Financial regulators repeatedly warn of unfair practices in the retail investment space: high
fees, price clustering, poor advice, low transparency, and what not. But nothing compares to
real-life examples.
In which vein, Eriswell has been offering complimentary portfolio Health Checks to retail
investors since mid-July. And shining a light into some dark spaces has revealed a collection
of parasitic financial creations sneaking around in the gloom.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously remarked, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”,
and none of these creatures will survive the cold light of day. At least, that is the hope.
A Parasitic or Contributive Structure?
Names have been changed to protect people’s identities.
STEP 1: About 25 years ago, Sarah started to invest in a pension offered by “Asset Manager
A” (a large UK asset manager).
STEP 2: Some years ago, “Asset Manager A” sold part of its pension business to “Asset
Manager B” (another large UK asset manager) for a significant sum of money. Asset
Manager B charges circa 0.7% to manage its newly acquired funds and discloses this fee to
Sarah. No investment advice is included in this fee.
STEP 3: To our surprise, we found that Asset Manager B doesn’t actually manage the funds
it acquired! It passes its newly acquired pension assets straight back to Asset Manager A in
the form of a ‘Master Pension Fund’, which charges 0.5% per annum for this service.
So, Sarah is now paying 1.2% per annum in fees to 2 separate UK service providers of which
only one is visible in her pension statement. Sarah neither receives investment advice from
them, nor has a log-in to see what is going on. This limited-mandate/limited-visibility
combination immediately rang alarm bells. But wait…..
STEP 4: Asset Manager A’s Master Pension Fund does not directly manage Sarah’s money
either! It sub-allocates to a number of funds -- also run by Asset Manager A -- each of which
charges fees of around 0.1% per annum. That’s now about 1.3% per annum in total. And
that’s not the end of it……..
STEP 5: Asset Manager A’s sub-funds are mostly passive-type funds. Yet they trade on
bid/ask spreads (kept by Asset Manager A) of between 0.2% and 1.7%, significantly more
than comparable publicly listed funds. We are as yet unable to quantify the total annual cost
of such transactions.
KEY TAKE OUT
Asset Manager A has a clear conflict of interest here: it can increase its revenues and profits
at a time of its choosing by churning the funds in which Sarah is invested. Its latitude to do
this is enhanced by the fact that neither Asset Manager A nor B provides Sarah with
investment advice, she has no log-in, and her statements do not appear to provide regular
transaction reports.
Through no fault of her own, we estimate Sarah has ended up paying circa 2.1% per annum
for a service which should have cost around 0.6%.
We estimate that excess fees of 1.5% per annum will erode 41% of Sarah’s pension over her
working life. Abraham Lincoln might call this, a structure of the service providers, by the
service providers, for the service providers.
We call it a disgrace.
Request your free Portfolio Health Check here: info@eriswell.com
#Demand Full Transparency