Wealth Management
New York)
Fidelity made history this week by introducing the first zero fee funds, which will track very broad self-indexed markets. Fidelity’s move is somewhat of a ploy, and definitely a demonstration of scale, as the company has many ways to profit from a customer once it has them in the door. But don’t be fooled, as fees aren’t everything. In fact, there are significant differences in performance even between index trackers of the same benchmark, like the S&P 500, and the differences between them can add up to a whole lot more than the difference in fees. For instance, Schwab and Vanguard already have broad index trackers at 3 and 6 basis points of fees, so hardly a big difference to zero, especially if their performance is better.
FINSUM: “Zero” definitely changes things, but once you are in the sub-15 bp fee category, performance is going to make a bigger difference than fees.
(Boston)
The moment that many asset managers have been dreading has finally arrived. Fidelity announced yesterday that it was slashing prices on many of its funds, and crucially, offering two new index mutual funds with no fees and no minimums. Thus, the Rubicon has finally been crossed—the first broad index funds with zero fees, and no minimums. Many top asset management stocks fell considerably on the news. Remember that asset managers can still make money on funds with zero fees—through stock lending—but they need considerable scale to make that money meaningful.
FINSUM: It was only a matter of time before this happened. We expect Vanguard will follow suit quite soon, as will BlackRock, as lower fees have been by far the biggest selling point in the market for years.
(Washington)
There is a lot of excitement right now about the possibility of the new capital gains tax cut. The Treasury is looking into whether to effectively cut the capital gains tax rate by allowing investors to account for inflation when reporting their gains. The cut is estimated to amount to $100 bn over the next decade. However, the Treasury is uncertain if it has the authority to make the cuts on its own, a move it would undertake by simply redefining the meaning of “cost”.
FINSUM: So evidently the first Bush administration looked into this in the early 90s and decided that the Treasury did not have the legal authority to make this change on its own.
More...
(Washington)
The US broker community is currently growing increasingly concerned about the SEC’s new “Regulation Best Interest”. On top of anger over the rules governing the use of titles, brokers have become increasingly worried about a part of the SEC rule which essentially mirrors the DOL’s best interest contract exemption (BICE). The problem is that there are rules governing conflicts of interest that are very similar to the DOL’s, such as brokers having to take steps to resolve conflicts, and minimize compensation incentives for certain products. According to one lawyer representing brokerages, “We believe the commission should replace the DOL rule-based preamble provisions on mitigation and elimination of conflicts with a simple principles-based statement”.
FINSUM: When the rule was first debuted, the general industry reaction was positive. However, the more everyone has dug into it, the more stringent the opposition has become.
(New York)
Anyone who owns or works for an RIA will probably be aware of the huge boom in M&A in the sector. There seem to be many willing buyers of RIAs at the moment and the acquisition terms for such deals have been getting increasingly sweet. However, within the apparent euphoria, make sure you don’t make a bad decision. For instance, some RIAs might be seeing offers with good valuations, but all in stock of the buyer. There have been a lot of unsolicited purchase offers, which may characterize “an unsophisticated, stupid buyer who is just trying to grab assets”, according to on managing partner at an RIA speaking at a Pershing industry conference. RIAs need to beware because “[Buyers] aren’t just overpaying but may also overpromise and not be able to deliver”.
FINSUM: We suppose the old mantra is best here— if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
(New York)
Ever since the Republican tax package was passed, along with its limitation on SALT deductions, there has been a lot of speculation that there might be a mass exodus of wealthy northeasterners to no-tax states like Florida. However, in practice that does not seem to be materializing. Financial advisors in New York and California say many clients are considering relocating, but in reality few are. A quote from Bloomberg explains why: “Wealth managers and tax lawyers say many of their (New York) clients are staying put after hearing about the scrupulous records they would have to keep to show they’ve really uprooted their lives and severed ties with their former states … and that it’s not as easy as just spending a few more days a month in a Florida vacation home”.
FINSUM: It is a very big lifestyle change to uproot one’s life in your 50s and 60s and move thousands of miles away purely for financial reasons. We suspect that there will only be a trickle here rather than a flood.