Displaying items by tag: fees

(San Francisco)

In what looks like a continuation of the recent meltdown of the Wells Fargo brand, a new scandal has come to light. The company is having several senior executives resign as a new Justice Department investigation is underway into bad practices in its wealth management unit. The accusations surround overcharging customers and inappropriate advice to wealth management clients.

FINSUM: Who knows how big this one might blow up? The scandal in its core banking business had not really affected the wealth management unit so far, but that may change.

(New York)

Despite the rise of ETFs over the last few years and the weak performance of hedge funds, on average, one of the astounding things in asset management has been the staying power of the latter. Hedge funds long had a “2% and 20%” fee structure as standard, and while most discount a bit from there nowadays, fees are still very high—hundreds of times low-priced ETFs and mutual funds. Bloomberg explains that a big part of that fee goes into paying the brokers that recommend the funds. The payments go by all sorts of names, such as placement fees, payment for shelf space, and retrocessions, but the fact is they boost costs to investors.

FINSUM: Bloomberg tries to make this look dirty, but the reality is that referral fees are standard in many industries. The big question in this area is where this type of arrangement falls when the SEC debuts its new fiduciary rule?

(New York)

The march downward in ETFs fee has been unstoppable. Over the last few years the fee war between providers, combined with increasing AUM, has driven down fees to almost negligible levels on many of the most popular ETFs. Now, it looks like free ETFs are on the way, or even ones that pay the holder. In the next year, it seems likely that free or negative fee ETFs will debut. This is possible because providers have huge economies of scale as well as good sources of non-fee income from running the funds, such as lending the securities out.

FINSUM: It is sort of amazing that it may be economical to run free or negative fee ETFs, but it seems like an inevitable outcome to the current fee war.

(New York)

Vanguard has been leading the race to the bottom in fund fees for years. It has also been immensely successful doing so. Until now, most fund providers had only fought back by cutting their own fees, but now they are getting more defensive. For instance, Fidelity, which is the largest 401(k) manager, will now charge clients an extra 0.05% fee for all funds invested in Vanguard products. Fidelity says that “A small number of fund families have not compensated Fidelity for certain services, and this pricing change is designed to address that disparity with the intention of providing fairness across all of our business relationships … This is about leveling the playing field”.

FINSUM: This is a good way to push back against Vanguard, but considering it is retaliatory, the fee does seem quite minor!

(New York)
So across the wealth management industry there has been a gnawing and anxious debate that may be keeping advisors up at night—does the fiduciary rule mean that advisors need to always offer the lowest cost funds to clients? Well, one lawyer’s opinion is a resounding “no”. Citing the rule itself, the DOL says “Adviser and Financial Institution do not have to recommend the transaction that is the lowest cost or that generates the lowest fees without regard to other relevant factors”. That other relevant factor could be a myriad of things, such as the other holdings in a portfolio or whether one fund has higher performance than another or a different fee structure and so on.

FINSUM: We have personally seen a lot of debate on this issue, and while many do realize that they do not have to offer the lowest cost investments, fear of regulatory trouble pushes them to do so.