Showing posts with label Financial Adviser. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Financial Adviser. Show all posts

Saturday 25 December 2010

Four ways investors go wrong

If you are one of those people who suffered heavy losses over the past decade, it was most likely due to one of the following four reasons:

1. Bad market timing. I fear that too often investors attempt to time the markets, which is extremely difficult even for professional money managers.

As I have pointed out many times over the years, it is one thing to identify trends but quite another to pinpoint when they will result in major market turns. Sometimes, the time lag can be many months or even years. Being on the wrong side of the market during that period can prove to be very costly.

2. Aggressive asset allocation. Although it has been repeatedly proven to be the most important single factor in investment performance, many investors fail to use the principles of asset allocation in constructing their portfolios. This frequently results in a higher level of risk than is appropriate [because investors tend to] overweight stocks and/or equity mutual funds and underweight fixed-income securities.

I have seen many cases where people in their sixties and seventies had equity weightings of more than 75% and then were stunned when they lost a lot of money in the market bust of 2008 and 2009. For most people, a disciplined asset-allocation approach is the first step to successful investing.

3. Flawed advice. I just read another study purporting to show that Canadians who use financial advisors are better off than those who don't. This one came from the Investment Funds Institute of Canada (IFIC), most of whose products are sold by advisors.

[According to the report,] households with an advisor had 68 per cent of their money in "market-sensitive" securities (equities and mutual funds) and 32% in "conservative" vehicles (term deposits, savings accounts, bonds).

Those who did not use an advisor were split almost equally—51 per cent market-sensitive to 49 per cent conservative. I suspect that a similar U.S. study would produce comparable results.

Financial advisors, like all other professionals, aren't perfect. Sometimes the guidance they offer simply isn’t appropriate, either because it is inconsistent with a person's objectives and risk tolerance or because it is motivated at least in part by commissions. So, it is always a good idea to ask questions and be sure you understand exactly what you're buying before taking the plunge.

4. Pure speculation. Some people like to gamble, pure and simple. I have always said that the place for that is a casino, not the stock market, but there are investors who can't resist. Occasionally, they make a big score. More often, they lose their stake.

Successful long-term investing requires patience and discipline. That may not seem exciting, but it will pay off over time and you won't end up sending me e-mails bemoaning your losses.

Gordon Pape is editor of the Canada Report.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/four-ways-investors-go-wrong/article1730868/

Thursday 4 November 2010

What price for good advice?



Annette Sampson
October 30, 2010
    Get a grip
    Get a grip
    HOW much should you pay for financial advice? That's the $64 million question raised by recent research that found a huge gap between what consumers think they should pay and what financial planners reckon they need to charge.
    The research by Investment Trends found the average consumer thought about $300 was the appropriate price for both an initial financial plan and ongoing advice. But planners say that's way short of the average $2700 they need to break even for providing full financial advice and the $1200 needed for a simple plan.
    This ''disconnect'', as Investment Trends dubs it, must be worrying news for the financial-planning industry, which is facing government regulation to reform the way it charges its customers. Under the Future of Financial Advice reforms set to apply from 2012, advisers will be banned from receiving commissions and other asset-based fees from financial-product providers. Instead, they will have to clearly spell out their charges to their customers, not just once but every year through an opt-in provision in the legislation.
    The changes will only apply to new investments but who'd want to be an adviser explaining to a loyal, long-term client why new customers are getting an improved transparent deal but he or she is missing out? Whether they like it or not, planners are moving to a system where their income is going to come from fees for service and they're going to have to justify that those fees are worth it.
    On the face of this survey, they're facing an uphill battle. Investment Trends found while consumers were prepared to pay more for some sorts of advice - most notably retirement planning - there was still a gulf between what consumers thought advice was worth and what planners are charging. Interestingly, consumers with an existing financial plan were prepared to pay more than first-timers, which suggests planners are adding value. But an Investment Trends analyst, Recep Peker, says many existing investors still seem to be unaware of just how much they're paying for advice under the current arrangements.
    Part of the problem is that while planners are required to disclose their fees, their true impact is often buried in complex detail and fine print. Commissions and other asset-based fees are charged as a percentage of money invested and come out of your investment, which makes them less in-your-face than fees that require you to physically make the payment. And let's face it, 1 or 2 per cent sounds a whole lot cheaper than $5000 or $10,000 - which is what you might be paying if you have a sizeable investment.
    But perhaps a more significant problem is that the advice offered is often overkill. While some planners manage to provide simple, affordable advice to ordinary consumers, there's a widely-held view that in their zeal to protect investors, the government and Australian Securities and Investments Commission have pushed up both the cost and the level that must be provided.
    It's like selling a Rolls-Royce to someone who wants to nip down to the local shops. In giving advice, planners are required to take your full circumstances into account - which usually involves an in-depth meeting and the production of a Statement of Advice that ticks all the compliance boxes required by the regulator and the planner's lawyers. These statements are expensive, can weigh a tonne and, according to a speech made by a legal specialist and director of Gold Seal, Clare Wivell Plater, at this week's Association of Financial Advisers conference, many of them contain irrelevant information that adds to their preparation costs and bewilders clients.
    The enthusiastic take-up of the limited advice that can now be offered by super funds suggests there is a real market for a simpler form of financial advice that doesn't come with all the hoopla. Many investors, particularly those planning for retirement, can get enormous benefit from a full financial plan. But if you simply want help sorting out your super, starting a share portfolio or drawing up a plan to pay off your debts, you really don't want to be paying big bucks for the Rolls-Royce product.
    The financial-planning industry has been pushing to have limited advice extended so it can be offered by financial planners as well as super funds - and so it should be. It's an obvious way to make advice affordable for a wider range of consumers. While super funds often provide limited advice as part of their member service, planners could mount a good case for selling such advice at a reasonable price. We'd still need protection to ensure the advice is in our best interests but if it is tied in with the Future of Financial Advice reforms, that shouldn't be too difficult.
    The financial-planning industry has grown from a sales culture in which a planner's income was solely dependent on how much money the client had to invest. That thinking is still apparent in the push by many planners to simply replace commissions with asset-based fees of the same amount.
    A full financial plan is worth much more than $300 but if consumers are undervaluing advice, the industry largely has itself to blame. It is time for planners to kick the sales culture and charge appropriate fees for the level and quality of service on offer.

    Tuesday 2 November 2010

    My day as a fund manager wannabe



    What do the people you entrust your savings do all day? Our reporter joins the First State team in Edinburgh to find out what they get up to.

    Personal finance reporter Emma Wall
    Personal finance reporter Emma Wall
    In the grand surroundings of St Andrew Square, Edinburgh, lies First State Investments. Famed for its long and successful track record in emerging markets equities and star managers such as Angus Tulloch and Martin Lau, you could forgive the preconception that behind the big glass door would be deluxe leather chairs, corner offices and traders barking orders into phones. I spent a day there to experience a fund manager's life at first hand.

    8AM

    At a time when most people are just leaving for work, a dozen members of First State's global emerging markets (GEM) and Asia Pacific investment teams are gathering round a table, preparing for a cross-continent meeting.
    We are crowded into what resembles a sixth-form common room, with photos of employees' weddings and nights out pinned to a board on the wall. At the foot of the table is a large television screen, where we are to expect images of similar scenes to appear, beamed from First State's Singapore and Hong Kong offices.
    This is one of three meetings a week in which managers, directors and analysts meet to discuss companies in the region that may qualify for one or more of the GEM and Asia Pacific funds.
    "If you took minutes of these meetings, you'd realise that we never draw any conclusions," said one of the team. "We often disagree about a company and one of us may choose to hold it in their fund while the other managers think it's a bad idea. There is not a house view."
    After a few technical difficulties – "it was decided a while ago that Asia would call us, rather than us calling them, as we can't master the technology" – the meeting is up and running, chaired by Singapore-based Alistair Thompson, deputy head of Asia Pacific excluding Japan equities.
    Themes discussed include infrastructure, currencies, interest rates and inflation – in Britain, Australia and Asia – as well as the hot topic of the moment, gold, and whether its price could double.
    The group also reviews the big buyers and sellers of stocks – trades over $1m – that the funds hold and what this could mean for the funds' performance.
    Banter is rife. Team members seem to revel in antagonising one another or demanding reasons for their stock positions, and there is little indication of hierarchy.
    The First State approach to investing is to be accountable to investors rather than a benchmark. Managing partner Stuart Paul said investors knew their approach was as much about capital preservation as making returns. "You can outperform a benchmark but still lose money," he said. "That's not something we're interested in. Sometimes we might not make as much as an upmarket, but in 2000 when the MSCI emerging markets index lost 25pc, we only lost 9.5pc."

    10AM

    "We think it's in the interest of the client not to be too clever," said Mr Tulloch, explaining the absolute return style of investing his team champions.
    Institutional investors make up just over half of First State's global emerging markets and Asia Pac Oeic (open-ended investment company) business. The team is required to keep in regular contact with its large clients, and so next on the agenda is a call to a European public pension scheme.
    Mr Tulloch described how investors' location governed their interests, with Britain having a bias towards Asia Pacific and old Commonwealth allies, US investors preferring global emerging markets and in particular South America, and the Baltic region interested in Russia. This particular client has been invested since 2004 and is updated every quarter on the fund's performance, outlook and portfolio changes.
    Staff changes within First State are explained, as are big buys and sells and any mistakes managers may have made. The client questions the impact of Chinese inflation on the fund and interest rates as well as property market speculation. Technological developments in 3G mobiles, the Thai elections and food prices are also on the agenda.
    While this meeting is going on, other team members make research calls to Asia – these have to be in the morning because of the time difference. The team travels to meet remote companies, and is out of the country for about eight weeks a year. On top of this, members spend two months a year in either the Hong Kong or Singapore offices.
    The house prefers not to have single-country funds, hence the Greater China fund is also invested in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.
    Alan Nesbit, deputy head of global emerging markets, said they preferred not to match the index weightings, as that made you focus on the past. "If you follow the index, you are constantly looking in the rear view mirror," he said. "The biggest emerging market changes – not that long ago it was Mexico."

    12.30PM

    Over a team lunch – a rare treat, I am told – we discuss the First State philosophy further. Millar Mathieson, senior analyst and portfolio manager, explained how even though Mr Tulloch was the boss, they felt just as comfortable questioning his investment decisions as those of the junior members of the team.
    "There is no hierarchy like that – as you saw this morning," one said. "One of us can disagree with another, and just because Angus or Stuart believe something doesn't mean we have to toe their line."

    2.30PM

    In the afternoon there is an office visit from a Malaysian manufacturer with links to the medical industry, who is pitching for First State to invest. The manufacturer brought material samples along so that the team could touch and feel them; they have fun passing the products around. The company is assessed not just on profits and financial performance but also on the company's culture and ethics – whether they source raw materials sustainably and the ecological impact of production and waste disposal.

    4PM

    Most of the team's time is spent researching companies and prospective investments. Even if a company is not suitable for investment now, it is monitored for potential in the future.
    Jonathan Asante, the head of global emerging markets, said that when the team met companies they were often told they asked different questions from other investment houses. He said: "We are concerned about the companies' culture; whether they are trustworthy, honest and good to their shareholders. We don't want to see a spreadsheet and a business model, anyone can mock those up."
    The biggest companies in emerging markets are often state owned, so First State spends some time educating companies about the value of small shareholders.
    Since 2004 First State has been limiting new investment into the Asia Pacific fund and has actively discouraged new investors from the Latin America fund.
    The team is finding that prices are high at the moment and the best companies come at a premium. "We have written to clients saying it is difficult at the moment – don't invest any more. Sit tight," Mr Asante said. "You can always find rubbish that's cheap, but we're not interested in rubbish."

    4.30PM

    I head for the exit, while Mr Tulloch and his colleagues continue to chew over the endless facts, figures and research notes that pass their desks. They tell me they rarely leave before 7pm.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/8097596/My-day-as-a-fund-manager-wannabe.html

    Sunday 17 October 2010

    Financial planning fees war escalates

    Financial planning fees war escalates
    Carolyn Cummins
    October 18, 2010

    THE war of words over fees charged by financial planners has reached fever pitch with the newly formed NTAA Financial Planners' Association saying more should be done to reduce the costs.

    In a stinging attack, Andrew Gardiner, spokesman for the NTAA FPA, said the financial planning sector should ''look seriously at reducing its fees, many of which are driven by greed and self-interest''.

    The NTAA was launched late last month to work with tax agents and accountants to help their clients with superannuation advice.


    It represents about 7500 accountants and tax agents and was formed in response to what it says are exorbitant fees being charged by financial planners.

    The recent Cooper review recommended more restrictions be placed on accountants when offering taxation advice.

    The rival Financial Planning Association of Australia has dismissed the new group, saying its formation was ''of little consequence''.

    Mr Gardiner said yesterday that he was appalled by a report last week that a client with $1.5 million to invest would be hit with an upfront fee of $26,460 in the first year and annual ongoing fees of almost $10,000.

    "The report stated that the example had been drawn from the Commonwealth Bank's 2008 guidelines on upfront and ongoing fees," Mr Gardiner said.

    "But one would imagine that similar charges would be made by the other five financial planning institutions - NAB/MLC, Westpac/BT, ANZ/ING AMP and AXA''.

    He added that while there are ''many excellent financial planners'', others appear to be ''tied to the six mega banks and their actions put the whole industry in a bad light'' and ''rob it of credibility''.

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/financial-planning-fees-war-escalates-20101017-16p5t.html

    Tuesday 12 October 2010

    Act in investors' interests

    John Collett
    September 22, 2010
    Financial advice reforms under new minister Bill Shorten will benefit consumers.
    Financial advice reforms under new minister Bill Shorten will benefit consumers.  
    Photo: Glen McCurtayne
    The new minority government may not last three years but if it can last at least two, there's a good chance the key reforms to financial advice will become law. The new minister responsible for financial services and superannuation, Bill Shorten, was a union official and trustee of an industry super fund. He should need only a short time to get across his portfolio responsibilities. That's good, because there's much to be implemented from the raft of reforms the previous government proposed in an effort to protect investors seeking financial advice.

    The two big reforms - a ban on commissions and other kickbacks and putting planners under a legal obligation to act in their clients' best interest - are badly needed to enhance consumer protection. The reforms will be too late for those hundreds of thousands of retirees who have lost billions of dollars over the past decade with the collapse of Westpoint, Storm Financial, Fincorp, Basis Capital, Great Southern, Timbercorp, Australian Capital Reserve, Opes Prime and dozens of others.

    These schemes invested in all sorts of things but the payment of generous commissions to advisers and accountants was a common thread running through them.
    Ask yourself this: if it's such a good investment scheme, why would it be offering commissions to incentivise advisers and accountants to sell those products?
    Placing planners under a legal obligation to put their clients' interests first should also strengthen the hand of the regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in policing its beat, which it has not done effectively.

    Just about all of the financial services industry, except industry funds, was hoping for a Coalition victory, as the Coalition was against most of the reforms and noncommittal on others. The Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate from July next year, and will probably support the reforms.

    The planning industry needs to get on with moving its businesses away from commissions and to a fee-based model. The collapse last week of yet another forestry scheme, the Melbourne-based Willmott Forests, has renewed criticism of planners and tax accountants who received commissions for recommending it to clients. These schemes were mostly tax rorts for high-income earners, with the investment merits less clear.

    Salespeople should be working in sales, not financial planning. The minority Labor government has a plan that will help ensure sales are removed from the advice process. It is a plan that has taken about two years to formulate. At some point there has to be an end to consultation with the financial services industry and adoption of the reforms.

    Shorten is ambitious and will probably be keen to push through reforms. It is always a balancing act between competing interests but for too long the interests of the powerful financial services lobby have been put before the interests of consumers.

    http://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/act-in-investors-interests-20100922-15m3v.html

    Thursday 12 August 2010

    How good is your financial adviser?


    More insight

    The industry has to do more to get younger people, who would benefit from good advice, coming though its doors. A survey conducted last year for the Industry Super Network, which represents the industry superannuation funds, showed only 19 per cent of those in households earning less than $100,000 had spoken to an adviser.
    The survey found that those on moderate incomes do not seek advice until the age of 55, with only one in 10 seeking advice. Over the age of 55, the proportion rises to one in three. More than half of over-55s on any income seek advice, much of it relating to super.
    Further insights into the way the big planning groups treat consumers is on the way. The Financial Ombudsman Service will, reportedly, release the names of planning firms involved in the highest number of consumer disputes.
    Under the changes required of the service - outlined by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in theFinancial Ombudsman Service 2009-10 annual report, to be released in late September - it will need to show the number of complaints received and the outcomes.

    Case study 1: A lesson well learned

     Jenny Garvey, 63, used to have a financial planner that she rarely heard from. When she tried to contact the financial planner, who was employed by a big financial institution, during the global financial crisis, she would have to wait. Then she would get a different person each time who did not know her and who was abrupt.
    After a while, she realised it was pointless ringing them, yet she was paying fees. She was not getting the personalised advice she needed.
    The retired teacher had an accident 16 years ago and has physical limitations. Since being with her current planner, Janne Ashton at Plan Protect, an authorised representative of AXA Financial Planning in Sydney's Frenchs Forest, she says she now knows what service is all about.
    ''I feel she respected my situation and no longer felt it was pointless coming to see someone for advice,'' Garvey says. ''I had assets but I did not have enough income.''
    Garvey (pictured) wanted to be able to stay in her house for a little longer. ''I will downsize but I have young grandchildren and they come here,'' she says. ''I want to keep my house for a while until they are older and Janne has rearranged things so that I have cash flow.
    ''Within 48 hours of seeing Janne I had a complete plan - where I was going, what I had to do and what she was going to do. I now feel secure and my life is on track and I have more joy in my life as a result.''

    Case study 2: Invaluable help

    Rikki Bewley, 64, has just returned from swimming in the River Thames in England. She swam 14 kilometres in two days. She's a marathon runner and does tai chi. ''I love adventures. And if you are going to do all of that stuff you need a good financial planner,'' she says.
    She first saw Joe Sacco, a financial planner with ANZ in Melbourne, 10 years ago. She did not have much money back then and after she received an inheritance, with the help of Sacco, has been able to support charities.
    After training as an occupational therapist, Bewley spent 34 years working with chronically and terminally ill children, supporting their psychological and emotional well-being, before retiring in 1998.
    She supports Animals Asia Foundation, a Hong Kong-based charity, which helps with animal welfare in Asia. She also supports Anti-Slavery International, a London-based charity that works to stop child labour.
    She meets with Sacco several times a year and he also calls her on the phone. She says he explains everything to her and makes sure she understands.
    Sacco remembers everything that is going on in her life and his people skills are terrific, she says.
    Source: The Age

    Thursday 5 August 2010

    More than meets the eye to fund charges


    As high costs come under scrutiny we break down the typical fees.

    Man looking at small print through magnifying glass- 10 financial traps to look out for
    More than meets the eye to fund charges
    The Telegraph's revelation that we pay an extortionate amount in fund fees – about £7.3 billion every year – piles on the misery for British savers grappling with jittery stock markets and low returns.
    When shares are soaring, little attention is paid to the amount in fees that investment companies rake in. But when fund values are falling, the costs paid by investors account for a greater proportion of their total returns – and it gets noticed.
    "Now we have consistently low inflation, charges represent a far higher proportion of any investment return than in years gone by," says Clive Waller at CWC Research, the financial analyst. "Charges matter."
    Understandably, companies need to levy charges to cover their costs and return a profit. Even something as simple as sending out a policy statement costs money, particularly when they have tens of thousands of investors on their books.
    Then there is the cost to the company of paying commission to salesmen and independent advisers. These are generally funded by customers, regardless of whether they buy direct from the fund management group or through an independent financial adviser.
    Tom Stevenson, investment director at Fidelity, says: "Our portfolio managers are supported by hundreds of analysts, meeting companies, talking to their suppliers and customers and scouring balance sheets for the information that can give our clients an investment edge. This is a costly but, we believe, essential activity and it is reasonable that this should be reflected in the annual management charges of our funds."
    But investors should check to see what they are being charged. If, as many experts predict, we are in for several years of subdued investment performance, it is important to look at more than just the annual management charge.
    There is a raft of additional charges on both unit trusts and open-ended investment companies (Oeics). These include audit fees, dealing costs and servicing charges.
    What is the annual management charge (AMC)?
    This is the figure that is published on the fact sheet and is the fee that most savers – incorrectly – understand to be the amount they pay each year for the fund manager to run the fund.
    Taking the typical AMC of 1.5 per cent, about two thirds of this is used to pay for research, wages and costs associated with physically managing the money within the fund. The remaining 0.5 per cent is paid out as "trail commission" to independent financial advisers or the fund provider each year for so-called "servicing costs".
    Trail commission is a controversial charge. Critics argue that many advisers get this annual fee for doing next to nothing and question whether many deserve the remuneration, given that they do little to encourage their clients to switch out of perennial poor performing funds.
    But the AMC doesn't tell the whole story on fund fees and charges – there is also the TER.
    I've never heard of the TER. What does it stand for?
    For a better idea of the cost of your fund, you should look out for the total expense ratio (TER). Unfortunately, investment fund companies are not obliged to reveal TERs and many will publish only the annual management fee, leaving investors with the mistaken impression that this is all they have to pay. It is not.
    The TER takes into account dealing costs, stamp duty and auditors' fees as well as the annual management charge. You can often find TERs of more than 150 basis points above the annual management charge. Take Threadneedle Managed Income, for instance. Its AMC is just 0.25 per cent, which you may be mistaken in thinking is a bargain. However, the fund's TER is 1.77 cent.
    So does the TER include all the costs that I pay?
    I'm afraid not. The TER does not include the trading costs – the costs for buying and selling shares within the fund. The more active a manager is in trading the underlying portfolio, the higher these costs.
    That said, investors have to expect some extra cost here: after all, you would be seething if your manager just sat on his backside all year. On average, trading costs can add another 1 per cent to your annual fees but some argue that managers buy and sell shares simply to rake in this extra revenue.
    A higher TER will obviously cause a drag on performance. For example, a £7,200 fund investment growing by 7 per cent each year will reach £14,163 after 10 years, before charges. A fund levying an annual TER of 1.55 per cent would be worth £12,240 after 10 years, but a fund with a TER of 2.25 per cent would be worth be £788 less, at £11,452, according to Lipper, the fund analysts.
    Can I compare the true costs of investing in different funds?
    No. Trading costs range from about 0.09 per cent a year to one per cent. "The AMC is a quite useless figure; the TER is misleading because it is not total – it does not include dealing charges or, if it's a fund of funds, the charges on the underlying funds," says Mr Waller. "If the buyer knows exactly what the true cost is, he can compare fund manager performance against charges and make an informed decision."
    How do fund charges vary?
    Charges vary according to the type of fund and what it invests in. The fees levied on specialist funds, such as those investing in smaller companies, will almost certainly be a lot higher than those for funds that simply track indices, so-called tracker funds.
    For example, the average UK equity fund has a TER of 1.6 per cent compared with the average corporate bond fund's TER of 1.15 per cent. Actively managed funds cost more to run than trackers because the latter are effectively managed by computer programs while the former incur the costs of researching individual stocks.
    Mr Stevenson says: "Simplistic comparisons between the charges levied on actively managed funds and index-tracking or passive funds miss the point. The two investment approaches incur different levels of cost, so the question is not whether stock-picking funds should be more expensive than trackers (they are) but whether their higher charges are transparent and a fair reflection of the extra resources and effort involved."
    So are cheaper funds better?
    Not necessarily. It is fair to say that the lion's share of funds underperform time after time and many do not offer value for money.
    The fund groups that charge the most argue that investors are better off paying extra for decent performance. However, a significant number of funds fail to deliver consistent above-average performance year in, year out, and if you are paying a high TER for dismal performance it is time for a rethink.
    It is clearly worth paying a higher TER for consistent outperformance and a high TER does sometimes pay. Take Jupiter Merlin Balanced Portfolio. This popular selling fund has a TER of 2.3 per cent, which is higher than the average – yet it outperforms its peers regularly and is justifiably recommended by many investment advisers.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/7923367/More-than-meets-the-eye-to-fund-charges.html

    £7billion a year skimmed off our savings

    More than £7.3billion a year is being “skimmed off” the value of Britons’ savings by City bankers and fund managers, an investigation by The Daily Telegraph has found.

    City of London
    City bankers and fund managers are 'skimming off' more than £7.3billion a year from the value of Britons' savings Photo: Getty
    A range of questionable hidden fees and levies are being deducted from investments, making it difficult for a typical saver to make money from the stock market. Britain’s eight million investors are losing an average of £800 a year each to the hidden levies.
    An investor putting £50,000 into a fund providing typical returns over 25 years would lose out on £108,000 because of unnecessary charges, said David Norman, a former chief executive of Credit Suisse Asset Management.
    Customers have no way of claiming back their lost savings because fund managers are not doing anything illegal or beyond the rules. However, they are now likely to face increased scrutiny from regulators, while the Government could come under pressure to announce an inquiry to clean up the industry, which millions rely on to save for their retirement.
    The problems have been compounded by the lacklustre stockmarket, which has hit savers as City firms have rushed to protect their profit margins by increasing fees.
    Research has shown that fees in this country are far higher than those in America, where investment funds have been the subject of several regulatory and other official investigations.
    Several senior City figures have decided to blow the whistle on the practices, with one fund manager describing the system as a “legalised cartel”.
    Alan Miller, a former senior fund manager at New Star, one of Britain’s biggest investment firms, and a co-founder of SCM Private, told The Daily Telegraph: “The time is right for exposure of various elements of the industry.
    “It is riddled with blatant self-interest and conflicts of interest that would never be tolerated elsewhere. Investors have become victims as the charges they have to pay have risen and risen while the returns they get have been consistently below par and the actual cost of managing their money has continued to fall.”
    Research compiled by the Financial Services Authority and leading data analysts suggests that investors face losing three per cent of their investment each year in charges and fees. However, Mr Miller and Mr Norman said annual charges as low as 0.5 per cent were achievable.
    When a saver invests in an ISA, unit trust or other fund, they are informed that they will pay an “annual charge” – typically 1.2 per cent of the value of their savings. The majority of funds levy exactly the same charge.
    But the firm also deducts a range of other vaguely defined fees – covering everything from research to office costs from the savers’ money.
    In particular, funds charge savers fees and commission every time they buy or sell shares. In some funds, hidden fees can be more than three times higher than the publicly-released annual fees.
    For example, according to the data company Lipper, the Halifax UK Growth fund, one of the country’s most popular investment schemes, has only returned 7.47 per cent to savers over the past five years.
    Therefore, someone investing £10,000 would have received interest of £747. However, that the fund has actually risen by 15.79 per cent and the extra returns have been pocketed by the fund manager and City brokers.
    Data from Morningstar, a research company, shows the average investment fund has an annual charge of 1.25 per cent. But lesser known administrative fees amount to 0.45 per cent. And trading costs total another 1.35 per cent, according to the FSA and Financial Express. This 1.8 per cent being deducted from the total £406 billion invested amounts to £7.3 billion being “skimmed off” each year.
    Julie Patterson, director of authorised funds and tax at the Investment Management Association said: “The UK fund management industry is one of the most competitive in the world.
    “Less than 50 per cent of the annual management charge (AMC) is retained by the manager, to cover fund costs, including investment management and administration. The majority of the AMC is used to pay advisers, brokers and platforms. Charges for UK authorised funds are fully disclosed and they vary.”


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/7919778/7billion-a-year-skimmed-off-our-savings.html