Fund Fees: What are you paying for?

It’s probably safe to say that anyone with money to put into a hedge fund doesn’t mind paying a high percentage management fee as long as you’re getting a phenomenal return. It all comes down to value.

Same goes for Manhattan real estate – if a broker shows you your dream townhouse, but you have to pay a 20% broker fee, you wouldn’t blink. You’d be ecstatic that you could stop sifting through all of the unsuitable apartments, and the value of finding what you’re looking for would justify the expense attached to finding it.

In both of these scenarios, the ends justify the means. Unfortunately, for less risky investments, the returns are not high enough to eliminate the question:

What are you paying for?

In the case of mutual funds and pension funds, which, by design, are not typically risky investments, of course the rewards are not usually as exponential as might come from a hedge fund investment. Yet, they have more hidden fees attached to them than Paris has boy-toys. The lack of transparency in fund administrator services and 12b-1 fees as well as management fees, loads, expense ratios, turnover rate, taxes…goes on and on.

(Is your head spinning yet?)

The unbundling initiative that is being largely lead by the independent investment research world would likely help alleviate some of these incurred costs, while also putting money back in the pocket of the Portfolio Managers (PM).

Say what?

That’s right. The guy making you money, should make good money. No one disagrees with that statement. His management fee – if he’s made you 30% this year - is a non-issue. The part that should be called to question is – what other fees are you paying that are unjustified, or being billed to you for unused or under utilized resources?

Like that $150 gym membership you pay each month to have access to something you don’t use – at some point it’s time to reassess the fees you pay and ask: What exactly am I paying for?

Bundled research – the research provided as an ‘add on’ to execution - falls into that camp. This research is often redundant, lacking of value, and gets as much use as your dormant gym membership. Yet it continues to be purchased because it is as common practice in the industry.

Part of the reason this cycle has yet to be broken is that PMs fear unbundling would create more work for them. Though it may take some work on the front end to seek out the top providers for execution and research, respectively – the pay off on the back end of having insightful, actionable research on one hand, and best execution on the other would alleviate headaches for both PMs as well as investors.

The clock is already ticking for PMs to jump on the unbundling bandwagon. Regulators are taking a look at how unbundling can help paint a much clearer picture of incurred fund fees and now it’s only a matter of time before requirements are enacted here in the US as they have been in the UK.

Unbundling could potentially revolutionize the way that funds do business, and bring in some serious revenue for those who embrace it. In a business where being late to the game can cost you everything, we think we will continue to see firms jump on board the unbundling bandwagon.

DeCommoditizing Investment Research

In the brilliant book, Mavericks at Work (a must read) – there’s a great quote from Vernon Hill at Commerce Bank who says:

“We’ve shown that you can decommoditize a commodity business. Nobody needs another me-too bank.”

The notion of decommoditization is one that the investment research world should take to heart. The lack of insight and value in most investment research has become appalling. When the biggest difference to be found in ten research reports is a 2 cent discrepancy in target price, it’s safe to say that research has become a commodity. But how can analysts change the playing field?

Realistically, it’s not easy for in-house analysts. They are all talking to the same sources as their competitors and learning the same information at the same time (thanks to SarbOx, RegFD and other regs). They all have a mandate to cover specific companies, and truthfully – they really aren’t there to be creative and see/analyze outside of the box. This is a necessary tool, and not one to be undervalued. But is it necessary for firms to have this research from more than one source?

The answer, of course, is no. But big firms – for CYA reasons – need to have in-house analysts dedicated to the companies that their firm invests in. Makes sense. They can’t rely on outside analysts for that. But why would they pay another firm to receive the same research they produce in-house?

Right now, it’s simply because in most cases, they get the research ‘for free.’
(READ: they get it for 3 cents a share as a tack on to their execution pricing.) So why pay for MORE research in addition to that research?

Many firms are starting to understand why. They’re asking themselves what the value is in the commoditized research they currently pay for through their execution, and they’re recognizing how little new information they are accessing. This is leading to a trend in unbundling for some in the industry. It’s possible that decommoditization has already begun. But can it continue?

We believe it can. The feedback StreetBrains gets from clients is that straight forward research is important, but so is insightful, objective analysis. Value is the name of the game – and if indie research providers can step their game up and provide new insights and niche material to their clients, rather than duplicating what firms are already doing in-house or receiving as an execution add-on, decommoditization of this valuable product will occur.