Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 340

Poacher turned gamekeeper changes his wealth model

(Editor’s introduction: Rob Garnsworthy readily admits he ‘fed from the trough’ during his business career 'in his previous life’. Rob was Chief Executive Officer of Norwich Union from 2000 to 2003 after five years as Managing Director of Colonial Group’s UK operation and then heading CBA’s International Financial Services. In 2000, Norwich managed funds valued at $11 billion and administered an additional $6 billion through the Navigator Master Trust.

Rob is now long and happily retired, and he says, “Those writing about retirees are never actually retired - the thoughts and fears are different and they change over time.”

So in what ways has he changed over time since experiencing retirement from the other side?).

 

The articles in Firstlinks on Listed Investment Companies (LICs) and ASIC's disquiet over selling fees flirts at the edges of a much more fundamental challenge for advice and wealth businesses. The fees model right across the industry, from advisers to platforms to fund managers to retail and industry funds, is unfair and unsustainable.

Let's start with a very simple fact. The ASX200 Price Index climbed from 6,802 on 31 December 2019 to 7,042 on 10 January 2020, a rise of 3.5% in 10 days.

Not a single soul across the industry has done anything to achieve that result, their costs have not gone up by a single cent and yet most of their fee income has gone up by circa 3.5% (acknowledging that some business models use a flat annual fee).

Is that fair? No. Is it reasonable? No. Is it under attack? Yes.

The reality of percentage fees

Most investors do not even see the rising dollar amount of fees as the payment is hidden, and no doubt they welcome the market move of 3.5%. If they do think about it, then it’s "... little bit off the top in fees, so what?"

Here is the reality. The rush into financial services was about jumping aboard this gravy train - revenue went up (and down) with markets, whereas costs per client remained largely fixed (with the exception of ever-increasing spends on IT and compliance). There is a lucrative disconnect between costs and revenue tied to markets that trend higher over time, even with some hiccups in between like the GFC.

Revenue and charges are not ‘matched’. Businesses receive, say, a 7% increase in fees each year due to market movements, with say, an increase of 2% in your costs. It’s a cracker of a business model!

SMSFs were first to spot the flaw. They figured out that their accounting and audit fees really did not change whether their fund was $1 million or $10 million. It’s the reason nearly 30% of superannuation has moved into SMSFs, and larger the fund, the bigger the saving, and not only on administration.

The new kids – well, relatively - on the block, Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) still charge percentage- based fees but as they bulk up, their fees generally go lower. There is an ever-widening gap in fees between ETFs from the big guys and LICs/managed funds, and it shows in the flows as ETF volumes have surged past LICs in the last year.

It’s asset allocation that matters

The obvious and compelling question is: "Why would I invest in a LIC or managed fund when the costs are higher and performance is often inferior?"

Not only is the industry ‘logic’ under attack, the competition just gets hotter and hotter. Throw in an ever-increasing overlay of regulations and compliance, and the industry is getting tougher! A fee model that is unfair, performance differentials opaque and the cost of doing business rising. Not surprising that some are heading for the exits.

However, it gets worse. In this new world, asset allocation rises above the noise. It is. and arguably always has been, the most critical decision for any investor. Never before has it been so simple to get advice on asset allocation. Just look it up, copy whoever you like – the Future Fund, an industry fund, a diversified retail fund, whoever. Copy their allocation, buy ETFs to match and go back to sleep! That is now a genuine option.

And okay, if you have confidence in an active manager, throw them into the mix if you are prepared to pay active fees.

It really surprises me how few people actually understand the problem. If the retail investors of the world realised that the ‘only’ skills you need are asset allocation, supported by some good tax advice, then stock picking becomes largely irrelevant. Portfolios can be dominated by passive exposure with some active piece. It’s a lot easier for ordinary folk to get their heads around.

I am about to turn 71, with about 20% of my portfolio allocated to passive exposure – the balance is all direct. By the time I get to 75, it will probably be 40% passive and by 80, reckon that might be 80%!

My view of the future

Looking forward, the old world will defend the traditional business model, in some cases to the death. The new world will build a model, including critically, financial and tax advice, based on dollar fees for service, rather than percentages, and portfolios will be dominated by low cost index allocations.

At the edges will be genuine super star managers who consistently outperform and can charge accordingly but one suspects there will be fewer of them!

 

Rob Garnsworthy is retired after a senior wealth management career, and is currently a Trustee Director for the Colonial Foundation, a charity which has donated over $115 million in a range of philanthropic grants.

 

11 Comments
Chris Disney
January 20, 2020

What you are all saying, and I heartily agree, is that Investment advice and investment management simply ain't worth what the industry has lead us to believe. 

Steve
January 19, 2020

Yes, if you invest $1.6 million in most industry super funds (and retail funds), you will be paying $13,200 pa in ongoing fees (not including any advice fees). Makes most SMSFs look very attractive.

SMSF Trustee
January 19, 2020

Why? That's 0.83% for active management. A decently invested SMSF will need to pay that sort of fee for funds management or:

- invest only directly in shares. Well, that's a very undiversified portfolio with almost no decent research backing the investments, just a broker's recommendations. Not for me, thanks.

- invests in LICS etc. But if you really think that the fact that there's no overt fees means that no one is making money out of your money then you''re naive. At least with managed funds in the SMSF you're being honestly told what the fee is!

Look, I've got an SMSF (hence my username), but it's not because of fee savings. It's about control and being accountable to myself for the outcomes of my choices. Anyone who uses an SMSF simply thinking they're saving money is going to cost themselves heaps in the long run. Cheap is cheap after all.

RobG
January 20, 2020

Investment management has many parts - costs are but one but, CRITICALLY, costs are one over which you have some control and worth your attention - clearly if you can save 20-50bp, it is identical to additional performance of 20-50bp and therefore worth having.

Beyond that, every investor has choices - Direct investment, no ongoing fees, no leakage, Managed Funds of your choice, LIC's/passive ETF's, Industry, Retail, etc...For most investors, a mixture and the only thing that really matters is performance after fees and whether that performance meets your objectives.

For SMSF's, another test - "does your "management" actually add value"? For many, that is a tougher question!

SMSF Trustee
January 21, 2020

Yes, RobG, the costs of your investment - SMSF or other - can be controlled. That has many dimensions, not just the total level, but how that total is made up. I use a mix of very low cost index funds and only pay higher fees for managers where I've got some confidence that they can deliver either added value over the index or exposure to an asset class that inherently needs people looking after the underlying investment (eg property).
My point was simply to challenge the flippant remark made by "Steve" about what I consider to be a modest cost for managing $1.6 million. It at least needed some context.

Steve
February 06, 2020

If another major industry fund can do the same job with $1.6 million for only $10,000 pa, and you can invest the same money in a SMSF for $6,000 pa, someone is killing the pig. Or paying out too much in sponsorship money to related parties.

Mart
January 17, 2020

Hi Rob - thanks for a refreshingly honest article! Question for you ... as you note, you state an 'ordinary investor' could passively 'mirror' the asset allocation of professionals they admire via low cost index / tracker / LICs etc. This seems to echo what Warren Buffet recommends for the 'ordinary investor' ... no over exposure to single stock, low fees, steady as she goes etc. So .... why is this only 20% of your allocation ?! I accept that given your background you're probably smarter than the average bear in this area but just curious ...

RobG
January 18, 2020

Mart - I am still a hands-on active manager, is the answer, BUT I do measure my own performance against the Index AND against Passive Funds AND against the big Super Funds. As long as I can hold my own or outperform, that is ok. Try hard not to delude myself...

The passive exposure I do have is an ETF on the US market - just easier, very cheap, unhedged and ticks along just fine. No names but one of the big guys!

Paul
January 16, 2020

As a 25 year planner and seeing the pressure on every part of the advice chain in terms of platform and advice fees, I welcome the same pressure being applied on Fund Manager. They should have tiers of ICR based on funds invested with a cap per investor, much like platform fees. Would be difficult but not impossible to implement.

Tony Belcher
January 16, 2020

Can we always rely on asset allocation data that is publicly available? My understanding has always been that many institutional investors don't keep their asset allocation data up-to-the-minute up to date precisely to avoid influencing the market via feedback loops.

RobG
January 16, 2020

Nothing more than an option Tony - the institutions rarely make significant changes to asset allocation for the simple reason it is very difficult. They have mandates to adhere to and while you personally can easily move say $100k, it is much tougher for them to move $500m. What they do is tinker at the edges with the base allocations and within that allocation, vary individual holdings seeking alpha - some do, some don't!

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

The great fee debate: resetting manager and investor expectations

Choosing an index fund is more than just the expense ratio

Authorities reveal disquiet over LIC fees

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Unexpected results in our retirement income survey

Who knew? With some surprise results, the Government is on unexpected firm ground in asking people to draw on all their assets in retirement, although the comments show what feisty and informed readers we have.

Three all-time best tables for every adviser and investor

It's a remarkable statistic. In any year since 1875, if you had invested in the Australian stock index, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods.

The looming excess of housing and why prices will fall

Never stand between Australian households and an uncapped government programme with $3 billion in ‘free money’ to build or renovate their homes. But excess supply is coming with an absence of net migration.

Five stocks that have worked well in our portfolios

Picking macro trends is difficult. What may seem logical and compelling one minute may completely change a few months later. There are better rewards from focussing on identifying the best companies at good prices.

Six COVID opportunist stocks prospering in adversity

Some high-quality companies have emerged even stronger since the onset of COVID and are well placed for outperformance. We call these the ‘COVID Opportunists’ as they are now dominating their specific sectors.

Let's make this clear again ... franking credits are fair

Critics of franking credits are missing the main point. The taxable income of shareholders/taxpayers must also include the company tax previously paid to the ATO before the dividend was distributed. It is fair.

Latest Updates

Retirement

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Interviews

Sean Fenton on marching to your own investment tune

Is it more difficult to find stocks to short in a rising market? What impact has central bank dominance had over stock selection? How do you combine income and growth in a portfolio? Where are the opportunities?

Compliance

D’oh! DDO rules turn some funds into a punching bag

The Design and Distribution Obligations (DDO) come into effect in two weeks. They will change the way banks promote products, force some small funds to close to new members and push issues into the listed space.

Shares

Dividends, disruption and star performers in FY21 wrap

Company results in FY21 were generally good with some standout results from those thriving in tough conditions. We highlight the companies that delivered some of the best results and our future  expectations.

Fixed interest

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Investment strategies

Seven factors driving growth in Managed Accounts

As Managed Accounts surge through $100 billion for the first time, the line between retail, wholesale and institutional capabilities and portfolios continues to blur. Lower costs help with best interest duties.

Retirement

Reader Survey: home values in age pension asset test

Read our article on the family home in the age pension test, with the RBA Governor putting the onus on social security to address house prices and the OECD calling out wealthy pensioners. What is your view?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 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 ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.