View more on these topics

JP Morgan Asset Management launches low cost active fund

JP Morgan Asset Management is launching a low cost active managed fund that is designed as an alternative to the passive market.

The JPM UK active index plus fund is a rebrand of the firm’s UK active 350 offering and will have a maximum total expense ratio of 0.55 per cent.

The fund will have its annual management charge reduced to 0.25 per cent per annum as well as fixed expenses of 0.15 per cent. There will be a performance fee of 10 per cent which will be capped to ensure the TER does not pass the 0.55 per cent mark.

The changes were approved in an Extraordinary General Meeting earlier today. The fund will continue to be managed by Michael Barakos but will have its benchmark changed from the FTSE 350 to the FTSE all share index. The changes are set to be made on February 1, 2011.

The £64m UK active 350 fund is currently third quartile in the IMA UK all-companies sector over three years, having returned 6.6 per cent, compared to an average of 10.3 per cent for the sector.

JP Morgan Asset Management head of UK retail sales Jasper Berens says: “We’ve now created a low cost actively managed alternative that meets investor demand and challenges passive investing. We have also designed this product to be our first, and possibly the retail fund management industry’s first ‘RDR ready’ Oeic with all adviser commissions stripped out.

Beren says the fund offers investors the best of both worlds.

He says: “I would challenge any financial adviser that has recommended or placed in a clients portfolio a UK equity passive fund to look at this offering because at its worst will only underperform as much as a tracker will underperform but has the ability to outperform because it is an actively managed fund.”

The fund will have a tracking error of 1 to 1.5 per cent and Berens says the reduction of the annual management fee means it the group can actively compete with passive fund managers.

He says: “There is no reason why an IFA should not look at this. We want to do more in this space in the future as I believe that advisers have been putting passive funds into their clients’ portfolios just because it is cost effective, they now a valid alternative. A lot of this has been down to being a price alternative.”

Recommended

6

Sants questions value of cost benefit analyses on EU regulation

Hector Sants has questioned the value of the FSA carrying out cost benefit analyses on regulations emanating from the European Union. Speaking at an all party parliamentary group for building societies and mutuals evidence session in Parliament this morning, the FSA chief executive questioned whether they represent value for money for those who pay for […]

RBS unveils funds that aim to beat volatility

The Royal Bank of Scotland is launching its first two British retail funds to help provide less volatile products for investors. The volatility controlled cautious managed fund and the volatility controlled balanced managed fund will aim to deliver the levels of volatility that the cautious and balanced labels might ordinarily imply to investors. Research by […]

IFP and CII will seek accredited body status

The Institute of Financial Planning, the Personal Finance Society and the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment are applying to the FSA for accredited body status. The regulator confirmed in its final rules on professionalism, published last week, that advisers will need to hold a statement of professional standing from January 2013. The statements will […]

The changing world of professional connections

The Legal Services Act of 2007, which opened up the legal market to competition, has put the cat among the professional pigeons. In the words of a 2015 Law Society report on what the legal profession is likely to look like in five years’ time: “Business as usual is not an option for many, if […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Convenient how there is no mention of their PTR !!

  2. We seem to be confusing ‘passive’ with ‘tracker’ here, as well as the rationale for using either. In short, advisers have not turned to passive/tracklers simply to save money but to cut out the errors and lost investment returns caused by the use of active fund management strategies. The fact that they are low cost is a beneficial bye-product of this approach.

    I am also not quite clear what this excellent example of all that is wrong with active funds is now purporting to offer. Is it infact going to simply track the FT All Share? I can already do that using funds with a TER of 0.3% or even less. So, why would I want my clients to pay 0.55%? Is it going to kind of track the FT All Share Index but not charge as much the other active funds that already only really do this?

    Hmh! I could say more but I am sure that readers get the drift.

Leave a comment