How is it possible that so few active high yield managers outperform their index, and that passive managers lag theirs by more than their management fee? Our research shows that a high yield index is not a useful benchmark for evaluating portfolio returns, and that an alternative approach is needed.
High yields come at a cost
High yield corporate bonds offer several attractive investment features, such as coupon rates and returns that are higher than that of investment grade assets. This comes at a cost, of course. This sector of the credit market also presents challenges for investors, such as limited liquidity, defaults, rating migrations and bonds that are callable before maturity. These characteristics imply a variety of costs that are not reflected in the index returns. The underperformance of passively managed ETFs, for instance, illustrates the difficulties of generating index-like returns in the high yield market.
As long as indices do not contain all the costs that accrue in practice, high yield indices are not a fair reflection of the potential returns from a high yield credit portfolio. This means that they are not suitable as benchmarks for evaluating fund manager performance.
What would be a better performance yardstick?
“
Our recommendation for investors in high yield funds is to compare portfolio performances with one another, rather than with an index.
A different take on relative performance
Our recommendation for investors in high yield funds is to compare portfolio performances with one another, rather than with an index.
For managers who use the same index, a solution would be to compare performance amongst the managers. Where different indices are used, a solution could be to determine the relative performance of each manager – relative to the specific index used – and then to compare the outperformance amongst managers.
It is quite possible in this context that outperformance will be mainly negative for both active and passive managers. As our research shows, this does not automatically mean that all managers have performed badly, but it does make a clear statement about the use of indices as benchmarks.
Important information
The contents of this document have not been reviewed by the Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC") in Hong Kong. If you are in any doubt about any of the contents of this document, you should obtain independent professional advice. This document has been distributed by Robeco Hong Kong Limited (‘Robeco’). Robeco is regulated by the SFC in Hong Kong. This document has been prepared on a confidential basis solely for the recipient and is for information purposes only. Any reproduction or distribution of this documentation, in whole or in part, or the disclosure of its contents, without the prior written consent of Robeco, is prohibited. By accepting this documentation, the recipient agrees to the foregoing This document is intended to provide the reader with information on Robeco’s specific capabilities, but does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell certain securities or investment products. Investment decisions should only be based on the relevant prospectus and on thorough financial, fiscal and legal advice. Please refer to the relevant offering documents for details including the risk factors before making any investment decisions. The contents of this document are based upon sources of information believed to be reliable. This document is not intended for distribution to or use by any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to local law or regulation. Investment Involves risks. Historical returns are provided for illustrative purposes only and do not necessarily reflect Robeco’s expectations for the future. The value of your investments may fluctuate. Past performance is no indication of current or future performance.