Your Basket
Your Basket
There are no funds in your basket. To add funds to your basket use the Green Plus Icon wherever you see it next to a fund.
Fund name
Aberdeen American Growth  
Fidelity American  
Schroder UK Mid 250  
M&G Recovery  
Jupiter Merlin UK Growth  
Close Basket Open basket

Login

Login

Register

It's look like you're leaving us

What would you like us to do with the funds you've selected

Show me all my options Forget them Save them
Customise this table
 

Dennehy: Multi-asset funds are for “lazy” IFAs

FundExpert’s managing director says it doesn’t take much effort to put together a diversified portfolio of assets without incurring the higher charges associated with this type of fund.

By Alexander Paget, Reporter, FE Trustnet
Thursday July 12, 2012


Multi-asset or "managed" funds are designed for advisers who can't be bothered to construct a balanced and varied portfolio for their clients, according to FundExpert’s Brian Dennehy (pictured)

ALT_TAG The managing director believes investors are better off holding a portfolio of many different types of funds instead of concentrating on just one multi-asset product.

He added that cautious and balanced funds are currently popular due to a reluctance on the part of advisers to create a diverse collection of assets. 

"They are best sellers because advisers can’t or won’t build focused, tailored portfolios – that being so you have to ask where advisers are adding any value," he commented. 

"For a relatively small number of clients a one-fund solution might work – but certainly not in the scale these are sold." 

While cautious and balanced funds are among the most popular with investors, Dennehy believes they should look to diversify their own portfolios. 

"Why buy Jupiter Merlin Income when you could buy Invesco Perpetual Income plus M&G Corporate Bond? Then you can choose the proportions per fund that more accurately reflect your attitude to risk," he said. 

"You also have much greater day-to-day clarity about how the different asset classes are performing, which in turn vastly simplifies the ability to adjust the holdings over time." 

"Not to mention the fact you would save on cost, with the Jupiter fund charging 2.3 per cent."

According to FE data, a 50/50 split between the Invesco Perpetual Income and M&G Corporate Bond funds would have beaten the Jupiter Merlin Income portfolio over one, three, five and 10 years, albeit with slightly more volatility. 

Performance of fund vs portfolio over 10-yrs

Name  1-yr returns (%)  3-yr returns (%)    5-yr returns (%)    10-yr returns (%)   
M&G Corporate Bond + Invesco Perp Income  8.79  47.27  23.1  126.45 
Jupiter Merlin Income   4.1  39.86  22.93  107.89 

Source: FE Analytics

M&G Corporate Bond is already a hugely diversified fund, with more than 800 holdings. Its top-10 instruments only account for 8.66 per cent of assets under management (AUM). 

Dennehy says that even multi-manager funds – which are marketed around their diversity – should be avoided by investors. 

"Managed funds could be multi-asset, funds of funds or multi-manager. From the investor’s point of view, whichever the type, it means lack of visibility and more often than not higher charges," he commented. 

The adviser also warned against paying too much attention to fund labels.

"A cautious label lulls investors into a false sense of security and has more to do with marketing than markets," he explained.

"The IMA’s sector puts emphasis on a fund’s equity exposure, but tells you nothing of risks in non-equity asset classes." 

AWD Chase de Vere’s Patrick Connolly also thinks that multi-asset funds are best-suited to hesitant advisers, although he believes they have a place in some portfolios. 

"I would agree with Brian [Dennehy] in principle, as a diverse portfolio of many funds is a better solution for most," he said.

"Investors should look into more specialist assets such as UK and global equities and certainly avoid the one-size-fits-all mentality." 

"Saying that, managed funds do have a place in two main areas; firstly they are a key choice for investors who do not have enough money to adequately diversify their portfolio."

"Secondly, they are a strong type of all-in-one solution that means investors do not need to monitor and change their holdings all of the time." 

Ben Willis, head of research at Whitechurch Securities, believes there is some truth in Dennehy’s claims, but sympathises with advisers perceived to be "lazy". 

He commented: "There is an argument that managed funds mean other industry professionals are doing the outsourcing for advisers."

"This could be seen as lazy, but advisers have been shoe-horned into backing managed funds due to the amount of time they need to spend on lots of other types of financial services." 

Rob Morgan, investment analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, is a proponent of multi-asset funds and points to the success of a number of managers. 

"Investors can find multi-asset funds with good managers who add value using strong asset allocation. For example Sebastian Lyon who heads up Trojan – a very flexible fund concentrating on gilts, commodities, equities and more."

Although Morgan can see why some people criticise advisers who recommend this type of fund, he believes the pros of this approach outweigh the cons.
 
"At the end of the day, asset allocation is difficult and if you find a manager with a proven track record of successful diverse portfolios, then it is appropriate and useful for both investors and advisers," Morgan said. 

"They also eliminate the gargantuan task of putting together 20 to 30 funds for a client and constantly tracking them," he finished. 



 
Add your comment
Step 1: Tell us what you think...
 

Step 2: Prove you're not a robot...
You don't have to do this every time you submit a comment.

Login or register free and you won't see it again.
Enter the words above:
Step 3: Submit your comment...
Submit
 
Ark Welder Jul 12th, 2012 at 07:51 PM

Someone, somewhere, seems to be confusing 'multi-asset' with 'fund-of-funds'. The latter might be subject to higher overall charges, but that does not dictate that all of the former will be too. Not all multi-asset funds are fund-of-funds.

+++

A reason for buying Jupiter Merlin rather than just IP Income and M&G Corporate Bond is that it provides exposure to far east equities and gold, whereas the other two do not. So there is slightly more to it than just substituting with them instead.

Reply
Theo Jul 12th, 2012 at 05:12 PM

At last some one is talking sense about multi manager funds. I hope the IFAs and fund houses, whose motto is "Catch As Catch Can" do not kill him.

Reply
dlp6666 Jul 12th, 2012 at 04:00 PM

Presumably if you hold a range of differently multi-managed and multi-asset funds, you should be in the safest, balanced position - though admittedly this is not the cheapest or most transparent option.

Reply
Bradley Jones Jul 12th, 2012 at 02:27 PM

Clearly Mr. Denney does not understand one of the key drivers here. IFA's are using these products to manage risk and provide a common investment process accross firms under TCF. The regulators have made it difficult not to make the use of Multi Manager/ Risk Managed Funds.

Reply
Graham Dyckes Jul 12th, 2012 at 02:23 PM

Why doesnt Dennehy understand that Financial Adviser are Holistic financial Planners not fund managers...thats his Job

Reply
 

Back to top of page

 

Follow FE Trustnet

Video Headlines

More Videos

Gray: Market rally has made me more bearish than ever

GMT 15:30 | 30-Apr-2013

From the analyst's desk

GMT 10:00 | 29-Apr-2013

 
Poll

Would you be concerned if a manager of a fund you owned took charge of another portfolio as well?

Yes

No

Vote

 
 
  • Stay connected with FE trustnet
  • Authorised and Regulated by the
    Financial Services Authority
  • © Trustnet Limited 2013. All Rights Reserved.
  • Please read our Terms of Use / Disclaimer
    and Privacy and Cookie Policy.
  • Data supplied in conjunction with Thomson Financial Limited,
    London Stock Exchange Plc, StructuredRetailProducts.com
    and ManorPark.com