MM Intelligence: Investment trusts

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by

The investment case for the closed-ended vehicles had always been strong, with regular research showing investment trusts outperforming their open-ended unit trust counterparts. But equally, advisers had always shunned them, often citing a number of technical reasons but rarely mentioning the increasingly elephantine issue of their lack of commission.

In this, the first of what we hope to make a regular series, Money Management examines adviser attitudes toward investment trusts to see whether there has been any shift. We wanted to find out what was driving any change in attitude or, if there was no change, what was holding it back.

We emailed subscribers with a link to a very brief questionnaire. Anonymous responses gave us an overview of attitudes towards investment companies, their accessibility, simplicity, consumer understanding and so on.

Charts 1-3 show the results. The first question, illustrated in Chart 1, asked simply what percentage of each adviser’s investment business was currently constituted of investment trusts. The spread was, perhaps not surprisingly, weighted towards the lower end, with the overwhelming majority saying they accounted for less than 20 per cent. One in 10 did estimate the total at more than 40 per cent, though, which seems high.

These numbers are largely meaningless without the context provided by our second question though, which asked how the volume of investment trust business has changed since the RDR’s implementation.

Chart 2 shows positive figures which, while not an overwhelming endorsement, are more in line with the pre-RDR forecasts. A handful of advisers had seen a decrease but about 45 per cent in total had seen either a slight or significant increase.

When asked whether they anticipated a further rise or fall over the coming year (Chart 3), the split was roughly the same although there was a noticeable convergence towards the middle. Again a handful - about 8 per cent in total – predict a continued drop, but the majority of these foresaw only a slight fall.

Similarly the number that predicted an increase mirrored the 45 per cent that reported seeing a rise already, but where the reported rises were almost as likely to be “significant” as “slight”, predictions for the future were much more likely to be modest.

When addressing adviser understanding of the vehicles, the numbers were mostly positive. Exactly half of advisers described themselves as “reasonably confident”, while more than a quarter (28 per cent) were “extremely confident” in advising on investment trusts.

That 9 per cent said they were “not at all confident” should cause some concern. It is a small but not insignificant proportion.

For context, we also asked whether respondents felt more or less confident than at this time last year. Almost two thirds reported no change and the majority of the remainder – 22 per cent – were slightly more confident. There was 2 per cent that said that they were “much less confident”. Possibly they have been overwhelmed and intimidated by an increased coverage of the products and only just become aware of how little they know.

Having gauged numbers regarding advisers’ use of investment trusts and confidence in doing so, we turned our attention to the given reasons behind activity – or inactivity – in the market, shown in Charts 4-5. The open question of what advisers saw as the issues with investment trusts is illustrated in Chart 4.

Perhaps predictably, gearing, liquidity and availability through platforms were the most common answers. There is an argument that this unholy trinity have always been wheeled out by advisers who would not admit to the real reason for shunning the products – the lack of commission. A cynic might suggest these intermediaries are just struggling to break the habits formed under the old regime. In fairness, issues with transparency, client understanding and performance fees all got mentions too.

Some of the most interesting responses came from the ‘Other, please specify’ box that we made available for this question. Lack of FSCS protection was cited more than once, while one respondent saw the need for a good stockbroker as a potential barrier: “The need to appoint a stockbroker with good investment trust research capability on a limited mandate to manage holdings within asset allocations determined by us. This is necessary to maintain our independent status and not become accidentally restricted because we cannot conduct genuine whole of market research economically.”

Another reply said the involvement of a stockbroker made what should be simple transactions unnecessarily complex. Citing an example where she had wanted to transfer one client’s funds between two investment trusts, both held with Henderson, one adviser said on contacting the firm she was told the transfer would require a stockbroker. This related to a holding of about £15,000 and for this, not untypical amount, “the costs outweigh the advantages of staying in investment trusts”.

The same adviser also raised the vehicles’ comparatively high risk rating which, she said, “kicks them out of the playing field for many.”

We asked what had driven use of the vehicles, and the answers are shown in Chart 5. The most popular of our given answers, just, was a belief that the products would provide the best returns. Only 21 per cent said they had increased use of investment trusts purely for compliance reasons.

Again some of the open responses were interesting. One mentioned an increased availability on platforms, news of which clearly hadn’t filtered through to the respondents in Chart 4.

Finally we asked, perhaps optimistically, whether clients had become more or less likely to ask about investment trusts. The responses leaned slightly towards ‘more likely’ but a huge majority of 84 per cent reported no difference.

Thank you to all who took the time to complete the survey.

For further information, read the AIC’s response to the MM Intelligence survey.