA) and the Investment Trusts Association, Japan (ITA).
©2011 Wellington Management Company, llp. All rights reserved. 284813_8

FOR BROKER DEALER USE ONLY—NOT FOR USE WITH THE PUBLIC MF5799 5/11

Active share white paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Active share white paper

Similar to Active share white paper (20)

More from bfmresearch

More from bfmresearch (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Active share white paper