Beware this sleight of hand when investing in funds

I wrote here a few months ago about one of the many mini-scandals of the investment industry – the practice of charging the costs of running a fund to its capital rather than to income.  

The point I was trying to make was that the vast majority of the time, a large part of what is paid out to fund investors as income is not income at all. It is simply some of their capital being paid back to them.

This matters for reasons of tax and of transparency, but it also matters because it interrupts the flow of the miracle of compounding. Turn capital into income and you effectively rob yourself of part of your chance to build long term wealth. 

I have talked to Terry Smith of Fundsmith about this issue a few times in the past (it drives him mad) so I am pleased to see that he has now written about it too. A press release arrived from him this week making two excellent points.

The first is that an over-focus on investing in high dividend-yielding stocks is a mistake, for the simple reason that “we know of virtually no business that can grow without reinvestment”. It is therefore vital (assuming you are hoping for long-term dividend and capital growth) to invest in business that both reinvest their cash and generate a high return on that reinvested cash.” Nothing to argue with there.

His next point is exactly the one I tried to make: charging management fees to capital obscures the total return and as such is no more than a “sleight of hand”. Worse, it is one that allows managers to boast about producing high yields while depleting your capital.

Funds, or so Terry believes (as do I) should be investing for total return. And if investors want to withdraw more money from a fund than arrives as income they can do so – simply by withdrawing capital, or in the case of investment trusts, selling a few shares.

Obviously, Terry has a business to promote, so the point of him weighing in on the subject this week is to make us all aware of his new plan – to allow investors to say how much money they would like to withdraw from the fund on regular basis and to pay it to them regardless of whether it is capital or income.

This makes sense for taxpayers (remember, capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income for most of us) and also removes the risk that the managers might be tempted by a “bias towards investing in over distributing businesses.”

This is a neat idea. Terry gets to compete head-on with the big income funds for customers; investors get the “income” they want; and Fundsmith gets to keep its investment philosophy intact. I wonder how long it will be before the other big funds move to get in on the same game.

5 Responses

  1. 10/01/2013, jimtaylor wrote

    Well done Terry Smith.

    Let’s hope this sets a new standard for fund managers.

  2. 10/01/2013, David Hearne wrote

    Two good articles Merryn. I agree that consideration to total return is the most important factor. A lot of these funds, and the advisers who recommend them, are often tapping into a deepset emotion that many people have of a willingness to spend income but never capital.

    It can take time for people to be comfortable with the prospect of withdrawing capital to provide income. With advisers now charging fees for time, there will be many who wont get the advice they need.

  3. 10/01/2013, David Hearne wrote

    With the Retail Distribution Review hopefully removing commission as an issue, there are plenty of other practices out there that need highlighting.

    Portfolio Turnover rate is another one, where trading and Stamp Duty costs impact returns but do not form part of the quoted AMC (Annual Management Charges) or TER (Total Expensue Ration) I know this is another area Terry Smith is also passionate about.

    Another one is the impact of choosing Accumulation or Income units, which many advisers still recommend based on the funds aims not the clients requirements.

  4. 11/01/2013, neil cooper wrote

    Yes, well done (Sir) Terry Smith.
    I invest in fundsmith both privately and also through my company.
    A very good start and although it’s relatively early days, I’m confident fundsmith will only continuously grow in the long run.
    Other fund managers may take note, but they will also need to manage their fund without having Terry Smith’s/ fundsmiths investment nous.

  5. 16/01/2013, Derek S wrote

    returns 4.7% after charges, similar to the figure I could achieve by investing directly in the top 10 funds listed and has delivered 18% growth, far more than the growth of those same top 10 shares.

    Bearing in mind a). Even if the the income was paid out of capital, I’d still be at least 10% better off and b). I do not have the skills to pick other shares to match this growth, is this really such an issue?

Commenting on this article closed

MoneyWeek magazine

Latest issue:

Magazine cover
The future of motoring

Profit as cars get connected

The UK's best-selling financial magazine. Take a FREE trial today.
Claim 4 FREE Issues
Shale gas 'fracking' promises to transform Britain's energy market. Find out what it is, what it means, and how to invest.

More from MoneyWeek

FREE REPORT:
What you should really do with your money (2014 Edition)


How to buy and sell penny shares

A beginner's guide to investing in gold

How to invest in British fracking