View more on these topics

Smoke and mirrors: How pensions will suffer due to hidden fund charges

New watchdogs tasked with holding pension providers to account will effectively be working with one hand tied behind their back as delays to EU rules cause fund transaction costs to remain hidden for longer.

The FCA and the Department for Work and Pensions are working on measures to boost disclosure but expected delays to European regulations Mifid II and Priips have led to a “dislocation” and forced them to stall.

Increasing transparency of fund management charges is seen as the “final piece in the jigsaw” in years that have seen controls on default pension fund charges and the introduction of the RDR and explicit adviser charging.

But pension customers and the committees overseeing their savings will have to wait to reap the benefits.

Yet providers predict once the requirements are in place they could act as a catalyst for consolidation within the fund management industry or even the break-up of vertically integrated firms.

Dislocation

The new Independent Governance Committees were forced on providers by the FCA after a damning Office of Fair Trading report into workplace pensions. The committees face an April deadline for publishing their first annual statements and assessing whether customers are getting good value from insurers.

Trustee boards also have to report on whether trust-based schemes represent good value. However, both will have to report without crucial data from fund managers.

The problem stems from a mismatch between the UK and European timetables. Across Europe, Mifid II and the packaged retail and insurance based investment products regulation are set to redraw the information passed from investment firms to end consumers.

But the European Commission has admitted it is delaying Mifid II because of concerns that the timescale was too tight. Priips, which aims to extend Mifid II standards on consumer protection to insurance-based investment products, is also likely to be delayed.

“At the moment we are only obliged to ask fund managers for transaction costs, but if they refuse to give them we can’t do anything about it”

As a result, the DWP and FCA have paused their work on transaction cost disclosure, which began nearly a year ago.

A separate Treasury and FCA market study of asset managers is due to report interim findings in the summer.

Professional trustee firm PTL managing director Richard Butcher sits on the Standard Life and Old Mutual Wealth IGCs as well as a governance advisory arrangement that oversees the products of 14 insurers.

Butcher warns: “We are required to assess charges and transaction costs and whether they, balanced against the benefits, represent good value for members.

“We know we’re paying a 0.75 per cent or lower management charge and transaction costs are on top of that. At the moment we are only obliged to ask fund managers for transaction costs, but if they refuse to give them we can’t do anything about it and clearly we can’t assess whether they are value for money.

“To be frank, there are boards that are quite happy about that because once you’ve been given the information there’s an issue around what you do with it and how you assess it. There is no prescribed methodology and you could just be given a huge amount of raw information.”

Investment Association director of public policy Jonathan Lipkin says: “At the UK level there’s a dislocation. IGCs and trustees have a responsibility to ask and report against transaction costs but there is not yet clarity as to what transaction costs are and how managers should respond to the questions. We are awaiting conclusions of the DWP and FCA’s call for evidence. The industry needs greater clarity on what it should be providing.”

Despite the delay, regulators are moving to bring fund management into line with the regimes for advisers and pension providers.

Scottish Widows head of industry development Peter Glancy says: “Providers’ charges have been going downward for a long time. Product charges are down by about 90 per cent since 1995 and the RDR brought transparency to the adviser market. The last bit of the jigsaw is the fund space.”

Glancy says while the RDR has forced advice costs out, customers have been left unable to distinguish between product and fund charges.

He says: “Within the fund charges there are explicit charges – an annual management charge of say 60 basis points – but there are a lot of costs charged to the fund itself. They could easily total 200bps but the customer doesn’t see them as charges, they just see the fund has delivered 5 per cent growth instead of 7 per cent. That’s the area the DWP and FCA are increasingly concerned about.”

“Tesco doesn’t tell you how much it spends on every bit of the business. I’m not sure what marginal benefit there is for customers to make their decisions on a fifteenth of a basis point on varied underlying costs”

These obscured costs include a range of charges (see table) including stamp duty on equity trades, spreads in bond markets, broker fees and more subjective areas such as the opportunity cost of inefficient trading.

Lipkin says: “Expressing product charges in a consistent language and using consistent methodology is fairly simple. Extracting explicit costs – payments to brokers, stamp duty incurred – is also relatively straightforward. That information is now reported at unit-level for reports and accounts.

“It gets more difficult, in terms of systems and interpretations, in the implicit cost debate, such as where you buy an instrument with a spread. We are keen to see a pragmatic approach on the part of regulators, recognising that while the industry wants to provide greater granularity there are some very significant challenges in producing reliable data.

“The debate is now about how most effectively to capture that information for clients and how to communicate to consumers and reports made for IGCs and trustees.”

Daniel Godfrey was pushed out as chief executive of the Investment Association last year when several members threatened to quit the trade body, reportedly over his focus on transparency.

Now Big Issue Invest Fund Management non-executive director Godfrey reiterates calls for the industry to produce a single figure for the cost of running a fund.

He says: “The only cost that funds would charge for in addition to this single charge would be the cost of execution when buying and selling shares for the portfolio and any transaction taxes that may be payable when the fund buys and sells shares. The gist of investment research would also be included in the single charge.”

However others say it is inefficient and ineffective to compel managers to disclose underlying costs to consumers.

Investment consultancy Gbi2 managing director Graham Bentley says: “From asset managers’ point of view I don’t know what the fuss is about. Charges are explicit in the sense these are the management costs, and the stuff that sits underneath that – foreign exchange costs or how much firms pay for hedging – is unnecessary.

“Most companies do not declare what it costs them to administer their business. Tesco doesn’t tell you how much it spends on every bit of the business. I’m not sure what marginal benefit there is for customers to make their decisions on a fifteenth of a basis point on varied underlying costs.”

Apfa director general Chris Hannant says a single figure could be a “recipe for confusion”. He says: “I struggle to see the benefit of breaking out the component costs from the net performance figure; the net figure is a useful starting point for the consumer to understand how their money is doing. Obviously they need to be informed of further charges, but breaking down the elements of the net performance removes clarity.”

Vertical disintegration?

Firms with vertically integrated business models, such as Standard Life and Old Mutual Wealth, could be forced to refocus on a particular part of the value chain as a result of grea-ter clarity around costs.

Glancy thinks transparency will put pressure on fund managers to lower charges and that consequently companies active in multiple segments might drop out of parts of the market.

He says: “Vertically integra-ted providers may need to specialise, the professional fees they charge within members’ funds will be transparent and there will also be downward pressure on profit margins on funds. We’re seeing one or two already beginning to specialise, Legal & General, for instance, leaving the Association of British Insurers and becoming more of an asset manager than product provider.

“In more mature markets you see people begin to look at their core competencies and focusing on those and partnering in other areas where they don’t make as much money. There will be segmentation of the value chain.”

Research consultancy Finalytiq founder and director Abraham Okusanya says tightening disclosure requirements will “exacerbate the tension” in other parts of the chain, such as platforms.

He says: “Vertical integration models are one big great experiment – the idea is asset management is the cash cow of this model and the platform and advice businesses are distribution channels and don’t need to make money. However,  each part of the model needs to be successful in its own right.

“As pressure bears down on the asset manager businesses of providers, the bean counters at the parent companies will begin to look harder to trim the fat in other parts of the businesses and loss-making platforms may well be axed. We’ve already seen some signs of this.”

Standard Life re-entered the advice market in 2015 by acquiring wealth manager Pearson Jones, becoming fully vertically integrated. But head of pensions strategy Jamie Jenkins says the market benefits from competition between providers with contrasting business models.

He says: “This will drive down charges and improve the service to members. Combining administration with an investment platform brings a more seamless proposition, while continuing to allow members the freedom to invest in fund solutions from a universe of different investment managers.

“The focus on transparency will help ensure that any proposition remains competitive, regardless of the model adopted. The real issue is not the model adopted but the need for scale. We envisage consolidation among master trusts with the market moving towards  fewer, larger providers in future.”

Adviser view

Trevor Whiting, partner, Core Financial

The call for transparency on management charges is likely to be a long haul. We have lately experienced fund managers exhibiting collective tracker funds with perhaps a charge as low as 7bps. However, when you add in the transaction costs the actual charge is too often radically different. An investor is thereby enticed by a lower annual management charge but rarely understands the whole picture, sort of lost in that mystical cloud of ‘tracking error’.

As advisers, I would like to think the community as a whole is absolutely clear with clients about every penny they pay and when. It therefore makes it intensely difficult to be clear about our own charges but look through a haze at the charges our clients pay for the underlying investment. We therefore fully support the motives of the Investment Association to drive through ‘fair, clear and meaningful information on charges’. They have a huge undertaking on their hands.

Expert view

We have been trying to make our products more transparent: we split out advice charges, product charges and fund charges. But that puts us at a commercial disadvantage if other players in the market are still offering opaque charging structures, because they can appear to be cheaper than us.

One of the things we have to do is press for a level playing field, which is why we are becoming increasingly active in this space. We are not aiming to look at the cost of all the individual components and how much profit individual providers are making. A market with lots of competition means you do not need to go to that granularity.

What we want is to get to a place where consumers can see clearly the difference between propositions and their features, then they can determine what value for money there is. In the pensions market, that is tricky because they are complicated and consumers need help.

The RDR split out advice charges from other charges, so customers were able to see how much advice cost and how much the product cost. But product and fund charges were still bundled together, so it is difficult for customers to see how the charge was split between providers and fund managers.

Within the fund charges there are explicit charges – an AMC of, say, 60bps – but there are a lot of costs that are charged to the fund itself. These could total, say, 200bps, but the customer does not see them as charges, they just see the fund has delivered 5 per cent growth instead of 7 per cent. That is the area the DWP and FCA are increasingly concerned about.

When the charges are finally disclosed it will quickly become apparent that some of the charges being taken out of funds are much much bigger than product providers’ share. Product charges had a lot of attention in the press with rip-off pensions that paved the way for the 0.75 per cent cap on defaults funds – we could see another round of that with fund charges.

But managers will have differing capabilities to comply. For boutique managers it is not worth getting the infrastructure in place to deliver the level of information required. A number are likely to decide they do not want to play in the pensions space. What happens to the money in those funds?

In addition, vertically integrated providers may need to specialise once the professional fees they charge within members’ funds are made transparent. There will also be downward pressure on profit margins on fund managers.

We are seeing one or two already beginning to specialise, L&G for instance leaving the ABI becoming more of an asset manager than product provider, could be a sign of things to come.

Peter Glancy is head of industry development at Scottish Widows

Recommended

Gordon_Brown
7

Steve Webb: Pensions as Isas ‘could be Osborne’s Gordon Brown moment’

Former pensions minister Steve Webb believes Chancellor George Osborne risks “incalculable damage” to savers if he overhauls pension tax relief in the upcoming Budget. In a speech at the Association of Consulting Actuaries, Royal London director of policy Webb will compare a move to the taxed-exempt-exempt model of pension taxation to Gordon Brown’s raid on […]

Exit-Man-Door-Depart-Leave-700.jpg

Hargreaves Lansdown chief operating officer exits

Hargreaves Lansdown chief operating officer Vikki Williams has left the firm just eight months after joining. Williams joined Hargreaves in June from Barclays, where she was managing director of shared services, and helmed the bank’s response to PPI. In her role at Hargreaves, she sat on the board of a number of the company’s subsidiaries, […]

Waterson-Nigel-700x450.png
5

FCA urged to rethink equity release affordability rules

The Equity Release Council is urging the FCA to consider easing mortgage affordability rules to help consumers make interest repayments before swapping to a roll-up deal. Changes to the Mortgage Conduct of Business rules following the Mortgage Market Review mean lifetime mortgage contracts which permit consumers to pay interest for a period are subject to […]

UK-Houses-Home-Mortgage-700x450.jpg
2

Self-cert mortgage lender opens for business

The return of controversial self-certification mortgages has been confirmed with launch of selfcert.co.uk today. The start-up, backed by private equity investors and based in the Czech Republic, launches with a tracker loan set at 2 per cent above base rate, the Sunday Times reports. Selfcert.co.uk will lend up to £500,000 at 85 per cent loan-to-value […]

Get your New Year off to a flying start

Ross Jackson, Senior Marketing Manager There’s no denying that these days we expect things quickly. You might have noticed it first-hand during the flurry and rush of the Christmas period. The fact is that in a world of smartphones, social media and click and collect, most clients expect to get an instant response and a […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 10 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Will this force SJP and HL to be really transparent?

  2. The portfolio turnover rate of any mainstream fund can be easily looked up on Fundslibrary or the fund research tool of your choice. You can look at that, the TER and the fund’s performance compared to a low cost tracker and that will tell you all that could possibly be of use to you.

    There will never be an end to this, some people just want to believe that everyone is out to rip them off. Show them an itemised bill of every single item of cost incurred in serving them and they will demand to know how much was spent on the paper and ink. Life is too short. Let these people keep their money under the mattress – for some reason opportunity cost is the one thing of which they don’t demand a breakdown. Graham Bentley’s comment is spot on and should be the last word.

    Re Peter Glancy, name this fund that managed to run up 2% of the fund’s value in transaction costs in a single year or I call bollocks. Possibly an obscure foreign property fund could manage it but that stretches the meaning of “easily”.

    • Hah, schoolboy error. 200 basis points is of course 0.2%, not 2%. In which case this really is a case of nickel-and-diming, or penny wise and pound foolish as we would say over here.

  3. spot on Sascha – there are indeed those who feel that lack of transparency = ‘rip off britain’ whereas in reality it’s just perhaps down to the way things are.

    Transparency post RDR has, in a number of cases, increased the costs for funds. Certainly in the short term.

    For advice costs, there is much greater transparency but less choice and (potentially) less tax effective ways of charging.

    I’m all for RDR (and in the round I feel it’s very good for consumers) – but did the transparency drive down costs – I suspect not – it’s just that everyone is clearer on what those costs are!

  4. Good article. Do we / the consumer need a breakdown of how every last penny is accounted for? No. More information doesn’t equate to better informed people; it merely adds to the confusion.

    Would you ask for a breakdown of the cost of your groceries purchased at Tesco? Or the cost of the individual components, assembly, shipping and sale of your new motor car? Or the costs of building the PC / tablet / smart-phone that you are reading this on? Of course not – life is too short.

    @ Sacha: Incorrect. 200 bps = 2%. If you doubt me then please look it up, eg http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=basis-point-BPS

  5. Yet another article which fails miserably to make the necessary distinction between charges which directly lower performance on a 1:1 basis and charges incurred which could (and are supposed to) increase performance, like transaction charges in an active fund. The relevant question is not “what are the transaction charges” but what effect did they have on performance? That is much harder to answer and can be just a question of timing and patience.

    Fund sales are already heavily influenced by net performance but after that too much money languishes in poor performers with little management incentive to improve. Maybe time to threaten the fund management industry with the same level of switch campaigning that the power industry endures.

  6. I posted this on the opinion column on the same subject, but the points stand here too:

    I really don’t understand what the problem is here (other than the fact that fund managers are worried the “true” costs may be unpalatable for consumers!)

    Most clean funds don’t have entry or exit charges, though if there is a bid/offer spread this SHOULD be reflected in a total cost figure.

    How hard would it be to give an assumed holding period of ten years and amortise any spread or entry/exit fees over that period?

    The internal accounting processes of the fund management houses must surely account for the brokerage commissions and trading fees paid per fund? Is it really so hard to declare these?

    Of course it isn’t, but the fund houses would rather intermediaries and consumers be kept in the dark.

  7. Surely if the costs are “hidden” because they come out of the fund, then this will show in fund performance.

    Advisers would presumably understand/ be able to explain to customers that low charges, linked to 3rd or 4th Quartile performance is not a smart move.

    Charges are only part of the picture.

  8. These “hidden” charges will show in fund performance.

    The only ones who would be affected are those who fixate on charges and ignore performance.

Leave a comment