It's not ethical for managers to keep getting fees on frozen funds
Is it ethical for fund managers to continue to get management fees on funds that have been frozen?
Sunday, September 11th 2011, 5:14PM 1 Comment
Fund managers should not get paid management fees – or at best should have them severely discounted - for the period the funds are frozen. It is immoral that trapped investors are forced to contribute to the profit of their tormentor, against their will and with no option to get out and prevented from making new investments of their choice. Further, a fee cut would serve as a disincentive for fund managers to get in that position or to keep funds closed. Currently it is quite attractive (especially in a bear market) to close funds indefinitely. This forces investors to withdraw from other liquid investments or when rebalancing, funds have to come from elsewhere. It also retains a handsome profit for incompetence. Maybe a receiver should be appointed to determine if the manager continues? It seems incredible that investors are still trapped after three years in mortgage funds, infrastructure funds and other hedge funds etc, and with no say whatsoever and paying full fees for non-performing investments. Regulators could include in the new legislation that fund managers who fail to provide the liquidity promised should forgo profits. In many cases, when funds are frozen management fees are fixed at the old high levels. That’s not right. Of course the corollary would be that advisers should not assess fees on frozen funds – and certainly not at moratoria value, not that many of those are left. Moratoriums didn’t work did they? The poor suckers who invested then voted for the perpetrators to stay in the existence to manage something they couldn’t manage in the first place - another bite at the cherry.
|« Where are the regulators when you need them?||Where oh where are the KiwiSaver accounts? »|
Comments from our readers
Commenting is closed
|Printable version||Email to a friend|