Business and operational management insights for
multi-manager investors, clients and service providers
Newsletter 7
Welcome to the August 2009 newsletter! It’s amazing to watch the misinformation and spin from all sides of the superannuation fee debate. The latest target is asset based fees charged by financial planners and investment managers...another distraction. It is the indirect fees and subsidies that warrant primary attention, and almost everyone in the industry is a beneficiary. Perhaps if the industry adopted the concept to “go Dutch”, then we would have far better outcomes for retirees. Read on for a different perspective on the super fee debate.
I hope you enjoy the newsletter, and I look forward to your feedback.
Best regards
Brett Elvish
Financial Viewpoint
04 1317 6164
brett@financialviewpoint.com.au
Super fees debate - time to "go Dutch"
It was fighting over trade routes and political boundaries in the 17th century that produced the English saying to “go Dutch”. At the time it was a derogatory term implying that the Dutch were very tight with their wealth. My son often calls me tight, and yes, in a derogatory way. Today, “go Dutch” has morphed into a socially acceptable term essentially meaning that each party will pay their own way...a concept the superannuation industry could learn a lot from!
In the 21st century, we have our own fight over trade routes (fee flows) and political boundaries (activities). Whilst at times it appears a two way tussle between industry funds and retail funds, there are many interested parties each seeking to protect their interests. Unfortunately the industry has become so incredibly complex and conflicted that most parties are only partially paying their own way and are living off indirect fees and subsidies. This merits significant attention and is a core source of conflict and inefficiency; whereas asset based fees is just a sideshow.
Asset based fees – the latest scapegoat
Asset based fees are the latest target in the emotionally charged superannuation fee debate, with a focus on investment managers and financial planners. In many cases, but not all, these fees are a direct and transparent charge for service, thus are not deserving of the criticism they are attracting. Indirect fees and subsidies are a far more relevant issue, yet let me add some colour to the discussion around asset based fees before moving on.
Many parties, including some that are critical of asset based fees, are themselves charging asset based fees:
- Superannuation funds: Most superannuation funds are “manufacturing” multi-manager products including default funds and charging asset based fees. How about dividing the total dollar cost amongst each of the members equally!
- APRA: Superannuation levies are charged based on asset values
- IFSA & ASFA: Asset values form part of the calculation of industry membership costs
The argument against asset based fees is that the industry prospers at the expense of the consumer by virtue of legislated growth via the superannuation guarantee charge. There is certainly some merit to this point as the consumer often lacks the necessary mathematical and financial literacy. However, at an institutional level there are no such excuses and many critics in this debate also perpetuate the existence of asset based fees.
Be careful what you wish for!
At the core of Australia’s democratic society is an asset based system, the more you earn the more tax you pay. Whilst those paying higher tax on average complain from time to time, they also benefit from the social stability that such a system affords.
Let’s for a moment consider a superannuation industry that was not able to charge asset based fees, with all fees charged on a per member basis and investment managers charging per client. Those with the lowest balances would have their savings immediately eliminated by fees effectively excluding them from having savings for retirement and putting them on welfare. We would also see a rapid consolidation of the industry amongst a small number of large superannuation funds, essentially eliminating competition. In such an environment, industry funds would never have been established! Such outcomes, whilst taking the point to an extreme, are an unhealthy outcome for the retirees and the prosperity of the nation.
Glass houses
Planners seem to be getting the brunt of attention in the fee debate. The good news is that via the FPA and IFSA they are actively making changes to their practices. Perhaps many other parties in the industry should be having a closer look in their own backyards and be taking similar action, rather than concentrating on throwing stones (like I am now!).
If you have just read the list, I have probably alienated every potential client, so hopefully we can stick to the asset based system so that I can have some dignity in retirement.
The common counter-argument is that these costs and conflicts are no different to buying your groceries from a supermarket. We all ultimately pay the cost of advertising and shelf space fees via higher grocery prices. However superannuation is at the heart of our individual and national prosperity, and thus deserves to be thought about in a different way.
The core of the problem is that so many activities and businesses are supported by indirect fees and subsidies. The net result is significant inefficiencies and costs, and enormous tension as the various parties try to preserve the status quo or improve on their position. If all of these indirect fees and subsidies were eliminated, then we could have a far more transparent system and an objective discussion around delivering better financial outcomes for retirees.
Summary Viewpoint
There are many ways to think about the super fee debate, and many counter-arguments that I have conveniently ignored. However, the real message is that if we all paid our own way (“go Dutch”) we would have a more accountable and transparent system. We would have less conflicts and ultimately better retirement outcomes from which we all benefit.
Financial Viewpoint
Financial Viewpoint provides business and operational management advice, research and tools supporting multi-manager investors, clients and service providers, including:
- Strategy and governance advice for funds and businesses, including reviews and opportunity identification
- Advice on management of custodians, transition managers, asset consultants and investment managers
- Tools, systems and research for better management of businesses and funds
Financial Viewpoint quick links...