Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 136

Global index flaw has flow-on consequences

It’s not universally known (but nor is it a secret) that MSCI, the major provider of performance indices on global equity markets, understates the performance of its global indices calculated for Australian investors. On the surface you may think this doesn’t mean much, but there are actually many flow-on effects worth tens of millions of dollars.

Index calculation trickier than it seems

The job of an index calculation group is much more complex than you think. At first blush, it may seem that all they do is take the index weightings, and account for dividends, corporate actions and stock movements to get the total performance. Well, not really, especially when it comes to global indices. When one invests offshore there are a variety of taxes such as withholding taxes and stamp duties which must be paid on dividends earned in different countries.

Where it gets really complex is that different countries have different tax treaties between them which need to be accounted for. It can also depend on whether they apply to a personal or institutional investor. Should an index provider like MSCI calculate a separate index for the performance of a global equities index based on the experience of different investor types in each country around the world? They don’t because there would be many indices to calculate. Rather they calculate the performance using the most conservative set of assumptions. Of all possible combinations, they select the one that has the highest tax / lowest performance. Because Australia has many double tax treaties in place, the performance experience of an Australian investor using a passive approach would be higher (ignoring transaction and management fees).

Understatement is a significant issue

The performance understatement has averaged between 30bp to 40bp per annum. The understatement is larger when dividend yields are high, making it an even larger problem for indices on higher-yielding sectors such as REITS and infrastructure. The simple way to provide some evidence is to look at the reported gross performance of index funds against the index.

Below I have snipped the gross performance numbers for Vanguard’s International Shares Index Fund (refer to Vanguard’s website for appropriate performance disclaimers etc.). We can see that the fund has consistently outperformed the benchmark, yet it is being run in a passive manner. (The fund is the MSCI World ex-Australia Index in AUD, and Bmk means benchmark).

DB FigureA 271115

DB FigureA 271115

Is this valuable information or just trivia?

Consider the ways we use such performance data:

Assessing the relative merits of active versus passive investment

Global equities make up a large part of many portfolios. Across institutional super funds, the average allocation is around 20% worth up to $300 billion of capital. The debate about active or passive investing in global equities is fierce and the numbers look tight: there appears to be little outperformance on average. However, once we account for the data issue, the average global equities fund underperforms (because the index is doing better than we think). Assuming an average active management fee of 50bp (above index fees) for institutional investors, then up to $1.5 billion p.a. is the possible fee pool being spent on active global equities. How well informed and how efficient is this decision?

Calculation of performance fees or bonuses based on outperformance

Some funds charge performance fees, commonly relative to the performance of the benchmark. A fund that mirrors the holdings of the index is likely to outperform the index by say 30bp. If we assume a performance fee of 10% above index, then this results in 3bp of performance fees. This isn’t a big number in the context of an individual, where many other factors will impact more greatly upon their performance. However, the system wide costs can be large, simply because the assets under management can be so large. A fund with assets of $10 billion will unfairly earn an extra $3 million p.a. in performance fees.

Furthermore, investment staff at super funds are often paid a bonus based on performance relative to benchmark. They too participate in this free ride. There can be gaming issues if the quirk is known by some but not by all within a fund. For instance, the portfolio manager in charge of selecting global equity funds, if solely aware of the quirk, may just invest passively, outperform the benchmark and receive a handsome bonus which is undeserved, at the expense of the member (directly for an industry super fund and less directly for a retail fund).

Judging different products managed by the same fund manager.

Some global equity managers offer different risk versions of their products. It is common to see the low risk product has a higher information ratio (outperformance divided by tracking error) than the higher risk version. A common explanation is that the lower risk version is more efficiently constructed. However, it is also true that the 30bp to 40bp pick-up is more significant in the context of a low risk product.

Possible solutions to improve the index

The industry could lobby MSCI to calculate an index for Australian investors, but there may be additional cost involved for users. Fund custodians could replicate the index in their systems and estimate the performance of the index on a like-for-like basis with how they calculate fund performance. Super funds could explicitly remind the investment committee and board that there is this understatement issue when it comes to assessing the performance of global shares.

Benchmarks are more difficult to calculate than a first glance may suggest. Our industry is so big that issues like this which appear minor can have impacts which cost tens of millions of dollars. It could lead to a significant amount of management fees being spent, perhaps on an uninformed basis, on actively-managed global equities. It’s a complex system, isn’t it …?

 

David Bell is Chief Investment Officer at Mine Wealth + Wellbeing. He is also working towards a PhD at University of NSW.

6 Comments
Tortoise
November 27, 2015

I've only invested based on what fund managers report, not the index. The out performance by those like Vanguard has been evident for a while.

David Bell
November 27, 2015

Hi Peter Vann and Cranky Pants,

MSCI does publish a gross of dividends index but this too is a flawed benchmark to judge the active performance of fund managers. This overstates performance compared to what would be experienced by a passive investor because passive investors would pay withholding tax and the gross index does not account for this appropriately.

The true performance experience for Australian investors lies somewhere in between the net and gross indices and can only be accurately represented by a tailored index calculated based on the withholding tax experience of Australian institutional investors.

Cheers, David

cranky pants
November 27, 2015

just give some money to an index manager and use their return, calculated by your custodian after fees and taxes, as the real-world benchmark for active managers

David Bell
November 28, 2015

Dear Cranky Pants,

I appreciate your suggestion as it sounds so simple but I'm not sure it stacks up in practice. Consider the costs of investment due diligence (not all index managers are equal) and operational due diligence, legal costs on an IMA (investment management agreement), custody costs (account set-up, accounting and reporting), as well as transition costs (the money has to come from somewhere to fund this exposure). There is also the opportunity costs of active management performance foregone (assuming we believe in that, hence the need to benchmark). So say for a $100m mandate (which I will assume as the minimum size to get a mandate) and a 1% alpha (real alpha accounting for the identified flaw) then we have an expected opportunity cost of $1m pa plus a range of one-off and ongoing costs. To me this sounds like an expensive way to get true index performance data - I don't think I would do this on behalf of my members.

The problem of inaccurate benchmark performance data affects all industry participants but unfortunately your suggestion is relevant to only a small number of funds. Assume global equities makes up 25% of assets, the minimum mandate size is $100m and that, because you believe in active management but want good benchmark data you are prepared to allocate 10% of your global equities pool to a passive exposure: your idea is relevant to super funds with assets under management of $4b plus, so probably 50 out of the 250 institutional funds. I'd like to see an accessible solution for all of the industry.

Finally, the index mis-statement issue is larger for higher yielding sectors such as global property securities and listed infrastructure. So I guess if I ran with your idea I would have to have some passive exposure to each sector where this issue exists, and be large enough to meet mandate size requirements in each of these sectors which are more niche and so on... so perhaps only a few really large funds could implement your suggestion and the opportunity costs could now be in the millions!

So thanks for your suggestion but I'm not sure I'd be running with it. I'd prefer to see the index groups come out with better solutions or funds make more simple adjustments.

Cheers, David

cranky pants
November 26, 2015

MSCI still publishes gross returns for World ex Australia so no problems to change benchmark. an even bigger step is publishing net of Australian tax indices ....measuring all managers against an appropriate alternative like anindex portfolio, not an index, to take real world effects into account makes sense to me.

Peter Vann
November 26, 2015

Hi David

I'm glad that this has been raised. It is interesting how many are unaware of this issue.

My recollection from the 1990s when my team ran an indexed international equities fund is that there were two MSCI indexes, one net of with holding taxes and a gross one. We used to use the gross one and work to claim back as much of the with holding taxes as reasonably possible (unfortunately not all) so our aim was to reduce the under performance of the "better" (i.e. high return) benchmark for the clients! And reporting both gross and net, at least then one can see the success of "tax claw back".

Do MSCI still report both gross and net returns?

Cheers
Peter

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

The biggest rort of all

Competing for alpha

Going global good for yourself and charities

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Unexpected results in our retirement income survey

Who knew? With some surprise results, the Government is on unexpected firm ground in asking people to draw on all their assets in retirement, although the comments show what feisty and informed readers we have.

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.

Six COVID opportunist stocks prospering in adversity

Some high-quality companies have emerged even stronger since the onset of COVID and are well placed for outperformance. We call these the ‘COVID Opportunists’ as they are now dominating their specific sectors.

Latest Updates

Retirement

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?

Interviews

Sean Fenton on marching to your own investment tune

Is it more difficult to find stocks to short in a rising market? What impact has central bank dominance had over stock selection? How do you combine income and growth in a portfolio? Where are the opportunities?

Compliance

D’oh! DDO rules turn some funds into a punching bag

The Design and Distribution Obligations (DDO) come into effect in two weeks. They will change the way banks promote products, force some small funds to close to new members and push issues into the listed space.

Shares

Dividends, disruption and star performers in FY21 wrap

Company results in FY21 were generally good with some standout results from those thriving in tough conditions. We highlight the companies that delivered some of the best results and our future  expectations.

Fixed interest

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Investment strategies

Seven factors driving growth in Managed Accounts

As Managed Accounts surge through $100 billion for the first time, the line between retail, wholesale and institutional capabilities and portfolios continues to blur. Lower costs help with best interest duties.

Retirement

Reader Survey: home values in age pension asset test

Read our article on the family home in the age pension test, with the RBA Governor putting the onus on social security to address house prices and the OECD calling out wealthy pensioners. What is your view?

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.