Stingy Investor Contact - Subscribe - Login
  Home | Articles | Screens | Links | SNW | Rothery Report
 
Rebundling Passive Performance
A second look at the cost equation

Advisors using actively managed funds have taken a beating from index-fund advisors in the popular press over the issue of fees. But the argument for indexing is usually made by relying on raw index returns and usually targets investors who don't want advice. The case for indexing is substantially weaker when all of the costs associated with advice on passive portfolios are added up.

A classic example of using raw index returns comes regularly from the Standard and Poor's Index Versus Active Funds Scorecard For Canadian Funds. The Q4 2007 report said, 'Only 24.3% of active funds outperformed the S&P/TSX Composite Index.' But this performance figure does not include the cost of advice. Nor does it even include the cost associated with buying an index or exchange-traded fund (ETF). As a result, the performance figures are not reflective of the practical experience of Canadian investors.

Similarly, it is important to look at total fee levels when comparing the new breed of index-oriented (or passive) advisors to more traditional commission-based active advisors.

To use a real world example, I decided to explore the fee-structure charged by a well-known passive-investing advocate. He charges an annual fee of 1.4% on assets up to $250,000 and 0.7% on additional assets up to $2 million. The cost of index funds, ETFs, and other investment products is not included and there is an additional $80 commission to buy each ETF or stock.

At 1.4% the annual fee is hefty compared to standard rates of advisor remuneration. Indeed, it represents at least a 40% premium. Because larger portfolios get a discount, the more typical fee level of 1% is hit (not including GST) at just over $583,000. Problem is, advisors work with client portfolios averaging $146,200 according to the 2006 Advisor's Edge Dollars & Sense Survey. As a result, the vast majority of potential clients would pay a big premium.

Some portfolio assumptions are required to determine the total effective MER for passive advice. I decided to add up the total fees on a simple balanced ETF portfolio with 60% in stocks and 40% in bonds. More specifically, the portfolio is composed of 20% iShares TSX Composite (XIC), 20% Vanguard Total Stock Market (VTI), 20% Vanguard All-World ex-US (VEU), and 40% iShares Canadian Bond (XBB). This particular portfolio has a blended annual cost of 0.23%, not including commissions. The all-in cost of passive advice for various portfolio sizes is provided in the accompanying table for two different reinvestment and rebalancing scenarios. The first assumes that trades are made for reinvestment, or top-up rebalancing, every six months. (In this case some distributions are not immediately reinvested, which will lead to tracking error but reduced commission costs.) The second scenario uses quarterly periods and assumes 20 trades are made a year.

Effective MER of Passive Advice
Portfolio SizeSemi-Annual ReinvestmentQuarterly Reinvestment
$100,000 2.50% 3.30%
$150,000 2.24% 2.77%
$200,000 2.10% 2.50%
$250,000 2.02% 2.34%
$300,000 1.85% 2.11%
$350,000 1.72% 1.95%
$400,000 1.63% 1.83%
$450,000 1.56% 1.73%
$500,000 1.50% 1.66%
$550,000 1.45% 1.59%
$600,0001.41%1.54%


I included smaller portfolios in the table but it is important to point out that our passive advisor shuns those with less than $250,000 to invest. I took this liberty because most active advisors work with less wealthy clients.

As the fee figures demonstrate, the value proposition isn't bad for larger portfolios but it really isn't competitive for smaller portfolios. Even at $250,000, a 2.34% effective MER is very similar to the total cost charged by active advisors. I should hasten to add that passive advisors don't have a monopoly on frugality. Solid active portfolios can easily be constructed for less than 2%.

There is of course a big difference between the two approaches.

The passive advisor's portfolio is practically guaranteed to trail the index by the fees charged unless some sort of timing strategy is involved.

But the active advisor's portfolio may well outperform the index before fees and therefore may fare better than the index advisor's portfolio on an after-fee basis.

In both cases, clients get advice but once all of the fees are added up, small active portfolios tend to have the advantage. They cost less, they may outperform, and clients still benefit from advice.

For moderate portfolios the fee difference between advisor-informed active and passive portfolios is marginal.

Those with large portfolios have to ask themselves, how much extra do I want to pay for a chance to outperform the index? I suspect that most clients would be willing to pay more than a few basis points extra to profit from a good portfolio manager.

First published in the June 2008 edition of Advisor's Edge Report.




  MoneySense Articles
 Cdn Top 200 2016
 US Top 500 2016
 Retirement 100: 2015
 Cdn Top 200 2015
 US Top 500 2015
 Retirement 100: 2014
 Cdn Top 200 2014
 US Top 500 2014
 Retirement 100: 2013
 Cdn Top 200 2013
 US Top 500 2013
 Retirement 100: 2012
 Buffett Buys
 FB IPO
 Stocks that pay
 Value in the S&P500
 Cdn Top 200 2012
 US Top 500 2012
 Retirement 100: 2011
 Where to invest $100k
 Where to invest $10k
 Summer Simple Way
 A crystal ball for stocks?
 Cheap & safe
 Risky business
 Cdn Top 200 2011
 US Top 500 2011
 Retirement 100
 Dividend investing
 Value investing
 Momentum investing
 Low P/E P/B
 Dividends
 Dividend growers
 Cdn Top 200 2010
 US Top 500 2010
 Graham's prescription
 Income 100: 2009
 The case for optimism
 Cdn Top 200 2009
 U.S. Top 500 2009
 Wicked investments
 Simply spectacular
 Income 2008
 Small stocks, big profits
 Cdn Top 200 2008
 US Top 500 2008
 Value that sizzles
 So simple it works
 Income 100
 No assembly required
 Investing by the book
 Cdn Top 200 2007
 US Top 500 2007
 Invest like the masters
 A simple way to get rich
 Top Trusts 2006
 Stocks for cannibals
 Car bites dogs
 Cdn Top 200 2006
 US Top 1000 2006
 So easy, so profitable
 Top Trusts 2005
 Dogs of the Dow
 Top 200 2005
 Money for nothing
 Yield of dreams
 Return of the master

MoneySaver Articles
 2 Graham Stocks for 2017
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2016
 5 Graham Stocks for 2016
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2015
 3 Graham Stocks for 2015
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2014
 4 Graham Stocks for 2014
 8 Stingy Stocks for 2013
 6 Graham Stocks for 2013
 9 Stingy Stocks for 2012
 8 Graham Stocks for 2012
 Simple Way 2011
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2011
 7 Graham Stocks for 2011
 Simple Way 2010
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2010
 8 Graham Stocks for 2010
 Simple Way 2009
 Timing Temptation
 19 Stingy Stocks for 2009
 4 Graham Stocks for 2009
 Simple Way 2008
 Active at Passive Prices
 Unbundling ETFs 2008
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2008
 5 Graham Stocks for 2008
 Is your index too active?
 Graham's Simple Way
 Canadian Graham Stocks
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2007
 8 Graham Stocks for 2007
 Top SPPs
 The Simple Way
 A hole in your IPO?
 Monkey Business
 8 Stingy Stocks for 2006
 Graham Stock Gainers
 Blue-Chip Blues
 Are Dividends Safe?
 SPPs for 2005
 Graham's Simplest Way
 Selling Graham Stocks
 RRSP Money Market Funds
 Stingy Stocks for 2005
 High Performance Graham
 Intelligent Indexing
 Unbundling Canadian ETFs
 A history of yield
 A Dynamic Duo
 Canadian Graham Stock
 Dividends at Risk
 Thrifty Value Stocks
 Stocks in Short Supply
 The New Dividend
 Hunting Goodwill
 SPPs for 2003
 RRSP: don't panic
 Desirable Dividends
 Stingy Selections 2003
 10 Graham Picks
 Growth Eh?
 Timing Disaster
 Dangerous Diversification
 The Coffee Can Portfolio
 Down with the dogs
 Stingy Selections
 Frugal Funds
 Graham Revisited
 Just Spend It
 Ticker Temptation
 Stock Mortality
 Focus on Fees
 SPPs for the Long Term
 Seeking Solid Stocks
 Relative Strength
 The VR Approach
 The Irrational Investor
 Value Investing

Globe & Mail Articles
 Indexing advice
 Media-shy stocks
 Curse of size
 Market uncertainty
 Be even lazier
 Scary beats safe
 Small, illiquid, value
 Use the numbers
 What value is good value?
 Sculpt for value
 Value vs CAPE
 Graham Rules
 CAPE vs PeakE
 Top value ratio
 Low Beta
 Value and dividends
 Walter Schloss
 Try unloved AIG
 Why I'm a value investor
 New world of ETFs
 Low P/Es possible
 10 yielders
 Be happier
 Long-Short
 Dividend Downside
 Shiller's P/E
 Copycat investing
 Cashing in on class
 Index roulette
 Theory collides
 Diving too deep
 3 retirement villains
 Scourge of inflation
 Economic omens
 Analyst Expectations
 Value stock scarcity
 It's all in the index
 How to pick good funds
 Low Beta Wins
 Hunt for dividend stocks
 Think garage sale

Advisor's Edge Articles
 Passive Rebundling
 Doing the math

Norm Speaks
Flip Books

Tools:
 Asset Mixer
 Periodic Table
 ETF Fee Calculator



 
About Us | Legal | Contact Us
Disclaimers: Consult with a qualified investment adviser before trading. Past performance is a poor indicator of future performance. The information on this site, and in its related newsletters, is not intended to be, nor does it constitute, financial advice or recommendations. The information on this site is in no way guaranteed for completeness, accuracy or in any other way. More...