The Importance of keeping Fees low in Low-Return Investment Era

 

Three Certainties in Life - Tax, Death and Fund Fees

Are you aware of the tremendous impact that fund fees (and fees for Private Banking or Independent Financial Advisers) have on the long-term performance of your Investments?

Never forget to check the fees on Active Equity Funds

Stable returns, but high costs. This headline caught our attention in today's edition of a German newspaper featuring a large Fidelity Fund focusing on German Equties. So when we checked Morningstar it said that the ongoing charge was a whopping 1.92% PER ANNUM

When you consider that this means that total fees accruing to Fidelity on this fund is around €20 Million (given the total fund size of just over 1000 Million) one is left with the question: is this amount really justified when at most 2 fund managers and a few analysts are needed to run this fund? Pay them a generous €300000 each and allow some ancillary expenses and one would have to assume that fees of 3-4 Million would be more than enough.

Delicate detail: as this fee does not explicitly state it is the TER - Total Expense Ratio - it could well be that the unlucky investor is hit with more fees.

And on top of that many - if not most investors - are charged on average an additional 1% by the Asset Manager or Private Banker that allocates their savings to that fund.

So does the performance justify investment in such an 'active' fund? Yes and No, not if you compare performance sinc 1990, yes if you just look at the past 10 years.

Does the performance justify high fees? As always, it depends. So speak to an independent analyst or consultant who has no financial interest in your decision and be aware that high charges are a serious drag on performance.

Given interest rates are near zero - should you pay for an 'Active Manager'?

Given that most Private Client Fund Managers charge fees of at least one percent and that the funds that many put their client's money in charge another 1.5 percent on average (if you are lucky) the total cost of fund management will be at least in the region of 2.5 percent PER ANNUM!
And you have no guarantee that you will have a positive performance, the costs are incurred whichever result your fund manager produces. Nice work if you can get it!
Investing in Bonds used to be recommended in most balanced portfolios but given the low rates and risk of capital losses once interest rates rise again it might be better to park a good portion of your portfolio in cash - even if it gives you no return.
But at least you do not pay any fees on that part of your money, and have no risk of loss. But do not leave it with your fund manager(s) as they will charge a management fee even if money is just parked in cash as well.
So at the very least investors should try to find a truly independent Private Banking Advisory to avoid the most costly options.

Fees in an area of Zero Interest Rates

£1,720 smackers for 'advice' - that is 1.72% BEFORE you even make a penny on your £100,000. That is the sad reality in today's Private Banking business. And there is NO GUARANTEE that you will make any money - the fee is payable whether your portfolio has a positive or negative return. Nice money if you can get it! Ask for INDEPENDENT advice before signing on the dotted line!

"Schroders Personal Wealth gave the example of a client with an investment of £100,000 to illustrate the fees. Their total annual costs will be around 137bps (see table below), or 172bps if they use a Discretionary Fund Manager"

Fund of Funds - nice but how much do they cost?

If they charge a separate fee on top of underlying funds you basically pay two people to do a job that one of them should do. Or let them split the fee, which should not be out of line with the regular fund fee. Take independent advice if you are not sure what level of fee can be justified.
New Fund of Fund launched

Don't take my free holiday away from me!

That is the cri de coeur that goes out from the pathetic Financial Salesmen (aka Financial Advisers) at the St James Partnership. At least investors know that they are not financing yachts but this still makes crystal clear where their priorities lie. It demonstrates that all investors should take independent advise about fees, charges, risks and performance comparisons before committing any funds to a fund manager or Private Banker.
St James Place Advisers threaten revolt over lost holiday rewards perks

Should you ever pay an initial fee?

Initial Fees charged by Financial Advisers or other Fund Managers/Private Banks can take a hefty chunk out of you savings. They vary but in some cases or countries they can reach nearly 5 per cent of your capital. In addition you will then be charged an ongoing annual fee by the adviser or the custodian of your investments.
Investors should take independent advice before accepting any terms and conditions. A small one off consulting fee may well save you thousands over a period of time.

Happy to pay a Wealth Tax - to your Financial Adviser?

This calculator will do the sums for you

https://larrybates.ca/t-rex-score/

Banks and Asset Management - do they mix well??

Many years ago the standing joke in the world of Investment Management were the captive Mutual Fund subsidiaries of the major banks. They were often used as dumping ground for the new bond or share issues that the parent bank found difficult to place.
Ever since PBA has been suspicious of Asset Management firms that were part of a financial conglomerate. While the regulation and prevention of conflicts of interest (Chinese Walls) has improved enormously it still pays to keep an eye on this potential problem. An independent assessment of costs (fees) and risks will prevent that your investments suffer from any conflicted advice.

Pictet hires new Partner

Assuming the purported annual compensation is close to reality (Sfr 25 Million) one can truly say that Boris Collardi works on 'Wealth Management', his own! Let's hope that 'clients' do as well, since 2009 there has been a continuing boom period in all asset classes. As most fund managers tend to be more or less long come rain or shine they will have happy customers and no one will be checking the substantial fees too closely. When the inevitable bear markets - or even stock market crashes - arrive the moment of truth will arrive. Fees will still be charged, but as the proverbial question will arise: 'Where are the customer's yachts?' (in this case on Lake Geneva)

Wealth Management - but for whose pocket?

Zero Fund Management Fees?

Maybe at first sight it appears reasonable to wave any fund management fee if the performance does not match the agreed benchmark. And why not ask the fund manager to make a penalty payment as well? But to be serious, any business that agrees to a zero fee would not be viable in the long run. Better to agree fees to be calculated on a (three year?) rolling basis and set the fee in a narrow zone, for example basic 1% and a band of +/- 0.5% to adjust for over/under performance?
Bloomberg

'Private' Equity's 'Dry Powder' costs you dear

Sitting on $963 billion means huge fees for the Promoters. They get paid in many cases even if they are slow in finding suitable investments. And they have every incentive to put this money to work, whatever the terms, as they are paid on the basis of 'we take (part of) the profits and you investor can keep the losses'. A veritable money-printing machine, built on the basis of leverage and an ever-rising stock market boosted by QE. And no one in the corporate governance and political crowd seems to take notice despite the rising discontent about executive excess in the public markets.
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2017-09-01/why-private-equity-has-963-billion-in-dry-powder-quicktake-q-a

Robo-Advisers lose their innocence

Human nature does not change - despite all the talk about Robo-Advisers. The computers may be programmed so that they do not select the best possible investments for you!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-27/your-robo-adviser-may-have-a-conflict-of-interest

30 reasons to love Index Funds

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/30-reasons-to-fall-in-love-with-index-funds-2014-06-04

Morgan Stanley Adviser's fees - Your loss?

Given that nearly all asset classes are in a steady upwards trend for quite a few years it may not hurt your pocket if your 'Adviser' pockets $ 1 million a year from his clients. But that will change - even if markets hold up, the expected returns will at best be in the low to middle single digits and any fee around the average charged by the Financial Industry (1% of assets) will take a hefty chunk (20-35%!) out of those returns.
Strict control of fees you pay will be a major contributor of your investment performance from now on!
Morgan Stanley is going after a $500 billion opportunity (MS)

People's Trust - more than a catchy Label?

Not convinced that the structure is all that different from a conventional Investment Trust offering. Seven managers, terms not disclosed, the overall fees for the Trust give the game away however. Any target for the investment return is not more than wishful thinking, at least 7 percent is not too ambitious but still doubtful in a world of low returns. The only thing that is certain are the fees that the subadvisors will earn for a very long 7 years. Will that be an incentive to make better investment decisions? Your guess is as good as mine!
People's Trust reveals Manager Line-up

Robo-Advice vs. Human Adviser

Automated financial advisers, also known as Robo-Advisers, are taking a growing share of the market for financial advice and planning. Lower cost and easy access are the main factors behind this trend.

Traditional Advisers argue that they are the only ones that can give personalized advice on complex problems.

But even the most complex portfolios can be handled without resort to high fees.

Let's see what complex issues may face the average - and even high-net - investor: in most cases they are related to Estate or Retirement Planning - but they can easily - and more expertly handled by tax experts (or accountants or lawyers with relevant qualifications). These professionals will not charge an ongoing fee based on the value of your asset but a fee based on an hourly rate schedule. On an estate of $US 5 million and up this should be substantially cheaper. A 1pct annual management fee would total $50,000 PER YEAR!

This leaves the question of HOW your wealth should be invested, first of all the basic asset allocation (property, shares, bonds etc). To a certain extent automated models based on questionnaires should go a long way to provide the answer. It may not be precise, it may even not be the best choice in hindsight but remember: all recommendations by human advisers may also not work out exactly as hoped for (to put it mildly).

My solution to this dilemma is as follows: put a large part of your wealth into the asset structure that is recommended by the Robo-Adviser and put the rest of your wealth into the hands of carefully picked human portfolio managers. Make sure that they charge reasonable fees (expensive does not guarantee better performance!) - preferably with a well-structured performance component.

Traditional Advisers vs. Robo-Advisers

Fees on Alternatives expensive - Report

While Alternative Investments may offer good diversification they are unfortunately priced too expensively to offer a good risk/reward ratio. Performance - esp in Private Equity - may look attractive but remember that we experienced a long bull market that lifted all (asset) boats.
Complex Investments in Alternatives expensive

Active managers - not that bad

While quite a few 'active' fund managers hug the indices and charge fees as if they are trying to beat them not all is that bad as it is portrayed by some critics. Any fund manager needs to charge a fee as nothing can be provided for free. So performance really cannot be measured after fees, expenses. It is by definition a must that the universe of fund managers will under perform any index by the amount of costs loaded onto the funds they manage. Maybe these fees are rightly deemed to be too high but investors should not be brainwashed by the community of passive fund promoters. You get what you pay for, in this case the chance (hope?) that your manager will outperform the benchmark.
Bad times for active managers: Almost none have beaten the market over the past 15 years