Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 43

Watch the performance of performance fees

Many investors take a cursory look at the performance fee when investing in managed funds or Listed Investment Companies (LICs), perhaps figuring that a high fee is a good problem to have. It must mean the fund manager has delivered outstanding performance. It’s a reward for excellence, and we share the spoils together, right?

Not always. There is no market standard for performance fees, and it pays to know how a fund will reward its manager. The most common performance fee is 15 to 20% of the excess return above the benchmark plus the base management fee. Therefore, with an average base management fee for Australian equities of about 0.9% (which is paid regardless of performance), a performance fee often starts to accrue if the fund outperforms the benchmark plus 0.9%.

But it doesn’t always work like that. For example, there are Australian equity funds with performance fees calculated over the cash rates. In the last 12 months, the ASX200 is up 22%, while the cash rate is 2.5%. Even if the fund manager only achieves the index, a 20% performance fee will generate a payment of 20% X (22%-2.5%) which equals an eye-popping 3.9%, usually on top of a base management fee.

This reduces the index return from 22% to 18.1% less the management fee and expenses. That’s probably more than the investor is earning on the cash allocation elsewhere in the portfolio.

MySuper rules on performance fees

There have previously been no rules or guidelines issued by regulators on performance fees, so it was good to see some clarity from the Stronger Super Review. It’s a useful guide to what to look for, and many current fees breach this model. MySuper products are allowed to charge performance fees on the following terms:

  • a reduced base fee that reflects the potential gains the investment manager receives from performance based fees, taking into account any fee cap
  • measurement of performance on an after-tax (where possible) and after-costs basis
  • an appropriate benchmark and hurdle for the asset class reflecting the risks of the actual investments
  • an appropriate testing period
  • provisions for the adjustment of the performance based fee to recoup any prior or subsequent underperformance (for example, high water marks, clawbacks, vesting arrangements and rolling testing periods).

 Key findings from Morningstar study

In 2011, Morningstar studied 82 investment strategies in large cap Australian share funds, and found 18 employed some form of additional performance charge. They found that even the fund managers themselves often misunderstood their own fee calculations.

Their key findings have a significant overlap with the MySuper rules, plus:

• The headline performance fee is just one aspect which should be considered. The management fee has the potential to be much more costly.

• Absolute fee structures – those not linked to an appropriate equities-related benchmark – would have proven extremely costly to investors over the previous 10 years.

• Any performance hurdle employed should at least cover the base management fee, to avoid investors paying additional fees for potentially sub-par returns.

• Fund managers which have the ability to reset their high watermarks have the potential to act against investors’ best interests.

• Fund managers typically crystallise their performance fees over too short a period, creating the potential for a shorter-term mindset which is inconsistent with their stated longer-term goals.

High water marks

Performance fees should only be paid once the manager has recovered previous underperformance (either relative to an index or in absolute terms, depending on the incentive structure). This test in the performance fee calculation is called a ‘high water mark’ because the previous high level of the fund must be reached before the performance fee kicks in.

For example, assume the market index is up 10% in the first year, while a fund is up only 5%. Then in the second year, the index is up 10% again, and the fund rises a healthy 15%. Ideally, there should be no performance fee in the second year, because the manager has delivered index performance over two years (ignoring the impact of the base fee, which should make the hurdle for performance fees even higher). The high water mark established at the end of the first year needs to be recovered.

But here is an opportunity for a new investor which became highly attractive after many funds underperformed during the GFC. If an investor enters the fund in the second year in the above example, there will be no performance fee paid despite that investor experiencing an above-market 5% return. There is a negative accrual in the performance fee calculation from the year before. If the fund is one where the base fee is lower due to the performance fee, the investor can achieve active returns for modest fees if the timing is right. It should be possible to ask any fund manager for a list of funds with negative performance fee accruals.

However, this also demonstrates a weakness of pooled unit trust structures which Individually Managed Account-type products are designed to avoid. Performance fees in a unit trust must be calculated at the trust level as a whole, not by investor. The negative accrual from prior losses is shared with future investors in a pool, resulting in a return to paying performance fees earlier.

Vast variety of performance fees

Even within a single Product Disclosure Statement of a platform provider, the performance fee section shows amazing diversity, including non-compliance with the MySuper rules laid out above (and hence, these are not eligible to be My Super funds). Take as an example the PDS of Colonial First State’s FirstChoice Wholesale platform, available here (fee section on page 9). The variations include performance fees that are calculated:

  • before management fees*
  • after management fees*
  • over zero – commonly used for hedge funds or ‘absolute return funds’ which do not have a market index (or beta) exposure
  • over the cash rate
  • over the bank bill rate
  • over an equity market index such as the S&P/ASX300 Accumulation Index or MSCI World
  • inclusive of franking credits and overseas withholding tax
  • with a variation from 10% to a mouth-watering 25% of the ‘excess return’.

*An example of the difference is: assume a fund has a management fee of 1%, delivers 2% above its benchmark, and a performance fee of 20%. If the performance fee is calculated ‘before management fees’, it is 20% X 2% equals 0.40%. If it is ‘after management fees’, it is 20% X (2%-1%) or 0.20%. Easy to overlook, but costs an extra 0.20% in fees.

Performance fees make an extraordinary difference to the economics of running a funds management business. A rule of thumb is that a fund manager might expect the base management fees to cover the costs of opening the doors, while the performance fees deliver the profits, shared in large measure with staff. For example, the listed Australian company K2 Asset Management with around $750 million in funds under management had a good year in 2013, earning $24.3 million in performance fees compared with only $124,000 the year before.

Here are two examples of different approaches in the Listed Investment Company (LIC) space:

  1. Flagship Investments Limited is an Australian equity fund which aims to be at least 90% invested. Its performance fee is 15% of the amount by which its net performance (after all costs) exceeds the bank bill rate. On first look, this seems unreasonable, as a long-only equity fund is measuring itself against a cash index. But the mitigating feature is there is no fixed management fee, and the manager provides administrative services without charge. This approach pays off handsomely for the manager in good equity market, then he relies on his own resources in flat or down years. An investor can decide if this is fair.
  2. Sandon Capital is a new Australian equity LIC currently in the IPO stage. Its performance fee will be 20% above the one month bank bill rate, plus a base fee of 1.25% per annum. Again, on first blush, it looks expensive. However, this is not a normal long-only fund, it is an activist fund. It will invest in shares where the manager will advocate for change to unlock value, and may often be substantially in cash. Again, the investor can decide if this is fair.

These two funds illustrate the unique circumstances behind many performance fees.

In summary, the ideal performance fees will be measured against an appropriate benchmark after allowing for the fixed management fee, be subject to a high water mark and have some trade off with a lower base fee. But there may be particular circumstances related to the way money is managed which justify a deviation from this formula.

 

 

3 Comments
Sulieman
December 22, 2013

Sonia

I was originally of the same view as yourself, but its easy to forget in this high equity return, low interest rate environment, that there have also been periods such as in the 90's with high interest rates, low equity returns.

I think we have to be conscious of the type of behaviour the performance fees attract and therefore a relative benchmark needs to be used. e.g. a manager with high performance fees, who has sunk way below his benchmark has little motivation to outperform. He may subconsciously take the view of double or quits on his failing strategy, after all, he can then just walk away and start a new fund if he fails.

Or you may find an equity manager hugging an equity benchmark to ensure they hit their performance fee targets.

Another situation are equity funds that produce negative returns but still outperform their benchmark may still be hitting clients with significant performance fees.

I would personally prefer to see an alignment of the behaviour the performance fee is likely to attract with the aims of the fund and I struggle to justify a performance fee in negative year.

Rob Coyte
December 13, 2013

For way too long there have been some in the funds management space that have got away with ridiculous fee structures. More interest in these aspects from investors and advisors should ensure that fees are reasonable and transparent.

Only pay for value that you receive.

Sonia Main
December 07, 2013

You say an investor can decide if it is fair, but it's not for "performance" when the fee is charged on a share fund over the cash rate. It's just a way to charge a higher fee.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Equities deliver high returns and low volatility - again

What do fund managers mean by Quality Investing?

Index versus active – our readers reprise

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

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?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

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.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

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.