We like investment trusts - but they need to cut their fees

By Phil Oakley Oct 10, 2012

Phil Oakley

Share with
friends:

Comments (23) Print this article

What’s the true cost of investing? No-one really tells you.

But if you are handing over your hard-earned cash to a professional money manager, you are almost certainly paying more than you think.

The retail distribution review (RDR) - due to come into effect next year - is supposed to make investment charges a lot clearer for people. But the fund management industry still seems a long way from doing this.

Take a typical unit trust. The annual management fee paid by the investor is usually 1.5%. That’s already too much given that we are living in a world of low and rapidly-changing returns from the stock market.

Yet the truth is that people actually pay more than this.

Total expense ratios (TERs) do not tell the whole story

The TER - sometimes referred to as ongoing charges - are supposed to give a clearer picture on costs. It includes things such as the annual management fee, administrative costs, audit and legal fees. These costs are added together and divided by the average net assets of the fund to get the TER.

But the TER ignores significant items such as the cost of buying and selling shares. The commissions paid by fund managers to brokers for doing this can add up, particularly if the fund trades a lot.

Other costs such as the bid-offer spread (the difference between the buying and selling price of shares), performance fees, interest costs and tax are also ignored. All of these costs reduce the value of your investment in the fund. So it’s not unreasonable to want to be told how much someone is paying on your behalf.

The good news is that a lot of this information is actually out there. You just have to look for it. You can find most of it in the fund’s annual report.

In May this year, the Investment Management Association (IMA) looked at the effect of transaction costs on the total costs of unit trusts. For the top 15 largest active UK funds, transaction costs (commissions and taxes) added 0.38% to the total cost of the fund. For a FTSE 100 tracker, the increase was only 0.09%.

So for a unit trust with an annual management charge of 1.5% and a TER of 1.7%, a truer cost is around 2.08%. Performance fees and exit charges on some funds would add on more cost.


Want a fast way to hunt big dividend paying stocks?

Performance table

Easily compare UK shares by sector or index using our free performance tool.

From the FTSE 100 to penny stocks – easily find out here


Investment trusts are not as cheap as claimed

The high costs of unit trusts put many people off investing in them. But what about investment trusts? We like investment trusts here at MoneyWeek, but we reckon they need to be more transparent too.

The main reason we like investment trusts is that don’t pay commissions to financial advisors or fund supermarkets. If you look at the biggest investment trusts in the FTSE 250 they have an average TER of 0.94%. And unlike unit trusts, investment trusts explicitly charge all the costs of share dealing and include it in their TERs.

But unfortunately they ignore other significant costs.

This is because most investment trusts borrow money (known as leverage) to invest on top of the money they get from shareholders. If you add on the interest costs on the borrowings and tax on fund performance to other costs, the average total cost of the big investment trusts is 1.71%.

We have calculated the true TER for each investment trust in the list below by using the information from their annual reports as follows (the example is from the Witan Investment Trust, but we’ve used a similar method for each):

Witan Investment Trust£ (000's)
Annual management charge 4960
Other expenses 5630
Interest 8402
Tax 1675
Total costs (A) 20667
Opening NAV 1141765
Closing NAV 994349
Average NAV (B) 1068057
True TER (A/B) 1.94%


This cost of leverage is very significant and makes you ask whether investment trusts are really that good a deal for investors. For instance, a trust with lots of borrowings will lose more money than one without in a falling market. Conversely, they will make more in a rising market. But this makes them quite risky.

That said, buying a good unleveraged trust such as Personal Assets Trust still looks sensible from a cost and risk point of view.

Investment TrustPublished TERTrue TER
Aberforth Smaller Companies 0.88% 1.56%
Alliance Trust 0.65% 1.60%
Bankers IT 0.44% 1.06%
Blackrock World Mining 1.30% 1.27%
British Assets 0.60% 1.50%
British Empire Securities & General 0.72% 1.26%
City of London 0.47% 1.30%
Edinburgh Dragon 1.20% 1.79%
Edinburgh Investment Trust 0.71% 3.29%
Fidelity China Special Situations 1.70% 1.97%
Fidelity European Values 0.94% 1.68%
F&C Investment Trust 0.92% 1.48%
Genesis Emerging Markets Fund 1.70% 2.45%
Herald Investment Trust 1.08% 1.78%
JP Morgan American 0.72% 1.86%
JP Morgan Emerging Markets 1.18% 1.65%
JP Morgan India 1.51% 1.63%
Mercantile Investment Trust 0.52% 1.47%
Merchants Trust 0.64% 2.78%
Monks Investment Trust 0.63% 1.71%
Murray Income Trust 0.80% 1.05%
Perpetual Income Trust 1% 1.76%
Personal Assets Trust 1.01% 1.09%
Polar Capital Technology Trust 1.22% 1.43%
Scottish Investment Trust 0.71% 1.99%
Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust 0.51% 1.56%
TR Property Investment Trust 1.30% 1.93%
Temple Bar Investment Trust 0.50% 1.45%
Templeton Emerging Markets Investment Trust 1.31% 1.45%
UK Commercial Property Trust 1.35% 1.89%
Witan Investment Trust 0.80% 1.94%
Worldwide Healthcare Trust 1.08% 2.17%
Average 0.94% 1.71%

Will unit trusts be cheaper than investment trusts post-RDR?

The reason why investment trust managers should be urgently looking at their fees can be summed up in one acronym – RDR.

With unit trusts unable to pay commission on new unit sales - and possibly a ban on platform charges - the total cost of a unit trust could fall by 0.75% (0.5% in trail commission and 0.25% platform charge).

This would make some of them cheaper than investment trusts. So it looks like boards of investment trusts have some decisions to make if they hope to attract more business post-RDR. They may have to reduce their borrowings and interest costs and cut their fees. Let’s hope they do so.

• Phil Oakley owns shares in the Personal Assets Trust and the Edinburgh Investment Trust.

Comments (23)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. jimtaylor

    (10 October 2012, 11:04AM)  Complain about this comment

    Wow - EDIN has a True TER of 3.29%.

    Is this figure correct?
    Is it due to high performance fees?

  • 2. Phil Oakley

    (10 October 2012, 11:34AM)  Complain about this comment

    Hi Jim,

    The figure for EDIN is correct. It is not due to high performance fees, but a very high interest charge. Here are the figures for you to look at. They are taken from the 2012 annual report.

    Edinburgh Investment Trust
    Annual management charge 9123
    Other expenses 777
    Interest 19503
    Tax 1490
    Total costs 30893

    Opening NAV 893906
    Closing NAV 982178

    Average NAV 938042

    True TER 3.29%

  • 3. DrD

    (10 October 2012, 11:48AM)  Complain about this comment

    Great stuff.
    What about ETFs? For example a comparison of an FT100 tracking EDF, UT and IT would be very useful.

  • 4. PSax

    (10 October 2012, 12:06PM)  Complain about this comment

    OEIC and UT income is also taxed, you haven't incorporated that into you 'truer cost' of 2.08%, so you are no longer comparing like with like.

  • 5. Bungo

    (10 October 2012, 12:25PM)  Complain about this comment

    Great article, Phil, thanks - what an eye-opener! One question though: Blackrock World Mining alone has its True TER shown as being lower than the Published TER. Can this be right?

  • 6. Ewan

    (10 October 2012, 12:27PM)  Complain about this comment

    To complicate it further - investment trust management fees are calculated on NAV usually. Trusts that habitually trade at significant discount to their NAV (eg Hansa) therefore have higher 'true' management cost.

  • 7. Phil Oakley

    (10 October 2012, 12:34PM)  Complain about this comment

    Hi Bungo

    It should not be lower in most years. That said, the trust had a tax credit (income) rather than an expense last year which brings the TER down. It was the only trust that we looked at that had a tax credit.

    If the tax charge had been zero - which can happen - then the true TER would have been 1.36%

  • 8. PSax

    (10 October 2012, 01:07PM)  Complain about this comment

    As stated the interest paid by ITs is a consequence of loans. The loan, if the fund is managed correctly, should leveraged capital performance, and thus offsetting the expense. So while you are including interest in the 'True TER', you have not identified the benefit to performance the loan brings to returns.

  • 9. dr ray

    (10 October 2012, 01:11PM)  Complain about this comment

    Thank you Phil.
    Excellent article effectively removing the loin cloth behind which the financial sector hide their less attractive features
    Truely educational

  • 10. Malcolm Scott

    (10 October 2012, 02:27PM)  Complain about this comment

    Very revealing !

    it would be interesting to seperate out the interest costs from the others since it reflects an investment strategy or over-paying on borrowings or ???

    Also eg Alliance Trust runs other businesses at a big loss (Alliance Trust Services etc.) at a big loss yet does not include these losses as part of its costs!

  • 11. Mark B

    (10 October 2012, 02:30PM)  Complain about this comment

    Phil,

    What you are ignoring is the increased revenue derived from gearing. If Investment Trust gears up 30% (not unusual) it will boost its income by 30%. Hopefully, it is borrowing for less than its dividend stream, so this added cost should be set against this. You are guilty of looking at the cost of borrowing, but not the benefits.

  • 12. charlesdb

    (10 October 2012, 02:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    I agree with PSax. The benefits of gearing can outweigh the cost, in a rising market. And for an astute investor, the accellerated fall in a sinking market offers an additional buying opportunity. Also, with the benefits of buying at a good discount (not PersonalAssetts therefore) you get a higher dividend yield plus the opportunity of a kick in performance.

    The answer is, if you are worried about the cost of interest, never buy an Investment Trust at or near par to nett asset value. That excludes Personal Assetts anEdinbugh IT. Instead buy at a good discount and you buy long value. Never mind the cost of leverage. It's irrelevant unless the terms of the loan are onerous (good research is vital).

  • 13. abg

    (10 October 2012, 05:57PM)  Complain about this comment

    How does this true TER compare to Neil Woodford's unit trust fund, the Invesco Perpetual High Income Fund?

  • 14. clive chafer

    (10 October 2012, 06:09PM)  Complain about this comment

    Thanks for the information Phil. Very helpful and revealing.

  • 15. Stephen L

    (10 October 2012, 06:46PM)  Complain about this comment

    Miselading article and a shame so many people applaud the findings. 1. Commissions and other dealing costs should be EXcluded: markets work because savvy investors buy and sell, even if this a zero-sum game (and if you think that, don't buy actively managed trusts or OIECS!). "Active" investors' portfolios, before FEES are deducted, perform in line with the "market"
    2. interest costs of NAV today are only 4.5% (on fair value basis) , which is probably only 1.5% above portfolio yields. You are confusing RISK with COST. Sure, leveraged portfolios are riskier than equivalent ungeared portfolios, but the cost of the leverage in my book is on average 1.5% of the value of the additional assets backed by the leverage at fair value and is- according to the M/M theorem and common sense- likely to be in line with the return of the extra assets- else why be in equities at all??

  • 16. Phil Oakley

    (10 October 2012, 06:57PM)  Complain about this comment

    Mark B,

    I am trying to answer a simple but very important question: What return does my fund have to give me before I start making money? To make money the returns of the fund (capital gains/losses + income) have to cover all expenses and generate a profit. If an investment trust borrows money then the fund has to cover the additional interest costs before it makes a profit. Interest is therefore a relevant expense for investors in investment trusts. I think IT's should be upfront with their shareholders and state that interest costs are an ongoing, relevant and additional expense of the fund and should be included in a TER.

    Put simply, I am arguing that any cost that reduces the net income of a fund should be openly disclosed to investors as a percentage of assets.

  • 17. Jeff

    (10 October 2012, 08:49PM)  Complain about this comment

    The original analysis incorrectly includes interest costs with management fees.
    Management fees are a guaranteed loss, unless the investor has picked one of the very small percentage of trusts that outperform in the long term.
    However, over the long term investment returns should more than recover the cost of interest. In fact, I think the long term return on equities is near 10%, so if the interest rate is well below that, we could consider borrowing to be a benefit.

    The comments on interest rates in the original article should be disregarded.

  • 18. charlesdb

    (11 October 2012, 11:10AM)  Complain about this comment

    Phil Oakley, the balance sheet of the Investment Trust shows the cost of interest to the fund.

  • 19. Phil Oakley

    (11 October 2012, 11:25AM)  Complain about this comment

    charlesdb,

    The balance sheet shows the amount of borrowings of the trust.

    The cost of interest on these borrowings is expensed through the profit and loss account of the investment trust.It is expensed before tax on the way to calculating the net income of the trust for the year.

    It is this net income figure (or a net loss) that either increases/decreases the net asset value (NAV) of the trust. Therefore, the cost of interest ends up being reflected in the balance sheet through the net income figure.

    A trust has to generate sufficient investment returns to pay this interest bill. If it does not - and this often happens - the trust will make a loss and the NAV and NAV per share will go down.

    That is why I see interest as a relevant expense for an IT.

  • 20. Craig Ross

    (11 October 2012, 01:02PM)  Complain about this comment

    Am I missing something here? The interest on borrowings isn't an expense like other expenses. If I borrow cash and receive more in dividends from the shares I buy than the interest I pay on the borrowing I am taking a chance, but I'm not incurring an expense. Borrowing would be a plain expense only if I put the cash under the bed.

  • 21. Jeff

    (11 October 2012, 08:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    Craig, your analysis is spot on. The original article is not.

  • 22. Fernando Rodrigues

    (14 October 2012, 04:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    I guess funds are already cheaper than IT if you are using interactive investor, as most of them are less than 1%.

  • 23. John

    (15 October 2012, 08:25AM)  Complain about this comment

    One aspect not covered, and which has received little publicity unfortunately , is the big increase in IT Directors fees over recent years.
    More research needed but approx 10-20% pa increase in 10 years so average non exec gets £25K - £35K per annum. Not bad for attendance once per month, plus expenses, especially when many directors are on several IT boards!
    Again the appointments and fees determined by remuneration committees of themselves. And many ITs are "owned" by big Fund Management groups, which raises a question about their independence and appointment of the best managers.
    Would you care to comment on this Phil?

Leave a comment

This will be the name displayed with your comment.

This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.

Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.

captcha To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.

By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.


FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment emailJohn Stepek

Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.

>