Human fund managers can't afford to rest on their laurels
(Image credit: Andrew Bret Wallis)
The fund industry, despite its seeming simplicity, has never been a low-cost one. And right now, a section of it seems to be getting more expensive than ever. In private equity, what is known as the "carried interest" for the partners in the fund has traditionally been 20%. In simple terms, they get a fifth of any profits the fund makes on its investments. They usually charge 2% of the funds under management as well to cover basic costs. In the last year, however, a group of leading private-equity funds, including big names such as Carlyle and Bain Capital, have raised the share of profits that go to the partners from 20% to 30%.
The hedgies make their move
It is easy enough to understand why they are tempted. After all, there is no easier way to raise profits than to put up prices. A $1bn hedge or private-equity fund has a fixed level of costs to cover staff, administration, marketing and compliance, but it doesn't make much difference to those whetherthe fees are "one and ten" or "four and 40".
But it makes a huge difference to profits. The extra income drops on to the bottom lines.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Customers might even put up with the increase. The funds putting up their fees argue that they are charging a little more for exceptional performance. If you have money in a fund that is regularly delivering 20% or 30% a year, then maybe you don't mind if a third of those profits go to the managers. After all, if you take it out you might end up in a fund that makes only 5%, and that would leave you a lot worse off. And it certainly means they will have plenty of incentive to make a lot of money and you will benefit from that. Even so, it is still a mistake. Why? There are two reasons.
Why funds should be cheaper
Next, artificial intelligence (AI). There are plenty of robo-funds that can pick investments, often just as well as thepin-striped alternative. It might be a while before an AI program can run a private-equity fund. But many hedge funds can be run by computers for virtually nothing.And the more they charge, the more incentive there is for smart entrepreneurs to design AI programs that can replace them.
Funds should therefore be cheaper to run, and savings should be passed on to customers. Indeed, perhaps the reason fees are edging up among established fund managers is precisely because lower-cost rivals are starting to nibble away at their market and so they are charging those customers who remain more. But the more expensive they get, the more space they open up for rivals to undercut them.
The real challenge for the City is to work out how to offer a cheaper, better service, at lower cost. A few hedge and private-equity funds might get away with higher fees for a while, and a tiny handful might have the performance to justify it over the medium term. But for most of them, it will ultimately prove fatal and will simply drive investors to lower cost alternatives.
Sign up for MoneyWeek's newsletters
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
Matthew Lynn is a columnist for Bloomberg, and writes weekly commentary syndicated in papers such as the Daily Telegraph, Die Welt, the Sydney Morning Herald, the South China Morning Post and the Miami Herald. He is also an associate editor of Spectator Business, and a regular contributor to The Spectator. Before that, he worked for the business section of the Sunday Times for ten years.
He has written books on finance and financial topics, including Bust: Greece, The Euro and The Sovereign Debt Crisis and The Long Depression: The Slump of 2008 to 2031. Matthew is also the author of the Death Force series of military thrillers and the founder of Lume Books, an independent publisher.
Revolut launches its first stocks and shares ISA with BlackRock and Vanguard ETFs
What does Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ mean for the US economy?
