Visit us on Facebook Visit us on LinkedIn Visit us on Twitter Visit us on YouTube Visit us on Instagram
 

Mutual Funds: what are the total costs of ownership

ownership costs for mutual funds

Mutual funds have many costs, all of which affect the net return to investors.

Costs matter. Whether you’re buying a car or selecting an investment strategy, the costs you expect to pay are likely to be an important factor in making any major financial decision.

People rely on a lot of different information about costs to help inform these decisions.

When you buy a car, for example, the list price indicates approximately how much you can expect to pay for the car itself. But the costs of car ownership do not end there. Taxes, insurance, fuel, routine maintenance, and unexpected repairs are also important considerations in the overall cost of a car.

Some of these costs are easily observed, while others are more difficult to assess. Similarly, when investing in mutual funds, different variables need to be considered to evaluate how cost‑effective a strategy may be for a particular investor.

ONGOING CHARGES FIGURE (OCF)

Mutual funds have many costs, all of which affect the net return to investors. One easily observable cost is the OCF. Like the list price of a car, the OCF tells you a lot about what you can expect to pay for an investment strategy. OCF strongly influence fund selection for many investors, and it’s easy to see why.

Exhibit 1 illustrates the outperformance rate, or the percentage of funds that beat their category index, for active US-domiciled active equity mutual funds that beat their category index, over the 15-year period ending December 31, 2017. To see the link between OCF and performance, outperformance rates are shown for quartiles of funds sorted by their OCF. As the chart shows, while active funds have mostly lagged indices across the board, the outperformance rate has been inversely related to OCF. Just 6% of funds in the highest OCF quartile beat their index, compared to 25% for the lowest OCF group.

This data indicates that a high expense ratio presents a challenging hurdle for funds to overcome, especially over longer time horizons. From the investor’s point of view, an expense ratio of 0.25% vs. 1.25% means savings of £10,000 per year on every £1 million invested. As Exhibit 2 helps to illustrate, those pounds can really add up over time.

Exhibit 1. High Costs Can Reduce Performance, US-Domiciled Equity Fund Winners and Losers Based on Expense Ratios (%)

high costs can reduce performance

The sample includes US-domiciled open-end mutual funds at the beginning of the 15-year period ending December 31, 2017. Funds are sorted into quartiles within their category based on average expense ratio over the sample period. The chart shows the percentage of winner and loser funds by expense ratio quartile; winners are funds that survived and outperformed their respective Morningstar category benchmark, and losers are funds that either did not survive or did not outperform their respective Morningstar category benchmark. US-domiciled open-end mutual fund data is from Morningstar and Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) from the University of Chicago.

Equity fund sample includes the Morningstar historical categories: Diversified Emerging Markets, Europe Stock, Foreign Large Blend, Foreign Large Growth, Foreign Large Value, Foreign Small/Mid Blend, Foreign Small/Mid Growth, Foreign Small/Mid Value, Japan Stock, Large Blend, Large Growth, Large Value, Mid-Cap Blend, Mid-Cap Value, Miscellaneous Region, Pacific/Asia ex-Japan Stock, Small Blend, Small Growth, Small Value, and World Stock.

For additional information regarding the Morningstar historical categories, please see “The Morningstar Category Classifications”.

Index funds and fund-of-funds are excluded from the sample. The return, expense ratio, and turnover for funds with multiple share classes are taken as the asset-weighted average of the individual share class observations. For additional methodology, please refer to Dimensional Fund Advisors’ brochure, Mutual Fund Landscape 2018.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Exhibit 2. Hypothetical Growth of £1 Million at 6%, Less Expenses

hypothetical growth of £1 million

For illustrative purposes only and not representative of an actual investment. This hypothetical illustration is intended to show the potential impact of higher expense ratios and does not represent any investor’s actual experience. Assumes a starting account balance of £1 million and a 6% compound annual growth rate less expense ratios of 0.25%, 0.75%, and 1.25% applied over a 15-year time horizon.

Performance of a hypothetical investment does not reflect transaction costs, taxes, other potential costs, or returns that any investor would have actually attained and may not reflect the true costs, including management fees of an actual portfolio.

Actual results may vary significantly. Changing the assumptions would result in different outcomes. For example, the savings and difference between the ending account balances would be lower if the starting investment amount were lower.

GOING BEYOND THE ONGOING CHARGES FIGURE (OCF)

The poor track record of mutual funds with high charges (expense ratios) has led many investors to select mutual funds based on OCF alone. However, as with a car’s list price, an OCF is not an all-encompassing measure of the cost of ownership. Take, for example, index funds, which often rank near the bottom of their peers on OCF.

Index funds are designed to track or match the components of an index formed by an index provider, such as Russell or MSCI. Important decisions in the investment process, such as which securities to include in the index, are outsourced to an index provider and are not within the fund manager’s discretion. For example, the prescribed reconstitution schedule for an index, which is the process of deleting or adding certain stocks to the index, may cause index funds to buy stocks when buy demand is high and sell stocks when buy demand is low.

This price-insensitive buying and selling may be required so that the index fund can stay true to its investment mandate of tracking an underlying index. This can result in sub-optimal transaction prices for the index fund and diminished overall returns. In other words, for a given amount of trading (or turnover), the cost per unit of trading may be higher for such a strictly regimented approach to investing. Moreover, this cost will not appear explicitly to investors assessing such a fund on OCF alone.

Further, because indices are reconstituted infrequently (typically once per year), funds seeking to track them may also be forced to buy and sell holdings based on stale eligibility criteria. For example, the characteristics of a stock considered value as of the last reconstitution date may change over time, but between reconstitution dates, those changes would not affect that stock’s inclusion or weighting in a value index.

That means incoming cash flows to a value index fund could actually be used to purchase stocks that currently look more like growth stocks and vice versa. Metaphorically, these managers’ attention may be more focused on the rear-view mirror than on the road ahead for investors.

For active approaches like stock picking, both the total amount of trading and the cost per trade may be high. If a manager trades excessively or inefficiently, costs like commissions and price impact from trading can eat away at returns. Viewed through the lens of our car analogy, this impact is like the toll on your vehicle from incessantly jamming the brakes or accelerating quickly.

Subjecting the car to such treatment may result in added wear and tear and greater fuel consumption, increasing your total cost of ownership. Similarly, excessive trading can lead to negative tax consequences for a fund, which can increase the cost of ownership for investors holding funds in taxable accounts. Such trading costs can be reduced by avoiding unnecessary turnover and seeking to minimise the cost per trade.

In contrast to both highly regimented indexing and high-turnover active strategies, employing a flexible investment approach that reduces the need for immediacy, and thus enables opportunistic execution, is one way to potentially reduce implicit costs. Keeping turnover low, remaining flexible, and transacting only when the potential benefits of a trade outweigh the costs can help keep overall trading costs down and help reduce the total cost of ownership.

CONCLUSION

The total cost of ownership of a fund can be difficult to assess and requires a thorough understanding of costs beyond what an OCF can tell investors on its own. We believe investors should look beyond any one cost metric and instead evaluate the total cost of ownership of an investment solution.

1 A stock trading at a low price relative to a measure of fundamental value, such as book value or earnings.
2 A stock trading at a high price relative to a measure of fundamental value, such as book value or earnings.

If you would like to assess your investment risk tolerance, click here

 
NOW IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO HAVE YOUR SAY...

I'd be really interested in knowing what you think of this article. Please comment below. Please note: This is an open discussion (meaning anyone can post). Comments may be edited or removed if inappropriate please report any spam or offensive posts to themoneyplanner@warrenshute.com.


Your essential guide to investing through a no deal Brexit
How do currency returns affect your international investments?