MONEY: So do fund managers take us for mugs? Yes
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Are you a mug ? You probably don't think so but pounds 20bn a year says we all are. This is the amount we are being overcharged on our investments by life insurance companies and unit trust managers.
A new report suggests that most of us are paying too much in charges because we are ignorant. The report, The Price of Retail Investing in the UK, was written by an American who works for the SEC, the American super-regulator. Here's the most interesting sentence among the highlights of the report which were published last week:
"Investors pay too much for portfolio management services because they do not know enough to pick sensible funds on their own and because the funds exploit the errors in their decision-making for their own profit."
The problem is that retail investors (you and I) are underwriting the operation of efficient stock markets because we pay over the odds for active management. Anyone paying an initial charge of 5 per cent plus management fees of 1.5 per cent a year is a mug.
So what's the solution? The smart people are looking for cheap, consistent ("sensible") funds, whether they are index-tracked or actively managed. Those "in the know" also save most of these charges by buying from a discount broking house (see page 8) rather than through an independent financial adviser or direct from the manager. This leaves the rest of the ignorant punters subsidising overpriced, over-hyped funds.
You don't need to wade through pages of incomprehensible tables to spot a low-cost stock market fund. The new tax-free ISAs (individual savings accounts), which replace PEPs and Tessas next month, can be set up to carry a CATmark. This is a Treasury-endorsed standard which guarantees you will get a good deal on costs (CAT stands for low Cost, easy Access and fair Terms).
To get a CATmark a stock market ISA fund must have no initial charge and all the other charges must add up to no more than 1 per cent a year. A fund with a CATmark will be easy to spot, so all you have to do is check the fund's aims and past performance and decide whether it's right for you.
That's easy enough on index trackers, which follow the markets up and down and are cheap to buy and run. But have the fund managers been rushing to offer CATmarks on actively managed funds? My research revealed only three: Standard Life, Fidelity and Norwich Union.
The vast majority of fund managers are deliberately resisting the Government's efforts to bring prices down. If you play along, and buy their overpriced funds, then this scandalous overcharging will carry on forever.
t i.berwick@independent.co.uk
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments