Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 243

Five ways to check attribution by active managers

Investors who are paying fees for active management should understand whether they are receiving value for money.

The process of deploying capital in an active equity management programme is a familiar one for large superannuation funds. The fund chooses a diverse mix of managers and styles and provides each manager with a share of this capital to manage. The fund sets some boundaries around how far each manager can deviate from a simple set of 'benchmark' market exposures to chase market outperformance. These boundaries, measured by a concept known as 'tracking error', define what we might call an active risk budget.

The active risk portion of a portfolio

The boundaries define a budget in the sense that they give the manager a limited amount of space to play in or set a level of allowable risks in the portfolio, to generate extra returns. While there are many, varied nuances to these arrangements, the manager’s job is to use this active risk budget wisely, to maximise the manager’s chances of delivering outperformance. Each month’s performance report will include a handful of numbers which show the success (or otherwise) of the manager over short and long periods.

Simply put, if the manager's portfolio has delivered 8% and the market 6%, the manager has been successful. It is a sore point for some (perhaps unfairly) that if the manager has delivered minus 2% to the market’s minus 4%, the manager has also been successful.

Long-term investors want to better understand not only what performance was delivered, but how. It is a better way of gaining confidence that the manager is ‘true to label’, that the performance is due to skill, not luck, and that the performance is replicable over a longer term. A useful way to answer these ‘how’ questions is by looking at the way managers use their active risk budgets.

We recently offered to help two large funds (independently) understand how their equity managers were using their active risk budgets. We compared a snapshot of each manager’s portfolio holdings to a portfolio of benchmark (index) holdings and performed an attribution to identify the different sources of active risk. We explain below what sophisticated investors can do with these insights.

Things to look for in active attribution

First, such an analysis can highlight active managers who are not using much of their active risk budget. Since funds pay active management fees on the entirety of the manager's portfolio, a discovery like this should spur spirited discussions between investor and manager. Reasonable explanations could be that the manager's style is to adopt benchmark weights where the market looks overvalued across the board, or if the manager trades small positions at high volume, or if liquidity is an issue. But it could also unmask a genuine problem, like a lack of conviction or a manager banking outperformance in a prior period that they do not want to risk unwinding.

Second, an analysis of active risks can uncover managers which are similar in style. Many managers offer a tiered management fee schedule for large funds (i.e. lower fees for larger mandates), so there may be an opportunity to consolidate multiple manager mandates into a smaller number of genuinely diverse managers to reduce fees and complexity.

Third, managers who rely predominantly on sources of risk that are not idiosyncratic (that is, are defined by common, measurable attributes) are susceptible to being replaced (or to use an edgier term, disrupted) by lower-cost rules-based strategies. For example, if a manager’s active risk comes primarily from tilting into stocks with value characteristics (or yield, growth, momentum, etc.), then an investor may prefer to find a factor manager who simply builds a portfolio to track a value index, much like a passive manager. Similarly, if active risk is mostly coming from size bets that differ from the market, the fund could look for a more equal-weighted strategy that can be implemented more cost effectively in a systematic, transparent way.

Fourth, an active risk attribution can highlight 'style drift', i.e. a manager who is not using the skills and approach the fund expects. If a fund investor is paying an active manager for a 'growth at a reasonable price' style, but their active risks are mostly coming from exposures relating to size, low volatility, stocks with common leverage characteristics etc., this flags an important issue.

Fifth, putting the active risk pieces together shows what the fund investor is really getting from a 'whole-of-portfolio' perspective. Sometimes when manager holdings offset each other, the noble aim of diversification may translate to a portfolio with hardly any overall active risk – more like a very expensive index portfolio! If the objective is to build a style-neutral portfolio, the fund might be surprised to find that multiple manager 'double-ups' lead to a significant overall bet in particular countries, sectors, or style risks. Alternatively, if the fund has an overall conviction in a certain area (for example, that large-cap markets are efficient, and so small caps yield active returns), a whole-of-portfolio view of active risks can show whether the sum of the portfolio’s parts delivers the intended small-cap risk exposure.

Active risk insights empower long-term investors as they help explain what is driving a multi-manager active equity investment programme, allow manager assertions to be tested against the evidence, and enable funds to compare their portfolio objectives to the real-world portfolio of risks that has been created.

 

Raewyn Williams is Managing Director of Research at Parametric Australia, a US-based investment advisor. This information is intended for wholesale use only. Parametric is not a licensed tax agent or advisor in Australia and this does not represent tax advice. Additional information is available at parametricportfolio.com.au.

3 Comments
Tom Brakke
March 08, 2018

I think the size of the active risk budget, or tracking error, is one of the most important dividing lines of belief in the business today.

Daniel Hudgin
March 08, 2018

my opinion is that there is no attribution calculation that currently exists that can break down performance for a fundamental/discretionary active manager in a meaningful way. Have to take an iterative/subjective approach to attribution.

Steve
March 08, 2018

A great article - thank you Raewyn. Understanding the investment philosophy of the fund manager is an incredibly important part of evaluating the risk in the portfolio. Your article shines a light on the things to look for. My investments have been directed to LICs rather than managed funds or ETFs. I have found that the investor presentations provided by the managers (at least yearly) give a far better understanding of the investment philosophy of the manager than the written research alone might provide. Even with all of this, managers constantly surprise me and often in an expensive way. Someone once said "Experience is a good school but the fees come terribly high." Your fifth point discusses the reduction in risk in portfolio through diversification. I put some of my investments into market neutral funds or funds that can short the market. This was on the basis that the active trading could be undertaken while removing equity risks. This was supposed to be the defensive and safe part of my portfolio. So far I have lost a third of my money (on market price). Investing in good listed funds trading at a premium, on the basis of yield and performnace in the hope that that they will always trade at a premium if they perform, has also been a mistake. When market conditions deteriorate some active managers revert to cash, which means the listed share does not deserve a premium over NTA anymore. That was a costly mistake. As investors we need to keep learning but I would rather learn from experts such as yourself, rather than from my own expensive mistakes. Thanks again for the article.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Three fascinating lessons overlooked by investors

You get what you don’t pay for

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

Strategy

$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reason to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies will benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Strategy

Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated investors' can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.

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.