Fee hike fears for low-cost funds
New rules imposed by the European Securities Markets Authority could result in low-cost funds becoming more expensive, experts have warned.
ESMA has proposed that all profits made by fund managers who lend out stocks should be returned to investors. Stock lending is often used in the exchange traded funds market, where holdings are traded less frequently and can be “hired out” relatively easily. Managers use the income they receive from loaning stock to hold annual management fees at a low level.
According to the FT, the rule changes could see greater transparency enforced on the way funds manage investments, but experts say that any losses from the likes of ETF providers – which can charge as little as 0.3 per cent per annum for managing the funds – could be made up for by increasing fees for investors.
European Fund and Asset Management Association director general Peter de Proft says: “If you take away the revenue from stock lending then the cost of running the funds will go up and someone is going to have to pay that cost.”
Interactive Investor head of funds business John Blowers says: “Although additional layers of regulation may be seen as the fix-all from bureaucrats, ultimately this adds to the cost of administering the funds and the managers will simply pass these costs on to the investors, who are already battling with poorly performing markets.”
To receive more relevant articles like this one, why not sign up to our briefings and breaking alerts by clicking here and Follow @fundweb



Readers' comments (1)
Hmmm | 6 Aug 2012 10:22 am
Hang on! The profits from stock lending that were going to the fund manager will now go to the client. If the fund manager increases charges to compensate, the client is in the same position as he has revenue from stock lending to cover the charge. Net result - no change. Bottom line is that the client will know what he is paying for and, more importantly, will know what he is getting! Also, it takes the incentive away from the fund manager to take risks knowing that he keeps the profits while the client is underwriting it all. Who do fund managers think they are? Only banks can do that!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment