Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 132

Choosing managers should not ignore tax impact

For large superannuation funds and other investors with institutional-sized portfolios, a common practice is to spread the allocation to a particular asset class among a number of managers within a ‘multi-manager’ structure. This provides the well-known benefits of diversification not only across asset classes, but within key allocations like Australian equities and global equities. The aim of good manager selection is to construct an optimal style blend and beat the index, noting that no one style is likely to perform well in all market conditions.

Vital information missing when selecting managers

Manager research and selection is a specialist skill which requires a comparison of alternative managers across an array of attributes, especially performance ‘track record’. It is recognised that ‘past performance is no predictor of future performance’, so other attributes considered typically include each manager’s credentials and experience, fees, structures offered, technology, research pedigree, operational support and trading efficiency. Large superannuation funds will typically engage an asset consulting firm to assist them with manager research and may also subscribe to surveys and publications which report and rank manager performance.

But much attention is paid to performance track record, and the way that performance is measured and compared by funds and advisers is very important. Yet there is a vital piece of the picture missing. Superannuation funds, like most investors, are subject to tax on investment performance and what really matters is ‘what members and investors eat’ in the form of after-tax returns. In the ideal world, it would be reasonable to assume that manager performance is, as standard practice, measured and compared on an after-tax basis. Unfortunately, this assumption is wrong.

How does this misdirect superannuation funds and other investors? Let’s take a look at the 10 year excess returns (‘alpha’) of 198 U.S. mutual fund managers ending 31 December 2013 from the perspective of an Australian complying superannuation fund. We will explain the coloured data points later.

RW Figure1a 301015

RW Figure1a 301015

Source: Parametric (2015). Analysis is of Morningstar database of 198 mutual funds’ month end performance over the period 1 January 2004 – 31 December 2013. Benchmark return is iShares MSCI EAFE ETF month end performance over same period, unhedged. Performance is gross fees. Tax impact is calculated using the tax rates and rules applicable to Australian complying superannuation funds.

Any data points above 0% on the y-axis (plotted between -6% and 6%) denote funds which appear to have outperformed by generating returns in excess of the 4.84% per annum benchmark return we have used over a 10 year period. The data points high on the y-axis indicate the most outstanding strategies based on performance track record. The y-axis is typically the only kind of performance information considered when evaluating strategies and choosing between alternative managers.

Missing the tax impact

That approach misses a significant point. What is important to also consider is the x-axis which shows the tax cost of achieving the managers’ pre-tax excess returns. It is concerning to think that many institutional investors and advisors take a ‘one-dimensional view’. By fixating on the y-axis which focuses only on pre-tax performance, they do not consider the important dimension of tax (the x-axis) which can give these decision-makers a much more complete picture of each manager’s performance after taxes. A few forward-thinking institutions have the ability to focus solely on pre-tax manager returns, because they employ a sophisticated overlay approach to tax management (Centralised Portfolio Management), but most do not have that luxury.

Without using the ‘two-dimensional’ after-tax view of manager performance, it is hard to see that:

  • strategies and managers that look very similar pre-tax can look very different on an after-tax basis – this is illustrated by comparing the two funds highlighted in red in the above chart
  • strategies and managers that look like they are adding value can actually erode wealth on an after-tax basis – this is illustrated by the funds highlighted in green in the above chart
  • a strategy or manager that looks superior to another strategy pre-tax can actually be inferior when compared after-tax – this is illustrated by comparing the two funds highlighted in purple in the above chart. The fund which generated an annual pre-tax excess return of 3.60% (compared to its competitor who returned 3.09%) in fact returned only 2.88% after-tax, less than the 2.98% after-tax return of its competitor.

The simplistic one-dimensional analysis of the performance histories of the complete set of funds shows that 132 of the 198 funds outperformed the broader market; that is, generated positive pre-tax ‘alpha’. This looks like good news. However, the two-dimensional analysis, factoring in tax, shows that only 99 (about half of the funds) actually added value above market. So, in fact, the news is not quite so good, and is certainly not good for a superannuation fund invested in one or more of the 33 managers whose performance looked healthy pre-tax but who did no better or actually worse than the market on an after-tax basis.

Analyse with tax profile in mind

This analysis should act as a cautionary message for superannuation funds and advisors engaging in the important task of choosing investment managers to achieve the right multi-manager and strategy mix. The message is to always check that performance is evaluated with the investor’s tax profile in mind and beware of traditional pre-tax analyses and their potential to mislead.

 

Raewyn Williams is Director of Research & After-Tax Solutions at Parametric, a US-based investment advisor. Parametric is exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the “Act”) in respect of the provision of financial services to wholesale clients as defined in the Act and is regulated by the SEC under US laws, which may differ from Australian laws. This information is not intended for retail clients, as defined in the Act. Parametric is not a licensed tax agent or advisor in Australia and this does not represent tax advice. Additional information is available at www.parametricportfolio.com/au.

RELATED ARTICLES

Is manager selection worth the effort for financial advisers?

Summary of LIC performance over a solid year

Our industry has a problem

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Three all-time best tables for every adviser and investor

It's a remarkable statistic. In any year since 1875, if you had invested in the Australian stock index, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods.

The looming excess of housing and why prices will fall

Never stand between Australian households and an uncapped government programme with $3 billion in ‘free money’ to build or renovate their homes. But excess supply is coming with an absence of net migration.

Five stocks that have worked well in our portfolios

Picking macro trends is difficult. What may seem logical and compelling one minute may completely change a few months later. There are better rewards from focussing on identifying the best companies at good prices.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

Let's make this clear again ... franking credits are fair

Critics of franking credits are missing the main point. The taxable income of shareholders/taxpayers must also include the company tax previously paid to the ATO before the dividend was distributed. It is fair.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

Joe Hockey on the big investment influences on Australia

Former Treasurer Joe Hockey became Australia's Ambassador to the US and he now runs an office in Washington, giving him a unique perspective on geopolitical issues. They have never been so important for investors.

Investment strategies

The tipping point for investing in decarbonisation

Throughout time, transformative technology has changed the course of human history, but it is easy to be lulled into believing new technology will also transform investment returns. Where's the tipping point?

Exchange traded products

The options to gain equity exposure with less risk

Equity investing pays off over long terms but comes with risks in the short term that many people cannot tolerate, especially retirees preserving capital. There are ways to invest in stocks with little downside.

Exchange traded products

8 ways LIC bonus options can benefit investors

Bonus options issued by Listed Investment Companies (LICs) deliver many advantages but there is a potential dilutionary impact if options are exercised well below the share price. This must be factored in.

Retirement

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

Investment strategies

Three demographic themes shaping investments for the future

Focussing on companies that will benefit from slow moving, long duration and highly predictable demographic trends can help investors predict future opportunities. Three main themes stand out.

Fixed interest

It's not high return/risk equities versus low return/risk bonds

High-yield bonds carry more risk than investment grade but they offer higher income returns. An allocation to high-yield bonds in a portfolio - alongside equities and other bonds – is worth considering.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.