This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
MM+cover+small+180914
Categories:Advisers,Regulation

Fund groups losing their marbles

  • Print
  • Comments (3)

Fund firms’ bloated charges are reflected in their lavish office floors

Mel Kenny - grey

I am often in awe of some of the wonderful buildings in the City which investment and insurance companies call home. The marble floors, the enormous front desks, right through to the variety of soaps in the restrooms.

But am I getting value for money? More important, is my client getting value for money? Are they being treated fairly while these institutions generate vast profits?

Activities such as mergers and acquisitions are major contributors to investment management profits but so are dealing charges. These are hidden and bloated costs that erode client funds and the ability of advisers to charge their fees without making the investment uncompetitive.

Dealing charges were last highlighted by the FSA over 10 years ago. It stated if a fund manager turned over 100 per cent of a fund, this would on average add 1.5 per cent a year to the costs.

Today, it is more likely to be around 1 per cent for the average UK equity fund, with some turning over considerably more. Performance does not merit these eye-watering charges, with the bulk of fund managers either fooled by randomness or running funds so huge they end up closet index trackers underperforming their index due to high running costs.

Many just disclose an annual charge - a useless figure often misinterpreted by investors. If we are lucky, we get to see the charge for additional expenses covering the fund’s legal and admin costs. The resulting total expense ratio is merely a voluntary disclosure, yet it is mandatory in the US.

But this is not even half the story in some highly turned- over funds. Banks will be happy to continue peddling these AMC-tagged zombie funds that trail their benchmarks but this should be the last call for IFAs to wake up. Curiously, with IFA charges under a microscope, hidden dealing charges remain under the radar.
Nonetheless, cutting dealing costs has recently become easier. Vanguard and others allow us to track markets passively at little cost and for those who prefer exposure to actively managed stocks, the Praemium platform nets trades and aggregates dealing charges very efficiently.

The bumbling RDR has presented the opportunity for all IFAs to look at our costs, how much fund managers are taking, how much we charge and how much the client is paying.

It is about time the pendulum of pricing power swung back to the advisers and their clients. There is no need for hidden trading costs that quietly install more marble in City buildings. We need the same transparency for those charges as for our own fees and we need to start putting some marble on our clients’ floors and maybe even some on our own floors too.

Mel Kenny is a chartered financial planner at Radcliffe & Newlands

  • Print
  • Comments (3)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

The Money Marketing CPD Centre
Build your annual CPD - you can log and plan your CPD hours for free with The Money Marketing CPD Centre.

Taxbriefs Advantage
Advantage is a digital reference source giving unbiased, independent, answers to your technical queries. Subscribe to Taxbriefs Advantage.

Readers' comments (3)

  • Great article, not something you see everyday on a publication paid for by fund management groups. Also worth remembering the profits made from stock-lending, which don't end up benefitting the unitholders whose capital is ultimately being employed to buy the stocks in the first place. It's no wonder advisers use passive funds and structured products to deliver returns for their clients.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A similar article might well be written about the FSA ~ bloated charges, lavish offices, enormous front desks, marble floors, costly objets d'art adorning the walls, expense allowance limits routinely and casually breached and all the rest of it. In other words, a gravy train.

    And yes, it's certainly time that the pendulum of pricing/funding power swung back to advisers. It's called accountability, something to which the FSA remains stubbornly resistant.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A similar article might well be written about the FSA ~ bloated charges, lavish offices, enormous front desks, marble floors, costly objets d'art adorning the walls, expense allowance limits routinely and casually breached and all the rest of it. In other words, a gravy train.

    And yes, it's certainly time that the pendulum of pricing/funding power swung back to advisers. It's called accountability, something to which the FSA remains stubbornly resistant.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Have you heard of cases of advised sales being disguised as execution-only?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments