You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to visit our Mobile web app instead?
 Registered users can save articles to their personal articles list. Login here or sign up here

CoreShares looks to change its Equally Weighted Top 40 ETF

As it reconsiders its offering.

CoreShares is currently the only local manager that offers an ETF tracking the FTSE/JSE Equally Weighted Top 40 Index. This index is re-balanced every quarter to give each share in the Top 40 a weighting of 2.5% (for the purposes of this index, Investec plc and Investec Ltd are considered together, as are Mondi plc and Mondi Ltd).

However, CoreShares announced this week that it wants to replace this with an entirely different strategy. It wants to introduce a multi-factor index that will give investors exposure to six specific ‘market factors’ – value, positive momentum, mid-cap, low volatility, high profitability and low investment.

These factors can essentially be thought of as different investment styles.

“A retail investor might be more used to thinking about different managers who embrace different styles of investing,” explains Gareth Stobie, MD of CoreShares. “We are trying to capture those styles in a rules-based framework. So you could think of a multi-factor index as a multi-style approach. Instead of investing with a value manager or a quality manager, you are putting them together in one portfolio and letting the correlation benefits of that play out through time.”

Investing in just one style can often result in volatile performance. Value managers, for instance, might outperform over the long run, but they can underperform severely in the short term. By combining these factors, or styles, that volatility is reduced. At periods when value is underperforming, quality might be delivering returns, for instance.

Managing risk

CoreShares believes this is the most prudent approach to smart beta investing.

“If an investor’s goal is to move away from the market cap-weighted index and hold something different, we are going to put forward our best house view on how to do that,” Stobie says. “That is to hold all the factors alongside each other.”

A significant benefit of this approach is the attention it pays to managing risk, which is lacking in products that simply track a broad market index. This is a particular concern in South Africa where a few stocks make up such a large part of the index.

“The multi-factor strategy pays a lot of attention to portfolio construction and weighting techniques,” Stobie explains. “At the end of December, the biggest single share weighting in the portfolio was only 4.6%. It also gives you effective exposure to 41 shares.”

In addition, it delivers lower volatility.

“It is where the market has gone globally,” Stobie says. “Four or five years ago the early adopters were buying single factor indices, but more and more clients are moving to a multi-factor framework. It avoids the timing and cyclicality issues that one tends to experience at a single factor level.”

The motivation

One might suggest that the recent poor performance of the Equally Weighted Top 40 Index has made products that track it less appealing. As the below table shows, it has underperformed the Top 40 significantly over the last six years.

Source: FTSE Russell

Before that, however, it did show marginal outperformance. This is generally what one would expect from this index given that it minimises concentration risk and gives investors effective exposure to more companies.

In addition to the investment case, Stobie says another motivation for CoreShares to change the mandate of the fund away from the Equally Weighted Top 40 is to bring more clarity to its product offering.

“We’ve gone back to the drawing board and asked what are the ETFs (exchange-traded funds) that we think are most useful for investors,” Stobie explains. “What we don’t want to do is fall into the trap of product proliferation in the ETF market.

“As it is, there are well over 20 South African equity ETFs that you can buy on the JSE, and we don’t think that’s particularly helpful, particularly if you have individual smart beta strategies like value, momentum and quality that are quite cyclical through time,” he adds. “What ends up happening is that investor behaviour creeps in where the strategy is bought at the top of the cycle and sold at the bottom of the cycle.”

CoreShares positioning

CoreShares instead believes that it should restrict itself to three areas. The first is a simple, market-cap-weighted product, which is the most simple for investors to understand.

The second is a dividend strategy that gives investors who require an income to generate some of that from the equity market.

The third is smart beta. However, it has chosen to avoid single factor strategies in favour of something it believes is more investor-friendly.

“We wanted to avoid the trap of having a value fund, a momentum fund, a quality fund, and leaving investors with the dilemma of having to choose between them,” Stobie explains. “A multi-factor strategy might seem more complex, but actually we are doing a lot of the heavy lifting for investors by allocating across that spectrum of smart beta opportunities. So the same thing that makes it complicated is also what makes it neat. It simplifies one’s exposure to all of the factors.”

Investors are currently being balloted on the change. If they agree that the fund can change its mandate, it will mean that there will no longer be an equally weighted Top 40 ETF available on the JSE. However, investors who want to invest in a product that tracks this index will still be able to do so through the Satrix Equally Weighted Top 40 unit trust.

Get access to Moneyweb's financial intelligence and support quality journalism for only
R63/month or R630/year.
Sign up here, cancel at any time.

AUTHOR PROFILE

COMMENTS   13

To comment, you must be registered and logged in.

LOGIN HERE

Don't have an account?
Sign up for FREE

Sounds like a complete waste of time to me. They might as well just pick the stocks they think are going to do well and not resort to this elaborate justification. Watch them under-perform the market and their previous strategy 🙂

ETF strategies seem to be morphing back into active investment management.

Even though their proposed strategy is passive (albeit far too complicated for my liking) there is nothing that says ETFs HAVE to be passive. They are simply funds that are traded on an exchange.

In the current market with companies being exposed for corruption and doing creative accounting, investing equal weighting blindly into all companies on the top 40 seems very risky and an Utopian idea. I would have liked a comparison between their fund and an equity fund to see which would outperform the other, equal weighting or stock picking?

Smart Beta’s, div strategies, market cap?

When do regulators decide these are not ETF’s anymore?

Seems like a strategy to increase the Annual management fee but still stay under the ETF umbrella.

ETFs doesn’t have to be passive. They are simply funds that are traded on an exchange. Just like UTs doesn’t have to be active. There is a distinction between the vehicle (UT vs ETF) and the strategy (active vs passive). Any combination of these two still fall within the scope of CIS regulations.

Smart Beta not so smart after all. To be fair just equally weighting shares nver really seemed so smart

To understand smart Beta investing you should probably familiarise yourself with the work of Fama & French on the size and value premium, as well as Novy-Marx’s on the profitability premium.

These factors are not necessarily each year and how far you tilt your portfolio toward these factors will also have an effect on performance each year, but the academic research does make sense.

The greater conundrum is finding a provider who can execute on such strategies.

If you are a passive investor I would stay far away from coreshares. They think they are smarter than the market and will costs you money long term. Changing one one of the most explicitly named ETF has made me loose complete faith in coreshares.

Instead of smart Beta,

They could launch smartest Beta – a fund of funds of local ETF’s with different weightings depending on style, market cap, momentum.. whatever.

That way they don’t have to worry about buying lots of individual stocks and paying exorbitant bid ask spreads and expense ratio’s.

What will such a strategy cost? ie Total investment charge (total expense ratio + transaction costs)

A well weighted Smart Beta global portfolio will cost you around 0.35% on a 60/40 equity/fixed income portfolio, and up to around 0.5% max on a 100% equity portfolio.

Load All 13 Comments
End of comments.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

USD / ZAR
GBP / ZAR
EUR / ZAR

Podcasts

NEWSLETTERS WEB APP SHOP PORTFOLIO TOOL TRENDING CPD HUB

Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: