Tracker Wars

Published in Investing Strategy on 10 September 2008

Tracker funds and indices invest more of your money in large companies -- is there a better way?

Trackers are good, but they're not perfect. One of the main criticisms of buying the whole index (e.g. FTSE All Share) is the bias towards large companies -- the bigger the company, the greater its weighting in the index, so the more of your money that will be invested in it.

That's fine if you believe bigger companies are better investments. Others believe that buying more of a company just because of its high market capitalisation means investing more in the fashionable shares of the day -- if there's a bubble in the market, that's what you'll be buying into, and you'll ultimately be disappointed when those shares return to 'fair value'. This has been described as “a mathematical headwind against performance”.

Arguments such as this have spawned a new class of index, and new trackers to follow them.

Known as 'fundamental indexing', and that term is trademarked, the idea is to buy shares in proportion to some fundamental measure of each share's worth. So far this has usually meant in proportion to its expected dividend, but in theory it could be in proportion to its book value, or its sales, or whatever else is considered to be an indicator of its future performance.

The idea has caught on, with an estimated $20bn now invested via fundamentally-weighted trackers and funds. One of the most popular in UK is the iShares FTSE UK Dividend Plus (LSE: IUKD), an exchange traded fund (ETF) that tracks the FTSE UK Dividend+ Index. This fund invests in the 50 highest yielding shares in the FTSE 350, in proportion to their dividend yield.

A former Motley Fool writer, Rob Davies, has also set up a Open Ended Investment Company (OEIC) based on this approach. At first glance, The Munro Fund appears similar in style to Dividend Plus ETF -- both focus on dividends from FTSE 350 companies -- but there are some important differences:

  •  the Munro Fund invests in all dividend-yielding shares in the FTSE 350 (excluding investment trusts), whereas Dividend Plus only invests in the top 50 highest yielding; and
  •  while Dividend Plus invests in proportion to each company's dividend yield (i.e. the dividend per share, divided by the share price), Munro invests in proportion to the total value of each company's dividend payout (which is independent of the share price).

So even within this niche variant of passive management, investors have a choice of investment philosophies.

Critics of fundamental indexing challenge the assumption that large cap companies are more likely to be overvalued than small companies. Even though market fads may drive prices far above fair value, there is no reason to assume that the mispricing is more likely to be found amongst the big guys.

They also maintain that any outperformance when back-testing alternative weighting systems is the result of value shares outperforming, and that fundamental indexing is simply a proxy for a value-oriented strategy.

The expense of rebalancing these portfolios is also cited as a drag on returns; capitalisation-weighted indices effectively rebalance themselves as the prices change, without incurring transaction costs.

It is also true to say that a capitalisation-weighted approach is the only strategy that can be followed by all investors.

While I can see the logic behind these criticisms, I think most of us are looking for the best way to invest a relatively small amount of money, rather than a solution that is optimal for the whole market.

And despite the arguments about efficient markets, few of us are agnostic as regards investment style. If fundamental weightings are merely proxies for a value strategy, then they are a cheap and easy way to apply that strategy, and as such they can be beneficial to value investors.

There are many heavyweight names on both sides of this argument, and the debate and analysis continues. Whichever proves to be right, the creation of more options for the investor can only be a good thing.

MorePerfecting The Index Tracker  |   Exactly What Are You Tracking?

> Visit our Index Tracker centre.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

gordonbanks42 12 Sep 2008 , 11:09pm

Conventional index tracking seems to have two (and probably only two) big benefits: (1) It is cheap to do, so the appreciation in your "unit" price is as close as poss to the performance of the underlying securities and (2) the choice of investment strategy is uncontroversial. It seems that the second of these is foregone with "fundamental indexing" because people can always have arguments about the calculations underlying the divi expectations or whatever your "fundamental" weighting is based on. As to the former (running costs), you haven't shed much light on that. Clearly there need not be a "ferrari factor" although I would guess that the index constituents will churn at a higher rate than the All-Share and the fund is having to spend money on rebalancing trades all the time. So the expenses of running one of these things will be higher than yer Fidelity or L&G All Share Index trackers.
So then there's the $64000 question - do I believe that a "fundamentally indexed" tracker is going to outperform an All-Share tracker on a like-for-like net of costs basis over the long run? Investing, as I am, over multiple cycles, probably not. A divi-heavy strategy will naturally tend to win in bad times (most of the last 10 years), but I'd want to know when to get out and into something with better capital growth characteristics when the recovery phases start. As ever, that's hard to call and I'd rather not have to try.

MunroMan 13 Sep 2008 , 1:07pm

The big challenge is for fundamental trackers to match index returns. You can find that out from this table.
http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/funds-and-managers/best-funds-by-sector.aspx

gordonbanks42 12 Sep 2008 , 11:09pm

Conventional index tracking seems to have two (and probably only two) big benefits: (1) It is cheap to do, so the appreciation in your "unit" price is as close as poss to the performance of the underlying securities and (2) the choice of investment strategy is uncontroversial. It seems that the second of these is foregone with "fundamental indexing" because people can always have arguments about the calculations underlying the divi expectations or whatever your "fundamental" weighting is based on. As to the former (running costs), you haven't shed much light on that. Clearly there need not be a "ferrari factor" although I would guess that the index constituents will churn at a higher rate than the All-Share and the fund is having to spend money on rebalancing trades all the time. So the expenses of running one of these things will be higher than yer Fidelity or L&G All Share Index trackers.
So then there's the $64000 question - do I believe that a "fundamentally indexed" tracker is going to outperform an All-Share tracker on a like-for-like net of costs basis over the long run? Investing, as I am, over multiple cycles, probably not. A divi-heavy strategy will naturally tend to win in bad times (most of the last 10 years), but I'd want to know when to get out and into something with better capital growth characteristics when the recovery phases start. As ever, that's hard to call and I'd rather not have to try.

MunroMan 13 Sep 2008 , 1:07pm

The big challenge is for fundamental trackers to match index returns. You can find that out from this table.
http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/funds-and-managers/best-funds-by-sector.aspx

jonesjeff 16 Jun 2009 , 10:18pm

Anyone buying into a tracker will be buying a big chunk of whatever is fashionable in the index at that time. So buy in during the "tech" boom & you would have been getting some seriously over valued telecoms stocks.

I really like the idea of RAFI ETFs to avoid this problem. Pity there isn't a larger range of these on offer.

Better still would be some small cap value ETFs, but that's another subject.

Monevator 19 Dec 2010 , 2:44pm

I think Trackers really need a good decade again, or people are going to give up on them.

Big UK investment trusts have produced far superior returns over the past year, with no more volatility.

(E.g. RIT Capital Partners: http://monevator.com/2009/01/14/how-to-invest-with-the-rothschilds-via-rit-capital-partners-rcp/)

I am starting to wonder if trackers have an inherent problem in looking in failures and averaging up as they grow, then selling as they get cheaper.

I know the maths says otherwise, but look at the returns. :(

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.