Results 1 to 28 of 28
Like Tree12Likes
  • 1 Post By Yelta
  • 1 Post By Javaphile
  • 2 Post By chokkidog
  • 3 Post By Yelta
  • 1 Post By rusty888
  • 1 Post By rusty888
  • 1 Post By Jackster
  • 2 Post By Rocky

Thread: Why do some managed funds charge so much in fees?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria
    Posts
    246

    Why do some managed funds charge so much in fees?

    Gene Cafe Coffee Roaster $850 - Free Beans Free Freight
    A friend was looking at OnePath, recommended by ANZ, and then compared it to Colonial First State, recommended by Commonwealth Bank, and he said the yearly fee with Colonial First State is about $600 cheaper. Plus he said Colonial First State has no entry or exit fees while OnePath charges a one off fee for setting up the fund. Does OnePath perform better? Is there an online article or forum he should check out?

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Yelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Moonta SA.
    Posts
    6,949
    Its a mine field out there at the moment Pamount, watch the nightly news.

    FWIW anyone with funds to invest would do well to keep their powder dry until the Banking Royal Commission has run its course.

    Beware of online forum advice, the pump and dumpers love em.
    saroadie likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member saroadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    107
    Agree withe Yelta. At a minimum, until the banking Royal Commission has finished rocking that sector of the world, advice from there may be questionable. The nightly news of late has had some really appalling revelations from the Royal Commission thus far.

    If your friend has not sought independent financial advice, perhaps it's time? Or perhaps consider an industry fund?

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Javaphile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth!
    Posts
    15,787
    An answer to the thread's title question "Why do some managed funds charge so much in fees?": Because they can.


    Java "$*#&% low life bottom feeding money grubbers!" phile
    Last edited by Javaphile; 26th May 2018 at 02:44 PM.
    magnafunk likes this.
    Toys! I must have new toys!!!

  5. #5
    Senior Member rusty888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    233
    Lack of education.

    One thing people need to be aware of risk v reward. That always depicts a fair amount. There will always be exceptions to the rule.

    I explain it like this. Government super funds only need to worry about low risk. Because they take lower risk and they end up paying lower amounts as investing in property funds isn’t all that difficult.

    Some private funds take much higher risk and seek much higher returns and the reward for their workers who do so is a much higher salary.

    So fees need to be one point in consideration.

    If you had $100 and these options were available which would you take.

    At the end of the year I make $20 for you but keep $10 so you only make $10.

    At the end of the year I make $7 for you and only keep $1 so you only get $6

    Are fees really relevant then? You’d be surprised across my experience that most can’t stomach paying extra fees and take option 2.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    303
    Pamount I believe the question your asking is about "Wrap Accounts'.
    Basically - (and Im no financial adviser and I detest when the so called Professionals refer to
    Mum & Dad investors) an all in one filing system to hold certain types of investment vehicles.
    Such as Shares managed funds, even SMSuper etc.etc.

    I agree with posts above.. we all can beholden to the low fees mantra.

    These wrap accounts have been around since at least the late 90's - and yes Storm Financial were using
    the likes of Colonial, BT, BoQ and others for a long time before they were caught.

    The main difference between the different brands other than fee structures are which Investment Brands they
    do OR don't allow you access too. No different to most every form of business / market....
    In other words who's up who and who's not paying the rent" !

    PS some of the worst investment outcomes I've had was from so called professional advisers.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    121
    I am putting the other side to the BRC. How many transactions a day are carried out by all the banks in Oz? Is it a 1000 or 10,000, who knows, it will be a very large number, tally them up for period (from 2014 I think ) the BRC is looking at? So far up to 100 individual issues and a much larger number of systemic issues, really just stuff ups like human beings do every day of the week. One conclusion could be that banks shouldn't employ humans. I doubt if that would work. I fear the BRC is engaging in McCarthyism, that we are seeing a distorted view of the banking industry. The banks for their part just seem to be playing along certain in the view that they will never get a fair and impartial hearing. Seems strange for me to be defending the indefensible, but that impression is coming across the more the BRC continues.

  8. #8
    Senior Member chokkidog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by WarrenK View Post
    I am putting the other side to the BRC. How many transactions a day are carried out by all the banks in Oz? Is it a 1000 or 10,000, who knows, it will be a very large number, tally them up for period (from 2014 I think ) the BRC is looking at? So far up to 100 individual issues and a much larger number of systemic issues, really just stuff ups like human beings do every day of the week. One conclusion could be that banks shouldn't employ humans. I doubt if that would work. I fear the BRC is engaging in McCarthyism, that we are seeing a distorted view of the banking industry. The banks for their part just seem to be playing along certain in the view that they will never get a fair and impartial hearing. Seems strange for me to be defending the indefensible, but that impression is coming across the more the BRC continues.
    You're kidding....right? Or a banker. ;-)

    "just stuff ups", " McCarthyism".... seriously???

    What we are seeing are the distortions that the banks and others have deliberately perpetrated and only an institution that believes it has done no wrong
    would consider being found out not fair and not impartial.
    Last edited by chokkidog; 26th May 2018 at 04:27 PM.
    Yelta and saroadie like this.

  9. #9
    Senior Member chokkidog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by EspressoAdventurer View Post
    refer to
    Mum & Dad investors)

    Ha! Yes! That old chestnut! Beloved of everyone with a vested interest in hiding the truth...... including some ummm... politicians of the cigar smoking type ;-)

    The myth of 'mum and dad' property investors - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/when-...20-gzoviy.html

  10. #10
    Senior Member Jackster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Maddington, Perth. Wa
    Posts
    992
    Happy with my cbus thanks

  11. #11
    Senior Member flynnaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,116
    There are certainly 'mum and dad' investors who bought a house before, say, 1985 and found that after the property boom starting from the mid-1990s, they were sitting on a great deal of equity . Soon enough, there was a increasing number of 'advisors' setting up seminars which explained how to leverage that equity to buy one or more investment properties and use negative gearing to help pay for these properties even if earning an average or even low income. These properties would later to be sold and the capital gain used to help fund retirement. Given the increasing number of baby boomers reaching retirement age, it could be for the better that these retirees are self-funded and not a burden on our social security bill.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by chokkidog View Post
    You're kidding....right? Or a banker. ;-)
    OR the other possibility Choki is...that you could have been entirely mislead !

    Warren in fact could BE Both*....

    Sorry WK of course your entitled to your opinion and to post it. And I support that entirely.
    I just find it 'head shackingly - mind boggling' how you have come to that PoV.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackster View Post
    Happy with my cbus thanks
    Have a look at page 78 Sunday Mail today article by Scott Pape "Your surprise $3850 bill". I agree with everything Scott is saying. It is worth reading!

  14. #14
    Senior Member Yelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Moonta SA.
    Posts
    6,949
    Quote Originally Posted by WarrenK View Post
    Have a look at page 78 Sunday Mail today article by Scott Pape "Your surprise $3850 bill". I agree with everything Scott is saying. It is worth reading!
    I suspect this is the same article in the Herald Sun Warren.
    Category: | Herald SunAcross the country, every adult is also sent a similar bill, with the amount varying depending on the size of their super balance. Some people, often the poorest workers, get three or four bills because they have their super in three or four funds.
    That’s effectively what’s happening in Australia, only it’s hidden because your super fund doesn’t invoice you.



    These "hidden charges" will be revealed in full on the annual statement for those diligent enough to peruse it carefully, nothing is hidden.

  15. #15
    Senior Member rusty888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    233
    I think an element that people should take responsibility and ask questions themselves rather than just expecting someone to look after it all.

    Ignorance is bliss

  16. #16
    Senior Member Yelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Moonta SA.
    Posts
    6,949
    Barefoot Investor: Big questions over a super rip-off

    Posted at the request of another CS member.


    "SCOTT PAPE, Sunday Herald Sun

    May 27, 2018 5:30am







    PICTURE this: You get a bill in the mail: $3850 for “investment services rendered on your super fund”.

    Across the country, every adult is also sent a similar bill, with the amount varying depending on the size of their super balance. Some people, often the poorest workers, get three or four bills because they have their super in three or four funds.
    That’s effectively what’s happening in Australia, only it’s hidden because your super fund doesn’t invoice you.
    Instead, they take it automatically from your super account.

    Still, can you imagine the outcry if these bills arrived in people’s letterboxes?
    It would be front page news. There would be protests in the streets.
    And then I’d stoke the outrage by saying:
    “It gets worse! You’re not getting value for money. Over the long run, 90 per cent of these super funds fail to beat the basic market averages. Yet they’re arrogantly charging you some of the highest fees in the world.”
    Billion*aire investor Charlie Munger once said, “Show me the incentive, and I’ll show you the outcome”. Well, the Royal Commission into Financial Services is a fascinating case study of an industry with the wrong incentives.
    Former Treasurer Peter Costello understands incentives, and he’s angry about the financial outcomes for workers. That’s why at a super conference last year, he argued that the government should take compulsory super out of the hands of bank-run retail funds and union-backed industry super funds, set up its own fund, and incentivise fund managers to bid for the business — lowest fees wins.
    You know things are bad when a former Liberal treasurer is suggesting nationalising super savings!
    In America they’ve had stunning success with the Thrift Savings Plan (their equivalent of our super), which is administered by the government. Fees are as low as 0.03 per cent.



    The Royal Commission has shown us there are deep-seated cultural problems in the finance industry.So let’s compare the two:
    We’ll use a typical Aussie earning an average wage over 50 years, in a balanced fund earning 4 per cent p.a. after inflation. The difference is fees: the Aussie fund charges 1 per cent, the Thrift Savings Plan 0.03 per cent.
    After 50 years, the balances would be ... Aussie fund: $728,668. Thrift Savings Plan: $977,120.
    That’s a difference of $248,452. How’s that for an incentive!
    Unfortunately, our super funds don’t have incentives to lower costs.
    “Really, the only incentive not-for-profit industry funds have is to be a little cheaper than the retail funds … not to drive fees down to almost zero,” Alex Dunnin from superannuation research house Rainmaker told me.
    He’s right.
    The reality is that the industry — which has siphoned off $230 billion in fees since 2008 — has no incentive to be thrifty. Why?

    Former Treasurer Peter Costello understands incentives, and he’s angry about the financial outcomes for workers. Picture: Stuart McEvoyBecause Aussie customers are unengaged — they’re defaulted into their super fund by their employer, and a percentage of their wage is automatically poured into the fund every year of their 50-year working life.
    Here’s how it works:
    Retail funds generally have more expensive fees because they’re largely owned by banks, and they need to skim off a healthy profit for their shareholders. Case in point: Colonial First State (owned by CommBank) has just announced it’s slugging super customers with a “regulatory reform fee” to cover costs of complying with ... all the laws they’ve broken?
    Industry funds argue that a source of their superior investment returns are their large holdings in unlisted investments, like toll roads and ports, and complex private equity and hi-tech start-up investments. Yet who says they’re any better at picking investments than other professional fund managers — 90 per cent of whom fail to beat the market average over time?
    Here’s how it really works:
    The ultimate incentive for a CEO at an Aussie super fund is their million-dollar pay packet.
    It’s hard to justify being paid a million bucks if you’re investing in simple index funds. So they spend millions on an army of underlings, advertising, and overseas travel visiting all those complex investments. Their incentive is to build an empire … using your money.
    “Look, if everyone thought like this — with a hard line focus on fees — it’s true the industry would be a lot more efficient, and consumers would have much bigger retirement balances … but I don’t think it will ever happen,” says Mr Dunnin.
    I fear he’s right.
    The reason Costello didn’t drive down fees when he was in power is the same reason things will never change: too many highly-paid pigs with snouts in the trough.
    So it’s time we kept the bastards honest by highlighting the cheapest super funds (see box).
    Always question the incentives of the people managing your money.
    After all, there’s no interest like self-interest!
    Tread Your Own Path!"
    greenman, Caps and Jackster like this.

  17. #17
    Senior Member Jackster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Maddington, Perth. Wa
    Posts
    992
    Thanks yelta.
    There is and will be too much money in super for it not to ne exploited. It is a huge pond of wealth.
    Also, cant find my fees for cbus. There is no option on the mobile site to see the fees.

  18. #18
    Senior Member greenman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    3,160
    Nearly 30 years ago I was made redundant and had to move my super to a new fund, I was referred to a so-called "friend" who rolled my hard-earned into MLC, Bankers Trust and MacQuarie funds with a hefty entry free and hidden rolling commissions to the "advisers", after getting a few end of year statements and seeing the exorbitant fees I moved my money to a low fee industry fund and haven't looked back since.
    I have a deep mistrust of the retail superannuation industry, their advisers and all of the deep connections to the big banks and institutions.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by greenman View Post
    Nearly 30 years ago I was made redundant and had to move my super to a new fund, I was referred to a so-called "friend" who rolled my hard-earned into MLC, Bankers Trust and MacQuarie funds with a hefty entry free and hidden rolling commissions to the "advisers", after getting a few end of year statements and seeing the exorbitant fees I moved my money to a low fee industry fund and haven't looked back since.
    I have a deep mistrust of the retail superannuation industry, their advisers and all of the deep connections to the big banks and institutions.
    I agree with what you are saying Greenman, but re-read Scott Pape's article carefully, he is saying even the industry funds are now involved in the rip off. The so called low fees charged by the industry funds are still a rip off. Thanks Yelta for posting the article in full.

  20. #20
    Senior Member rusty888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    233
    I still believe this is an issue we don’t want to face.

    If you don’t want to pay the fees put it in cash and earn 2-3%. Then you will complain your balance is low and not growing.

    I pay a high amount of fees but my growth is far than better than the fees I earn.

    Do I care I’m making people rich with all my fees? Not whilst over the long term my wealth is also going up.

    If you are paying in safe funds like industry and government funds large amounts with no independence then yes there is a little issue. But in the private retail space. Competition will mean you cannot take big fees with no return.
    Birkin7 likes this.

  21. #21
    Senior Member Erimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Kippa-Ring Qld
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by rusty888 View Post
    I still believe this is an issue we don’t want to face.

    If you don’t want to pay the fees put it in cash and earn 2-3%. Then you will complain your balance is low and not growing.

    I pay a high amount of fees but my growth is far than better than the fees I earn.

    Do I care I’m making people rich with all my fees? Not whilst over the long term my wealth is also going up.

    If you are paying in safe funds like industry and government funds large amounts with no independence then yes there is a little issue. But in the private retail space. Competition will mean you cannot take big fees with no return.
    This is exactly the type of attitude that encourages blatant profiteering, along with a succession of hopeless governments that have seen fit to allow the hammering of the working classes, whilst making themselves the highest paid politicians on the planet.

  22. #22
    Senior Member rusty888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    233
    I take offence to that. If I wasn’t getting what I wanted out of it I would change and they would be forced to change.

    I believe everyone should be able to make a good income and profit if they do their job properly. Whether that is super, coffee, beer or groceries.
    Lukemc likes this.

  23. #23
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by pamount View Post
    A friend was looking at OnePath, recommended by ANZ, and then compared it to Colonial First State, recommended by Commonwealth Bank

    I had a laugh, OnePath isnt just recommended by ANZ .. it is owned by ANZ ... and Colonial First State .. surprise surprise ... owned by CBA. A fine display of "Clients Best Interest" principle! Their defense? "We offer the best product!! honest!!"

    Quote Originally Posted by pamount View Post
    he said the yearly fee with Colonial First State is about $600 cheaper. Plus he said Colonial First State has no entry or exit fees while OnePath charges a one off fee for setting up the fund. Does OnePath perform better? Is there an online article or forum he should check out?
    The fee has nothing to do with past performance as you are buying into future performance. "past results are not indicative of future results". Having said that, Managed Funds is the equivalent to saying "Coffee Beans" ... Each Fund is different, the asset in the funds and the strategy and risk profile vary.

    but imo, ANZ might just be looking to fund the cartel case ASIC has initiated against them.

  24. #24
    Senior Member Jackster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Maddington, Perth. Wa
    Posts
    992
    The cartel case is a money washing scam too. I bet the lawyers are privately owned by the bank management and its just a extra way for the big wigs to be syphoning off money into their own pockets

  25. #25
    338
    338 is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    856
    Jackster will send you my tin foil hat, I haven't been using it enough recently

  26. #26
    Senior Member Jackster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Maddington, Perth. Wa
    Posts
    992
    Its ok. My faraday sheild is here with me.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    338 likes this.

  27. #27
    Senior Member Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Central Queensland
    Posts
    1,112
    I'm not sure "banking and finance" has ever been an "honest" industry, at least by any commonly held meaning of the word.
    Where there is big money there is big corruption. That has always been the way of the world.
    Before the advent of 'mass media' the peasants existed in blissful ignorance. Now we have been woken to the 'realities' of the world.
    People and organisations don't get fabulously wealthy by being 'nice guys'. I can think of many current examples just looking around the world today.
    I have always said that your Financial wellbeing is like your physical wellbeing - you have to take responsibility for it yourself, do your 'Due Dilligence' and then make your decisions accordingly. This includes choosing advisors that you trust. It's not easy, which is why so many people get into so much trouble with it - you have to accept that even with expert advice you will still make bad decisions that will bite you.
    I created a SMSF and then realised after several years that it was a bad idea, and had to go through additional expense and considerable trouble to dissolve it.
    Dimal and Barry O'Speedwagon like this.

  28. #28
    Senior Member Barry O'Speedwagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PRL
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    I have always said that your Financial wellbeing is like your physical wellbeing - you have to take responsibility for it yourself, do your 'Due Dilligence' and then make your decisions accordingly. This includes choosing advisors that you trust. It's not easy, which is why so many people get into so much trouble with it - you have to accept that even with expert advice you will still make bad decisions that will bite you.
    Yup, this is the key point Rocky. Try and educate yourself as best you can, then try and understand the incentives of the people providing you advice. And understand that significant possible returns beget significant risk...people will try to tell you otherwise...but they are typically telling porkies. Unless you are rolling in it, keep at least 20% of your wealth in low risk assets (preferably those that do not move strongly in the same direction as the bulk of the market).



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •