View more on these topics

Fears over investment trust sales as new disclosure hikes costs

Investment trust sales may come under pressure due to new EU rules, experts have warned.

The potential benefits of gearing on investment trusts risk being overlooked as new cost reporting rules make them look more expensive compared with open-ended funds.

Traditionally, closed-ended funds have looked attractive based on lower costs compared with other structures, as well as their longer-term investment horizon and higher liquidity.

However, charges in the new Key Information Documents under the recently-launched Priips regulation must include the cost of borrowings, which are not included in the traditional ongoing charges methodology. Other funds such as Oeics cannot use gearing so are unaffected.

Gearing, which is expressed as a percentage figure, is a tool for investment trust managers to borrow money and reinvest it on behalf of shareholders.

Before the new Priips rules, the popular Scottish Mortgage investment trust had an ongoing charge figure of 0.44 per cent but is now showing nominal ongoing costs of 0.84 per cent. Baillie Gifford’s Monks trust previously had an OCF of 0.59 per cent but now has ongoing costs of 0.86 per cent.

Numis head of investment companies research Charles Cade says many advisers are only now including full charges on funds in correspondence with clients, but adds that these look misleading because the cost calculations vary across the industry.

He says: “Gearing is shown as a cost but is often a benefit so you are only showing one side of the equation. This will have an effect on some advisers and impact their choices, especially when the market is weaker. When clients see in pounds and pence what they are paying, that is when they become more cautious.”

Baillie Gifford director of retail marketing and distribution James Budden says it makes “little sense” to treat borrowings as a cost and exclude potential capital or income returns from the assets financed. He says gearing should always be treated as an investment cost rather than an operational cost.

He says: “The upshot of this decision is more confusion and less transparency for the consumer who, when looking at the Kid, might think that costs have recently doubled for Scottish Mortgage and Monks when actually they have reduced year on year.”

Analysts have previously noted the lack of consistency in the way costs are calculated in the investment trust sector as some funds include stamp duty, some have excluded finance costs or performance fees and others have “huge differences” in transaction cost estimates.

Cade says: “Some real estate investment trusts produce Kids and others don’t. In Europe they don’t have to show Kids, in the UK they do. Guidance is not clear. Some don’t show performance fees, others do. There are also huge differences in transaction costs in private equities, because some underlying costs are not included.”

The FCA decided investment trusts came under the Priips regulation but advisers warn investors should continue to distinguish the merits of trusts compared with open-ended funds.

The Association of Investment Companies communication director Annabel Brodie-Smith says it is important advisers recognise that there is a completely different methodology being used for the investment company Kid charges and therefore they are not comparable with charges for open-ended funds.

Brodie-Smith says: “It’s true that gearing costs for investment companies are included in the Kid, but this disclosure fails to explain the potential benefits of gearing. Gearing is an advantage of investment companies which has contributed to their strong long-term performance record.”

According to the AIC, some investment companies have used gearing for 30 years at less than 3 per cent. This resulted in a 3.9 per cent yield if invested in the FTSE All-Share index.

Looking at performance, the average investment company is up 144 per cent in the past 10 years while the average open-ended fund is up 96 per cent over 10 years, according to the trade body.

Meldon & Co managing director Mark Meldon says trusts are a “core” investment to many investors despite being difficult to explain, and thinks comparing costs with open-ended funds is not appropriate.

“The Kids are an absolute disgrace because they are built on past performance,” Meldon says. “The problem I have is, on the face of it, trusts look more expensive than Oiecs. But you are comparing apples and pears.

“There has been too much time talking about costs. It is absolutely correct talking about it, but you can’t compare the two types of funds. I tend to avoid highly geared funds as they magnify the downswide.

“Income is the key for this. If you have a boring IT tracking new income every quarter and that income keeps rising it is great, while Oeics are more volatile.”

Meldon invests in the OLIM Value and Income trust, which has a mix of commercial real estate and equities and has a 3 per cent ongoing charge.

He says: “The charge sounds very high compared with an index fund, and it is, but the trust has a 20 per cent discount and a very good yield. I measure value by income and not capital growth.

“Trusts I like have managers that have skin in the game. I also buy research at £3,600 a year form Winterflood. Without it, I am a bit stuck.”



FCA wins case against £16m unauthorised investment scheme

The FCA has won a key court case over the promotion of unauthorised investment schemes. The High Court has found that Capital Alternatives, which ran investment schemes involving rice farm harvests in Sierra Leone and carbon credits across Brazil and Australia, must pay back nearly £17m to investors after the FCA alleged the ventures were […]

Chris Budd

Bristol IFA sells firm as staff set to share in profits

Ovation Finance founder Chris Budd has sold his firm, opting for a model that allows staff to control the business without owning shares. Shares in the company are being sold to an employee ownership trust. As Budd explains in an Adviser Lounge article, the trust doesn’t currently have any money because it is newly established […]


Should UK advisers have a fiduciary duty to their clients?

As the UK advice market’s drive towards professionalism continues, advisers are questioning whether a new fiduciary standard would improve conduct and the reputation of the sector. Currently, advisers in the UK are bound by the FCA’s conduct of business rules but have no formal legal duty to act in the best interest of clients at […]

Justin Cash, Editor of Money Marketing

Editor’s note: More competition will limit replatforming pain

A few months ago, I glibly tweeted asking for examples of replatforming projects that advisers believed had gone well. I wasn’t exactly inundated with positive responses. Even some of the most astute market watchers failed to predict the phenomenal growth of advised assets held on platforms over the past decade. With the added volume and […]

Leading Edge – April 2017

There is little doubt 2017 will be a year of political uncertainty. Leading Edge is Royal London Asset Management’s regular review of investment markets. This edition explores some of the impacts that this uncertainty is having on investors, from the pitfalls of prediction within UK equity investing to the dangers of opting for convenience over […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 7 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Nicholas Pleasure 24th April 2018 at 3:41 pm

    What a mess! Regulation has really lost it’s way.

    If it’s any consolation, providing advisers know what they are doing, it will have no effect on IT sales. The shear amount of guff that the FCA makes us give to clients means that they read precisely none of it and generally do what we recommend. After all, that’s what they employ us to do.

    • That’s the irony, clients are even more reliant on advisers to translate the gobbledegook mess of information the regulator requires us to give them. Most of which they view as irrelevant and much of which they simply won’t understand.

      I must admit, I find the whole idea of trying to track, itemise and explain the costs actually involved in the investment manager trying to make the clients money absurd.

      Where do you draw the line? Does a property fund need to factor in the costs of the property cleaning, estimated rent free periods, and all the other costs associated with buying, running and selling commercial property.

      Does the client actually give a monkeys?

      From personal experience, the one thing most clients seem to care about is “whats the bottom line” I.e how much have I made/lost…

  2. It just shows that ‘they’ don’t understand what they are regulating. Borrowing is offset by extra investments and income. I’d accept more if they included costs like directors’ remuneration…. and I want to know when cheap trackers add-back the management costs of the Investment funds in their index….

    • Ok, what if a Trust borrows and then loses money on investment? Surely the cost of the borrowing is an important factor because some trusts will obtain lowering borrowing costs due to scale/negotiation? Would a buyer not want to consider using a trust with lower borrowing costs than one of its peers?

  3. I agree, so why not itemise every cost incurred. A pretty big chunk will be regulatory fees be it UK or EU. Then chuck in taxation and where that goes.

    We’re back to Yes Minister days, or possibly Oui Monsieur, aujourd’hui.

  4. Whittington Dick 25th April 2018 at 3:35 am

    There are Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    So why not…

    Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

    So best recognise that…

    Laws control the lesser man… Right conduct controls the greater one.

    But then again…

    There are times when one would like to hang the whole human race, and finish the farce.

    … Never the Twain, it seems!

  5. EU rule produces worse outcome for consumers.

    There’s a novel scenario

Leave a comment