The Advantage of Tax-Aware Transition
Tax Matters
The Enduring Appeal of Gain Deferral, Part 4
The Value of Tax-Aware Transition
March 19, 2025
Topics - Tax Aware
Our first post in this series showed the power of deferral for building wealth; our second showed how robust the value of deferral is to changes in future tax rates on capital gains; our third considers whether deferral is still the right choice if an investor is able to find a strategy with a higher expected return (i.e., when is an investor better off compounding a larger portfolio at a lower rate of return; and when is the investor better off compounding a smaller portfolio at a higher rate of return? 1 1 Close A key part of the answer to part 3 is the amount of unrealized gain in the starting portfolio. In our example, an investor with a 20% unrealized gain would be better off selling that portfolio and reinvesting the proceeds into one with a 1% expected return advantage – regardless of investment horizon. In contrast, if that starting portfolio had an 80% unrealized gain, then for investment horizons less than 16 years, the investor would be better off sticking with the starting portfolio. )
Here, we build on Part 3 by adding a tool investors and advisors increasingly have access to: tax-aware transition. 2 2 Close See, for example, Sosner and Krasner (2021). What if the investor had capital losses available to facilitate the transition from the lower-returning strategy to the higher-returning strategy?
Consider an investor who holds a $1M equity strategy with an 80% unrealized gain. This investor identifies a similar strategy, but with a +1% expected return advantage. 3 3 Close Here we assume a 7% expected return for the starting portfolio, and an 8% expected return for the second. For simplicity, we also assume the pre-tax return is the same as the after-tax return for the two strategies. Examples of these are described in Sialm and Sosner (2018). Should they make the switch? We know from Part 3 that for horizons of less than 16 years, this investor is better off sticking with the original strategy (as shown in the dashed curve below). 4 4 Close To make this analysis apples-to-apples, these comparisons use post-liquidation values. But what if they are able to make the transition more tax-efficiently?
Suppose the new strategy realizes 10% of NAV in net capital losses in the first year, which are used to offset some of the tax cost of transition (solid curve below). 5 5 Close I.e., in this case, net capital losses of $100,000 used to offset $100,000 long-term capital gains. In this case, the investor realizes a modest benefit from the tax-aware transition (about 2.4% of NAV), and the higher expected return strategy requires a shorter, 10-year investment horizon to outpace the foregone deferral benefit. 6 6 Close While a net loss of 10% of $1M NAV may seem like a large benefit to the tax bill, there is a counter-acting force of basis depletion of the new strategy due to the immediate capital loss. So in Year 1, this $100k lower basis leads to a lower post-liquidation value, which contributes to the negative difference in the first 10 years. In other words, the investor who previously needed an investment horizon of more than 15 years to be better off switching to the higher expected return strategy, is now better off switching in only 10 years.
Source: AQR. Chart shows difference in post-liquidation values for comparability. The hypothetical base case portfolio starts with $1M value and $0.2M cost basis with an annual pre-tax return of 7%. The two lines show the post-liquidation value advantage (over base case) of scenarios in which the investor immediately liquidates the gain and pays taxes to switch to a higher 8% pre-tax annual return investment. The dotted green line assumes no tax-efficient transition, i.e., no net capital losses to offset the gain/taxes paid. The blue line assumes a 10% tax-efficient transition, i.e., $0.1M in net capital losses to offset the gain, resulting in a starting portfolio value of NAVnew=$1M-($0.8M-$0.1M)⋅23.8%=$833,400 and new portfolio cost basis of Bnew=NAVnew-10%⋅$1M=$733,400. The post-liquidation value for any portfolio with return ri is calculated as S(1+ri)n (1-T)+B⋅T, where S is the starting portfolio value, n is the investment horizon, T is the tax rate (23.8%), and B is the portfolio cost basis.
Of course, a 10% net capital loss is not an upper limit; some transitions can be made more efficiently than that. 7 7 Close See for instance Liberman et al. (2023) and Sosner and Krasner (2021), which shows that active long-short strategies with pre-tax return objectives can also realize net capital losses through regular portfolio rebalancing. The authors show these net capital losses are typically larger than those achieved by long-only strategies, particularly when the starting portfolio is highly appreciated. The chart below adds one curve to the preceding chart: a transition facilitated with capital losses amounting to 30% of NAV. Clearly, there is plenty of value in making any portfolio transition tax-efficient—in the specific case of the top curve, making the investor better off switching to the higher expected return strategy over any investment horizon.
The Advantage of Higher Tax-Efficiency
Source: AQR. Chart shows difference in post-liquidation values for comparability. The hypothetical base case portfolio starts with $1M value and $0.2M cost basis with an annual pre-tax return of 7%. The two lines show the post-liquidation value advantage (over base case) of scenarios in which the investor immediately liquidates the gain and pays taxes to switch to a higher 8% pre-tax annual return investment. The dotted green line assumes no tax-efficient transition, i.e., no net capital losses to offset the gain/taxes paid. The light blue line assumes a 10% tax-efficient transition, i.e., $0.1M in net capital losses to offset the gain, resulting in a starting portfolio value of NAVnew,10%=$1M-($0.8M-$0.1M)⋅23.8%=$833,400 and new portfolio cost basis of Bnew,10%=NAVnew,10%-10%⋅$1M=$733,400. The dark blue line assumes a 30% tax-efficient transition, i.e., $0.3M in net capital losses to offset the gain, resulting in a starting portfolio value of NAVnew,30%=$1M-($0.8M-$0.3M)⋅23.8%=$881,000 and new portfolio cost basis of Bnew,30%=NAVnew,30%-30%⋅$1M=$581,000. The post-liquidation value for any portfolio with return ri is calculated as S(1+ri)n (1-T)+B⋅T, where S is the starting portfolio value, n is the investment horizon, T is the tax rate (23.8%), and B is the portfolio cost basis.
This document is not intended to, and does not relate specifically to any investment strategy or product that AQR offers. It is being provided merely to provide a framework to assist in the implementation of an investor’s own analysis and an investor’s own view on the topic discussed herein.
This document has been provided to you solely for information purposes and does not constitute an offer or solicitation of an offer or any advice or recommendation to purchase any securities or other financial instruments and may not be construed as such. The factual information set forth herein has been obtained or derived from sources believed by the author and AQR Capital Management, LLC (“AQR”) to be reliable but it is not necessarily all-inclusive and is not guaranteed as to its accuracy and is not to be regarded as a representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the information’s accuracy or completeness, nor should the attached information serve as the basis of any investment decision. This document is not to be reproduced or redistributed to any other person. The information set forth herein has been provided to you as secondary information and should not be the primary source for any investment or allocation decision. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. Diversification does not eliminate the risk of experiencing investment losses.
This material is not research and should not be treated as research. This paper does not represent valuation judgments with respect to any financial instrument, issuer, security or sector that may be described or referenced herein and does not represent a formal or official view of AQR. The views expressed reflect the current views as of the date hereof and neither the author nor AQR undertakes to advise you of any changes in the views expressed herein.
The information contained herein is only as current as of the date indicated, and may be superseded by subsequent market events or for other reasons. Charts and graphs provided herein are for illustrative purposes only. The information in this presentation has been developed internally and/or obtained from sources believed to be reliable; however, neither AQR nor the author guarantees the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of such information. Nothing contained herein constitutes investment, legal, tax or other advice nor is it to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. There can be no assurance that an investment strategy will be successful. Historic market trends are not reliable indicators of actual future market behavior or future performance of any particular investment which may differ materially, and should not be relied upon as such. Diversification does not eliminate the risk of experiencing investment losses.
The information in this paper may contain projections or other forward-looking statements regarding future events, targets, forecasts or expectations regarding the strategies described herein, and is only current as of the date indicated. There is no assurance that such events or targets will be achieved, and may be significantly different from that shown here. The information in this document, including statements concerning financial market trends, is based on current market conditions, which will fluctuate and may be superseded by subsequent market events or for other reasons.