Active Global Funds: Q3 2026 Performance & Attribution
Semiconductors drove most of the returns, but underweights in the sector have left active Global funds 4.10% behind the index
22 October 2026 · Steven Holden · Data to 30 September 2026
Another year behind the benchmark
The average active Global fund returned 8.32% in the first nine months of 2026, against 12.43% for the SPDR MSCI ACWI ETF. Only 26% of funds beat the index, with average alpha at -4.10%.
If that holds, 2026 will be the third year in a row of a shortfall of 4% or more, after -5.59% in 2024 and -4.14% in 2025. This note breaks down the returns of 371 active Global funds ($1.66tr AUM). It shows where managers won and lost against the benchmark, and which fund types came out ahead.
US and Asian tech delivered more than the entire collective return
The US added 5.02% to the average fund return, 60% of the total. Taiwan (+1.58%), South Korea (+1.30%) and Japan (+1.01%) added another 3.89%. Together these four markets added more than the fund’s entire return. China & HK (-0.37%), India (-0.17%) and France (-0.14%) were the biggest detractors.
The sector view is more concentrated still, with IT contributing 7.64% to total returns. Again, most of that came from four country/sector pairs: US IT (+3.87%), Taiwanese IT (+1.56%), Korean IT (+1.11%) and Dutch IT (+0.64%). Strip Technology out and the average Global fund is up just 0.68% on the year. Consumer Discretionary (-0.82%) was the only sizeable sector detractor.
Five Semiconductor stocks did over 40% of the work
TSMC (+1.22%), NVIDIA (+0.73%), Samsung Electronics (+0.64%), ASML (+0.53%) and Micron (+0.43%) added 3.55% between them – that’s 43% of the average fund’s return. Micron got there from just a 0.31% average weight after rising a remarkable 273%.
The largest detractors were quality and software names widely held in Global portfolios: Intuit (-0.20%), LVMH (-0.16%), Tencent (-0.16%), Boston Scientific (-0.14%) and HDFC Bank (-0.11%). Adobe, Accenture, Autodesk, Oracle, SAP and ServiceNow also featured among the detractors.
US stock selection was the largest source of underperformance
The underperformance came from a broad range of country positions, with few contributing positively.
Positive contributors: the underweight in India (+0.24%, mainly allocation) and the overweight in the Netherlands (+0.12%). These were the only countries contributing more than 0.10%.
Negative contributors:
- United States. The 8.40% underweight had little effect (+0.06% allocation). Stock selection cost 1.93%, for a net -1.87%.
- United Kingdom. The largest overweight (+3.09%) cost 0.43%.
- France. The 2.11% overweight cost 0.35%, mainly through allocation.
- Cash. An average weight of 2.40% cost 0.26%.
IT: allocation and selection both detracted
Among GEM managers, stock selection in IT offset the cost of the underweight. In Global funds, both effects were negative. The 4.26% underweight in a sector that returned 32% cost 0.74% in allocation, and stock selection cost a further 0.45%, a net -1.18%. US IT accounted for -1.53%.
Financials (-0.53%, mainly stock selection), Industrials (-0.50%) and Health Care (-0.47%) were the next largest detractors. Industrials and Health Care were the largest sector overweights (+2.54% and +2.57%) but returned 6.74% and 3.35% respectively. The 1.38% underweight in Energy, which returned 35%, cost 0.26%. Only Utilities and Real Estate provided modest respite.
Overweights in semiconductor leaders added value; underweights in the wider sector cost more
Positive stock attribution came from two sources. Underweights in Tesla (+0.36%), Oracle, IBM and Berkshire Hathaway (+0.08% each) added value, as did overweights in TSMC (+0.33%), ASML (+0.16%) and ARM (+0.08%).
The largest detractors were Micron (-0.47%), AMD (-0.42%), Intel (-0.24%) and SK hynix (-0.13%), a combined -1.26%. Underweights in each were small, but all four rose by more than 180%. Larger underweights in Apple (-0.24%) and NVIDIA (-0.13%) also detracted, as did overweights in Intuit (-0.11%) and LVMH (-0.09%).
Lower active share funds performed best, but none matched the index
With returns concentrated in a small number of semiconductor stocks, funds positioned closer to the index performed best, although no fund category matched the index return of 12.43%.
- Active share: low-active funds returned 11.05%, against 7.18% for high-active funds.
- Style: Yield funds returned 11.10% and Value funds 10.09%. Aggressive Growth funds returned 5.05%.
- Market cap: Blend funds returned 9.77% and Large/Megacap funds 8.04%. Small/Midcap funds returned 6.43%.
Dispersion remained wide. Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust returned 32.73% and ARGA Global Equity 30.44%, while Baillie Gifford Long Term Global Growth returned -9.14%. 12 of the bottom 20 funds were Growth or Aggressive Growth funds.
Global Performance & Attribution Pack: Q3 2026
The full pack behind this piece covers performance, country, sector and stock attribution for the average active Global fund. It also includes 1, 3, 5 and 10-year peer rankings.
Related Posts
