Are multi-manager funds worth the cost?

9 February 2011

Should you pay Michelin-starred prices for greasy-spoon style returns? Of course not - but that's what thousands of investors routinely do by choosing from a menu of mediocre funds of funds.

These investments appeal to investors who are looking for a one-stop-shop approach. Through funds of funds, investors can diversify their portfolio in relation both to asset allocation and to actual fund selection.

Investors expect their manager to apply their skills, not just to pick the best sub-funds, but to switch them around if a market or asset class turns sour.


There are several advantages to this strategy. First of all, if you are a smaller investor, it allows you to buy into a variety of areas with less initial capital than if you were to mirror a similar portfolio with your own choice of funds. And it can also give you access to funds that are normally only open to institutional investors.

There are two main types of these funds of funds. With 'manager of manager' funds, the 'lead' fund manager appoints external managers to invest tranches of money in certain sectors, funds or regions - and can dismiss them if their performance is not up to scratch.

However, the more common style open to private investors is the fund of funds, also known as a multi-manager fund.

The big disadvantage of these funds is cost. A double layer of charges applies, which over the long term can eat into returns by up to a third. Investors pay the management charges on their chosen fund but also pay charges on the underlying funds chosen by their manager, which inevitably act as a drag on performance.

In the relegation zone

The performance record of multi-manager funds has, therefore, been mixed, with poorly performing multi-manager funds accounting for one in three of those highlighted in the Relegation Zone report published in October 2010 by London-based independent financial adviser Chelsea Financial Services.

Chelsea compiles its annual hit-list of funds that it believes deserve to be junked by looking at consistently poor performers. The firm defines these as funds that languish in the third or fourth quartile each year for three consecutive years.

Of the 85 underperforming funds highlighted this time round, 24 were multi-manager funds - several from big-name players including Scottish Widows Investment Partnership's £1.1 billion UK Multi-Manager Equity Income fund.

For more on muliti-manager funds read: Do multi-manager funds live up to their claims?

Despite the disappointing performance of many funds of funds, investors are gobbling them up by the platter-load. Over £53.6 billion is now invested, compared with £35 billion three years ago. About £6.6 billion poured into these investments in the year to October 2010, out of a total of £24 billion for all retail fund purchases, according to the Investment Management Association.

Darius McDermott, managing director of Chelsea Financial Services, believes a key trigger for the recent boom is the Retail Distribution Review, which means that by the end of 2012, independent financial advisers must carry out full research for their clients.

McDermott says: "With so much on their plate, many IFAs who may also be advising on insurance or mortgages are choosing to outsource the investment decisions by picking multi-manager funds."

Decision making

Another factor in their rise is that many IFAs are now using these funds to delegate responsibility for investment decisions, after clients blamed them for choosing investment disaster areas such as technology in the past.

Justin Modray, who runs the consumer finance website Candid Money, says: "Funds of funds can make sense for smaller portfolios as they provide a level of diversity and active management which may otherwise not be practical.

"However, they're expensive and often used as a cop-out by financial advisers, who receive the same commission for doing less work than is involved in building a portfolio of conventional funds."

Modray warns investors to be diligent: "If you do opt for a fund of funds then ensure you're getting a diverse spread of investments, which should help provide more consistent investment returns and go some way towards justifying the steep overall charges."

What to look out for...

Investors need to look beyond the quoted annual management charge to find the total annual charges - the total expense ratio (TER) - that will dent their returns. The average TER on a multi-manager fund is 2.14%, according to fund research group Morningstar, compared with 1.5 to 1.8% for single manager funds.

Without charges, and assuming growth of 7% a year, £1,000 invested would grow to £1,403 over five years, £1,967 over 10 years and £2,759 over 15 years, says Modray. Throw in a 2.14% TER, and those returns fall to £1,268 after five years (10% reduction), £1,607 after 10 years (18% less) and £2,038 after 15 years (26% less).

But watch out, some multi-manager funds make even heftier charges of nearer 3%. Gartmore Multi-Manager, for example, has a TER of 2.9%, and Henderson Multi-Manager, 2.73%. With a 2.9% TER, Modray calculates that £1,000 invested would return £1,223 over five years (13% reduction), £1,495 over 10 years (24% less) and £1,827 over 15 years (34% less).

Some advisers believe that a relatively high TER is tolerable as long as the performance is top-class.

Why are they so popular?

Witcombe believes big-budget billboard advertising is partly responsible for the rush to buy these funds, plus the message that they can be a solution for those nervous about risk and volatility.

"Multi-managers say they will pick out the best funds in the UK or US, for example, and put them together for investors," he says.

"But you're increasing costs, and the more funds you have, the more you are diluting that actively managed message. A lot are just creating closet trackers. You might as well buy a tracker at a lower price and then a single-manager fund for a bit of spice. In effect, build your own multi-manager fund."

Tim Cockerill, head of collectives research at wealth manager Ashcourt Rowan Asset Management, says that the high cost of multi-managers can be most painful for the cautious investor. "You have to put the charges in the context of performance. The growth potential for cautious managed funds is less, so higher charges will have more impact."

Cockerill warns investors not to be complacent, especially now there are around 200 multi-manager funds available. "They have mushroomed in the last few years, and that's removed one of their original attractions - less need to make decisions. Now that investors can pick from scores of funds, they should be checking what the underlying funds are invested in."

Yearsley adds that certain funds are simply not appropriate: "I don't see the point of European ones or US or Far Eastern ones. You might as well buy a single-manager fund. Global multi-managers certainly make more sense."

Be your own multi-manager

Why not put together your own multi-manager portfolio? Martin Bamford, IFA at Informed Choice in Cranleigh, Surrey, says: "It depends on your attitude to risk, but as a rule of thumb you should invest the same percentage in bonds or gilts as your age. So if you're 40, then 40% should be in this asset class." The rest can be spread across equities and other assets.

The simplest and cheapest route into an asset class is through a relevant low-cost index tracker or exchange-traded fund. Trackers can cost as little as 0.25% a year in management charges but there will be platform fees on top.

Make sure you buy funds through a funds supermarket rather than direct from the fund manager to avoid the 5% initial fund charge.

One strategy worth considering, says Cockerill, is the "cheeky approach of replicating the funds held by a multi-manager you like the look of, such as Jupiter. But you need to keep a look out for any changes to the portfolio."

Another option for cheap diversification is investment trusts. These are companies that invest in the shares of other companies. Cockerill says: "They have their own risks, but you're getting global diversification at a lower cost.

"Baillie Gifford's Scottish Mortgage IT has a total expense ratio of 0.56%, while the Monks IT charges are 0.64%. Over five years, Scottish Mortgage has risen 54%, while Jupiter Merlin Growth Portfolio multi-manager is up 39%, although Jupiter's fund is less volatile."

Brian Roe, 70, from Oxfordshire, chose to focus on investment trusts to create his own diversified portfolio. The former Xerox executive prefers to make his own decisions, after paying through the nose when he invested in funds through an IFA.

"I've yet to be convinced that financial advice is worth the cost," he says. He chose investment trusts which are closed-ended because the charges are so much lower than for open-ended funds, especially multi-manager funds.

"I like investment trusts because they are lower-cost and offer a good investment spread," he adds.

"My wife and I have Scottish Mortgage and Witan, and my pension is with F&C. They are global and highly diversified."

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

The "rule of thumb" about keeping your age as a proportion of your portfolio in bonds/gilts is ludicrous. At 40 you still have 40 years to live on average. Why would you accept a low return for such a long time on such a significant part of your portfolio? Invest for the long term in quality companies, focussing on total return rather than either yield or growth. Accept stocks will fall substantially every now and again. And no, multi-manager funds are NOT worth the extra expense, regardless of excellent short term performance. Over the long term your returns are vastly eroded.

Add new comment