Almost $250 Billion Invested in Closet Index Funds in Canada

Posted by Preet on May 24, 2010 | 5 comments

Who would’ve thought that almost 40% of mutual fund assets in Canada were indexed? Definitely not the people selling them since these are all supposedly actively managed funds. (The Investment Funds Institute of Canada reports that as of April 2010, mutual fund assets in Canada are $620.4 billion.)

What Is A Closet Index Fund?

A closet index fund is a term given to an actively managed fund that looks so similar to the benchmark you’re left wondering why you are paying the higher costs of active management for it. If the fund’s holding looks really similar to the benchmark index, this is a closet index fund. One way of trying to sort through the thousands of funds available to screen for closet index funds is to look at the R-Squared rating. This is also known as the coefficient of determination and ranges from 0 to +1. The closer to +1 it is, the more closely it looks like it’s benchmark index. (Note: a high r-squared does not necessarily indicate a closet index fund, but it does mean the fund warrants a closer look.)

1,290 Mutual Funds Worth Over $245 Billion Qualify as Potential Closet Index Funds

I went over to FundLibrary.com and did a simple “Fund Filter” query and looked for all mutual funds that had an R-Squared value of 0.9 or higher. I came up with 1,290 funds with a total of $245,343,380,000 in assets amongst them. The asset-weighted MER on these funds was 1.98%. That works out to almost $5 billion in Management Expenses. Assuming the going rate for advice is 1.00%, then if advisors switched investors out of these potential closet index funds and into actual index tracking funds you might find a portfolio MER closer to 1.35% (not all funds are domestic mandates, remember). This would yield a savings of over $1.5 billion annually to Canadian investors. Wow.

YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary)

Your cut-off for a closet index fund may be higher/lower than 0.9. Further, more analysis is needed to determine if the funds are closet index funds. It IS possible that a fund with a high r-squared is not a closet index fund.

Not all funds on this list (i.e. the pooled funds) included advisor trailer fees which means the weighted average MER would’ve been higher on an apples-to-apples basis.

Clearly you could save even more by not using an advisor, but that is a different story for a different time and for the record, I think the vast majority of investors need an advisor of some sort (…a good advisor – which again is another can of worms altogether).

Do not blindly sell your funds if they have a high R-Squared rating – do your due diligence, or speak with a qualified financial professional for more guidance. Just providing food for thought here.

Growing Active ETF Market Means Mutual Funds Should Consider Allowing F-Class Units For Sale Through Discount Brokerages

Posted by Preet on Mar 23, 2010 | 3 comments

This past Monday I had a guest post about how Actively Managed ETFs will signal a threat to the staying power of mutual funds as portfolio stalwarts. In the face of mountains of evidence supporting indexation strategies, actively managed mutual funds with embedded financial advisor compensation have flourished. The author essentially argues that the mutual fund structure is being challenged as now investors can access active managers while bypassing the financial advisor as an intermediary. For more, please make sure to read the guest post here.

Today’s post title would be the logical reaction to the “threat” of actively managed ETFs. By allowing the widespread sale of F-class units of mutual funds through discount brokerage accounts the fund industry could help stem any potential losses.

F-Class Mutual Fund Units

For those not familiar with F-class mutual fund units, they were developed for Fee-based accounts where advisors would charge a transparent fee which was not embedded in the fund’s MER.

For example, let’s say that Mutual Fund ABC had A class units with a 2.50% MER, of which 1.00% went to the advisor annually as their compensation. The investor would not explicitly see the portion of the fee going to the advisor (1.00%), nor would they see the 1.50% going to the fund company for the portfolio management, reporting, etc. If the return for the year was 10.00%, the portfolio’s actual return would’ve been 12.50%, but the 2.50% would reduce that to the 10% the investor sees.

Now, that same mutual fund could be offered in a F class unit (same portfolio) which has an MER of 1.50%. The advisor might charge a “client advisory fee” of 1.00%. The total cost is still 2.50% but in this case the 12.50% portfolio return is only reduced by 1.50% so the investor sees a portfolio return of 11.00% BUT they also see 1.00% in fees deducted explicitly on their statement which goes to the advisor, leaving them with the same 10.00% net portfolio return.

It should be pointed out that the 1.00% client advisory fee is potentially tax deductible for non-registered accounts, which would leave the investor slightly ahead versus the A class units with the same overall fees.

So what’s the big deal? Well, for one that Client Advisory Fee is negotiable, but that’s beside the point. Right now, you can buy A-class units of actively managed mutual funds through a discount brokerage and bypass the use of an advisor, but you still pay the 1.00% that would go to an advisor. Essentially, you are paying more than you have to. Many fund companies have blocked the sale of F-class units through discount brokerage accounts in order to appease financial advisors who would be threatened by this practice. Presumably, when bought through a discount brokerage account, an F-class unit would be absent any advisor compensation and in our sample mutual fund, the investor would pay an MER of 1.50% versus 2.50%. (These MERs are just examples, they could be higher or lower.)

Hop On or Get Out Of The Way

So… if the proliferation of Actively Managed ETFs accelerates (which it has) then DIY investors will be more inclined to circumnavigate financial advisors in order to access active management without the advisor compensation drag on portfolio returns. If the fund companies are unwilling to realize that there will be an exodus then they stand to lose market share going forward.

Let me be clear with my own perspective: there is value in advice and I believe that most people will be better off with an advisor. But, the truth is that there is a significant portion of the investing public who wish to do it themselves and that demographic will increase.

Witness the FSA in the UK moving to ban commissions for financial advisors, and similar directives in Australia for CFPs. The advice delivery mechanism is changing to an unbundled structure (advice not tied to products), so making F-class units available through discount brokerages is only logical for fund companies from a business perspective.

It wouldn’t signal the end of financial advisors as some might fear. I believe there is an equilibrium (like with pretty much everything) which would shift from 10% DIY / 90% Advice to perhaps 30% DIY / 70% Advice whether the fund companies do this or not. If they do it though, they should be better off.

Comments welcome.

TER: The Trading Expense Ratio or Total Expense Ratio?

Posted by Preet on Mar 23, 2010 | 1 comment

By now, most people have heard of the MER (Management Expense Ratio) in mutual funds and ETFs. Another term that gets bandied about is the TER, which is less well known and has a few different meanings depending on which country you are in.

Meaning 1: TER = Trading Expense Ratio (Canada)

When you look at a Canadian fund’s MRFP (Management’s Report on Fund Performance), it is now required to show the Trading expense ratio of the fund which represents the amount of trading commissions incurred to manage the portfolio as a percentage of the total assets of the fund. For example, if you had a $100 million fund and the trading commissions for the year incurred by the fund manager to manage the portfolio was $1 million then the Trading expense ratio is 1%. This is NOT reflected in the MER. Funds with higher portfolio turnover rates (meaning the manager buys and sells more often) or funds that invest in less liquid securities (like micro-caps for example) will have higher Trading expense ratios. Funds with low turnover and that invest in larger-cap names will have lower Trading expense ratios. Here is a screen-shot of an MRFP report which shows where you can find the Canadian TER:

In this case, you can see that the TER is 0.73%. If you add this to the fund’s MER of 2.46% you will get a truer sense of the total costs to run this fun.

Meaning 2: TER = Total Expense Ratio (US and UK)

Now to really throw a wrench into things: TER as the Total Expense Ratio means different things based on what country you are in. In the UK, the Total Expense Ratio is the same thing as the MER in North America. But in the US (predominantly) the Total Expense Ratio is the MER + Trading Costs.

Here’s a little breakdown…

In the UK the TER stands for Total Expense Ratio and is equal to the US or Canadian definition of MER

In Canada the TER stands for Trading Expense Ratio which is the cost of commissions paid in the fund as a percentage of the fund’s total assets.

In the US, TER stands for Total Expense Ratio and is equal to the US or Canadian MER + Trading Expense Ratio.

Yeah, I know.

What is "Diversification"? There is more to it than you might think!

Posted by Preet on Jul 31, 2007 | 0 comments

Diversification basically means not putting all your eggs in one basket. If you hold only one stock and that company went bankrupt, then you would have lost all your money.  If you hold two stocks and one company goes bankrupt you have only lost half your money.  And so on, and so on.

But there is a BIT more to it than just that. If you held two stocks in companies like Sprint and Verizon and someone invents a device that makes phones obsolete, then both companies might go under.  In this case you have diversified by holding two companies, but you picked two companies in the same industry!

Further, if you held two mutual funds that both invested in large Canadian companies (and each fund held 100 stocks), but the Canadian economy as a whole declined, both your funds would lose money.

So there is more to diversification than just holding more than one stock.  The key to proper diversification is to pick different stocks (or other investments) that are NOT CORRELATED to each other. i.e. the values of each do not move in tandem. So when one is up, the other is down, and vice versa. (You still want to pick only investments that are expected to appreciate long-term.)

There are many different way to diversify – something known as “Multi-Level Diversification”. You can diversify by:

1. Holding more than one stock

2. Holding investments from different sectors (Telecom vs Banks vs Mining, etc.)

3. Holding investments in different Asset Classes (Stocks, Bonds, Cash)

4. Holding investments in different Markets (Canada vs US vs China vs Europe, etc.)

…and that is just scratching the surface.

So the take home message is that proper diversification means holding numerous securities that are as uncorrelated to each other as possible, in order to reduce risk. Let’s say that ALL investments in the universe returned 7% over the next 100 years, BUT each had their own “cycle” of when it was up or down in the short term.  If you held only one, then perhaps it made a killing in the first 50 years, but got slaughtered in the second 50 years. And maybe a different one returned 14% one year and 0% the next, and continued to alternate for the next 98 years in a similar fashion, and so on. Imagine that there are 1000 different investments in this universe and each has a very unique pattern of returns, but ultimately returns 7% over the 100 years.  Well if you held them all, you would still get your 7% over 100 years BUT you had a MUCH SMOOTHER RIDE and the variance of any annual return from 7% would be minimal.  Risk is another word for variance – so to reduce variance is to reduce risk – which can be accomplished with proper diversification.

Please note that you can not entirely get rid of risk and that the examples given in this post (as always) are fictitious and intended for educational purposes only.

Mutual Funds: Great for portfolios up to $100,000

Posted by Preet on Jul 28, 2007 | 0 comments

I suppose many financial advisors licensed to sell ONLY mutual funds will cringe at this information. First, I want to say that if you have more than $100,000 in your portfolio it does not automatically mean that it is time to get out of mutual funds. But certainly once you pass this threshold you will want to look at alternatives to mutual funds as your options open up (based primarily on the fact that buying in bulk reduces your trading costs). If you remember in my first post on Mutual Funds we defined mutual funds as being the ideal investment for SMALL investors because trying to build your own diversified portfolio would cost too much in trading commissions.

So once you have built your portfolio past $100,000 it is time to compare costs of paying a mutual fund manager versus the costs of having a stockbroker build a custom portfolio (or yourself with a discount brokerage trading account if you have the knowledge).

Let’s look at the average Equity Mutual Fund. It has an MER (Management Expense Ratio) of approximately 2.6%. That means that for every $100,000 in your portfolio, you are paying $2,600 per year for management. When you were starting out your savings, perhaps you had $5,000 in the fund at the end of your first year – you were only paying $130 in fees. In fact, that is quite a bargain considering your advisor probably spent much time meeting with you, learning about your situation and creating a plan and investment recommendations. He or she does this so that when you become a larger investor, you become a larger source of income for the advisor. Also, by having built a relationship over time, it becomes a strong bond and there is less likely a chance that another advisor will lure you away (all thing being equal).

But let’s say you stay in this fund and now your portfolio has reached $1 million. You still pay 2.6%, and in this case you are now paying $26,000 in fees for the same management. It starts to get depressing if you consider that $26,000 every year could buy a new mid-size family car!

So let’s look at two options:

1. Fee based advisor

A fee-based advisor works on a set percentage of assets – think of it as similar to an MER, except that in the industry it is called a “Client Advisory Fee”. You don’t pay a trading commission for each stock purchase setting up the portfolio and similarly you can sell those stocks and buy new ones without incurring a separate commission. The Client Advisory Fee pays for all your trading costs, account admin fees, everything. Even if the Client Advisory Fee was the same as the MER (2.6%), it is advantageous because this fee can be written off for tax purposes whereas an MER cannot (for non-registered investment accounts only, you cannot write off fees for an RRSP). For easy math’s sake, let’s assume that our client is in a 50% Marginal Tax Rate. If they could write off the 2.6% Client Advisory Fee, then it effectively becomes reduced to 1.3%. That is a huge saving right off the bat.

But, it only gets better. While Client Advisory Fees usually can only be offered for $100,000+ sized accounts, this fee can be reduced automatically as the portfolio grows even larger. For example, the fee might be 2.5% up to $249,999 but once you reach $250,000 the fee might drop to 2.25% (and that would apply to the whole account, not just the funds over the threshold). Every advisor and firm have their own set of thresholds and fees – but know that you can negotiate the fee. As accounts grow to $1 million you should easily be able to negotiate the fee down to 1.25% (which, for a non-registered account could be written off and effectively reduce the fee to 0.625%) . When you set up your fee-based account, you will sign a document that clearly outlines the thresholds and fees for each level.

2. Transactional Advisor

In this case you pay a commission for each transaction – i.e. to buy or sell an individual stock. While it would take you maybe 20 purchases to setup the portfolio initially, and just for argument’s sake let’s say each transaction cost you 3% of the purchase price, then your first year would cost you roughly 3% in fees. BUT, once you’ve setup the portfolio most of the work is done, and the rest is maintenance. For example, you made 20 transactions in the first year, but in the second year you only made 6 transactions because it was time to sell 3 stocks, and you needed the other transactions to buy replacement stocks. So perhaps in the second year your total fees were only 0.9%. It all depends on how many trades you make in the year. (If you are an active trader, endlessly trading stocks then you already know you should be on a discount trading platform designed for active traders. )

It is important to note that you can replicate the characteristics of the mutual fund you’ve left with individual securities. But it might be more important to note that you can modify it now according to your personal preferences as well as paying a lower amount of fees every year.

I recently moved a client from another institution to my care. He had a portfolio of $180,000 entirely in mutual funds with an MER of 3.03%. We setup a fee-based account with a client advisory fee of 1.5% up to $1 million, and it would reduce to 1.25% over $1 million when he gets there. It was a non-registered account so he can also write off the Client Advisory Fee. Let’s do the math:

Before:

$180,000 x 3.03% MER = $5,454 yearly cost

After:

$180,000 x 1.50% Client Advisory Fee x 50% Write off of fee = $1,350 yearly cost

This client will save roughly $60,000 in fees over a ten year period. This will be due to the fact that the portfolio will appreciate over time and the yearly savings will also increase.

This is another “no-brainer” investment decision quite frankly. If you have over $100,000 in your investment portfolio, it’s time to speak to your advisor about fees. They would rather lower their income and keep you as a client then lose you and get NO income… And of course if your advisor can only sell mutual funds, it may be time to look for a full service broker who is authorized to sell everything (mutual funds, stocks, bonds, etc.).

What is a Mutual Fund? A basic understanding…

Posted by Preet on Jul 26, 2007 | 0 comments

I suppose this should be one of the first posts seeing as how most people are invested in mutual funds (and have no idea what they are, what the differences are between them, and what kinds of mutual funds there are out there). It is also of note that many investors might be better off getting out of mutual funds at a certain point… but I’ll get into that in another post!

A mutual fund is a means for small investors to pool their money together (MUTUALLY) with other small investors so that they may hire a Mutual Fund Manager to take the collective funds and create a diversified investment portfolio that is invested on behalf of all the small investors. If Investor A has $1000 of his/her money in the mutual fund and Investor B has $10,000 of his/her money in the mutual fund and the Mutual Fund Manager has guided the portfolio to a 10% return, then Investor A now has an $1,100 stake in the fund and Investor B as an $11,000 stake in the fund.

So you might be wondering who the charitable soul is who has decided to manage this investment portfolio on all these investors’ behalf? Well, don’t you worry! He/She gets paid, and paid well! One of the most oft reported pieces of information on mutual funds in the media is what is known as the MER of the fund.  MER stands for Management Expense Ratio and is in essence how much money is paid to the Mutual Fund manufacturer in order to cover all costs of running the fund.  This includes the pay for the mutual fund manager, his/her research team, support staff, the paper your statements are printed on, the lights and phones in the office, not to mention paying the mortgage on the building and property, advertising the fund, etc. Oh, yeah it also includes the commission your financial advisor may earn for selling the fund to you and maintaining a relationship with you.

The MER is deducted before all performance reporting. So in the example above, if the MER of the mutual fund was 2%, then the mutual fund manager was actually able to generate a 12% return.  Once the 2% MER was deducted, we are left with 10%.

Most people are quite content to pay 2% (and not really noticing it because it doesn’t show up anywhere on their statements) (Then again, most people don’t even know that they are paying it!).  Once you actually break it down for people (and when you are dealing with larger and larger investment portfolios) then they start to pay more attention. For example if someone with a $1 million dollar portfolio is paying a 2.5% MER and there is a similar fund out there with a 1.5% MER, that’s $10,000 being left on the table every year. If we apply the same thought process like we did with the savings account question, multiply that amount by a couple of years and the foregone growth and it quickly become a matter of hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions!

But of course, we have to look at why people would want to use a mutual fund in the first place. Well if you have $1000 dollars to invest, you are not going to get a very diversified portfolio if you try to buy a bunch of stocks individually. The commissions per transaction would eat up a sizeable chunk of your $1000 right off the bat.  You may need to earn a 30% return just to break even!  And if you could do that with confidence I’d be wondering just how it came to be that you only have $1000 to your name!  That is why I kept using the words “small investor” in the beginning of this post. Once you have a larger portfolio (generally speaking, nearing $100,000) you CAN start to create a diversified portfolio without brokerage costs killing you.

The other point to mention is that some people use mutual funds because they want a dedicated team of experts handling their hard earned cash. Remember a mutual fund manager and his/her team works almost ’round the clock and they are immersed in the world of investing and have studied long and hard to get where they are.  So a lot of people who don’t have the time, knowledge or desire to handle their investments will hire a professional to do it for them.

Okay, I think that is probably enough of a primer on mutual funds to get started with.  Let’s let that sink in before getting back into it… because there is a lot more to it, that’s for sure!