Investment Association proposals are "incomprehensible" warn critics.
The Investment Association (IA) has outlined new ways to improve how the costs of investments are presented.
It has proposed that fund management and transaction costs should be shown separately, even if they are then totalled into a single figure. The trade body also believes that it is important to keep known costs separate from estimated future costs.
For example, the IA believes that 'implicit' transaction costs and those related to portfolio turnover, such as bid-offer spreads on shares, must not be rolled up with 'explicit' charges, such as broker commissions. Likewise, the IA argues that performance fees and other one-off fees such as entry and exit charges should always be shown separately.
That's why it thinks that charges and explicit transaction costs should be expressed in monetary terms (pounds and pence), while estimates of future costs should be expressed as a percentage of average net asset value (NAV).
Compare stocks and shares ISAs
A single figure for costs is tricky
While there has been some lively debate over the difficulties of an all-in cost figure for investments, IA chief executive Daniel Godfrey claims there has been some "dis-informative and over-emotive hyperbole" surrounding the issue. The investment industry is firmly divided between traditional fund-management groups keen to maintain the status quo and low-cost managers intent on revealing the true - and sometimes shockingly high - costs of investing in funds.
[SPOTLIGHT]Given that there are so many variables to consider, there will never be a single solution that satisfies all parties. The risk is that by setting out each and every charge and transaction cost, too much complexity makes the final figure(s) utterly confusing to consumers.
Incomprehensible
One firm in particular - SCM Private - has taken issue with the IA's ideas. SCM has long campaigned for more transparency on investment costs, and laid into the IA's suggestions, describing the proposed template as "incomprehensible" and accusing the IA of only wanting investors to know what their investments cost after the fact, as by then it's too late.
It also slammed the idea of keeping actual past costs and estimate future costs separate, as the best guide to future costs is what has been paid in the past.
Compare stocks and shares ISAs
An impenetrable forest of fees
As a trade body representing the investment industry, the Investment Association acts for its members, not the public. It's a biased party in this discussion, so its views should be taken with a hefty pinch of salt.
Fund managers have reaped bumper rewards for decades by charging investors fees that are obscure, hidden or simply too high. What is really disturbing is how, for up to 40 years, investment firms have employed techniques to dupe investors into over-paying for fund management. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) requires all communications with private investors to be 'fair, clear and not misleading', but the fund industry has mostly gotten away with murder since the mid-Eighties.
Any concerted effort to improve public understanding and awareness of fund fees is to be welcomed, but it must be driven by regulators and consumer groups, not by fund managers intent on keeping their disproportionate charges firmly under wraps.
Compare stocks and shares ISAs
More on investing:
Many active funds are ripping off investors