Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 75

Resetting investor expectations

In part 1, we looked at resetting fund manager expectations in the fee debate. In part 2, it’s the turn of the investors. After reading part 1, investors might be feeling vindicated and there may have been some smiling and nodding at the shortcomings of many managers. But this isn’t a one way street and there are some expectations that many investors should be changing for their own good.

Investors need to decide if they are fee driven or return driven

Many fund managers are partly right in arguing that some investors don’t prioritise total returns, but are instead more concerned with total fees. Focussing on total returns may make sense for an individual investor, but institutional investors are equally entitled to choose a low fee business model for their members and clients. But just as high fee managers are better off not pitching to low fee investors, low fee institutional investors should be transparent and decline meetings if the manager has no chance of meeting the target fee levels. This requires investors to know what they are willing to pay for each particular strategy. It also requires investors to know what split of base and performance fees they will pay and to be upfront in asking managers to work with that.

Low fee investors need to decide how to allocate their fee bucket

Low fee investors may choose to spread out their fee bucket over all sectors, or choose a strategy that has a core of very low fee index investments with a few satellites that will hopefully deliver the most return for the fees available. This will allow the investor to spend time choosing the best managers in their favoured sectors, rather than hearing pitches from managers who have no hope of fitting into the overall strategy.

If you want to beat the index you need to deviate from the index

Some investors seem to believe a fantasy world exists where managers can consistently deliver outperformance relative to the index. As any honest manager will tell you, there is no straight line of outperformance and deviating from the index means there will likely be periods of prolonged underperformance in order to deliver long term outperformance. Many top managers over a ten year period often underperform the average for a two to three year period at some stage during the ten years. Hugging an index means getting returns equal to an index minus the fees charged.

Top managers often don’t come wrapped in nice packages

I’ll mention two managers you’ve probably never heard of illustrate this point. Allan Mecham of Arlington Value Management had $80 million under management in 2012 with 12 years of track record and 400% returns over that period, leaving the S&P 500 for dead. Two years later he had $470 million under management and has continued to post extraordinary returns. Strangely enough, Mecham isn’t closed to new funds. Despite enormous outperformance over a very long period, institutional investors can’t deal with his demand for patient capital and his lack of Wall Street polish.

The next example is Michael Burry, formerly of Scion Capital. He was previously a medical student who took up investing as a hobby then decided to start running his own fund in 2000 after successfully blogging for many years. Like Mecham, his returns were off-the-chart good. By 2004 he had $600 million under management and was turning away investors. Starting in 2005 he began to short sub-prime credit default swaps. His investors, who had seen their investments more than double in four years, were enraged that their manager had moved away from solely stock picking and began to redeem their money. By 2008, despite having made a net 489% for the original investors in under eight years, Scion Capital closed and Burry now manages only his own money.

Both of these guys seemingly came out of nowhere and were not the usual asset manager types. Both managed capital with a long term view, took on concentrated positions and invested where their reading and ideas took them with little regard for typical investment styles. Regardless of the returns, the vast majority of institutional investors and asset consultants will not deal with them. Perhaps the real issue is that investing with people like this carries too much perceived career risk for investors, who work in an environment that relies on safety in the herd.

Top managers will inevitably be closed to new funds and will sometimes return capital to protect returns

In the last 12 months, Paradice in Australian equities and US hedge funds Appaloosa and Baupost have returned meaningful capital to their investors. They believe that their future returns will be negatively impacted by their existing size. Investors need to recognise that top performance often comes in the early years when outperformance is not diluted by size. For managers that do close, new investors that come late won’t be able to invest at all.

There is both skill and hard work involved in identifying top managers

There is arguably as much hard work and skill required to select top managers early, as there is required by those managers themselves when selecting underlying investments. As a guide, less than 10% of all managers can be expected to meaningfully outperform a suitable index after fees in the long term. If investors want to have an edge over their peers, they need to be actively searching for top managers and have clear measures to identify early what outperformance looks like.

Investors need to change their managers to get meaningful change in their fees

What most investors mean when they say they want lower fees is that they want their existing managers to charge less. This is a fairly naïve position to hold. In all walks of life people would prefer to pay less, but those who truly care about the issue do something about it. If a manager doesn’t have superior performance and won’t offer low fees to retain business, the capital should be redeployed to another manager or an index fund. For top performing managers, a balance needs to be struck bearing in mind the potential manager capacity issues and the possibility of an investor’s capital being returned.

For many investors, the way they choose managers needs to be changed so that fees are always one of the first points agreed. Another change would be to run an open, publicly advertised tender process. By publicly specifying what fees the investor is willing to pay and the outperformance expectations they hold, an investor is likely to discover new managers, strategies and fee propositions that they otherwise would not have considered.

Whilst many investors would say that this is what their asset consultants are paid to do, there is clearly a breakdown in this process as there has been very little change in fee levels or manager selection in the last decade.


The average manager and investor both have many things to reflect on and expectations to change in the great debate over fees. Managers need to start taking costs out of their businesses and resetting their expectations of what investors should pay. As well as lowering base management fees and eliminating obscure fees, managers should engage with their investors more often noting when their sector is good value and when it isn’t. Investors need to be more transparent about their willingness to pay fees, and be willing to change managers in order to have a step change in their fee levels. Investors should actively encourage low fee managers to pitch to them and take action to switch to such managers where the risk and return proposition is merited.


Jonathan Rochford is a Portfolio Manager at Narrow Road Capital. Narrow Road Capital advises on and invests in various credit securities. His advice is general in nature and readers should seek their own professional advice before making any financial decisions.


Leave a Comment:



The great fee debate: resetting manager and investor expectations

SMSFs have major role but not for everyone

Poacher turned gamekeeper changes his wealth model


Most viewed in recent weeks

Is it better to rent or own a home under the age pension?

With 62% of Australians aged 65 and over relying at least partially on the age pension, are they better off owning their home or renting? There is an extra pension asset allowance for those not owning a home.

Too many retirees miss out on this valuable super fund benefit

With 700 Australians retiring every day, retirement income solutions are more important than ever. Why do millions of retirees eligible for a more tax-efficient pension account hold money in accumulation?

Is the fossil fuel narrative simply too convenient?

A fund manager argues it is immoral to deny poor countries access to relatively cheap energy from fossil fuels. Wealthy countries must recognise the transition is a multi-decade challenge and continue to invest.

Reece Birtles on selecting stocks for income in retirement

Equity investing comes with volatility that makes many retirees uncomfortable. A focus on income which is less volatile than share prices, and quality companies delivering robust earnings, offers more reassurance.

Comparing generations and the nine dimensions of our well-being

Using the nine dimensions of well-being used by the OECD, and dividing Australians into Baby Boomers, Generation Xers or Millennials, it is surprisingly easy to identify the winners and losers for most dimensions.

Anton in 2006 v 2022, it's deja vu (all over again)

What was bothering markets in 2006? Try the end of cheap money, bond yields rising, high energy prices and record high commodity prices feeding inflation. Who says these are 'unprecedented' times? It's 2006 v 2022.

Latest Updates


Superannuation: a 30+ year journey but now stop fiddling

Few people have been closer to superannuation policy over the years than Noel Whittaker, especially when he established his eponymous financial planning business. He takes us on a quick guided tour.

Survey: share your retirement experiences

All Baby Boomers are now over 55 and many are either in retirement or thinking about a transition from work. But what is retirement like? Is it the golden years or a drag? Do you have tips for making the most of it?


Time for value as ‘promise generators’ fail to deliver

A $28 billion global manager still sees far more potential in value than growth stocks, believes energy stocks are undervalued including an Australian company, and describes the need for resilience in investing.


Paul Keating's long-term plans for super and imputation

Paul Keating not only designed compulsory superannuation but in the 30 years since its introduction, he has maintained the rage. Here are highlights of three articles on SG's origins and two more recent interviews.

Fixed interest

On interest rates and credit, do you feel the need for speed?

Central bank support for credit and equity markets is reversing, which has led to wider spreads and higher rates. But what does that mean and is it time to jump at higher rates or do they have some way to go?

Investment strategies

Death notices for the 60/40 portfolio are premature

Pundits have once again declared the death of the 60% stock/40% bond portfolio amid sharp declines in both stock and bond prices. Based on history, balanced portfolios are apt to prove the naysayers wrong, again.

Exchange traded products

ETFs and the eight biggest worries in index investing

Both passive investing and ETFs have withstood criticism as their popularity has grown. They have been blamed for causing bubbles, distorting the market, and concentrating share ownership. Are any of these criticisms valid?



© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

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.