16th August 2010
These articles outline some of the prevailing views on fees. In this piece in The Daily Telegraph, Paul Farrow argues that many funds offer poor value for money. This piece in the Times argues that investors should be wary of the new vogue for performance fees.
There is an underlying message that fund managers are somehow being ‘sneaky' about fees. In fact, high fees and low performance are circular.
Most investors examine fund performance net of fees. If a fund is high charging and not offering commensurate performance, it will perform badly relative to its peer group. Performance is still the strongest driver of fund sales, so high charging is – to a large extent – self-defeating.
Equally, while it is tempting to just blame greedy fund managers, there are other mouths that get fed along the value chain. In this thread on MoneySavingExpert IFA DunstonH gives a full and coherent explanation of fund charging: "(A fund may) have a 1.5% annual management charge. 0.5% of that goes to the servicing IFA. Around 0.3% goes to the platform/product provider and 0.7% to the fund house. There are some funds that don't pay a commission like that but they are (usually) included as a loss leader."
It also leaves out the fact that certain asset classes are more expensive to buy than others. It is more expensive to trade emerging market equities, for example, or smaller companies. This doesn't mean investors shouldn't have exposure to those asset classes. Investors should be paying less for the majority of bond funds because the potential returns are lower.
Nevertheless, as with every purchase from a tin of beans to a house, it is necessary to be careful on price. Institutional investors have long been more conscious of price than retail investors, as this story on eFinancialNews shows.