Unit Trusts Must Die!

Published in Investing on 8 October 2009

It's time for an investment fund cull.

Here's a campaign I support, and it comes from an unexpected source. Axa Wealth is bravely calling for the number of investment funds to be slashed by at least one-third, and quite right too.

It has just published what it calls a "white paper", 'Wealth management -- from recession to recovery', which claims the thousands of investment funds currently touting for business should be dramatically reduced, because the vast choice only confuses customers and deters them from investing at all.

The pensions industry has already been through its simplification process, it says, and the investment industry needs a similar cleansing.

You bet it does.

Sharpen your axe

Axa rightly claims that less is more, and offering consumers a vast choice is no guarantee that they will make the right choice, quite the reverse.

There is a 90% difference between the best and worst performing funds in the UK All Companies sector, and 105% in the European (excluding UK) sector, Axa says. So making the wrong choice really can hurt.

My only quibble has to be: Why stop at one-third? Why not a half? Or three-quarters? Or even more?

With thousands of funds on the market, we can afford to be severe. Face it, the vast majority of investment funds wouldn't be missed, in fact their forced exit would be a blessing.

At least, it would be a blessing for investors, but not for all those fund managers drawing handsome salaries and bonuses for routinely underperforming their benchmark.

A modest proposal

I can't see too many asset management houses willingly placing their investment funds on the block. So where do we start the cull?

Axa says the industry needs to respond by "developing fund filtering technology to support consumers' choices". That might work, but I'm for more brutal measures. Perhaps we could start by lining up the big-name serial underperformers and publicly guillotining them, one by one.

We don't need to develop new fund filtering technology to identify them, we could use existing research, such as Bestinvest's regular Spot the Dog report, which names and shames funds that have underperformed their benchmark index by more than 10% over each of the last three years.

Its recent report finds plenty of big ugly hounds in the doghouse, including Swip Emerging Markets, Fidelity UK Growth, Artemis UK Growth, Prudential Pacific markets, Invesco-Perpetual US Equity, JPM Premier Equity Income, and, er Axa European Growth.

That is why I was surprised to find one corner of Axa's empire suggesting a slaughter of investment funds, because a fund manager of its size is bound to have a fair share of howlers.

After we have put those dogs to sleep, we could start on the high street banks. Too many budding ISA investors see their hopes of future wealth cruelly dashed by some hopeless UK growth fund they saw advertised while queuing up at their local bank.

Off with their heads!

Spare these three

We could generously spare those fund management groups that have managed to keep all their funds out of the mire. After all, there are only three of them, according to Bestinvest: Jupiter, Neptune, and First State.

I was delighted to see through those three holding their heads up high, because funds from these managers are pretty much the only survivors from a recent unit trust cull of my own.

As I wrote in Funds vs Shares, I analysed how the charges on actively managed funds drag on performance, and was unpleasantly surprised by the results. As a result, I had a clear out.

Nearly all the funds I binned had dutifully followed their benchmark index, sometimes rising a little faster, sometimes a little slower, but doing nothing to merit all those expensive lunches I was buying the managers.

But I did hug three old favourites even closer to my chest: my favourite fund Jupiter Financial Opportunities, First State Greater China Growth and Nepture US Opportunities.

Now wouldn't it be nice if ordinary investors found it a lot easier to discover gems like these, without having to wade through a swamp of dross?

The more dross that fund managers pump out, either to hop onto any passing trend or please their marketing department, the harder it will be for most people find a real sparklers.

So let's get chopping now.

More from Harvey Jones:

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

jonesjeff 08 Oct 2009 , 9:14pm

The consumer should act as a filter.
Any Industry filter scheme will really be an attempt to restrict competition, therefore acting to the benefit of the fund management industry. These people are not exactly struggling to put food on the plate as it is.

Jonesey12 09 Oct 2009 , 3:06pm

Very true, jonesjeff. Perhaps the only way to cull unit trusts is to let them die a natural death. But it takes so long...

Harvey

gordonbanks42 09 Oct 2009 , 3:24pm

I agree with Jonesjeff - the consumer should act as the filter - but the big question is how to sharpen that up, given that it isn't happening already.

Perhaps we should wait (I don't often hear myself saying that!) until the FSA's new regs on retailing come into effect.

A lot of the old sh*te out there only lives on because of a conflict of interest between those doing the face-to-face recommending (mainly banks and IFAs) and those receiving the recommendations (retail punters). If we could get rid of that conflict (by having advice paid for by fees rather than trail commissions) then the advisors should have less incentive to push funds that are expensive for the wrong reasons. That should focus inflows on those funds which actually serve the investor rather than than those which just help the fund managers and IFAs to help themselves.

rlx 09 Oct 2009 , 4:02pm

I have never "got" investment funds. I cannot see the point and have never seen the point for anyone capable of talking and walking in a straight line at the same time.
The only productive active management going on is moving suckers money into managers' bank accounts!

supersol42 09 Oct 2009 , 4:21pm

Unit trusts are a brilliant invention, coming into being in 1931 when investors in shares in investment trusts were throwing themselves off skyscrapers.

With a unit trust, the manager has no interest in the fund at all; the trustee has nothing but a valueless legal interest; and 100% of the value belongs to the unit holders. This means the manager can go bust, the trustee can go bust, but the unit holders will be entirely immune.

Performance? One year's star is the next year's dog, and this syndrome becomes more pronounced the longer the period. Moreover, people come and go; and anything with a foreign element carries the additional risk of currency fluctuations.

The best bet is probably to go for a fund with a tried and tested rubric that does not depend on individuals, such as M&G Recovery and Templeton Global Growth.

And, of course, you really can't beat the pound cost averaging effect of dripping cash in monthly, where possible through an ISA.

keirfamily 09 Oct 2009 , 6:20pm

Unit trusts - good or bad - compared to what? I inherited a portfolio about 10 years ago, mostly shares but some trusts. We're currently 36% below water over 10 years - with dividends reinvested - due to much of the money being in banks. The only ray of light is our trusts (particularly Scottish Mortgage IT which is up 55%).

I suggest that trusts are much better than looking wise and buying individual shares (because trusts spread the risk) but not as good as ETFs and trackers, especially when bought through a discount broker (we find Hargreaves Lansdown very effective). When I get my head round the difference between UTs and ITs I'll be a happier bunny, though.

Supersol42, good post; I agree about the 'past performance is no guide to the future' rule, so we stick to the idea of choosing the section of the market first and the trust/ETF provider a long way second. I'd rather have a third quartile trust in a top market section, than a top fund in a third quartile area.

keirfamily 09 Oct 2009 , 6:20pm

Unit trusts - good or bad - compared to what? I inherited a portfolio about 10 years ago, mostly shares but some trusts. We're currently 36% below water over 10 years - with dividends reinvested - due to much of the money being in banks. The only ray of light is our trusts (particularly Scottish Mortgage IT which is up 55%).

I suggest that trusts are much better than looking wise and buying individual shares (because trusts spread the risk) but not as good as ETFs and trackers, especially when bought through a discount broker (we find Hargreaves Lansdown very effective). When I get my head round the difference between UTs and ITs I'll be a happier bunny, though.

Supersol42, good post; I agree about the 'past performance is no guide to the future' rule, so we stick to the idea of choosing the section of the market first and the trust/ETF provider a long way second. I'd rather have a third quartile trust in a top market section, than a top fund in a third quartile area.

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.