The Heavy Burden of Recurring Investment Expenses and Fees - Part 2

The heavy burden of recurring investment fees (Part 2 of 2)

< < — Go to Part 1

By charging fees as a percent of your assets, the investment industry can make their recurring fees seem small – like they are “just a few” percent.

Furthermore, by charging fees against your assets the industry can still bill you every year, even if the value of your investment portfolio declines.

An alternative client billing method would be to charge a percentage of your actual investment returns. Tying investment management performance to investment returns would seem to be a compensation mechanism that would be more closely connected to serving your investment growth interests. If your investment managers improve upon your risk-adjusted portfolio performance above an appropriate passive index fund benchmark, then they might actually earn their fees. (See: The illusion of superior professional investment manager performance)

However, if investment managers were to charge against your returns and not your assets, then the percentage of your returns would have to be a huge proportion of your annual returns. In fact, to equal the fees they charge as “just a few percent” against your total asset portfolio, they would have to extract in the range of 1/3 to 2/3 of your annual portfolio returns every year. Moreover, if you did not have a return in a particular year, then the industry would not get paid – just like you did not get paid by the markets!

Of course, you do not have to worry about paying a percentage of your returns, because the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 specifically prohibits taking a percent of a client’s returns, unless the client meets certain qualifications, that is, the client is a qualified investor who is already relatively wealthy and supposedly more sophisticated. Instead, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 allows only for charging some percentage of assets each year for investment management services. On its surface, this might at first seem like consumer protection, because investment managers cannot directly take away the investment returns of naïve investors.

The direct investment asset management fees of advisors typically are in the .75% to 1.5% (or higher) range, but these are not the only fees that individual investors pay. When individual investors pay asset management fees, they expect that the advisor will actually earn their fees by delivering better performance than they could have with a passive, very low cost index fund investment strategy that targeted a market return. (See: Can you really beat the securities markets? and Chance creates the illusion that individual investors can beat the stock market)

Therefore, advisors to retail investors rarely suggest adopting a low cost passive index fund strategy. Instead, they put their clients into actively managed mutual funds with much higher fund management expenses and higher, more costly investment turnover. Alternatively, they might frequently buy and sell ETFs and incur substantial transactions fees. Furthermore, many investors will pay additional investment sales loads for the privilege of riding this costly investment merry-go-round.

The total fees extracted through percent of assets fees and sales loads is huge. In total, the average investor ends up paying between 2% and 3% of their portfolio assets every year, and many pay even higher percentages. The average investor paying these fees is likely to end up with less than they would have had, if they had adopted a very low cost index fund investment strategy.

Starting today, you should focus on correcting any cost-inefficiencies associated with your current and future investment cost practices. You can only do something about investment costs going forward. Stop giving your assets away through excessive and unwarranted recurring investment fees and sales loads. (See: Pay less to get more)

Related Personal Financial Planning Posts

• Understand Your Lifetime Personal Savings Requirements ( VeriPlan helps you to understand your lifetime personal savings requirements and whether your current savings rate is sufficient How much you earn, spend, and save are by far the most dominant determinants of your long-term financial well-being. You need a means to evaluate your current sustainable lifecycle consumption rate. VeriPlan provides such a means. VeriPlan projects your [...])
• Your Investment Risk Tolerance Drives Your Asset Allocation Decision ( Your personal tolerance for investment risk should drive your asset allocation decision - A Tip from The Skilled Investor Your tolerance for investment risk is a relative thing. Few people like investment risk, but some can handle it better than others do. The more investment risk you can and are willing to tolerate, the higher your [...])
• The Biggest Personal Finance Story of the Past 30 Years - Part 3 (< <-- Go to Part 2 The Biggest Personal Finance Story of the Past 30 Years - Part 3 There is no reason to believe that industry self-regulation or governmental regulation will ever fix these problems. Only those individuals who become wise enough to be proactive and seek out lower cost financial products will stop getting fleeced. [...])
• Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX) gains a +5 Fund Authority Score ( The diversified investment fund strategy of the Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX) According to its prospectus filing on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission EDGAR system, the investment strategy of the Fidelity Contrafund is to invest primarily in common stocks and particularly in the "securities of companies whose value Fidelity Management & Research Company believes is not fully [...])
• Do Not Get Fooled by Superior Historical Investment Performance ( Evaluate the historical investment performance of mutual funds and ETFs, BUT ONLY AFTER using other screening criteria Choosing only from among mutual funds and ETFs that have performed very well in the past can lead to significant selection mistakes and inferior personal portfolio returns Previous superior or average fund performance simply does not predict similar fund performance [...])
• California Investment S & P 500 Index Direct (SPFIX) pulls in a +8 Fund Authority Score ( The Standard & Poors 500 stock index is the most common equity index fund benchmark in the U.S. The S and P 500 tracks about 75% of publicly traded U.S. equity market asset value. The dominant issue in choosing among passively managed index mutual funds and ETF funds benchmarked against the S & P 500 [...])
• July 12 2007 Edition of the Carnival of Financial Planning ( Carnival of Financial Planning - July 12, 2007 Edition Welcome to the July 12, 2007 edition of the Carnival of Financial Planning. The Carnival of Financial Planning takes a long-term view of personal financial planning for individuals and families. We focus on efficient and sustainable personal financial planning practices that can lead to lifetime financial security. This [...])
• American Funds - Income Fund of America - Class A Shares (AMECX) rate a +2 Fund Authority Score (Fund Authority Scores rate mutual funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs) on the most important economic factors that influence individual investors' net long term diversified investment fund performance. The Skilled Investor developed the Fund Authority Score system to provide individual investors with concise and objective summaries of mutual funds and ETFs for comparisons within investment [...])