What are the "nets" we're familiar with:
- Net-of-fees: most managers charge an advisory fee for their skill in investing their clients' assets. To report to their clients without the impact of fees is not showing the full picture. Yes, perhaps before the fees are removed (i.e., a gross-of-fee return) the manager did well, but the client wants to know the impact of the costs they incurred, which means transaction costs and management fees. Therefore, when reporting to clients, net-of-fee returns are, in my view, better than gross-of-fee.
- Net-of-taxes: a few years back, reporting "after tax" returns was being encouraged quite a bit. This was perhaps stimulated by what appeared to be excessively high double- or triple-digit returns which managers were regularly producing. If a manager provided a +50% return (net-of-fees, of course), but taxes took a big chunk out of it, because of capital gains, how well did the client actually do? Thus, the encouragement to show after-tax returns. Even the AIMR-PPS(R) and GIPS(R) (Global Investment Performance Standards) had provisions for after-tax returns (since dropped from GIPS)). In my view, managers who claim to provide tax-efficient management are obligated to provide after-tax returns. Clients who want to see them should be given them, too. As for everyone else, I'm not sure, but it would be an interesting conversation to have. If the manager isn't making an attempt to avoid the impact of taxable events, should they be required or encouraged to report the impact their trading has? If a manager is extremely inefficient when it comes to managing vis-a-vis the impact of taxes, surely their clients (and the market) would want to know this. Again, could be fun to discuss.
- Net-of-withholding taxes: When investing overseas, portions of income are withheld to pay local taxes. These funds may be recoverable. But until they are, should the returns reflect their impact? Probably, since the manager made the decision to invest in those countries and securities.
- Net-of-risk: Risk-adjusted returns are, in reality, a return that has risk stripped away. Measures such as the Sharpe ratio, Treynor measure, Jensen's Alpha, and Information Ratio produce a form of risk-adjusted (i.e., net-of-risk) returns. My favorite risk-adjusted measure, as you may be aware, is Modigliani-Modigliani (aka, M-squared). Its use results in returns that are truly net-of-risk, which can be easily shown next to the portfolio's benchmark(s), to better judge how the manager performed.
- withholding taxes,
- and risk
Okay, so what about net-of-inflation?
First, the manager obviously cannot control inflation. Inflation figures are reported ex post. And so, I don't know today what the inflation rate is; it's based on price changes over time. Can or should managers invest in a way to avoid or exploit inflation? Perhaps if they recognize that certain industries will benefit from inflation, they may invest in them, and industries that suffer, to avoid; is that reasonable? Do managers tout themselves as "inflation avoidance/efficient managers," as we have "tax avoidance/efficient managers? Not that I'm aware of, but clearly if someone does hold themselves out this way or employs such a strategy, then reporting net-of-inflation would seem to make sense.
We encourage managers to report the internal rate of return (IRR), or money-weighted return, to their clients, in order to represent how the client did. Should the manager judged on the IRR? In general, no, since the manager can't control the client's cash flow decisions, which may have a negative impact on performance. Perhaps net-of-inflation should fall under this idea, too; to show the client yet another net-of- figure, especially since their wealth is impacted by the effects of inflation. But, for the manager not to be judged. Again, an interesting question, worthy of some discussion.