When are index delays justified? Industry standards are vital
Relying on discretion is not sustainable, argues index executive in wake of rebalance delays
In addition to the lives it has claimed and the economic damage it has already wrought, Covid-19 is ringing in a new era in financial markets. It is teaching us that, although markets’ rules and practices have generally held up well so far, there are areas that need urgent analysis and review.
One such area is the set of methodologies and practices governing indexes. Sometimes dismissed as “the basic plumbing”, in reality indexes have a huge impact on the scale and timing of investment flows around the world.
As daily price changes hit almost unprecedented levels in March, a string of index providers, including FTSE, Ice and S&P, decided to delay the next periodic rebalancing – a regular adjustment of an index’s composition that obliges funds tracking the benchmark to fine-tune their portfolios accordingly.
The providers’ rulebooks will stipulate that they are entitled to exercise discretion in this way, but postponing the rebalancing of an index can have significant consequences. Therefore those decisions must be analysed to assess if they were justified and, more importantly, the industry must come up with unequivocal standards to guide any future decisions to delay.
If an index is not rebalanced regularly in line with its methodology, the result for the investor will be “style drift” – less accurate exposure to the securities the index is meant to represent. For example, if some large companies are not added to a large-cap index and some companies that fall in size remain in that index, investors in the benchmark will not be getting quite the exposure they expect. Meanwhile, those using index-based derivatives to hedge positions in other indexes – for example, those using FTSE 100 futures to hedge FTSE All Share exposure – will end up with a less accurate hedge.
The usual process of adjusting the composition of an index is “passive”, in that changes are not discretionary but automatic, based on a pre-existing methodology. And this is linked to another potential problem with the recent rebalancing delays: if investors realise that their “passive” exposures sometimes have a guiding “active” hand, they might start having doubts about index investing – especially if they chose passive asset management precisely because they do not think active managers make good decisions.
Crises will happen again. Relying solely on judgement to deal with them is not a sustainable strategy for index providers
The ability to override an index’s rules was originally conceived to accommodate exceptional circumstances: for example, where the rules do not explain how to deal with a complex new corporate action by an underlying company, or where markets are forced to close.
The market turbulence we have witnessed since the escalation of the Covid-19 crisis is unusual but not unprecedented. Most markets have stayed open, trading has carried on and assets have continued to be priced, removing an obvious justification for putting index rebalances on hold.
There may be other market environments that would warrant a suspension, but these need to be clearly defined. Perhaps providers and various users of indexes could agree on what kind of volatility levels constitute truly exceptional swings. The industry should also come up with rules on the length of rebalancing delays – should they last a week, a month or until market metrics return to normality?
Even before such industry-wide actions are taken, index providers can do a lot individually. They should inform their users of their criteria for delaying rebalancing and provide clear forward guidance in relation to future index reviews. Any decision to postpone index changes should be based on consultation with all stakeholders – including dealers as well as the buy side – even when the timing is tight. Delays should also ideally be co-ordinated with other indexes, so that hedging correlations are preserved.
It is not inconceivable that, if the industry fails to introduce material changes, regulators will extend their powers of oversight over index providers – particularly over those that provide indexes seen as vital benchmarks for investors and pension fund holders.
Crises will happen again. Relying solely on judgement to deal with them is not a sustainable strategy for index providers. So work must begin now on reducing the scope for discretion as much as possible.
Gareth Parker is chief indexing officer and chairman at Moorgate Benchmarks.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Comment
Podcast: Olivier Daviaud on P&L attribution for options
JP Morgan quant discusses his alternative to Greeks decomposition
Falling T2 balances bode well for eurozone’s stability
Impact of fragmentation would be less severe today than in 2010s, says Marcello Minenna
Op risk data: Tech glitch gives customers unlimited funds
Also: Payback for slow Paycheck Protection payouts; SEC hits out at AI washing. Data by ORX News
Op risk data: Lloyds lurches over £450m motor finance speed bump
Also: JPM trips up on trade surveillance; Reg Best Interest starts to bite. Data by ORX News
Georgios Skoufis on RFRs, convexity adjustments and Sabr
Bloomberg quant discusses his new approach for calculating convexity adjustments for RFR swaps
In a world of uncleared margin rules, Isda Simm adapts and evolves
A look back at progress and challenges one year on from UMR and Phase 6 implementation
Op risk data: Morgan Stanley clocked in block trading shock
Also: HSBC deposit guarantee gaffe; Caixa hack cracked; reg fine insult to cyber crime injury. Data by ORX News
Digging deeper into deep hedging
Dynamic techniques and GenAI simulated data can push the limits of deep hedging even further, as derivatives guru John Hull and colleagues explain
Most read
- SG trader dismissals shine spotlight on intraday limit controls
- Basel Committee reviewing design of liquidity ratios
- Too soon to say good riddance to banks’ public enemy number one