View more on these topics

Paul Richards: A deep dive into transaction costs

Paul RichardsWhat do the Mifid II cost disclosure requirements mean for advisers?

Since fund groups have had to start disclosing portfolio transaction costs as part of the Mifid II requirements, there has been considerable attention on how PTCs impact the total cost of ownership.

However, what has been somewhat overlooked is the fact that these costs are not new and nor do they mean that clients are incurring higher costs than before. All that has really changed is that they now have to be to be clearly disclosed to investors ahead of investment.

Previously the cost of buying and selling securities was typically shown within a fund’s report and accounts.

That figure only included explicit costs incurred over the year, such as broker commissions and levies such as stamp duty. Bid-offer spreads – the difference between the buying and selling prices of securities – were reported separately.

Top tips for Mifid II cost disclosure

The new disclosure rules mean both explicit and implicit costs, such as bid-offer spreads, must now be included within the reported figure.

What has caused a stir among commentators is ‘slippage’, and how it, too, is regarded as an implicit cost.

What is slippage?

Slippage is the impact of any change in the price of a security between placing and executing a trade. It arises from market movement during any delay in transacting and can be positive or negative.

Negative slippage: A manager decides to sell a stock at 11am when the mid-market price is 95p (this is known as the arrival price). The transaction is executed at 12.30pm, by which time the bid price has risen to 99p. The slippage cost on the sale is therefore -4p (a negative cost under Mifid II rules.)

A DSLR underwater photo of a woman scuba diving in Tiputa Pass, Rangiroa, French Polynesia. She is swimming in profile to the camera from left to right over a big reef with some scattered small fishes. The water is clear blue with many meters in visibility. She is letting go lots of bubbles.Positive slippage: Conversely, at the same time, another manager wants to buy the same stock at 95p. However, by the time the order is executed at 12.30pm, the offer price has risen to 101p. The slippage cost on the purchase is therefore +6p.

To complicate matters there are a number of factors that have an impact on ‘slippage’, including the effect of large inflows and outflows moving prices. So, you could easily argue that it’s not a cost at all – it just reflects whether the market moved in a favourable way or not.

Another reason why slippage is particularly problematic is because Mifid II rules state that PTC calculations should be based on up to three years’ historic data.
However, many managers have not recorded arrival prices over the past three years, as up until Mifid II they had no need to, and so cannot accurately calculate the true slippage cost.

As a result, some managers have to instead rely on a number of pricing points to estimate slippage, such as the opening price on the day of the trade or the closing price on the preceding day.

Why do transaction costs vary so much?

You may have noticed that the reported transaction costs can vary widely, with some figures around +2 per cent and others below zero.

While slippage can account for many anomalies, such as negative, zero and very high figures, the lack of consistency when calculating figures also plays a huge part in the reporting of PTCs.

Much of this inconsistency is because there is no standard method of calculating PTCs. It can also be difficult to quantify implicit costs and the regulations allow a number of calculation options.

What’s also surprising is that fund groups are not required to disclose which calculation method they use. The Investment Association has therefore raised concerns about how PTCs are calculated and has called on regulators to conduct a review.

FCA boss: Firms are prepared for ‘massive undertaking’ of Mifid II

Should transaction costs be used to compare funds?

There can be no denying that costs will always be an important consideration when selecting funds for your clients. In particular, ongoing charges figures allow you to make direct cost comparisons between similar funds.

While PTCs are a charge that has not previously been explicitly disclosed, using these to make like-for-like comparisons between funds is more for the reasons highlighted above.

Of course, charges are just one measure of value for money when investing in a fund. In my opinion, the best like-for-like comparison between funds remains net performance – the return after both the ongoing charges figures (OCFs) and PTCs have been taken into account. It’s also important to remember that net performance will not change as a result of the new disclosure rules, as these have always been reflected in the figures.

Paul Richards is head of sales at FundsNetwork

Recommended

1

Will AI change the face of financial advice?

As debates around the relative merits of automated and face-to-face advice continue to rage, onlookers are assessing whether more advanced artificial intelligence systems that learn and adapt by themselves could radically shake up the planning profession. In October 2017, the government released an independent review on the increasing benefits AI could have for the UK economy. […]

Pile and a stack of coins with technical chart of financial instruments. A concept about currency trading or investing which investors must analyse and make the right decision for optimal profits.
3

SJP spends another £20m on platform upgrade

St James’s Place‘s platform upgrade is likely to cost the wealth management giant in excess of £170m, latest results reveal. Financial statements for 2017 show that the firm’s new Bluedoor system cost it nearly £22m for the year, up from £17m for 2016, as assets continue to migrate over to the new technology. While two-thirds […]

8

Charges hiked after structured product provider collapses

Clients have paid fees 40 times higher than initial estimates after a structured product provider collapsed, with the Financial Services Compensation Scheme set to pick up the bill. Merchant Capital, the structured products arm of Merchant House Group, went into administration in January 2013. Reyker Securities subsequently became custodian and administrator for clients who had […]

Steve Bee
57

Steve Bee: Why still no justice for Waspi women?  

For calls for change to still be falling on deaf ears in 2018 is beyond disappointing There is a serious issue with our pension system today that has been allowed to continue for many years with no resolution. Over 20 years ago, the government decided to require millions of older people in the future to […]

Five reasons for optimism in India

By Kunal Desai, Head of Indian Equities at Neptune Investment Management Following the MSCI India Index’s 26.4 per cent return in 2014, stemming from a 7.3 per cent rise in GDP, investors have recently become increasingly concerned about India’s future growth potential. What has happened to India’s reform agenda and are there any signs of […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. Your closing comment on net performance is the one and only thing that matters to a client.

    The difference between gross price paid and net price realised is the all important thing, but the obsession with cost with no accounting for value for money seems to have taken over.

    The race to the bottom is on but I’d rather not join in as I still believe that value is more important than cost.

Leave a comment