Forum Topics Fudging the figures
RogueTrader
Added 4 weeks ago

The AFR sticks the knife into Roger Montgomery - you have to wonder how many other fundies are fudging their figures?


ETF hater Roger Montgomery can’t beat the index Feb 25, 2026

If only Montgomery had hugged the index himself instead of actively investing, his own clients might have been better off.

Decades on from the world’s first exchange-traded fund and even the fiercest critics of passive investing usually come to admit that cheap index-hugging products are usually the best option for most people.

Unless you’re Roger Montgomery, who has kept up his incessant assault on ETFs for close to a decade now.

The Montgomery Investment Management founder has launched tirades on the risks of blindly tracking the market and cons of a passive approach across podcasts, newspapers (including this masthead) and in endless posts on his own website.

ETFs are “simply dumb investing” that only “know-nothing investors” would consider. Some are too concentrated in certain stocks, while others invest too broadly. Themed ETFs are “a trap”, and young investors “should rethink” index funds in general.

So our eyebrows shot right up when a fund managed by Montgomery was fined by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission recently for misleading consumers about its own returns compared to indices.

It turns out Montgomery had published a chart on its website for several years (and updated it monthly) purportedly showing the Polen Capital Global Growth Fund’s outperformance compared to its benchmark MSCI index since its inception. Except, it turns out, it hadn’t.

The Polen fund has only returned 23.65 per cent since its March 2021 inception, compared to 83.89 per cent from the index. Not even close! It has underperformed the index consistently over that period too, bar a few months when it first launched. Even when looking at compounded returns, it still comes in lower.

No wonder Montgomery is threatened by index huggers when his own firm can’t read indices right.

The fine was a piddling $19,800 and Montgomery (the company) has since updated its website. Surely the true penalty is the embarrassment that the only way the fund could look beat the index was by seemingly fudging the numbers.

We shouldn’t be surprised. In a 2023 blog post titled “Is it time to reconsider investing in an ASX 200 ETF?”, Montgomery built his case around the claim that the S&P/ASX 200 index has shown no capital growth in the past 16 years. He had done some maths regarding dividend payouts to get there. But in reality, if you look purely at the increase in the index’s value over that period, it was up 82 per cent.

Then there’s his own flagship Montgomery Fund. It’s underperformed its benchmark S&P 300 Accumulation Index by 4.23 per cent over the past 10 years annualised and by 41.3 per cent since inception compounded.

Which means that if you’d chucked $100,000 into the fund 10 years ago, you’d now have $178,000. Whereas if you’d put that into an ETF tracking the index, you’d have $262,000. And that’s even before Montgomery takes out its far higher fees. What was he calling “dumb investing” again?

Perhaps old mate Roger has finally cottoned onto the fact he’s fighting a losing battle, as he’s recently turned his attention to selling private credit and spruiking his expertise in digital assets and AI instead.

What are ASIC’s two new favourite areas of focus of late? Watch it Roger.

ETF hater Roger Montgomery’s fund fined by ASIC as it can’t beat the index

27

Solvetheriddle
Added 4 weeks ago

Lol, Roger is a bit of a soft target. IMO The fund management industry breaks into two segments, in terms of managers (there are more, but ill keep it simple). One is institutional money, and the other, for want of a better term, is retail money. The due diligence process of Insto Money is much higher than that of retail. The asset consultants and large investors, such as industry funds, carry out pretty intense DD. They go through your trades and attribution in detail. They look for differences in the numbers compared to the narrative.

of course insto managers can enter the retail market, it is sticky money and better margin. Then there are the retail-only managers, many of whom I would approach any data released with a healthy dose of scepticism. i suspect these guys do not have a insto biz, so they operate in an opaque world. i am not saying theu release false data, buy as they say there is lies, damn lies ansd statistics. There is wiggle room.

The Geoff Wilson group has been frequently attacked for the performance numbers being very difficult to reconcile with what punters end up with. I doubt Geoff has any insto money, and retail is much more, hmmm, how would i say, flexible in reporting. At an ASA briefing i attended, even one of his lieutenants said the numbers are marketing. At least he is honest.

as a broader criticism of the whole industry, i think it is appalling that consultants get to look at attribution of managers, where retail investors get high-level numbers and a narrative which could be fantasy when compared to what is really going on in the numbers. So there is two tiered disclosure. anyway thats enough of a rant....i could go on lol

25