Why Market Volatility Is Renewing Interest in Active Investment Strategies

That does not mean every manager has suddenly earned the right to charge higher fees; it means the passive-versus-active argument looks less comfortable when geopolitics, technology and private markets are moving the risk map at the same time. For personal investors, the question is not whether active management is “back.” It is whether the additional cost buys a process you can actually identify and evaluate.

Volatility is a test, not a sales pitch

The trigger is clear: investors in Asia-Pacific are increasingly asking managers to generate alpha and help protect against downside risk. Schroders’ Global Investor Insights Survey 2026 found that 86% of APAC investors believe active management can help them achieve their investment goals over the next 12 to 18 months. The survey covered more than 1,000 institutional investors, wealth managers and intermediaries worldwide, including 245 from APAC.

That is investor sentiment, not proof of future outperformance. We should keep the distinction intact.

The case for passive investing remains straightforward when markets rise steadily. Capture beta. Pay less. Avoid the manager-selection problem. The post-2008 equity rally, supported by ultra-low interest rates, strengthened that argument and helped drive the expansion of cheaper ETFs.

Volatility changes the decision framework. It creates more room for allocation shifts, security selection and risk management to matter—but also creates more room for expensive activity to produce nothing but yield drag. A manager who is merely more active is not necessarily more useful.

What the survey actually says

APAC investors ranked the ability to capture outperformance first among the characteristics they want from an active asset manager, at 63%. Nimbleness in navigating uncertainty followed at 55%, while responsiveness to geopolitical disruption reached 51%.

Those preferences align with the market context described by Wealth Briefing. William Bratton, BNP Paribas’ head of cash equity research for APAC, described the volatility in South Korea’s stock market as “unprecedented.” The source also points to geopolitical and technology-related volatility, as well as the growing role of private markets, as reasons investors are reassessing the value of active oversight.

There is a practical implication here. If your portfolio is built around a low-cost index fund, you know what you are buying: market exposure, limited discretion and a fee structure designed to minimize friction. If you pay for active management, you should demand a different document trail. What decisions can the manager make? How often can the allocation change? What is the stated risk process? What exactly is the fee paying for?

Do not accept “we navigate uncertainty” as an answer. That is positioning language. You need a repeatable mandate and a way to determine whether the manager followed it.

Schroders also reported that 76% of APAC investors ranked conflict in the Middle East as a top geopolitical concern, compared with 69% globally. That helps explain why investors want more frequent portfolio discussions. Gopi Mirchandani, Schroders’ head of client group for Asia, said an annual asset-allocation discussion may be insufficient while geopolitical risks and private-market exposure are changing quickly.

Again, more meetings do not automatically create better returns. They may simply create more opportunities to trade.

The personal-investor decision

The strongest conclusion is conditional.

If you have a long horizon, limited need for tactical decisions and access to diversified, low-cost funds, passive exposure may remain the cleaner instrument. The opportunity cost of paying for management that does not add value is measurable and persistent.

If your portfolio contains concentrated positions, less-liquid private-market assets or exposures that require active oversight, professional management may offer a more defensible role. But the burden of proof belongs to the manager. Volatility is not a blank cheque for higher fees.

The broader wealth-building context matters too. Market access alone does not erase structural differences in income, capital and opportunity—an issue explored in this discussion of the myth of meritocracy and the wealth inequality gap. For individual investors, that means process matters more than fashionable labels. You cannot control the market regime. You can control the fee schedule, the mandate and the documents you agree to.

The binary choice is simple: either active management has a clearly defined job in your portfolio, or it is an expensive story attached to ordinary market exposure.