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

The 20 Commandments of Wealth for retirees

To mark his 80th, we publish a Noel classic plus his timeless commandments for retiree wealth, based on decades of advising clients, writing bestsellers and reaching millions of people every week.

Are you caught in the ‘retirement trap’?

Our retirement savings system is supposed to encourage financial independence but there is a ‘Retirement Trap’ due to the reduction of age pension entitlements as assets and income rise.

The power of letting winners run

Handling extreme winners is a complex task. Conventional wisdom such as “you never go broke taking a profit” often leaves a lot of money on the table as strong growth stocks continue to run.

Tony Togher on why cash isn’t just cash

An active manager of cash and fixed interest funds can achieve higher returns than the cash rate through a selection of other securities while managing both liquidity and income for clients.

'OK Boomer' responses keep on coming

Our sincere thanks for the amazing personal stories of how wealth was built by hard work or where some were not as fortunate. Another 600 readers have taken part in the survey since the last update.

NAB hybrid: one says buy, one says sell, you decide

Differences of opinion make a market, and hybrid specialists disagree on the likelihood that NAB will call one of its hybrids early. It makes a major difference to the expected return on NABHA.

Latest Updates

Should your equity manager hold lots of cash?

An investment with any fund manager should be part of an asset allocation decision, but what happens when your equity manager decides to do a major switch to cash? It messes up your plan.

Superannuation

The moral hazard of a national super fund

If billions of dollars of retirement savings were lost by a government agency in a national super scheme, the cost and risk would be passed back to the government and ‘caveat emptor’ would be history.

Investment strategies

Dispelling the disruption myth

We tend to call any change a 'disruption', but the vast majority of so-called disruptive technologies are variations on a theme. Many innovations are really high-risk, low-probability investments.

Compliance

Watch your SMSF’s annual return this year

The best way to preserve your SMSF’s favoured status is to make sure the fund’s annual return reaches the ATO on time. There are new rules this year that every SMSF trustee should know.

SMSF strategies

SMSFs have major role but not for everyone

Arguments between segments of the super industry do not foster public confidence. SMSFs are suitable for many who seek control of their own financial destiny, but it's not a competition. 

Sponsors

Alliances