IN THE WORLD of fund management active versus passive has been an ongoing debate for some time now.
On one side are active managers who claim to be so skilled in picking stocks that their funds will always beat the market. On the other are passive managers who believe the chances of beating the market are so slim that they simply hold every company in it.
The differentiator between the two? Cost, with the former generally charging significantly higher management fees in exchange for their expertise.
The problem, as highlighted by the Financial Conduct Authority last year, is that many active managers do not perform enough to justify their inflated fees. Worse still, some are so vague about what their fund is supposed to do and which benchmark it is trying to beat that measuring their performance can be a minefield.
It is no wonder, then, that the watchdog indicated that it was going to require fund managers to be more transparent by applying single, all-in fees while also providing investors with tools to help them identify underperformance.
Against this backdrop the reforms the FCA has now proposed seem to fall short of its original, highly critical stance. Although it has now committed to “support the disclosure of a single, all-in fee to investors”, with asset management charges, transaction costs and intermediary fees all included, the FCA has given no indication of how this should be presented, with further consultation expected on that and several other areas further down the line.
Given the lobbying opportunity that still more consultation will offer the fully funded and highly motivated funds industry, though, it does not look like investors are going to benefit from the reforms any time soon.
The FCA may appear to have taken a pro-consumer stance, but until actual changes are made investors will not be any better off.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here