Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 107

Value of tax-aware investment management

To mark the launch of the S&P/ASX Franking Credit Adjusted Indices, S&P Dow Jones Indices recently held a series of panel discussions on tax-aware investment management (TAIM). Panellists included the ASX, asset consultants Mercer and Towers Watson, fund managers Parametric Australia, Plato Investment Management and Warakirri Asset Management and wealth manager and advisor, HLB Mann Judd. I moderated each session.

The sessions explored the potential for superannuation funds to better manage Australian equities from an after-tax perspective, especially allowing for franking credits.

Australia’s dividend imputation system operates to neutralise the double taxation of corporate earnings. It was not until 2000 that excess franking credits were allowed to be claimed by low rate and tax exempt taxpayers, such as super funds. Previously, the imputation system resulted in low rate taxpayers forgoing tax credits attached to their dividends. For super funds this was significant, having had a 15% tax imposed on their taxable income in 1988.

What difference does tax make to investment returns?

The evidence that taxes materially affect investment returns includes the annual Russell Investments/ASX Long-term Investing Report, which measures pre and post-tax returns for various asset classes over 20 year periods, as shown in Figure 1 for a selection of asset classes:

Figure 1: Long-term pre vs post tax real returns for select asset classesHC Chart1 010515

HC Chart1 010515

Source: Russell Investment/ASX 2014 Long-term Investing Report, June 2014

Figure 1 shows the annualised inflation-adjusted index returns on a pre-tax and post-tax basis for a superannuation fund in accumulation mode and the highest personal marginal tax rate (MTR).

Given the risk equivalence, each investor’s actual return is heavily tax-dependent. Top rate taxpayers received a markedly lower net return than a superannuation fund. In the case of Australian shares, the after-tax return for a super fund actually exceeded its pre-tax equivalent due to the imputation credit. Other data sources indicate a post-tax lift in benchmark (pre-tax) Australian equity returns in the order of 0.30% to 0.60% per annum in accumulation phase, and 1.40% to 1.70% per annum in pension mode.

Does superior pre-tax performance translate to superior post-tax outcomes?

The asset management industry today exists, in the main, to deliver alpha, which, absent other explanations, is suggestive of manager skill. Alpha is usually demonstrated by a strategy’s performance against an agreed benchmark, most typically an index that represents the market return or beta.

Since its introduction in April 2000, the S&P/ASX 300 index, a pre-tax benchmark incorporating the 300 largest companies listed on the ASX by float-adjusted market capitalisation, has become a key marker that most large-cap active Australian equity funds aim to surpass. But what about taxes? As a ‘cost’ of investing, shouldn’t taxes also be incorporated into the evaluation of manager performance? And if they were, would it change pre-tax performance outcomes when viewed through a post-tax lens?

In a 1993 paper entitled ‘Is Your Alpha Big Enough to Cover Its Taxes?’, Tad Jeffery and Robert Arnott (founder of Research Affiliates) concluded that disregarding tax effects can have a significant negative impact on post-tax returns for the typical active equity manager. Subsequent studies have put this return drag in the range of 1% to 3% per annum.

Revisiting the issue in 2011, Rob Arnott, Andrew Berkin & Paul Bouchey studied the pre-tax returns of over 400 active US equity mutual funds, calculating their post-tax returns relative to passive equivalents, thus determining their tax alpha. Once again the results were the same: positive investment alpha almost inevitably came at the cost of a greater level of negative tax alpha. The authors concluded that “active management involves more than letting our gains run and cutting our losses: it involves paying attention to the trade-off among risk, return and taxes whenever an investment decision is made and whenever assets go through a transition.

Superannuation funds and tax-aware investing

What difference do tax rates have on returns experienced by super fund members? In the case of Australian shares that pay dividends, a great deal as Figure 2 shows:

Figure 2: Post-tax value of a $1 dividend receivedHC Chart2 010515

Source: Plato Investment Management Ltd (using 2012/13 personal tax rates including Medicare Levy)

Members in accumulation mode might incur a tax of between 10% and 15%, or receive an uplift of up to 21%, on their Australian shares. Members over age 60 and in pension mode either have no tax effect or receive an uplift of up to 43% on each dollar of fully franked dividend attributed them.

Cooper Review issues a tax-aware challenge

The 2010 final report of the Super System (Cooper) Review contained a section on managing for after-tax returns, including a submitter observation that taxes are often the single biggest expense for most super funds. It noted that the Australian fund management industry, unlike its US counterpart, has no obligation to calculate or report after-tax returns, and that there was a near-universal use by super trustees of pre-tax market indices as benchmarks against which fund managers were assessed and remunerated.

The Cooper Review made a recommendation to include an obligation on each APRA-regulated super fund to explicitly consider the tax consequences of its investment strategy, a change adopted into law with effect from 1 July 2013. Consideration must now be given to the overall investment strategy not just in respect of risk and return, adequate diversification, liquidity and costs, but also the expected tax consequences of investments held by each APRA-regulated fund.

Murray Review and the winds of change

Whilst the Cooper Review raised the bar for super fund tax awareness, the Financial System Inquiry (Murray Review) revisited the imputation system with somewhat different conclusions. It noted that: “The case for retaining dividend imputation is less clear than in the past. For investors (including superannuation funds) subject to low tax rates, the value of imputation credits received may exceed tax payable. Unused credits are fully refundable to these investors, with negative consequences for Government revenue.

The FSI could not make specific tax recommendations, but its insights were taken into account in the recently released Treasury Re:think tax whitepaper. The whitepaper notes that the value of franking credits claimed by individuals, super funds and charities is around $19 billion per annum. It also notes that Australia is one of only a handful of countries (along with New Zealand, Canada, Chile and Mexico) to still refrain from the double taxation of dividends. Somewhat ominously Treasury’s whitepaper asks if the imputation system still serves Australia well, or whether the taxation of dividends could be improved.

Tax matters, so manage its impact on returns

Institutional asset management as practised today evolved from foundations laid decades ago by Modern Portfolio Theory: that risk and expected return are inescapably entwined and that intelligent diversification provides as close to a free lunch as an investor can hope to achieve. MPT is, however, a simplified world without fees and taxes where all investors have the same time horizon. Real-world investing, rather than being ‘frictionless’, involves taxes that materially impact outcomes and as a result tax awareness should be central to the investment decision making process.

A commitment is required on the part of superannuation funds and the asset managers they appoint to optimise post-tax risk-adjusted returns for the members who own the assets they manage. The benefits of such a commitment would likely be enhanced investment outcomes and individuals better funded in their retirement years.

 

Harry Chemay consults across superannuation and wealth management, focusing on post-retirement outcomes. He has previously practised as a specialist SMSF advisor, and as an investment consultant to APRA-regulated superannuation funds.

This article is based on a more detailed piece written for the S&P Dow Jones Indices tax aware website.

Nothing in this article constitutes taxation advice. Where data has been provided in relation to tax rates or the application of certain taxes, these are for illustration and education only and should not be relied upon by the reader. Readers should seek advice from a suitably qualified taxation professional on their particular circumstances.

7 Comments
Ian Irving
May 29, 2015

Is there any way that someone who is not tax resident in Australia but who invests in Australian shares can reclaim the tax paid in the way that franking credits are used?
Tax on bank interest is 10 percent for non residents but I think 100 percent franking would amount to much more. Should I just be happy to not be tax resident?

Ian

David
May 14, 2015

Thanks for the interesting article, Harry.

One difficulty with pooled superannuation, in particular, is it is really difficult to get a straight answer from funds on how tax is treated. All their documentation gives the generic information (15% tax on earnings, 10% on capital gains if held >12 months, etc.) but there seem to be real differences between fund structures.

For example, if you look at the returns of an international shares option in an industry fund in their pension and accumulation accounts (where tax on dividends is largely cancelled out by credit of withholding taxes) you'll see about a 10% return difference. It appears that to keep the pooled structure fair across members (who may switch out) tax is paid on unrealised capital gains. If this is so it can cause a significant drag for "buy and hold" investors on returns vs. a self-managed fund or member direct investment where capital gains can be individually attributed. But where is this treatment explicitly documented or shared with members so they can make informed decisions?

tony Sherlock
May 03, 2015

Graham, Thanks for giving this important subject oxygen. There are no doubt investors who take only a passing account of the tax effect on dividends. Your clear explanation will be most helpful.

Tony Sherlock

Bruce Gregor
May 01, 2015

Harry
Well done on the much needed hard work of you and others in developing after tax Fund manager benchmarks. However I fear for the sustainability of imputation. Major blame for this should be sheeted home to the foolish decision of Peter Costello when federal treasurer in 2006, abolishing tax on superannuation pension payouts over age 60. With no tax payable on funded super pensions, the fundamental principle of imputation avoiding double taxation of company profits has been extinguished and the tenuous balance of taxing super in accumulation and payout stages is dissapperaing. Current piecemeal proposals on mucking around with super and age pensions are a direct result of Costello's blatant grab for short term populism. It's a bit rich for him to come out now and warn about mucking around with super.

Cranky Pants
April 30, 2015

Hi Harry,

Thanks for your article. Would you be able to share with readers how many superannuation funds report their performance against a benchmark that is also measured after taking into account the effects of fees and taxes?

Harry Chemay
May 01, 2015

Hi Cranky Pants. Many thanks for the question. I'll answer it in two parts. First, at the option level, the returns you see reported on your fund's website or in your annual statement are most definitely after-fee, post-tax returns. This is because fees and taxes are incorporated into the unit price of each option, and return calculations are typically based on the difference in start-of-period & end-of-period 'sell' unit prices.

The second part of the answer is probably more relevant to your concerns. And that is; do super funds adjust the benchmarks they use for fees and taxes? To which I have to say 'maybe'. Until recently it was very much left up to each fund trustee to determine the most appropriate benchmark(s) against which to judge option performance. From my experience some do adjust benchmarks for fees and taxes, but the process is highly assumption driven, and invariably backward looking.

Casting our eyes to the future however, and as mentioned in my article, the Cooper Review has heralded a raft of changes as to how super funds report, among other things, fees and taxes. APRA is issuing guidance here, and many of these reporting standards are still a work in progress. As recently as this week APRA released an update indicating the finalisation of 26 reporting standards with 5 still in various draft stages of consultation. Unfortunately the standards relating to fee disclosure and after-fee, after-tax investment reporting are in this latter pile, with a tentative starting date of 1 January 2016.

Peter Turnbull
April 30, 2015

Graham, I read with interests your comments on dividend imputation As a self - funded retiree i rely almost exclusively from dividends paid by Australian shareholdings and a few overseas shares i hold. The withdrawal of dividend imputation would reduce my net annual income greatly and i suppose that of many others in similar positions. As Peter Costello is reported to have said yesterday the withdrawal would severely reduce the attractiveness of Australian shares as an investment. With the budget only 12 days away we can only hope that commonsense prevails. Thank you for your thoughts on the matter.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

4 rules for measuring after-tax investing success

How inflation impacts different types of investments

$1 million v $500,000 and accepting a pension

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.

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.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

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.