Taxes Matter In Fund Investing, Even When There's No Bill

Ted

FYI: Most of us don't worry about taxes when it comes to mutual funds.

We don't need to because we invest in them through a 401(k), IRA or another account designed to delay taxes until after retirement. More than half of all money invested in mutual funds is in tax-deferred accounts. That makes it easy to ignore whether other shareholders in the same fund are getting a big tax bill just because they're holding it in a taxable account.

Even so, it can pay to consider a mutual fund's tax history, regardless of whether your money is in a taxable or tax-deferred account. That's because funds that keep tax bills down tend to have better returns, even before taxes are taken into account.
Regards,
Ted
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/print?id=31217658

msf

Actually, the paper seems to say something a bit different.

All else being equal (i.e. same fund family, similar "size, value, and momentum scores"), the researchers found no meaningful difference in pre-tax performance between tax-managed and non-tax-managed funds.

The average before-tax return is very similar for tax-managed funds and non-tax managed funds (0.27% vs. 0.26% per month). ... The average before-tax return is not significantly different between exchange-traded funds and matched open-ended index funds (0.50% vs. 0.51% per month).

Aside from keeping turnover lower (and hence costs lower), other techniques used by tax-managed funds tend to limit what a fund can do and thus potentially impede pre-tax performance. Quoting from the paper's abstract:

Mutual funds can reduce the tax burdens of their shareholders by avoiding securities that are heavily taxed and by avoiding realizing capital gains that trigger higher tax burdens to the funds’ investors. Such tax avoidance strategies constrain the investment opportunities of the mutual funds and might reduce their before-tax performance.

The abstract continues: "Surprisingly, more tax-efficient mutual funds do not underperform other funds before taxes, indicating that the constraints imposed by tax-efficient asset management do not have significant performance consequences." Emphasis added. That is, the conclusion is only that tax-managed funds don't do worse, not that they do better.

What improves pre-tax performance is not tax-efficiency, but keeping trading costs down (a side effect of minimizing trading to keep realized gains down). So look directly for funds with low trading costs

There are lots of papers that discuss trading costs. Brokerage fees can be found in SAIs, and should correlate well with turnover ratios. Market impact is likely affected by how much of a company a fund owns. ISTM that these are the factors that one should be looking at, not tax-efficiency, which is at best a proxy for these costs.