Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 341

Three overlooked points on the LIC/LIT fee battle

The articles have been flying back and forth over whether financial advisers can accept commissions for selling LICs/LITs to their clients. If you haven’t been following this so far, Graham Hand wrote a well-rounded article recently, with Jonathan Shapiro and Christopher Joye also leading the charge in The Australian Financial Review.

I’m not going to rehash the main points here but want to bring three additional points to the discussion.

1. Financial advisers shouldn’t be keeping any commissions

Whilst some are arguing that LIC/LIT commissions must go, they are supporting the continuance of commissions for other listed product types. There’s no decent argument for this. If any commission is viewed as biasing an adviser’s decision, they must pass the commission to their client or refuse it outright. Saying that an adviser has a conflict if the commission relates to a LIC/LIT but doesn’t if it relates to a hybrid or equity investment is nonsensical.

For those struggling with the concept of selling hybrids or equities on their merits and without an adviser commission, look to the institutional debt markets. These have long functioned without the need for commissions. If the bond is considered poor value it receives little interest, but if it is good value, it is many times oversubscribed. There’s no reason that hybrids and equities can’t be distributed in the same fashion.

2. Brokers can keep commissions, subject to disclosure

Those dealing with clients need to choose whether they are sales people (brokers) or financial advisers. Whilst a financial adviser needs to adopt a best interest/fiduciary duty position and consider the wider client position, I don’t see that a broker should be subject to the same restrictions. A broker should however, be clearly disclosing that they are a broker being paid for the sales they make. This could be as simple as a verbal statement such as;

“I am a salesperson not a financial adviser which means that I earn commissions by selling products and services to you. The products and services I am selling may not be in your best interest and you may want to seek independent financial advice before agreeing to purchase.”

Some might argue that this is overkill and retail investors are smart enough to know who is a broker and who is an independent adviser. I think the Royal Commission showed that not only were clients confused about the distinction but many so called ‘advisers’ were as well.

3. LICs/LITs are an appropriate structure for illiquid investments

Some of the arguments against LICs/LITs come from a viewpoint that open-ended managed funds are the best solution for retail investors as they always offer a quick exit at close to the net tangible asset (NTA) calculation. This is fair for the most liquid sectors such as large cap equities or vanilla investment grade bonds.

However, for more illiquid assets such as sub-investment grade debt, private equity, some hedge funds and direct property, history is littered with examples of funds that ran out of cash and locked their investors in. If the assets take substantially longer to sell than the redemption period on the fund, investors and managers are playing with fire.

Given this, unlisted closed ended funds (e.g. direct property syndicates, private equity funds), individual mandates or LICs/LITs are the most appropriate vehicles for illiquid assets. As many retail investors insist on having some form of liquidity, a listed fund is likely to be their best avenue to access these sectors.

Critics of listed funds often point to the higher fees (from listing and governance costs) for these funds compared to their unlisted equivalents. This isn’t always true, with fees running at over 1% per annum for retail investors on some open-ended unlisted funds. It also ignores that higher fees could be more than offset by higher returns as listed funds do not have to hold large cash positions to offset the risk of a run on the fund that open-ended unlisted funds face.

 

Jonathan Rochford, CFA, is Portfolio Manager for Narrow Road Capital. This article is for educational purposes and is not a substitute for professional and tailored financial advice. This article expresses the views of the author at a point in time, which may change in the future with no obligation on Narrow Road Capital or the author to publicly update these views.

 

5 Comments
Aussie HIFIRE
January 23, 2020

With regards to the first point, bonds may be sold to the institutional market without commissions, but they are certainly not sold for free. The investment bank may not receive a "commission" but they will certainly receive a fee for marketing and distributing the bond which will be divided up between various departments. Sure it may not be called a commission, but it's still money changing hands and functions in much the same way.

Graham
January 23, 2020

Hi Steve, I see a difference between financial advisers and brokers on this point.

Advisers usually take an annual fee for the services they provide, and it should cover everything, including directing clients into LICs. Brokers don't usually take an annual fee but are paid for each transaction, and the client should know this. Brokers make a living by selling investments, advisers provide holistic advice.

Steve Darke
January 23, 2020

1. Financial advisers shouldn’t be keeping any commissions

Absolutely agree on this point. Why this was left out of FOFA is ridiculous. Professional advisers don't accept commissions of any kind, period.

2. Brokers can keep commissions, subject to disclosure

Not sure about this one. When a broker rings up to flog a product, they are viewed (rightly or wrongly) as giving advice. "Hey, it's Bill here, I've got this great little investment that's just perfect for you, we think it'll go a long way and I think you should put fifty grand into it". Sounds like advice to me. Not really any different from an adviser who is also giving advice and shouldn't be influenced by commissions.

Mark Beardow
January 23, 2020

Hi Steve....I think there is a role for "brokers" or "salespeople"; the issue with Bill's sales patter is that it's misleading and deceptive.

Gen Y
January 23, 2020

I agree, re your second point... the clients of brokers are going to see this as a recommendation, unless there is strong controls around what the broker can say. Unless the regulator can enforce this (eg call recording), then I think it is too risky to continue. Leave the broker flogging to the so called sophisticated investors.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Authorities reveal disquiet over LIC fees

Who's next? Discounts on LICs force managers to pivot

LIC fees banned but other doors remain open

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 383

One of the downsides of Donald Trump commanding the headlines is that we skim over other significant issues. For example, few Australians read the China Daily News or coverage of its contents, missing official statements that are terrifying hundreds of Australian producers. China says Australia will 'pay tremendously' for its recent lack of respect.

  • 12 November 2020

Five ways the Retirement Review points to new policies

The Retirement Income Review goes much further than an innocent-sounding 'fact base', and is sure to guide policies in the run up to the next election. It will change how we think about retirement incomes.

Graeme Shaw on why investing is at a pivotal moment

Company profits have not improved for many years but higher valuations have been driven by falling rates and excess liquidity. Conditions do not suit a value and contrarian manager but here are some opportunities.

Retirement Review gives strong views on hoarding of super

The Review includes some profound findings, most notable that retirement income should include drawing down far more capital. Expect post-retirement products to proliferate under a Retirement Income Covenant.

11 key findings on retirement dreams during the pandemic

A mid-pandemic survey of over 1,000 people near or in retirement found three in four are not confident how long their money will last. Only 18% felt their money was safe during a strong economic downturn.

Bank scorecard 2020: when will the mojo return?

Banks severely cut dividends in 2020 but are expected to improve payments in 2021. History provides clues to when the banks will return to their 2019 levels of profitability, but who is positioned the best?

Latest Updates

Retirement

Five ways the Retirement Review points to new policies

The Retirement Income Review goes much further than an innocent-sounding 'fact base', and is sure to guide policies in the run up to the next election. It will change how we think about retirement incomes.

Property

Steve Bennett on investing in direct property for the long term

As people stayed home during the pandemic, a bearish view swept over most property sectors, but many have thrived and prices have recovered rapidly. The best opportunities are in long leases with quality tenants.

Retirement

Retirement Review gives strong views on hoarding of super

The Review includes some profound findings, most notable that retirement income should include drawing down far more capital. Expect post-retirement products to proliferate under a Retirement Income Covenant.

Superannuation

Paul Keating on why super relies on “not draining the bath”

Paul Keating is the champion of compulsory superannuation as the central means of funding retirement. In the wake of the Retirement Income Review, he is at his passionate best defending the system, with Leigh Sales.

Latest from Morningstar

Is your portfolio too heavy on technology stocks?

Investors with heavy allocations to a broad US index should check how much is exposed to tech stocks, especially when valuations look a bit steep. It might be time to reallocate to other sectors or styles.

Investment strategies

Beware of burning down the barn to bury the debt

At some point, policymakers will turn to the task of deleveraging, to work off massive debt burdens built up during the pandemic. Australia is already ticking the boxes on many policies used in the past.

Superannuation

New bankruptcy rules may have a domino impact on SMSF pensions

During COVID, bankruptcy rules have allowed small businesses to trade while insolvent. It may mean an SMSF is hit by the collapse of a business leaving trustees struggling to meet their own legal obligations.

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.