View more on these topics

FCA hits out at high fund charges and poor returns

FCA05

High charges in actively managed funds are not justified by higher returns on average, the FCA has found.

“Weak price competition” and a failure to report performance against an appropriate benchmark were just two of the shortcomings the regulator has found in the asset management market.

Releasing the interim findings of a study into the sector it began in November last year, the FCA says that though passive funds saw stronger price competition, there were still some examples of poor value in passives too, while fund objectives were not always clear across the sector.

The FCA finds that: “Despite a large number of firms operating in the market the asset management sector as a whole has enjoyed sustained, high profits over a number of years with significant price clustering.”

The regulator has put forward a number of reforms for the market, including an “all-in fee,” greater clarity on fund charge communication and the identification of underperformance and getting retail investors to switch into better value share classes easier.

FCA chief executive Andrew Bailey says: “We want to see greater transparency so that investors can be clear about what they are paying and the impact charges have on their returns.  We want asset managers to ensure investors receive value for money through pursuing energetically their duty to act in their customers’ best interests. The remedies that we are proposing today aim to achieve these outcomes.”


The role of investment consultants and IFAs

Investment consultants, the FCA adds, do not effectively find outperforming fund managers. More significantly, the regulator noted “conflicts of interest in the investment consulting business model which require further scrutiny.”

One of these, the regulator notes, is when investment consultants offer products that were previously provided by asset managers, such as fiduciary management and funds of funds, in a vertically integrated model and may recommend these over better value investments outside their range.

The FCA says: “We found that most investors are aware of the risks arising from conflicts of interests and misaligned incentives and in some cases a few had taken steps to mitigate the risk that their consultants’ interests may not be aligned with their own. However, this alone may not be sufficient to mitigate the risks that arise or to ensure that investors get good outcomes.”

As a result, the regulator will consult on whether a further investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority on the investment consultancy market is required.

The FCA has also asked the Treasury to give the regulator responsibility for the provision of institutional investment advice.

Further follow up work will include looking at how competition impacts on the retail distribution of funds, “particularly in relation to the impact financial advisers and platforms have on value for money.”

The regulator’s final report is due in the second quarter of next year.

The review has cost the regulator at least £1m so far, according to a Freedom of Information Act request by Money Marketing. The regulator described the study as a “key piece of work” for the FCA.

asset-management-chart

Absolute return funds

The interim findings also confirms reports that surfaced in August that the FCA wanted to include absolute return funds in the study.

The FCA outlined some of its concerns in the interim report: “Many absolute return funds do not report their performance against the relevant returns target. For example, an absolute return fund may be failing to achieve its performance objective of beating a cash benchmark by 2%. But these funds show their performance against a cash benchmark only, giving the impression that they have outperformed.

“Second, we have concerns about absolute return funds that charge a performance fee when returns are lower than the performance objective the fund is aiming to achieve. The manager is rewarded despite not achieving what the investor considers to be target performance.”

Recommended

9

FCA spends over £1m on asset management study

The FCA has so far spent over £1m carrying out its study into competition in asset management. Following a Freedom of Information request submitted by Money Marketing, the FCA said the total costs of the market study stand at £1,000,370. The costs cover the period between 19 November 2015, when the study was launched, to […]

FCA interior logo 620x430
3

Is FCA paving the way for asset management clampdown?

The FCA’s examination of competition in the asset management industry could result in more direct action against firms, say experts. The FCA today set out the key areas it will focus on in its market study into competition in the asset management industry. The regulator will assess firms on how they compete to deliver value, […]

FCA to review absolute return funds

The FCA plans to include a review of absolute return funds in its asset management market study, according to reports. The FT reports that the regulator is investigating absolute return funds amid poor performance and the flood of money to the strategies in recent years. A spokesperson for the regulator told the newspaper: “We are […]

Greece: the sideshow continues

Artemis managers James Foster, Mark Page and Laurent Millet comment on the Greek deal, describing it as “just another fudge” getting in the way of bigger developments in China, the UK and the US. To read the full article click here.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Do we have a new in take of FCA people who are just getting to grips with what has been going on for years?

    Even the FSA seemed to understand that relative performance was a weak indicator.

  2. That graph wins the “No Sh$t Sherlock” statement of the bleeding obvious award 2016.

    All things being equal, if a passive fund projected value wasn’t higher than an active fund projection there’d be something wrong.

    Having said that, if there’s still any 1% p/a passives still doing the rounds, they might prove me wrong.

    One final point, the cost of the fund is but one part of the chain of costs. Charges indeed need to be clearer on funds (however the more clear they become, the more historic they become too) BUT there are a number of elephants in the room including aforementioned vertically integrated models and ‘DFMs’ who, even when asked directly with specific prompts, get their charges wrong!

    If professional fund managers / DFMs don’t know what they charge due to their layered and convoluted approach (and it takes an IFA to query and point out their mistake), how are consumers going to know?

  3. What about high levies and poor regulation? Ah, as David Kenmir was wont to say, That’s different.

    These people home in on the price of everything with no understanding of the value of anything. Like most public sector workers.

  4. Quite ironic that there is an advert for the Premier multi-asset funds on this same page, showing top quartile returns, despite high charges.

  5. The FCA’s report reinforces my long-held belief that the active fund management of listed assets, measured over any meaningful time frame (to eliminate luck, good and bad), is a waste of money. Do not forget that few enter the industry with the expressed purpose of enriching others.
    To set an example, the Government should require the LGPS to exit all active management of mainstream assets, and embrace passive funds in respect of listed assets.

Leave a comment