Baseball opening day is almost here, and for now the A’s are still playing their home games in Oakland. Like many of my readers, I am hopeful that this season will go a little better than last year’s debacle. Win or lose, my kids are excited that we’ve already booked tickets to fireworks night and the newest post-game attraction, the laser drone show. That’s right—after the game there will be drones with lasers!
I have been fascinated by the evolution of batting average within the baseball community and think there are real parallels to the ETF ecosystem. For example, consider that batting averages have tended to be the main mechanism for gauging a batter’s potential success, even though that statistic does not factor in other important offensive elements such as walks, speed and power. Similarly, ETF trading statistics, like average daily volume, do not contemplate the liquidity of trading the underlying basket of securities.
Apologies to my readers who have no interest in baseball, but today I wanted to spend a little more time discussing batting averages. I think that the reason this statistic has, for more than 100 years, been considered the foundation of measuring a hitter’s ability lies in its perceived simplicity. Take the number of hits and divide by the number of times the hitter went to the plate.
hits
Batting average = _________
times at bat
Except that is NOT the formula for batting average. The numerator implies hitting the ball in play and ending up on base—except if that happens when there is a runner on first base who is forced out at second, then that is a fielder’s choice and not a hit. Similarly, if the scorekeeper determines one of the fielders made an error on the play, then that also would not count as a hit.
The denominator implies the number of times the player comes up to the plate to hit, but that is not what constitutes an official “at bat.” At some point in the history of baseball, certain outcomes such as walks, sacrifices and being struck by a pitch were not considered part of an official “at bat.”
Given those nuances, here is a more accurate formula for batting average:
hits – fielder’s choice – errors
Batting average = __________________________________
plate appearances – sacrifices – walks – hit by pitch
There is a lot of complexity to the seemingly simple concept of a batting average, and most likely a lack of appreciation for the decision-making that determined errors should not count as hits or sacrifice bunts should not count as an official at bat.
I find this concept very analogous to recent conversations I’ve had about index methodology and construction. Often when discussing any of our index funds, clients will ask how they compare to the benchmark. One of the great financial advancements ETFs have provided over the past three decades is the ease with which investors can get tax-efficient access to popular benchmarks, for example, the S&P 500 Index for large-capitalization US equities.
The unintended consequence of that ease of access is that the ETFs that track popular benchmarks become the benchmark in the eyes of investors. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
Expecting ETFs that track major benchmark indexes to be supplanted with ETFs that track a different index within the same asset class is unrealistic, given how entrenched those benchmarks are within financial markets.
However, a couple points are worth highlighting. First, if the decision to use a benchmark index ETF is based on its perceived simplicity, investors should appreciate that the actual index methodology is often quite complex—just as we saw with the batting average formula. For example, the S&P US Indices Methodology manual is 58 pages long and outlines the decisions that were made over time on eligibility criteria, market-cap thresholds, rebalance schedules, weighting caps and buffer percentages.
To choose an ETF that tracks a major benchmark index solely for the perceived simplicity of its methodology would be misguided.
Second, if you are selecting a benchmark ETF simply because it is the benchmark, that would beg the question of why one particular set of complicated rules should have an outsized influence on asset allocation.
This leads to my final point on understanding the actual rules of index construction. Many fans of baseball like to use batting average as their means of assessing a batter’s worth. Similarly, many investors might like the rules of the major benchmark indexes of the world. However, we have seen a shift in baseball where now fans prefer different formulas when evaluating hitters, for example OPS+ (on-base plus slugging plus) or WAR (wins above replacement). In this same vein, I am seeing more investors ask about alternatives to benchmark indexes, whether that be subtle tweaks while still maintaining a low tracking error or a completely different set of rules (multifactor) designed to provide a specific investor outcome.
Over time, baseball fans have better understood the complexity and decision-making that created the batting average statistic, and are now evolving to think of new and better ways to measure the worth of a hitter. A similar awareness is happening for investors who are choosing index ETFs outside of those that track major benchmarks.
WHAT ARE THE RISKS?
All investments involve risks, including possible loss of principal. The value of investments can go down as well as up, and investors may not get back the full amount invested. Generally, those offering potential for higher returns are accompanied by a higher degree of risk. Stock prices fluctuate, sometimes rapidly and dramatically, due to factors affecting individual companies, particular industries or sectors, or general market conditions. For actively managed ETFs, there is no guarantee that the manager’s investment decisions will produce the desired results.
ETFs trade like stocks, fluctuate in market value and may trade above or below the ETF’s net asset value. Brokerage commissions and ETF expenses will reduce returns. ETF shares may be bought or sold throughout the day at their market price on the exchange on which they are listed. However, there can be no guarantee that an active trading market for ETF shares will be developed or maintained or that their listing will continue or remain unchanged. While the shares of ETFs are tradable on secondary markets, they may not readily trade in all market conditions and may trade at significant discounts in periods of market stress.
Commissions, management fees, brokerage fees and expenses may be associated with investments in ETFs. Please read the prospectus and ETF facts before investing. ETFs are not guaranteed, their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated.
IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION
This material is intended to be of general interest only and should not be construed as individual investment advice or a recommendation or solicitation to buy, sell or hold any security or to adopt any investment strategy. It does not constitute legal or tax advice. This material may not be reproduced, distributed or published without prior written permission from Franklin Templeton.
The views expressed are those of the investment manager and the comments, opinions and analyses are rendered as at publication date and may change without notice. The underlying assumptions and these views are subject to change based on market and other conditions and may differ from other portfolio managers or of the firm as a whole. The information provided in this material is not intended as a complete analysis of every material fact regarding any country, region or market. There is no assurance that any prediction, projection or forecast on the economy, stock market, bond market or the economic trends of the markets will be realized. The value of investments and the income from them can go down as well as up and you may not get back the full amount that you invested. Past performance is not necessarily indicative nor a guarantee of future performance. All investments involve risks, including possible loss of principal.
Any research and analysis contained in this material has been procured by Franklin Templeton for its own purposes and may be acted upon in that connection and, as such, is provided to you incidentally. Data from third party sources may have been used in the preparation of this material and Franklin Templeton (“FT”) has not independently verified, validated or audited such data. Although information has been obtained from sources that Franklin Templeton believes to be reliable, no guarantee can be given as to its accuracy and such information may be incomplete or condensed and may be subject to change at any time without notice. The mention of any individual securities should neither constitute nor be construed as a recommendation to purchase, hold or sell any securities, and the information provided regarding such individual securities (if any) is not a sufficient basis upon which to make an investment decision. FT accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss arising from use of this information and reliance upon the comments, opinions and analyses in the material is at the sole discretion of the user.
Products, services and information may not be available in all jurisdictions and are offered outside the U.S. by other FT affiliates and/or their distributors as local laws and regulation permits. Please consult your own financial professional or Franklin Templeton institutional contact for further information on availability of products and services in your jurisdiction.
Issued in the U.S. by Franklin Distributors, LLC, One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, California 94403-1906, (800) DIAL BEN/342-5236, franklintempleton.com – Franklin Distributors, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC, is the principal distributor of Franklin Templeton U.S. registered products, which are not FDIC insured; may lose value; and are not bank guaranteed and are available only in jurisdictions where an offer or solicitation of such products is permitted under applicable laws and regulation.
