SPIVA 2020

Each year, Standard & Poor's release the findings of their SPIVA report (Standard & Poor's Index Vs Active). The report for 2020 is interesting, as we have just been through a very volatile period for share markets.

In February and March last year, we saw share market indices drop by a third around the world. However, they quickly rebounded, with most reaching new highs by the end of the year.

A common claim made by active managers is their ability to outperform during times like these. They claim that while index funds don't do anything while prices fall, an active manager can nimbly jump between investments to save capital.

We have heard this consistently for the last decade, where big downturns were few and far between (especially compared to the decade preceding). So how have these managers fared during their time to shine?

For their SPIVA report, S&P compare the performance of actively managed funds in a variety of countries to their benchmark index. In the US, there were 1,121 funds initially.

If active managers are providing returns in line with the index, we expect less than half to outperform each year due to higher fees. If we see more than half outperforming, the average active manager has added value after fees for that period.

SPIVA for 2020

You can look through the figures for the latest report on S&P's website. Let's start by looking at the 1-year figures to see the performance for 2020. The report is split up by country.

Percentage of active managers underperforming their benchmark in 2020:

  • USA - 60.33% underperformed

  • Canada - 87.50% underperformed

  • Mexico - 69.39% underperformed

  • Brazil - 73.14% underperformed

  • Chile - 58.97% underperformed

  • Europe - 37.27% underperformed

  • South Africa - 44.44% underperformed

  • India - 80.65% underperformed

  • Japan - 54.00% underperformed

  • Australia - 55.60% underperformed

This does not paint active management in a favourable light, with particularly poor performance in Canada and India.

Surprisingly, last year brought outperformance in Europe, buoyed by UK managers, possibly due to factor exposures. S&P pointed out how these managers actually suffered losses similar to the index during the first quarter of the year, but delivered higher performance later.

SPIVA over the last five years

Despite good performance last year, it only gets worse for these managers over longer periods.

Percentage of active managers underperforming their benchmark over last five years:

  • USA - 75.27% underperformed

  • Canada - 98.63% underperformed

  • Mexico - 80.00% underperformed

  • Brazil - 86.27% underperformed

  • Chile - 95.24% underperformed

  • Europe - 75.17% underperformed

  • South Africa - 60.00% underperformed

  • India - 87.95% underperformed

  • Japan - 69.53% underperformed

  • Australia - 81.70% underperformed

Despite good outcomes in Europe last year, three quarters underperformed over the longer period. We see similar results in the USA and Australia, and Canada again at the back of the pack.

Persistence of returns

If the poor outcomes of the average manager doesn't deter an investor, they may want to try picking the one in five (such as in Australia) that will deliver. However, there isn't any evidence that doing so is possible.

The persistence scorecard adds another question to the SPIVA report: can the percentage of managers outperforming be explained by chance? If we expect some managers to do well due to luck in any given year, we should also expect a few to get lucky year on year.

S&P investigate this by taking the fund managers in the top 50% and check if they stay in the top 50% in subsequent years. If their performance was due to chance, we expect 25% to remain after one year, 12.5% in the following year etc.

In reality, starting in 2016, the results were worse than we would expect by chance. In the US, only 21.4% of managers remained in the top half in the following year. By 2020, only 4.8% stayed consistently in the top half, compared to 6.25% expected by chance.

Clearly it is not possible to choose the better managers based on their past successes.

The evidence supporting passive investment

One of the most important ideas supporting passive management is the Efficient Market Hypothesis, which describes how information is rapidly reflected in share prices. This means that, with so many market participants and information instantly available, all these participants bid the share price to a fair value.

Very few academics or investment professionals believe markets are perfectly efficient, but SPIVA provides evidence that they are efficient enough that active management is not worthwhile.

SPIVA is not the only research which shows this underperformance by active managers. Ken French published his own paper documenting the underperformance of US active fund managers. He found that the aggregate of these managers' portfolios is very similar to the index, yet they underperform due to higher costs. There is no peer-reviewed research paper which supports active management in favour of passive management.

What this means for investors

The takeaway for investors is clear. We should leave active management out of our portfolios and strong past performance does not point to good returns moving forward.

We continue to advocate for Dimensional's funds in our portfolios, as they eschew forecasting and predictions. Instead they focus on wide diversification, lower costs and the things we can control.

Debt, Bonds and Performance Fees

With new articles starting to pop up again regarding interest rates and inflation, we wanted to share some materials which resonated with us.

Both rates and inflation affect investor's short-term returns. However, in the long-term they are only two of many factors impacting returns. An important part of a successful investment experience is seeing past the noise and focusing on what we can control.

We hope you enjoy the materials below, including a financial times article provided by the NZ Herald, a column from the fantastic Mary Holm and a short piece from Dimensional's Jim Parker.

Opinion: Post-pandemic inflation fears are overblown

In this article by Financial Times' Rana Foroohar, she breaks down a range of factors impacting inflation in America and around the world. Taking a more nuanced look at the driving forces behind inflation, Foroohar points out that supply chain bottlenecks will eventually ease over time.

After all, inflation measures a general rise in prices. It does not mean everything is now magically more expensive. For example, the Reserve Bank's inflation calculator shows the general cost of food increasing by 1.6% over the last year, while the cost of clothing, largely imported, increased by 4.9%.

How long these pressures will last and what the post-pandemic will look like is still to be seen.

More from Mary Holm

In this Q&A piece from Mary Holm's Herald column, she answers a question from a reader which we hear on a regular basis. Should we increase our mortgage and invest the extra funds?

Now the reader in question was 61. We agree with Mary's suggestion to not take the risk. However, she elaborates, saying that with interest rates so low, this may be worth doing for some. The conditions she gave were:

  • You are happy in a higher-risk investment such as a growth or aggressive fund or a rental property. Only there are you likely to earn sufficiently high returns, on average, to clearly beat mortgage interest rates.

  • You can tie up the money for ten years or more, to allow time for recovery from a major downturn.

  • You won’t panic and reduce your risk in a downturn, cementing in your losses.

  • You’re in a strong financial position, and can cope if mortgage interest rates rise.

Another reader asked whether fund managers who charge a performance fee should give a refund if they perform poorly. Mary also shares our lack of appreciation from performance fees, which encourage a short-term focus and risk-taking.

If you want to read more from Mary Holm, you should scroll through her website. She has laid out the questions answered in each post so you can quickly check out any that seem worthwhile.

Lastly, we have included the full piece by Dimensional's Jim Parker below, in which he discusses the role bonds play in a diversified, long-term portfolio.

Why Bonds are Like Ballast

When Australia ended the USA’s 132-year run in the America’s Cup yacht race in 1983, the secret weapon was deep underwater. An 18-tonne winged keel gave the yacht Australia II the stability - and the crew the confidence - to win the 7th and final race.

Providing similar ballast in a diversified portfolio is the fixed interest allocation. Like the winged keel on Australia II, bonds may not garner much of the attention, particularly in relation to the billowing sails of one’s equity allocation, but they are just as vital.

This remains true whether interest rates are at 10% or closer to zero, as has been the case in recent years. Equities provide the growth, but bonds provide the stability. Without them, it will be a very choppy voyage indeed.

Of course, that might not matter much earlier in a lifetime’s investing journey. In our 20s and 30s, our financial capital tends to be dwarfed by our human capital. We have decades to retirement and can afford to face the full brunt of the storm.

But as we age and there is more financial capital at risk, our portfolios may not have the time to recover from a 30% or 40% drawdown. That’s when the stability offered by the fixed income allocation – the winged keel of investment – becomes so important.

Exhibit 1 below shows the calendar year movements of the global share market, as represented by MSCI All Country World Index, against the movements of the global bond market, as represented by the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Bond Index.

You can see in the years in which the equity market experienced a decline – in 2002, 2008, 2010 and 2011 in this 22-year sample period – global bonds steadied the ship with positive performances and offering stability and confidence for investors.

EXHIBIT 1
Global Bonds Vs Global Shares
1999 - 2020

why-bonds-are-like-ballast_exhibit-1_au.png

This relationship, where bonds zig as shares zag is also seen in much longer periods, highlighting the role that bonds play in tempering the volatility of an overall portfolio.

While there are claims in the media that bonds no longer succeed in playing that stabilising role, we only have to go back to the first quarter of 2020 during the initial shock of the COVID-19 pandemic to see what a difference bonds made when equity markets sank 30-40% in five weeks.

This doesn’t mean it will work every time. In 1994, for instance, both bonds and equities experienced declines in the same year when market interest rates rose sharply and suddenly across the developed world as economies climbed out of recession.

Despite their reputation for relative stability, bonds nevertheless are still risky assets. As with equities, the premiums they offer – term and credit – are not constant. They vary based on market expectations and the information available.

But with their known fixed income, their lower volatility, and the fact they often move differently to shares bonds can offer varied roles, allowing individual investors to tailor their respective portfolios to their own goals and risk appetites.

Alongside their use as a volatility dampener, bonds can also be a source of liquidity, a protection against inflation and a source of returns. For younger investors and those with a large equity allocation, it might make sense to take additional term and credit risk in their bond allocation. For older or more risk averse investors, it might pay to stay in shorter-term, higher credit quality bonds.

As for zero or even negative interest rate environment, it is also worth reflecting on the fact that the return on a bond is more than just its known income component. It is also made up of the expected capital gain for holding the bond for a set period based on the shape of today’s yield curve. This curve is the line drawn by bonds of the same credit quality but of different maturities.

Using the information in today’s prices, we can build portfolios to meet different investor needs. As interest rates vary around the world and yield curves are shaped differently, it gives us a larger hunting ground for expected returns while reducing volatility.

Given we want to reduce volatility, we can take exchange rate movements out of the equation by hedging the currency exposure from these overseas bonds back to the same starting point in Australian and New Zealand dollars. (See Exhibit 2)

EXHIBIT 2
Global Bonds Can Enhance Expected Returns

why-bonds-are-like-ballast_exhibit-2_au.png

The upshot is that this global approach to bond investing allows for more diversified portfolios that can more reliably deliver investment outcomes. And this is without having to try to forecast interest rates or spend a lot of time worrying what central banks will do.

In summary, bonds still can play an important role in your portfolio – as a diversifier and source of stability, as a source of liquidity, as a hedge against inflation and as a source of returns, even in zero rate environments.

But like any voyage at sea, it all starts with your goal.