default articles Corporate /en/research-insights/articles/spiva-us-scorecard-year-end-2016 content
BY CONTINUING TO USE THIS SITE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO OUR USE OF COOKIES. REVIEW OUR
PRIVACY & COOKIE NOTICE
Log in to other products

Login to Market Intelligence Platform

 /


Looking for more?

Request a Demo

You're one step closer to unlocking our suite of comprehensive and robust tools.

Fill out the form so we can connect you to the right person.

  • First Name*
  • Last Name*
  • Business Email *
  • Phone *
  • Company Name *
  • City *

* Required

In this list

SPIVA® U.S. Scorecard - Year-End 2016

S&P Dow Jones Indices

Considering the Risk from Future Carbon Prices

S&P Global Ratings

COP24 Special Edition Shining A Light On Climate Finance

S&P Global Ratings

Plugging the Climate Adaptation Gap with High Resilience Benefit Investments

Empowering Public Private Collaboration in Infrastructure


SPIVA® U.S. Scorecard - Year-End 2016

Summary

  • Starting with this scorecard, we will report the relative outperformance or underperformance of actively managed funds against their respective benchmarks over a 15-year investment horizon. The longer time horizon provides a complete market cycle to measure the effectiveness of managers across all categories.
  • Given that market conditions can impact managers’ performance from year to year, we also added rolling three-year relative performance figures from 2003 through 2016, calculated on a semiannual basis across major domestic and international equity categories.
  • The U.S. equity market finished 2016 on a strong run. Even though the S&P 500® , S&P MidCap 400® , and S&P SmallCap 600® all posted 10% losses by mid-February 2016, the indices rallied back to finish the year on a positive note, posting 11.96%, 20.74%, and 26.56%, respectively. Approximately one-half of the year’s total return for the S&P 500 and S&P MidCap 400 came within the last two months of the year, while almost two-thirds of the S&P SmallCap 600’s gains came from the same period.
  • During the one-year period ending Dec. 31, 2016, 66% of large-cap managers, 89.37% of mid-cap managers, and 85.54% of small-cap managers underperformed the S&P 500, the S&P MidCap 400, and the S&P SmallCap 600, respectively. These figures are on par with the one-year performance figures reported in June 2016, with the exception of large-cap managers, who faired relatively better.
  • Figures over the five-year period did not change significantly from the SPIVA U.S. Mid-Year 2016 Scorecard.1 During the five-year period ending Dec. 31, 2016, 88.3% of large-cap managers, 89.95% of midcap managers, and 96.57% of small-cap managers underperformed their respective benchmarks.
  • Given that active managers’ performance can vary based on market cycles, the newly available 15-year data tells a more stable narrative. Over the 15-year period ending Dec. 2016, 92.15% of large-cap, 95.4% of mid-cap, and 93.21% of small-cap managers trailed their respective benchmarks.
  • During the same 15-year period, large-cap value managers fared better than their growth counterparts.
  • International markets finished the year on a positive note. Global large caps, as measured by the S&P Global 1200, and emerging markets, as measured by the S&P/IFCI Composite, both rallied throughout the year to end with gains of 8.89% and 10.79%, respectively.
  • Across all time horizons, the majority of managers across all international equity categories underperformed their benchmarks.
  • In December 2016, the U.S. Federal Reserve raised the interest rate for the second time in a decade. Managers investing in intermediate- and short-term credit fared the best over the oneyear period, with only 19.75% and 26.61% underperforming, respectively. The same trend held through the five-year period. The 10- and 15-year periods proved to be difficult for all credit managers.
  • Trends seen at mid-year 2016 continued throughout the remainder of the year. Spreads continued to narrow, which tested high-yield bond market managers. More than 94% of managers in this category ended the one-year period lagging the index’s performance of 17.13%.
  • The continued strength in the high-yield bond market had a positive spillover effect to the leveraged loan sector. The S&P/LSTA U.S. Leveraged Loan 100 Index posted a gain of 10.88% year-over-year. This outperformance proved difficult for actively managed senior loan funds over the one-year period, with nearly 82% of funds underperforming the benchmark.
  • Funds disappear at a significant rate. Over the 15-year period, more than 58% of domestic equity funds were either merged or liquidated. Similarly, almost 52% of global/international equity funds and 49% of fixed income funds were merged or liquidated. This finding highlights the importance of addressing survivorship bias in mutual fund analysis.


Considering the Risk from Future Carbon Prices

Along with the advent of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement has come a growing understanding of the structural changes required across the global economy to shift to low- (or zero-) carbon, sustainable business practices.

The increasing regulation of carbon emissions through taxes, emissions trading schemes, and fossil fuel extraction fees is expected to feature prominently in global efforts to address climate change. Carbon prices are already implemented in 40 countries and 20 cities and regions. Average carbon prices could increase more than sevenfold to USD 120 per metric ton by 2030, as regulations aim to limit the average global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, in accordance with the Paris Agreement.

S&P Dow Jones Indices launched the S&P Carbon Price Risk Adjusted Indices to embed future carbon price risk into today’s index constituents.

Read the Full Report
Download


COP24 Special Edition Shining A Light On Climate Finance

Highlights

− Green loans are evolving, with the Climate Bond Initiative forecasting nearly $1 trillion in green bond issuance by 2020.

− Despite the uptick in green bond and loan issuance, the market still remains relatively small, especially compared to the universe of assets comprising CLO 2.0 transactions.

− In our view, a green CLO market has large growth potential, boosted by regulatory initiatives and emerging interest from both issuers and investors in 2018.

− We built a hypothetical rating scenario for a green CLO to compare and contrast the underlying portfolio and structure with a typical European CLO 2.0 transaction.

− Our hypothetical green CLO analysis showed that green loans may have different fundamental characteristics to corporate loans, such as lower asset yields, higher credit quality, and higher recovery rates assumptions.

The global collateralized loan obligation (CLO) market has experienced a rebirth (2010 in the U.S. and 2013 in Europe). New issuance continues to increase due to investor familiarity with the product, as well as low historical default rates. While a market for green assets, such as green loans and bonds has been established for a while, although still of a relative size, a sustainable securitization market is still in its infancy. Considering the challenge in financing the amounts, S&P Global Ratings expects green CLOs to play a role in increasing the private sector presence in the sustainable finance market.

Following the Paris Agreement that came into force in November 2016, 184 parties have ratified the action plan to limit global warming. For this purpose, developed nations have pledged to provide $100 billion (about €87 billion) annually until 2025. As part of this deal the EU has committed to decrease carbon emissions by 40% by 2030. In March 2018 the European Commission (EC) proposed the creation of environmental, social, and corporate governance 'taxonomy', regulating sustainable finance product disclosures, as well as introducing the 'green supporting factor' in the EU prudential rules for banks and insurance companies.

Read the Full Report
Download


Plugging the Climate Adaptation Gap with High Resilience Benefit Investments

Highlights

- Adaptation financing needs to substantially increase to address the higher impact of extreme weather to society due to climate change.

- Adaptation projects are typically cost effective and bring wide range of resilience benefits.

- To demonstrate the value of resilience benefits to various stakeholders we consider that it is important to quantify those benefits based on a robust modeling framework.

- We expect that due to the large size of the adaptation gap and constrained public finances,private investment would need to make a considerable contribution to adaptation financing.

Dec. 07 2018 — We believe the recent surge in economic damage from extreme climatic events may focus the attention of public authorities about the need for adaptation investments and accelerate investment in this area.The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) forecasts adaptation costs in developing countries at between $140 billion and $300 billion by 2030, and $280 billion and $500 billion by 2050. That is approximately 6x-13x above the amount of international public-sector finance available today--just to meet 2030 costs.

Over the last two years,the world has seen a flurry of extreme weather, which has exposed the vulnerability of many countries to these events. Climate change may make matters worse, irrespective of whether we manage to keep global warming to 2 degrees Celsius or not. Attention to climate change adaptation is therefore increasing, especially about how to finance it, given the need to raise enough public and private investment to fortify exposed countries and communities against the potentially devastating effects of physical climate risk.

Read the Full Report
Download

Watch: Empowering Public Private Collaboration in Infrastructure

S&P Global CEO Doug Peterson speaks with Maha Eltobgy from the World Economic Forum, on their joint study that looks at how greater collaboration between the public and private sector can accelerate national infrastructure programmes.