Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 183

Understanding LIC fee structures

Nearly 60% of the Listed Investment Companies (LICs) in our coverage have delivered strong benchmark outperformance over the past decade, and LICs still look compelling as part of an investment portfolio.

Fees are part and parcel of any investment vehicle, including LICs, and can significantly affect real value, so they are always important. This article examines the costs associated with LICs and why some managers have higher fee structures than the average.

Types of fees

Fees and expenses generally take three forms:

  • management fees
  • administration fees
  • performance fees.

Management fees seek to recover general day-to-day expenditure of the investment process. Traditionally, management fees range between 0%-2% of total cost, within the LICs in our coverage. Administration fees incorporate all other expenses incurred in the fund’s management such as director’s fees, rent, audit, and legal. These fees are charged regardless of performance and may vary considerably depending on the fund manager’s investment mandate, style and approach.

Performance fees seek to directly align the profitability of the manager and the performance of the underlying fund. A performance fee is best described as a reward for performing above the fund’s stated benchmark. Typically, performance fees range between 10%-20% of the value above the benchmark, and as an investor you need to consider the performance fee’s structure and whether you think it’s fair and aligns the interests between the portfolio manager and investor.

While lower fees do not guarantee superior performance, they are less of an impediment on returns. In fact, many of the higher fee mandates operate in less-efficient sections of the market and often outperform the market, i.e. smaller caps mandate LICs.

Indirect Cost Ratio = Indirect Cost/Average Pre-Tax NTA

The Indirect Cost Ratio (ICR) is the aggregation of indirect costs divided by the average pre-tax net tangible asset for the year and presented as a percentage. Indirect costs generally include management fees, performance fees, legal, accounting, auditing and other operational and compliance costs. Throughout our coverage, we produce both the ICRs with and without performance fees.

Comparing fee structures

Our analysis of the LICs in our coverage alludes to some interesting facts.

First, certain strategies are more cost-intensive to execute than others. This could be due to the heavy resourcing required to effectively implement a mandate (international assets), a lack of research coverage in an underlying market (small caps) or sophisticated investment strategies (long/short infrastructure assets).

Second, the specialised nature of these strategies in less efficient parts of the market may give the managers the consistent ability to outperform the market or deliver an effective risk-weighted return. However, you need to clearly evaluate this in the context of the offering.

Click to enlarge

Putting this into perspective, the average performance (pre-tax NTA) of large-cap focussed LICs in our universe is 10.1% over five years and 4.9% over 10 years, large to medium cap LICs is 11.6% and 5.9% respectively, while medium to small is 10.3% and 8.4%. Small to Micro LICs is 6.4% and 3.8%, Long Short/Market Neutral is 8.9% and 8.7%, International is 15.7% and 3.4%. However, there is not sufficient data for specialist LICs over those periods.

Overlaying this with average Indirect Cost Ratio, you will note the different fee structures across each mandate:

Click to enlarge

Broadly speaking, there are seven LICs with an ICR of below 0.20% These are a viable option if cost is a major factor in deciding to invest in a LIC. This ICR is materially lower than most industry funds, retail funds, index funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs) listed on the ASX.

However, if investors focus purely on cost, they would neglect some of the better performing LICs, particularly on a risk-adjusted basis. The graph below reflects the risk return of each LIC over the past five years. The vertical axis highlights the standard deviation of the investment performance, while the horizontal axis displays the LIC’s pre-tax NTA performance (investment performance).

Click to enlarge

On a five-year risk adjusted perspective, the best performing domestic LICs are WAM Capital (ASX:WAM) and WAM Research (ASX:WAX). These funds outperform all other vehicles by a material margin while offering a lower risk profile. The Magellan Flagship Fund (ASX:MFF) was the best-performing international LIC. We attribute these strong performances to a more cost-intensive mandate and performance fee structure that some of these LICs apply.


Fees clearly weigh on performances, and an excessive fee structure will make it increasingly difficult for a manager to outperform their benchmark. However, investors also need to consider whether the fee structure is appropriate. It is the manager’s ability to consistently deliver an effective, risk-adjusted return after fees and taxes, that counts in the long run.


Nathan Umapathy is Research Analyst at Bell Potter Securities. This article has been prepared without consideration of any specific person's investment objectives, financial situation or needs and there is no responsibility to inform of any matter that subsequently may affect any of the information. For the latest Bell Potter Quarterly Report and NTA updates, click here.



Managing LIC discounts and premiums

What is happening with LIC dividends?

LIC reporting season wrap for 2017


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.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.



© 2021 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.