Toronto Team  

  • T416.203.0067
  • 1.866.242.0203
  • F416.203.0544
  • 8 Wellington Street East
    3rd Floor
  • Toronto, Ontario M5E 1C5

Why has XIC’s tracking error been so low?

September 23, 2014 - 0 comments

Tracking error, when referring to an ETF, is the difference between the ETF’s return and the return of the underlying index it is tracking. The ETF is usually expected to lag its benchmark index by at least its management expense ratio (MER), and sometimes more.

If we compare the 10-year annualized return of the iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF (XIC) to the returns of the S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index (its current benchmark), we end up with a very respectable annualized tracking error of -0.04% (7.93% minus 7.97%). This low tracking error appears too good to be true, since the fund paid management expenses of between 0.17% and 0.27% each year.

XIC vs. the S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index as of December 31, 2013:

The main reason for this difference is BlackRock’s choice of benchmark. Throughout the measurement period, XIC is compared to the S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index, even though it historically tracked the S&P/TSX 60 Capped Index prior to November 15, 2005. This is disclosed on their website, but can easily be missed.

BlackRock Canada Performance Disclaimer:

In order to create a more apples-to-apples benchmark for XIC, the returns of the S&P/TSX 60 Capped Index should be spliced together with the returns of the S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index.  After doing this, the annualized tracking error has now increased to -0.20% (7.93% minus 8.13%). This seems much more in line with what an investor would expect to see.

XIC vs. the Spliced Canada Index as of December 31, 2013

Investors and advisors must be diligent when reviewing benchmark comparisons that have been illustrated by fund providers. In some cases the numbers may not be telling the entire story, and further analysis may be required.

By: Justin Bender with 0 comments.
Filed under: Benchmarking, Performance
Blog post currently doesn't have any comments.

 Security code