Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 256

5 red flags on active manager trading costs

Many active managers turnover shares in their portfolios regularly as they seek to outperform. This activity might be to lock in a gain, reduce or prevent a loss, manage portfolio risks, reinvest dividends or manage liquidity. Trading is a ‘bread and butter’ activity in any active equity portfolio which must keep churning to keep its insights current.

It is surprising, then, that the science – or perhaps art – of trading efficiency is something of a ‘black box’ inside equity portfolios. There are explicit costs of trading equities – brokerage and commissions (and transaction taxes in some countries) – as well as implicit costs of buy-sell spreads and price impacts (also called moving the market, meaning pushing the market price higher as a fund buys into it or lower as the fund sells out of it). Institutional investors with large equity portfolios should care about this ‘black box’ because whether a manager trades efficiently or inefficiently can materially affect net returns. Retail investors also feel the impact via a decision to choose active.

The baseline costs of ‘patient’ trading

To test how returns are affected by such costs, we simulated a range of institutional-size portfolios across Australian and international equity markets. We used as a baseline trading efficiency measure passive (market cap weighted) portfolios in S&P/ASX200 and MSCI World ex-Australia equities which used an execution-only (agency execution) arrangement and adopted a patient trading style. The baseline portfolio trades were a $100 million slice in Australian equities, representing 2.4% of the market’s liquidity (median daily volume) and a $500 million slice in international equities, representing 0.2% of the market’s liquidity.

A fund trading this kind of baseline portfolio could expect to pay about 0.21% of the total value of the Australian equity trades in trading costs, being 0.05% in explicit costs and 0.16% in implicit costs. For international equity trades, it could expect to pay 0.11% of total trade value in transaction costs, being 0.05% in explicit costs and 0.06% in implicit costs. These baseline results are encouraging and, for most funds, probably don’t create much of a hurdle for the trades to add value to the portfolio post-trading costs.

In considering different kinds of portfolios and trading approaches, here are five ‘red flags’ to watch for:

1. Trading on a principal, rather than agency, basis increases trading costs

Most equity trading, especially in Australia, is not agency based. In principal-based trading, the fund investor or manager is legally transacting with a broker who takes the equities onto the broker’s own books and requires additional compensation for assuming this risk. The broker often bundles additional non-execution services into the commissions charged, which in Australia can easily be three times as much as an execution-only commission rate. Are these additional costs worth paying? Perhaps, but because the costs are embedded in brokerage charges on trades inside portfolios, the fund investor rarely considers this question.

2. As portfolio trade sizes get larger, trading becomes costlier

Our baseline cost of trading Australian equities, 0.21%, almost doubles to 0.38% for a $500 million passive portfolio trade and reaches 0.48% for a $1 billion passive trade slice. Our baseline passive international equity trading cost, 0.11%, rises to 0.13%-0.26% when the trade size increases to $1 billion - $5 billion. These trade sizes are not unrealistic when you consider that the capital managed by superannuation funds collectively has now reached $2.6 trillion and APRA-regulated funds, whose portfolios are being rationalised, invest an average 51.5% of their capital (close to $900 billion in total) in Australian and international equities.

3. Active portfolios are costlier to trade than passive portfolios

Active portfolio trades typically demand more liquidity than passive portfolios. We modelled two types of active Australian equity portfolios which, compared to our baseline passive trade, demanded between 12.7%-62.9% of market liquidity for the same-sized trade. This pushed the total cost of the trade up from 0.21% to 0.37%-0.66%. Our hypothetical active international equity portfolios demanded 1.2%-3.4% of market liquidity, which pushed trade costs up from our 0.11% baseline to 0.19%-0.25%.

4. Australian equities are costlier to trade than global equities

Explicit costs to trade in Australia are relatively high by global developed-market standards, and it is not clear why. Implicit costs are also higher because the Australian equity market is roughly one-fortieth of the size of global developed equity markets, so it is easier to adversely move the market.

Superannuation funds and other large investors tend to show a ‘home bias’ towards Australian equities and support active rather than passive management. They are favouring an asset class and investment style that is more expensive to trade. Further, the redundant trading that occurs in multi-manager equity structures (absent centralised implementation) is particularly a problem in Australian equities where there is potential for different managers to trade against each other, to no net benefit in the overall portfolio.

5. Aggressive trading styles significantly increase trading costs

Finally, an equity manager’s view on how quickly, or urgently, to ‘work the trade’ in the market significantly affects trading costs. In our best-case scenario (international equities, passive, smaller trade size), a very aggressive trading style increased trading costs to 0.16% by almost doubling the implicit cost of passively trading the same order. In our worst-case scenario (Australian equities, active, large), a very aggressive trade pushed up transaction costs from an already concerning 0.66% (patient trading style) to 1.24%.

Considerations for investors

Large investors who recognise their own ‘red flags’ in these scenarios should also remember that most trades are ‘round trip’ – selling one stock, buying another – which doubles the trading cost impacts we have identified. The cumulative impact of these higher transaction costs, with the higher taxes and higher fees that come with active management, creates a hurdle that for some equity managers may be just too high to clear.

 

Raewyn Williams is Managing Director of Research at Parametric Australia, a US-based investment advisor. This information is intended for wholesale use only and does not consider the circumstances of any investor. Additional information is available at parametricportfolio.com.au.

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Getting rich vs staying rich

Strategies to get rich versus stay rich are markedly different. Here is a look at the five main ways to get rich, including through work, business, investing and luck, as well as those that preserve wealth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Superannuation

The huge cost of super tax concessions

The current net annual cost of superannuation tax subsidies is around $40 billion, growing to more than $110 billion by 2060. These subsidies have always been bad policy, representing a waste of taxpayers' money.

Planning

How to avoid inheritance fights

Inspired by the papal conclave, this explores how families can avoid post-death drama through honest conversations, better planning, and trial runs - so there are no surprises when it really matters.

Superannuation

Super contribution splitting

Super contribution splitting allows couples to divide before-tax contributions to super between spouses, maximizing savings. It’s not for everyone, but in the right circumstances, it can be a smart strategy worth exploring.

Economy

Trump vs Powell: Who will blink first?

The US economy faces an unprecedented clash in leadership styles, but the President and Fed Chair could both take a lesson from the other. Not least because the fiscal and monetary authorities need to work together.

Gold

Credit cuts, rising risks, and the case for gold

Shares trade at steep valuations despite higher risks of a recession. Amid doubts that a 60/40 portfolio can still provide enough protection through times of market stress, gold's record shines bright.

Investment strategies

Buffett acolyte warns passive investors of mediocre future returns

While Chris Bloomstan doesn't have the track record of his hero, it's impressive nonetheless. And he's recently warned that today has uncanny resemblances to the 1990s tech bubble and US returns are likely to be disappointing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.