Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 277

Three key issues with S&P’s index v passive scorecard

S&P Dow Jones Indices recently released its updated Index Versus Active (SPIVA) Australian Scorecard covering fund manager versus index performance to June 2018.

The results of the analysis have again found that, with the exception of small-cap equities, the average Australian actively-managed fund underperformed comparable market indexes over the 1-year and longer periods. That is, more than 50% of active funds underperformed the index.

Unfortunately, the S&P SPIVA analysis is not comparable to, and is therefore irrelevant for, institutional superannuation funds, and may be for some individual investors.

Three key problems with the analysis

If we take Australian equities as an example (general or large-cap style), there are three problems:

1. Managers

The SPIVA analysis is based on over 300 actively-managed funds defined by Morningstar as large-cap. It is not disclosed how many managers actually manage these 300 funds.

From an institutional perspective, there are probably less than one-third that number of large-cap managers and strategies that would even be considered as potential investments, due to the tight compliance and eligibility rules they use.

2. Equal versus asset weightings

S&P Dow Jones Indices does publish some asset-weighted results (that is, weighting the results by funds under management, not giving equal weights to tiny and large fund managers) in the SPIVA. However, the tables of results which are the sources of the outperformance comparisons over 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15 years showing that x% of funds underperform the benchmark are based on equal-weighted returns. A manager with a small portfolio is given the same weight as one with many billions.

Notably, in the tables in the SPIVA Report which give both equal and asset-weighted return levels, the asset-weighted active funds outperform the equal-weighted funds by 30-50 basis points per annum. This suggests that either:

  • larger investors are able to select better-performing actively-managed funds, and/or
  • larger actively-managed funds have lower fee levels.

In either case, the asset-weighted funds would have had better performance relative to the index over time if these figures had been used for the outperformance comparisons.

3. Retail fees

The SPIVA analysis is based on fund performance provided by Morningstar, which are after-fee returns. Given the large number of funds (over 300), many have 'retail' fee levels. Moreover, even those ‘wholesale’ funds included would have fee levels significantly greater than those paid by institutional superannuation funds investing through mandates, and some options accessible by retail.

The charts in the SPIVA analysis which show cumulative (growth of a dollar) performance versus the benchmark show clear outperformance by the asset-weighted funds over the equal-weighted across essentially all periods, and for all asset classes (with the notable exception of small-cap funds). This indicates that larger investors select better performing investments.

Adjusting the results

If the SPIVA analysis was adjusted to reflect an institutional manager selection process and institutional fee levels, it would be likely that the average super fund investor would be found to consistently outperform the benchmark.

Actual results delivered by Australian super funds support this conclusion, with the SuperRatings SR50 Australian Shares Index of after-fee (i.e. actual) returns to super fund members outperforming the S&P/ASX 200 index (before fees) in every period (1, 3, 5, 10 and 15 years).

S&P Dow Jones Indices claim that they are ‘the de facto scorekeeper of the ongoing active versus passive debate’. It should be born in mind that the SPIVA Scorecard is only relevant to retail investors, and even there, should be qualified by the above analysis.

[Editor's note: The SPIVA data is often quoted to demonstrate active manager underperformance, but it is not the only company which monitors managers. The latest Mercer Investment Survey results were recently released for September 2018, as shown below. Perhaps supporting John Peterson's analysis, Mercer shows the median Australian shares manager outperformed the S&P/ASX300 by 1.2% (9.4% versus 8.2%, before fees) over five years. Even after fees, this result is likely to show outperformance].

 

John Peterson is the Founder of Peterson Research Institute Pty Ltd and has 40 years of experience in the financial services and investment industry. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute financial or any other advice.

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

11 lessons from my lousy $50K profit on Afterpay

Afterpay listed at $1 in 2016 and traded recently at $70. How should an investor treat a small holding in a 70-bagger when each new level defies the experts? Should true believers let the profits run?

Which companies will do well in the turmoil of 2020?

While the shutting of Australia’s borders to international travellers and quarantine measures is damaging to certain sectors of the economy, it is not uniformly negative for all companies.

Why are we convinced 'this time it's different'?

Investors tend to overstate the impact on investments when something significant happens and they assume the future will be different. COVID-19 has been dramatic, but is it really that unusual?

Howard Marks' anatomy of an unexpected rally

Markets can swing quickly from optimism to pessimism, and while there are more positives now than in the bleak early days in March, the market is ignoring many negatives. Risk is not rewarded at these levels.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 363

The stock market continues to defy most equity pundits and push through fears of ongoing recession, job losses, business closures and a second virus wave. But if there's one factor in Australia specifically that is seriously underestimated, it is the loss of stimulus from population growth and immigration.

  • 25 June 2020

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 364

Australian shares had their biggest annual loss for eight years in FY20 while Wall Street just had its best quarter since 1987. Whatever happens from here, we will look back in a couple of years and say the outcome was obvious. We will either say, "Of course markets rose as governments injected unlimited liquidity, medical science found treatments and the economy rebounded" or "Of course markets fell as businesses collapsed, millions of jobs were lost forever, the virus was resilient and consumers changed forever."

  • 1 July 2020

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

11 lessons from my lousy $50K profit on Afterpay

Afterpay listed at $1 in 2016 and traded recently at $70. How should an investor treat a small holding in a 70-bagger when each new level defies the experts? Should true believers let the profits run?

Shares

How did shares perform in FY20 and where to from here?

Compared with most years in the last decade, FY20 performed poorly due to the virus, and now dividends are falling. There are three things to watch this year as support policies are wound back.

Shares

Which companies will do well in the turmoil of 2020?

While the shutting of Australia’s borders to international travellers and quarantine measures is damaging to certain sectors of the economy, it is not uniformly negative for all companies.

Investment strategies

Six types of big data are unlocking real insights

Data science is increasingly embedded into the research process of investment teams with the resources to exploit new technologies. The way the data is integrated and interpreted is crucial.

Investing

Will value stocks benefit from the market's inflection point?

As the world gradually emerges from the aftermath of COVID-19, many are questioning if now is value’s time to shine? How can value stocks deliver outperformance in today’s environment?

Fixed interest

Less than 1% for 100 years: watch the price risk on long bonds

Do you think investors can only lose heavily on bonds if the credit defaults? When bondholders accept 0.88% for 100 years, there is great potential for serious pain somewhere along the journey.

Economy

Five industries profoundly changed by COVID-19

Even when the virus is finally contained, the business landscape will look very different. A critical issue is the ability of consumers to find product substitutes. Many people like what they find.

Exchange traded products

Wirecard shows not all ethical ETFs pass the smell test

The strictness of screening processes can vary between ethical ETFs, and many rely on indices without additional oversight. This can result in stock inclusions that may not pass the ethical ‘smell test’.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2020 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 class service prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, has been prepared by without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Refer to our Financial Services Guide (FSG) for more information. 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.