The information contained on the website you are about to access (Website) is for information purposes only and does not constitute and should not be construed as advice on which reliance should be placed, nor is it an offer by Absolute Return Partners LLP (ARP) to enter into any contract or investment agreement or a solicitation to buy or sell any investment in any jurisdiction or in any circumstances. Any information provided in relation to a specific fund is not intended to provide a sufficient basis on which to make any investment decision as any such decision requires careful study of the offering memorandum of the relevant fund.
No information on the Website is intended to amount to the financial promotion of Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes which are not authorized or recognised by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and cannot be promoted to the general public. Any such information is intended solely for certain classes of investors permitted to receive it under relevant legislation and regulations, including investors falling within the qualifying categories set out the Conduct of Business Rules contained in the FCA Handbook or in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Promotion of Collective Investment Schemes) (Exemptions) Order 2005, in each case as amended or replaced from time to time. This is because such investors are sufficiently experienced and sophisticated to understand the risks associated with such investments, including the possibility of a substantial loss or complete loss of their investment.
The self-styled "merger of equals" between UK based asset manager Henderson and US based Janus Capital (due to complete in the first half of 2017) is all about scale and reach. In greater part this has been brought about through the need to drive costs down in a low growth and return world as exemplified through the rise of so-called passive funds.
It is, after all, the net return after fees that matter. Fund managers are going to struggle to perform sudden miracles and deliver outsized returns in the prevailing low return environment. So, it is fees that make a significant difference to the bottom line.
When investing, it is worth asking first whether you are looking to generate beta (the market return) or alpha (the deviation from that market return – positive …or negative)? Many will probably say they aim for both but, more often than not, better results are usually achieved when investors separate the two sources of return and let the overall objective (alpha or beta) drive the portfolio construction process.
If you primarily aim for beta, in a low return environment, fees charged by the vast majority of active investment managers are way too high, and you should not hesitate to switch to a passive investment strategy, which will cost you a fraction and, on average, deliver better returns (as the average alpha after fees is negative).
There are plenty of so-called active managers who will say that they are certainly capable of generating both beta and some alpha on top, but if they are that good, why, (at the risk of encouraging past performance to be a guide to future performance) haven’t many done so consistently? Of course there are exceptions but, in reality, there are fewer active equity managers who consistently generate a meaningful amount of positive alpha after fees than those that don't.
Whilst there is always a place for active asset managers, it is lower fees that will determine those that have a part to play. Expect more mergers and acquisitions amongst the active managers. That is not to say that specialist asset managers, with proven ability to generate alpha, cannot maintain a position.
Finally, I suggest you vote with your feet every now and then as nothing is more effective. Fund managers need to wake up. They simply cannot justify running with an unchanged fee structure when returns are a fraction of what they used to be and, in my experience, most investment managers only respect one thing.
Management fees, in my opinion, should be set at a level where they cover the cost of running the fund management business, nothing more. As a result, they should be tiered to quickly reduce after a break-even point. Any excesses should be captured in a performance fee - portfolio managers shouldn’t be allowed to get rich by charging as much as 2% (in the case of hedge funds) on large AUMs when the cost of running their businesses is substantially less expensive than this.