Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 415

Know your fund types and structures – an acronym odyssey

Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are enjoying their time in the spotlight when compared with their older counterparts, the unlisted managed funds (MFs) and listed investment companies (LICs). With the Australian ETF market surpassing $109 billion in assets under management (AUM) in May 2021, ETFs have moved into the mainstream with both investors and advisers.

While we don’t see MFs and LICs dominating headlines as much, all three remain popular SMSF investment options that share some similarities but also some important differences that could make them more or less suitable for particular investors.

1. Investment style and structure

A key difference between LICs, ETFs and MFs is how they are structured and managed.

LICs are company structures governed by the Corporations Act and a board of directors. LICs are listed on the stock exchange via an IPO and shares are then issued to its subscribers. The capital raised by the IPO is then invested in a portfolio of securities chosen by the LIC’s fund manager.

ETFs and MFs use a trust structure, where investors pool their capital with other investors. This combined capital is then invested on their behalf by a fund manager.

LICs are actively managed, whereas managed funds and ETFs offer both active and passive (index) styles. Investors must understand the underlying investment approach particularly if they are seeking an opportunity to outperform the market.

LICs are also close-ended funds, which means there’s a set number of shares available to trade, determined by when the LIC is first listed or through any subsequent capital raisings. As such, new shares are not issued, or existing shares cancelled, when investors join or leave. Shares are bought and sold on-market so the total number of shares on issue does not change.

ETFs and MFs on the other hand are open-ended so the number of units on issue is not fixed. This means new shares can be created when investors buy the fund, or existing shares taken out of circulation if investors redeem funds, which overall contributes to strong liquidity.

This is a fundamental difference between LICs and ETFs.

Both trade daily on the ASX but because of the closed=ended structure of LICs, they will typically trade either at a discount (sometimes heavy) or at times, a premium. ETFs in contrast typically trade around their net asset value so investors pay the total of the prices of the securities within the portfolio.

Investors should be wary of LICs trading at discounts to the actual dollar value of their holdings. While it may seem like an opportunity to gain access to a portfolio of securities at less than their value, it may also mean investors could see losses if they intend to sell their LIC shares in the future and the discount has widened even further.

Some LICs have changed their structure recently from close-ended funds to ETFs or other open-ended funds in a bid to increase liquidity and address the issue of trading at persistent discounts.

2. Access

As their name suggests, LICs and ETFs can be bought and sold on the ASX through an online broker or trading account.

MFs however cannot be traded but instead, accessed directly through the fund provider or through financial advisers.

All three types of funds can provide SMSFs exposure to sectors, both domestic and international, that may otherwise be too costly or risky to access using direct investments.

3. Diversification

All three products provide strong diversification benefits to SMSFs as they offer access to hundreds or thousands of securities across, or within, a wide range of asset classes in just one investment vehicle.

Considering the generally low risk tolerance of many SMSFs, ETFs, MFs and LICs help mitigate portfolio risk because of their diversified nature.

4. Income and tax

ETFs, MFs and LICs can all provide a steady income stream dependent on the type of product selected (for example, high yield funds), but where they differ is how the distributions from these funds are paid out to investors.

Because LICs are incorporated companies, they pay a company tax of 30%. Distribution of dividends to shareholders is determined by the directors. This means LICs can also retain profits if they’ve generated particularly strong returns and steadily pay them out over future years.

This approach may be particularly beneficial to SMSFs which are looking for a smoother income stream, particularly during periods of heightened market volatility. Additionally, the income distributed by LICs can be franked which can subsequently reduce a SMSF’s tax liability depending on the applicable rate.

ETFs and MFs pool together the dividends they receive from their underlying assets and then periodically pay them to investors in the form of distributions (typically quarterly or semi-annually). Unlike LICs, ETFs and MFs do not have the ability to decide how much of the distribution (including capital gains) to pay out. They must pay in full on the stated distribution dates. This means market movements can have an impact on both the size and nature of the distribution that ETF and MF investors receive.

For example, during the first half of calendar 2020, many companies reduced dividend payments reflecting reduced profits and greater economic uncertainty. This in turn lead to many funds and ETFs paying lower distributions in the financial year ended June 2020.

But in recent months, most equity markets have recovered to pre-pandemic levels, with some even reaching all-time highs. This might mean distributions from ETFs and MFs tracking the underlying performance of these equity indexes may notably increase.

Both situations can affect the income stream and tax position of SMSFs, and it’s best for trustees to consult a licensed financial adviser if they are unsure of the impact.


Register here to receive the Firstlinks weekly newsletter for free

5. Pricing and costs

Passive managed funds and ETFs tend to be lower cost than LICs because they are not actively managed. For example, SMSFs can invest in a broad Australian-market ETF for a management cost of just 0.1%, while many LICs covering narrower segments are charging 10 times that (1%) or more. Some LICs may also charge additional fees if they outperform their target market benchmark.

Some actively-managed ETFs may have fees similar to actively-managed LICs and MFs.  

Being mindful of how costs will add up over time is a key determinant of long-term investment success. With actively-managed funds on average underperforming over the past three decades when compared to index funds, SMSFs should carefully assess if the extra fees paid to LICs are worth it.

So which one is right for you? Strategy before structure

Ultimately, selecting between ETFs, managed funds and listed investment companies should be determined by the SMSF trustee’s goals, timeframe and risk tolerance.

 

Robin Bowerman is a Principal and Head of Corporate Affairs at Vanguard Australia, a sponsor of Firstlinks. This article is for general information and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

For articles and papers from Vanguard, please click here.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Unlisted managed funds fight back, even for SMSFs

ETFs are the Marvel of listed galaxies, even with star WAR

Beat the market: active ETFs v LICs v unlisted managed funds

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?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

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?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

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.