IN THIS LIST

SPIVA® MENA Scorecard

SPIVA® Europe Mid-Year 2021

SPIVA Canada Mid-Year 2021

SPIVA India Mid-Year 2021

SPIVA South Africa Mid-Year 2021

SPIVA® MENA Scorecard

Contributor Image
Andrew Innes

Head of EMEA, Global Research & Design

Contributor Image
Andrew Cairns

Director, Global Research & Design

Contributor Image
Alberto Allegrucci

Senior Research Analyst, Global Research & Design

S&P Dow Jones Indices has been the de facto scorekeeper of the ongoing active versus passive debate since the first publication of the S&P Indices Versus Active Funds (SPIVA) U.S. Scorecard in 2002.  The SPIVA MENA Scorecard measures the performance of actively managed MENA equity funds denominated in local currencies against the performance of their respective S&P DJI benchmark indices over 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year investment horizons.

MID-YEAR 2021 HIGHLIGHTS

As the global economy bounced back from the COVID-19 crisis, oil income started to ramp up again for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries.  With successful vaccination campaigns and effective fiscal policies and reforms, economies in the MENA region continued to recover.  Expectations of steady growth reflected onto stock market trends in the region during the first half of 2021.

MENA

  • The S&P Pan Arab Composite LargeMidCap Index outperformed 92.9% of MENA Equity funds during the first half to 2021. Although this percentage decreases when including the 2020 COVID-19 market crash, the long-term 10-year figure was consistent, at 92.7%.
    • Active fund managers performed similarly on a risk-adjusted basis, with 90.3% of funds unable to beat the benchmark over the three-year period. In the longer 10-year period, this percentage was the same as the absolute basis, at 92.7%.
    • Over the one-year period, the S&P Pan Arab Composite LargeMidCap Index return was 5.6 percentage points higher than that of MENA Equity funds (on an asset-weighted average basis). This difference narrowed to 0.6% over the 10-year period.
    • Only 41.5% of the funds analyzed within the MENA Equity fund category survived the 10-year period.

GCC

  • Equity funds focused on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region did not fare better, with 92.6% underperforming the S&P GCC Composite over the six-month period.
    • Analyzing the funds’ risk-adjusted performance did not improve the picture, as 96% of GCC Equity funds underperformed the benchmark over the same six-month period.
    • When measured on an asset-weighted basis, the funds trailed the S&P GCC Composite benchmark by 8.1 percentage points over the six-month period. The S&P GCC Composite increased by 24.5% over the same period and by 46.9% over the one-year period.
    • The benchmark outperformance continued over the long term, resulting in an asset-weighted outperformance of 1.6 percentage points annualized over 10 years.

Saudi Arabia

  • Saudi Arabia Equity funds did not keep their strong benchmark-relative outperformance observed in 2020. For the six-month period, 90.9% of Saudi Arabia Equity funds underperformed the S&P Saudi Arabia
    • Despite a remarkable 27.2% asset-weighted average return during the first half of 2021, Saudi Arabia Equity funds trailed the benchmark by 3.5 percentage points, on an asset-weighted average basis.
    • Over the longer 10-year period, the outcome of active managers improved by a small degree, with 63.6% underperforming the benchmark. On a risk-adjusted basis, even fewer, albeit a majority of 54.6%, active funds were beaten by the benchmark.

pdf-icon PD F Download Full Article

SPIVA® Europe Mid-Year 2021

Contributor Image
Andrew Innes

Head of EMEA, Global Research & Design

Contributor Image
Andrew Cairns

Director, Global Research & Design

Contributor Image
Alberto Allegrucci

Senior Research Analyst, Global Research & Design

S&P Dow Jones Indices has been the de facto scorekeeper of the ongoing active versus passive debate since the first publication of the S&P Indices Versus Active Funds (SPIVA) U.S. Scorecard in 2002.  The SPIVA Europe Scorecard measures the performance of actively managed European equity funds denominated in euro (EUR), British pound sterling (GBP), and other European local currencies against the performance of their respective S&P DJI benchmark indices over 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year investment horizons.

MID-YEAR 2021 HIGHLIGHTS

As COVID-19 disruptions lessened due to successful vaccination rollouts in Europe, the first half of 2021 was characterized by a bullish and low-volatile stock market.  In this period, active funds generally struggled to keep up with their benchmarks.  However, over the one-year timeframe, a larger percentage of active funds outperformed. 

  • The S&P Europe 350® outperformed 70.7% of active euro-denominated Europe Equity funds in the first half of 2021. This percentage was up from the 41.7% obtained in the first half of 2020, during which the pandemic first sent markets plummeting.  These figures could support the notion that active managers may perform relatively better in uncertain times. 

  • Accordingly, the one-year period outperformance for the same benchmark—which includes the uncertainty of the post-COVID-19 market crash—was down to 50.7%. Similar outperformance patterns between the six-month and one-year periods can be seen across most of the fund categories. 

  • The relatively better performance by active funds during 2020 was not sufficient to compensate for the long-term trend. Every fund category saw its benchmark outperform at least 50% of the funds in the 10-year period, with averages greater than 80%. 

  • The low market volatility experienced during the first half of 2021 affected fund performance dispersion as well. The interquartile range of the performance of Europe Equity funds was just 4.2%, whereas the same metric stood at 8.1% in 2020.  This highlights that active funds generally performed more similarly to their peers in the calmer market environment. 

pdf-icon PD F Download Full Article

SPIVA Canada Mid-Year 2021

Contributor Image
Gaurav Sinha

Managing Director, Head of Americas Global Research & Design

Contributor Image
Berlinda Liu

Director, Global Research & Design

The Canadian market, like many of its counterparts around the world, soared upward during the past year despite the COVID-19 pandemic. The S&P/TSX Composite gained 33.9% for the 12-month period ending on June 30, 2021, and the smaller-cap names of the S&P/TSX Completion did slightly better, with a 35.3% gain.

Unlike many previous reports, where the performance of active funds has been similar across categories, at mid-year 2021 there was a wide spread of outcomes. For example, 60% of Canadian Equity funds and 98% of Canadian Dividend & Income Equity funds fell short of their respective benchmarks over the past 12 months. However, just 15% of Canadian Small-/Mid-Cap Equity and 23% of Canadian Focused Equity funds underperformed over the same timeframe (see Report 1).

Even for the most recent outperformers, however, the longer-term picture remains unfavorable. Canadian Focused Equity funds were the worst-performing category over the past 10 years, with 96% of funds failing to clear their hurdle rate. Canadian Small-/Mid-Cap Equity funds— technically the best-performing category over the past 10 years—had 62% of funds trailing the benchmark.

Exhibit 1

The level of out- and underperformance also showed wide spreads over the past year. On an equal-weighted basis, Canadian Small-/Mid-Cap Equity funds beat the S&P/TSX Completion by 10.7%. Larger funds tended to do a little worse than smaller funds, as the asset-weighted difference between these active funds and the benchmark narrowed down to 9.0%. On the other hand, Canadian Dividend & Income Equity funds trailed the S&P/TSX Canadian Dividend Aristocrats® Index by 12.9%, with little difference by size (see Reports 3 and 4).

Larger Canadian Equity funds (benchmarked against the S&P/TSX Composite) did better than their smaller counterparts. On an equal-weighted basis, these funds lagged by 1.7%, but on an asset-weighted basis, they actually surpassed the benchmark by 3.8%. Unfortunately, looking back over the past 10 years, these funds trailed the index by roughly 1% per year, regardless of weighting (see Reports 3 and 4).

Funds looking outside of Canada posted solid absolute returns, though they lagged their domestic-oriented peers and broadly failed to add value through active management. U.S. Equity, International Equity, and Global Equity funds posted similar annual returns on an asset-weighted basis of 24.4%, 22.3%, and 22.8%, respectively. However, the majority of these active managers (67%, 58% and 69%, respectively) still trailed their corresponding benchmarks over the past year (see Reports 1 and 4).

The SPIVA Scorecards' accounting for survivorship bias continues to provide a valuable caution for asset allocators. While more than 90% of funds stayed alive over the past year, 54% of all funds in the eligible universe 10 years ago have since been liquidated or merged. Global Equity funds were the most likely to survive after 10 years, with 65% still in business. Canadian Focused Equity funds were the least likely to survive, as just 38% managed to do so (see Report 2).

Exhibit 2

pdf-icon PD F Download Full Article

SPIVA India Mid-Year 2021

Contributor Image
Akash Jain

Associate Director, Global Research & Design

S&P Dow Jones Indices has been the de facto scorekeeper of the ongoing active versus passive debate since the first publication of the S&P Indices Versus Active Funds (SPIVA) U.S. Scorecard in 2002. Over the years, we have built on our experience publishing the report by expanding scorecard coverage into Australia, Canada, Europe, India, Japan, Latin America, and South Africa.

The SPIVA India Scorecard compares the performance of actively managed Indian mutual funds with their respective benchmark indices over 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year investment horizons. In this scorecard, we studied the performance of three categories of actively managed equity funds and two categories of actively managed bond funds over the 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods ending in June 2021.

Despite a strong run up in Indian equities in the first half of 2021, the majority of active funds in the large-cap and mid‑/small-cap fund categories lagged their respective benchmarks whereas active funds in the ELSS fund category fared better, in which only 36.59% of active funds underperformed the S&P BSE 200 (see Exhibit 1).

The mid-/small-cap fund category was the best performing among equity funds covered in this scorecard, with the S&P BSE 400 MidSmallCap Index returning 90.56% over the one-year period ending in June 2021. Investors in this category may have witnessed a wide spread in fund returns (the difference in the first and third quartile funds was 27.87%), posing investors with fund selection risks and challenges.

pdf-icon PD F Download Full Article

SPIVA South Africa Mid-Year 2021

Contributor Image
Andrew Innes

Head of EMEA, Global Research & Design

Contributor Image
Andrew Cairns

Director, Global Research & Design

S&P Dow Jones Indices has been the de facto scorekeeper of the ongoing active versus passive debate since the first publication of the S&P Indices Versus Active (SPIVA) U.S. Scorecard in 2002.  The SPIVA South Africa Scorecard measures the performance of actively managed South African equity and fixed income funds denominated in South African rands (ZAR) against their respective benchmark indices over six-month and one-, three-, and five-year investment horizons.

MID-YEAR 2021 HIGHLIGHTS

South African Equity

Through the first six months of the year, 60% of South African Equity funds underperformed the S&P South Africa 50.  The same funds fared slightly better in comparison with the S&P South Africa Domestic Shareholder Weighted (DSW) Capped Index; 49% of funds underperformed that benchmark.  A similar, yet less favorable, finding for active funds was evident over longer time horizons, during which the majority underperformed both benchmarks.  Over the five-year period, 93% and 54% underperformed the S&P South Africa 50 and S&P South Africa DSW Capped Index, respectively.

A common argument against comparing active fund performance with that of a passive benchmark is that performance alone cannot tell the whole story and that risk should also be taken into account.  However, Report 1b tells a similar tale; for South African Equity funds, the level of underperformance on a risk-adjusted basis over the five-year period is no better than when comparing returns alone.  Over this period, 93% and 53% of South African Equity funds underperformed the S&P South Africa 50 and S&P South Africa DSW Capped Index, respectively, on a risk-adjusted basis.

The S&P South Africa 50 recorded remarkable returns for the six-month and one-year periods, gaining 13.7% and 27.8%, respectively.  On an asset-weighted basis, South African Equity funds fared well in comparison to this benchmark, outperforming by 0.79% and 1.17% over the six-month and one-year periods, respectively.  However, this recent outperformance was not representative of the longer-term three- and five-year periods, when South African Equity funds underperformed by an annualized figure of 3.11% and 4.33%, respectively.

Global Equity

During the first six months of the year, 64% of Global Equity funds were outperformed by the S&P Global 1200, this figure rose to 89% over the three- and five-year periods.  On a risk-adjusted basis, this impressive outperformance continued, with 91% of funds failing to beat the S&P Global 1200 for the three- and five-year periods.

On an asset-weighted basis, there was little to separate Global Equity fund returns from their benchmark for the one-year period; fund returns were higher by 0.22%.  The benchmark outperformed by an annualized 2.92% and 1.72% over the three- and five-year periods, respectively.  Further highlighting the S&P Global 1200’s dominance over the long term, even the 75th percentile of Global Equity funds failed to outperform the benchmark for the three- and five-year periods.

pdf-icon PD F Download Full Article

Processing ...