What does it really cost to run a fund?

Fund managers are being urged to give a clearer breakdown of the actual costs they incur and how they spend their time, amid increasing pressure to prove value for money.

There are a whole host of costs involved in running a fund, from research and trading fees, to set-up costs and the wages of support staff, not to mention office space, marketing, business development and, of course, what you pay the fund managers themselves. But is there upward pressure on these elements to justify investor fees?

The cost of diving deep

Royal London Asset Management head of sustainable investment Michael Fox says that while the job description of a fund manager has changed little in 20 years, the amount of information they are bombarded with on a daily basis has soared.

This means the time and cost of wading through in-depth research is now significant, particularly for those investing for the long term.

Fox says: “The average person probably thinks fund managers spend their day watching what’s happening on Wall Street, looking at screens and screaming down the telephone – this couldn’t be further from the truth.

“In reality it is a cerebral, research-based occupation. We focus on reading and understanding the short-, medium- and long-term drivers of stock markets and companies, and more broadly that’s where we find our differentiating investment ideas.

Fund managers’ fees outed as Mifid II disclosure rules take effect

“It’s not an intelligence quotient game, it’s a temperament game. You have to be able to keep calm and exhibit a certain temperament with the day-to-day market movements.”

Kames head of wholesale business Steve Kenny adds that the need to target the right product to the right markets – now enshrined in the Mifid II regulations – has become harder and put upward pressure on fees.

Kenny says: “The costs of doing business have increased significantly over the past five years. It is becoming more expensive to deliver a fund and oversee that it goes to the right audience and the right channels.”

He also notes an increased regulatory burden more generally and the growing requirement to disclose information to clients in a digestible format. While this has changed how fund managers spend money on getting their message out, it may not have decreased the cost of doing so.

Kenny says: “Advertising has evolved from paper to online, so the way we spend our marketing budget is different to a few years ago.”

The time and cost of wading through in-depth research is now significant

Since 3 January, Mifid II requires investment managers to disclose extra transaction costs charged to their funds, separately from the ongoing charges figure.

The directive also requires financial advisers to report all the costs back to their clients.

As a result of the new rules, clients may not be paying any additional charges, but they can now see separately how much the transaction costs have always added to the total.

In response, the majority of fund managers have now absorbed the costs of the new regulation, which has hit their bottom line. Kenny says this is because research and transaction costs could have accounted for a significant portion of the costs incurred in running the fund.

He adds the introduction of Mifid II has led to an increase in costs across the board.

He says: “Mifid has brought with it the cost of research, which is an explicit direct hit, but there is also the ongoing increased regulatory burden as well. There is the requirement that we oversee our key distributors and that requires people to do that and systems to record that, so there is a whole raft of governance. This type of work can’t be done by administrators, so there’s been rapid growth in the accounting, compliance and legal departments.”

The manager’s take

The FCA has been accused of failing to address fund manager pay in its asset management study. Despite accounting for the largest proportion of the costs of running a fund according to many analysts, critics argue more detailed disclosures about fund manager pay are necessary.

Kenny says the cost burden of managers has now been spread out over a longer time period by firms, rather than in peaks and troughs that could surprise investors.

He says: “The days of getting huge cheques each year have been modified with an allocation for pay spread over three and five years. This means it’s difficult, if you are a successful fund manager, to move from business to business as you would be walking out on a significant portion of your paying rations.”


Many hands reach up to grab piggy bank one holds

GBST: There’s no room for start-ups in platform tech game

Established tech firms with deep pockets will win the race to support new platform business as challengers enter the market, crowding out fintech start-ups. That is the view of GBST, whose software sits behind adviser platforms Novia, AJ Bell, Aegon and Alliance Trust Savings, as well as the newly launched Vitality Invest platform. As two […]


OMGI reveals new name

Old Mutual Global Investors will be renamed Merian Global Investors from the autumn. The name change follows the completion of the sale of the single-strategy business to TA Associates last week. The exact date of the renaming is yet to be confirmed with OMGI going by its current name until then. OMGI chief executive Richard […]


Govt mulls flat-rate pension tax relief

The Treasury is considering whether to introduce a flat rate of pension tax relief to help fund the National Health Service. According to The Times, the Treasury has started to investigate the flat-rate proposal and says it could raise an additional £4bn in revenues. In June, the government promised to increase spending on the NHS […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Interesting comment that the regulation regarding cost disclosure is pushing up the costs that need disclosing.

    This was also the case post RDR whereby the cost to invest for many rose as a result of unbundling, further exacerbated by the ‘sunset clause’ which saw our short term costs increase due to the work this introduced – a cost we absorbed but was a cost to invest, none the less.

    On a like for like basis, has the cost to invest reduced following RDR and Mifid 2? I suspect not.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com