Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 339

1 January is a moment of truth for the wealth industry

For investors who poured $925 million into the listed KKR Credit Income Fund (ASX:KKC) during October 2019, the opening weeks of trading would have provided a sobering insight into the pitfalls of a Listed Investment Trust (LIT) structure.

The experience also highlighted an important ethical question for the wealth advice industry to answer.

KKC upsized the deal to $925 million following a flood of demand, but since listing, the shares have consistently traded below the $2.50 issue price. And when the shares sank to $2.43, the decline in capital value had eaten into nearly half of the expected total annual income return.

Problem of trading at a discount

One of the major challenges of a LIT structure is that the underlying shares can trade away from the value of the units in the trust. Occasionally, the shares trade at a premium to the underlying value, but of the 114 Listed Investment Company (LICs) and LITs trading on the ASX at the time of writing, 72% trade at a discount to Net Tangible Asset (NTA) value. The average discount is 12.6%.

While there is always a risk of capital loss when investing, the possibility of a discount to NTA amplifies that risk significantly.

The risk of variance to NTA is just one of the pitfalls of investing via a LIC/LIT structure. Another major risk for investors is the lack of liquidity. In the first three weeks of listing, only around 3% of KKC changed hands. The total value of KKC bid for in the market at time of writing is a mere $270,000. The harsh reality of a LIT such as KKC is that even if an investor decided to exit their investment, it will be difficult to sell volume without driving the price down further.

The toxic pairing of a discount to NTA and a lack of liquidity is a value-destroying combination that is unique to LIC and LIT structures.

Why do so many investors line up to participate?

Depending on the specific LIC/LIT, there can be a variety of reasons for the massive demand. However, our view is that a loophole in FoFA regulations that allows fund managers to pay incentives to advisers who sell LICs and LITs to their clients is a major contributor.

Under the 2012 Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) regulatory reforms, fund managers are banned from paying sales commissions to advisers who sell their products. But in 2014, listed funds were exempted from this rule, and the extent to which that exemption has been exploited is eye-popping. Nearly $45 billion of capital is now invested in LICs and LITs, mostly on behalf of mum and dad investors.

And advisers are being paid lucrative incentives, called 'stamping fees' by fund managers, to sell their clients these funds. Initially these structures were used to buy portfolios of listed shares, similar to a managed fund. However more recently, as in the case of KKC, the structures have been used to acquire portfolios of unlisted, high yield, fixed income securities that are more difficult to value. We can now add another risk into the mix: opaqueness. 

There are several more similar strategies queued up to come to market in 2020.

Can an adviser be impartial when paid to sell a product?

Good advice is always important, and that importance is only increasing as the risks keep rising. The key question to consider is how can an adviser who is receiving a significant fee for selling a product be in a position to offer good, impartial advice to their client? The truth is, they can’t.

As Kenneth Hayne noted in his final report of the recent Royal Commission,

“Experience shows that conflicts between duty and interest can seldom be managed; self-interest will almost always trump duty.”

The advice industry in Australia has evolved around the idea that it is acceptable for an adviser to have an interest that is in conflict with the interests of their client. There has been a view that the conflicts could be adequately managed, or adequately disclosed. The case studies of the Royal Commission graphically revealed why the current situation cannot be allowed to continue.

We have taken a public position against the exploitation of the stamping fee loophole. You can read the article we published (There Are Still Dangerous Loopholes In Financial Advice Rules) on the topic earlier this year here.

Good advice means conflict-free advice. We took a stand that we would only accept fees that were paid by our clients to ensure our advice would never be compromised. 

A shift in what is acceptable

Importantly, conventional wisdom is slowly shifting for the better. The Financial Adviser Standards and Ethical Authority (FASEA) Code of Ethics came into force on 1 January 2020, and Standard 3 states:

“You must not advise, refer or act in any other manner where you have a conflict of interest or duty.”

The guidance notes attached to the Code specifically call out stamping fees on Initial Public Offerings. However the disciplinary body charged with monitoring and enforcing adviser’s adherence to the code has not yet been established. Whilst ASIC has provided relief for the requirement that advisers are registered with a compliance scheme, they have also stated that:

“AFS licensees will still be required to take reasonable steps to ensure that their financial advisers comply with the code from 1 January 2020, and advisers will still be obliged to comply with the code from that date onwards. ASIC may take enforcement action where it receives breach reports.”

So it is at this point that we reach the fundamental ethical question for the industry.

We know where the regulator stands on this issue. Will fund managers follow the lead of Magellan and voluntarily call time on the practice of paying lucrative incentives to advisers to place private investors into risky structures? Will advisers voluntarily call time on accepting fees that compromise the advice they give to the clients who trust them?

Or will the industry continue to exploit the loophole before it finally closes?

1 January 2020 is a moment of truth for the wealth advice industry. How the industry responds will say a great deal about integrity and intent.

 

Paul Heath is a Founding Partner and Chief Executive Officer at Koda Capital. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Authorities reveal disquiet over LIC fees

Fewer new LICs and LITs in 2019, but more funds raised

Listed bond funds leap into market gap

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

After 30 years of investing, I prefer to skip this party

Eventually, prices become so extreme they bear no relationship to reality, and a bubble forms. I believe we are there today, not for all stocks but for many in the technology space.

Australian house prices: Part 2, the bigger picture

There is good reason to believe the negatives will continue to outweigh the positives over the next 12 to 18 months. There is more concern about house prices than the short-term indicators suggest.

How to handle the riskiest company results in history

It is better to miss a results bounce and buy after the company has delivered than it is to step on a landmine. With such uncertainty, avoid FOMO by following these result season investing tips.

Australian house prices: Part 1, how worried should we be?

Three key indicators are useful for predicting the short-term outlook for house prices, although tighter lockdowns make the outlook gloomier. There is enough doubt to create cause for concern.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 367

There is a similarity between the current health crisis and economic crises of the past. For COVID-19, record amounts of biotech funding from government agencies and private companies are looking for a vaccine. Likewise, central banks once struggled treating recessions but the 'vaccine' now is record amounts of financial stimulus to ensure liquidity. While the world awaits a COVID treatment, markets are purring along, at least until side effects hit.

  • 22 July 2020

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 369

Imagine you had perfect foresight about COVID-19 at the start of the year. You correctly foresaw that the global pandemic would kill over 700,000 among 20 million infections by August. In Australia, borders would close, cities would be locked down, most mortgagors would be on income support and companies would be allowed to trade while insolvent. You then had to guess how much the stock market would fall. Would you say about 10%?

  • 6 August 2020

Latest Updates

Shares

How to handle the riskiest company results in history

It is better to miss a results bounce and buy after the company has delivered than it is to step on a landmine. With such uncertainty, avoid FOMO by following these result season investing tips.

Shares

The rise of Afterpay and emergence of a new business model

Sometimes the simplest ideas are the best. The founders of Afterpay stumbled on the attraction for consumers of paying by instalments, and now retailers must offer the facility or lose business.

Property

WFH and its impact on Australian offices and tenants

Although most office workers are currently WFH, an energy and a buzz comes from working in the same physical space. Other benefits include team building, relationships, talent mentoring and creative collaboration.

Fixed interest

Why 2020 has been the year of the bond market

Going back to June 2019, investors would have questioned the logic of diversifying away from outperforming growth assets. But when markets feel at their best, it is paramount to keep a perspective on long-term goals.

Investment strategies

Is 5G all hype or real investable opportunity?

While its impact will take time to unfold, 5G will meaningfully change the world. Once adoption takes hold, there is huge potential for its application across a wide range of industries.

Property

Australian house prices: Part 1, how worried should we be?

Three key indicators are useful for predicting the short-term outlook for house prices, although tighter lockdowns make the outlook gloomier. There is enough doubt to create cause for concern.

Property

Australian house prices: Part 2, the bigger picture

There is good reason to believe the negatives will continue to outweigh the positives over the next 12 to 18 months. There is more concern about house prices than the short-term indicators suggest.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2020 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use.
Any general advice or class service prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, has been prepared by without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Refer to our Financial Services Guide (FSG) for more information. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.