Skip to main content
Welcome to
super saver spring
offer ends april 20
save over $140
save over 85%
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks
Welcome to
super saver spring
$0.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

The question of whether to crack down on mutual fund fees is more complicated than it seems.

birdigol/Getty Images/iStockphoto

To angry investor advocates, the question of whether to crack down on mutual fund fees is an open-and-shut case.

Ever since provincial securities regulators started reviewing whether trailing commissions ought to be curtailed, trailer fee opponents have framed this as a simple issue: To them, investors are getting ripped off because retail advisers simply put client money in certain funds that pay them 1 per cent of the invested assets annually, whether those funds are the best value for money or not.

At first, it seemed the regulators felt the same way – hence the thorough review launched in 2012. However, they've since backtracked, opting to take their time to study the issue in more detail.

Story continues below advertisement

Investor advocates don't like hearing this, but it's the truth: The issue is more complicated than it seems.

The problem is that trailer fees are just one item in the investment ecosystem. If the regulators crack down on them, it won't suddenly transform the banks and independent mutual fund companies into clients' guardian angels. And, in one of the worst-case scenarios, a trailer fee ban could persuade brokers to deal only with rich clients.

I touched on some examples of this complexity in my column Tuesday, but there are many more.

Fee-based accounts: If the regulators go so far as to ban commissions such as trailer fees, retail advisers will be pushed toward a fee-based model, where investors pay a fixed percentage of their total assets to their broker each year.

That may seem like a much fairer model, but the problem is that many fee-based advisers won't deal with clients who don't have at least $500,000 in investable assets. Earning $1,000 from a client annually, or 1 per cent of $100,000 worth of investable assets, just isn't worth their time.

If you ban commissions, as Britain has done, it could leave many Canadians hung out to dry – even those with sizable portfolios worth $100,000 to $200,000.

Major changes in the works: Come 2016, investment advisers must disclose how much their clients pay annually in fees and commissions. The financial institutions argue this will be enough to influence investors to seek out the lowest cost advisers.

Story continues below advertisement

Trailers not the only problem: If you think mutual fund fees are bad, you should see how much investment advisers get paid for putting their clients into structured products – often as much as 6 per cent. Broker commissions on share sales are also sizable, often ranging from 1.5 to 2 per cent. Trailer fees, meanwhile, have been coming down over time, especially with the rise of low-cost exchange-traded funds.

I maintain that regulators must be bold, and there's no way they can make everyone happy. But nothing in this industry is cut and dried, no matter how much investor advocates wish it was.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies