View more on these topics

Leader: Uncomfortable questions in the pursuit of clear fund charges

Natalie Holt

The journey to make fund management charges subject to proper scrutiny has been a long and often torturous one.

Back in 2013, the FCA warned of complex, hidden fund management charges that made comparisons difficult.

The Consumer Panel joined in on the act the following year, declaring it was “unacceptable” fund management costs were not being properly disclosed to investors.

Around the same time, the FCA pushed firms to emphasise the ongoing charge figure and scrap  annual management charges altogether. Keen to be seen on the right side of the consumer, a couple of individual fund groups either removed AMCs or sought to stress the single ongoing charge figure, namely Invesco Perpetual and Woodford Investment Management.

And it is a trend that continues today, with Legal & General Investment Management just last month deciding to unbundle fund research costs across its active range.

Yet the clamour for greater transparency continues.

Part of the problem is neither the OCF nor the TER discloses all costs. In that unique approach to jargon that is particular to financial services, the total expense ratio is not the total cost at all. It covers depository fees, registration fees and performance fees, while the OCF strips out the performance fee if any applies. Both do not include entry or exit charges, interest on borrowing, brokerage charges or dealing costs.

So, clearly, full transparency is still some way off. Yet there is another side to the transparency equation, and that is whether it can actually be delivered in practice.

Policymakers in Brussels are working on pan-European rules to improve consumer disclosure on investment products, but the scale of the challenge ahead means new rules are likely to be delayed until at least 2018, if not later.

This has had a knock-on impact on the UK timetable for disclosing transaction costs.

So why does all this matter, and why now? The simple answer is because this is not just a fund management issue. The bodies tasked with ensuring pension schemes are delivering value for members cannot do their job properly without having all the relevant information at their disposal in an easily digestible format.

The challenge is whether fund groups give a full charges breakdown willingly or grudgingly, or indeed at all. And if all charges are laid bare, there be uncomfortable questions about why it is the end investor, rather than the fund group itself, that it is footing the bill for the myriad fees being imposed.

Natalie Holt is editor of Money Marketing. Follow her on Twitter: @Natalie_Holt_MM


FCA logo glass 3 620x430

FCA under pressure to crack down on ‘closet trackers’

The FCA faces mounting calls to crack down on so-called “closet trackers” after research revealed many funds are charging active fees for passive performance. Research published by the European Securities and Markets Authority last week suggested between 5 and 15 per cent of Ucits funds across Europe were closet trackers. Esma says it is concerned investors […]


Lord Turner: Prepare for ‘indefinite’ low interest rates

Former FSA chairman Adair Turner has warned the UK faces “almost indefinite” low interest rates without radical action. In an interview with the BBC, Turner said interest rates may not rise to the Bank of England’s 2 per cent target before 2020. The Bank has kept the base rate at 0.5 per cent since March […]


L&G publishes annuity bond portfolio holdings

Legal & General has moved to allay investor concerns about the bond portfolio supporting its annuity business by publishing details of its holdings. The insurer has today published provisional, unaudited analysis of its annuity bond portfolio as at 31 December “following a number of enquiries from sell side analysts and investors”. The data (below) shows […]


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. 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.

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