Ahead of next month's launch, Fidelity International has given more information about how its new ‘fulcrum fee’ model will work.
The idea is that Fidelity’s active funds will have variable management fees from March 2018. A lower base fee combined with a variable management fee that drops if a fund matches or underperforms its benchmark, and rises if a fund beats the benchmark.
By doing this Fidelity say it will be tying its own profits to how its customer’s investments perform – meaning they share the risk with Fidelity earning less in fees if its funds don’t outperform the market.
“The new fee is designed to align the interests of Fidelity and the investors in its funds,” says Tom Stevenson from Fidelity International.
But not everyone's convinced.
The new fees
Fidelity has revealed that it will reduce the base fee on a selection of its funds from 0.75% to 0.65%.
Then, if a fund outperforms its benchmark index by up to 2% over three years, the management fee will rise to a maximum of 0.85%.
But if the fund underperforms the benchmark by up to 2% the fee will fall to a minimum of 0.45%.
The new fees will be charged on 10 of Fidelity’s biggest funds.
- Fidelity Special Situations fund;
- Fidelity European fund;
- Fidelity Asian Dividend fund;
- Fidelity Global Special Situations fund;
- Fidelity American Fund;
- Fidelity Funds America;
- Fidelity Funds Emerging Markets Focus;
- Fidelity Funds European Growth;
- Fidelity Funds European Larger Companies;
- Fidelity Funds World.
Find the best interest rates on cash with loveMONEY
Is it a good idea?
Obviously Fidelity thinks it is a great idea.
“We believe this new fee model allows us to demonstrate our value proposition whilst sharing in the cost during periods of underperformance, which all active managers, even the best, experience from time to time,” says Paras Anand, chief investment officer for Equities Europe at Fidelity International.
But not everyone agrees, with others in the industry pointing out that the charging structure still seems quite expensive.
“Investors choosing active funds expect outperformance from the fixed percentage fees they already pay. No-one wants to invest in an underperforming fund, no matter how cheap it is,” says Laith Khalaf, senior analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown.
“To that end, investors will naturally question why they should pay 0.45% for significant underperformance, when they can pick up an index tracker for as little as 0.06%.
“They will also question why they should pay more for outperformance, when that is what they expect as standard from an active fund manager.”
Adrian Lowcock, investment director at Architas agrees, saying the base fee of 0.65% is expensive.
“The performance fee is charged if the fund outperforms its benchmark over a three-year period. This means investors are effectively paying 0.65% if the manager simply tracks the index. That is expensive when compared to passive funds.”
Muddying the waters
There has also been criticism of the new fee structure for making the charges on actively managed funds even more complicated.
“We appreciate that Fidelity is trying to do something innovative with active funds here, but the major problem with Fidelity’s new fee model is how complicated it makes things for investors trying to choose an active fund,” says Khalaf.
“It will be challenging to compare the potential cost of these new share classes with the current share classes, and indeed with competitor funds charging a more traditional fixed percentage charge.”
It could also lead to people sinking their money into something they don’t fully understand.
“Trying to explain the performance fee to investors will take a lot of time and effort and there is a risk of greater misunderstanding,” says Lowcock.
But it's not just Fidelity that thinks it's doing something innovative and positive. The move has supporters from elsewhere in the industry.
“Fidelity’s performance fees seem to strike a fairer balance between rewarding managers for strong performance, but also protecting the interests of investors if their investments perform badly,” says Patrick Connolly, a certified financial planner at wealth manager Chase de Vere.
What do you think about the move? Fair or too pricey? Have your say using the comments below.