Investors Paid Lower Fund Expenses Than Ever in 2015

The decline was primarily driven by asset flows into lower-priced vehicles, Morningstar says.

On average, U.S. investors paid lower fund expenses in 2015 than ever before, as assets continue to flow into lower-cost index mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and institutional share classes, Morningstar reports.

The asset-weighted average net expense ratio of all U.S. funds was 0.61% in 2015, down from 0.64% in 2014 and 0.73% five years ago. The decline was primarily driven by asset flows into lower-priced vehicles—namely, passive funds and less-expensive share classes—and not by fee cuts in the asset management industry, Morningstar notes. From 2013 to 2015, the simple-average expense ratio of the largest 1,000 share classes, which accounts for 75% of assets in mutual funds and ETFs, remained 0.64%.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

The least-expensive funds—those with fees that fall in the lowest quintile—collected $1.7 trillion in flows during the past five years, while the remaining funds have seen outflows of $372 billion. On average, passive funds, including index funds and ETFs, accounted for approximately 75% of flows into the least-expensive funds in that time period.

In 2015, the asset-weighted expense ratio was 0.18% for passive funds, compared with 0.78% for active funds, a difference of 60 basis points. With such a large fee gap, rising flows into passive funds contributed to falling asset-weighted average expense ratios.

Although active funds outnumber passive funds eight to one, passive funds gathered $576 billion more in assets than active funds in 2015. That represents a sharp increase from 2011, when passive funds took in $140 billion more than active funds.

The largest flows to passive funds—and out of active funds—occurred in the Morningstar U.S. equity category group, where passive funds experienced $471 billion of inflows and active funds saw $572 billion of outflows during the past five years. The 67-basis-point fee gap between U.S. equity active funds and passive funds is the largest among the seven major asset class groups.

“Fees in the asset management industry are coming under increasing scrutiny, and this trend has driven investment dollars into lower-cost funds, particularly index funds,” says Patricia Oey, senior manager research analyst for Morningstar. “While certainly a positive trend, it’s worth remembering that fund expenses are not the whole story, as investors often pay additional fees on retirement platforms and for advice.”

Not-for-Profit/Governmental DC Market an Opportunity for Advisers

Nearly two-thirds of 403(b) plan sponsors engage an adviser or consultant, and survey results suggest that this number could be on the rise, a Cerulli report says.

The U.S. not-for-profit (NFP) and governmental defined contribution (DC) market is a strong source of future asset and revenue growth, according to new research from global analytics firm Cerulli Associates.

The not-for-profit (NFP)/governmental defined contribution (DC) segment represents approximately 8% of the total U.S. retirement market. This sector includes the Federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), 403(b), 457, and 401(a) markets. Total NFP/governmental DC plan assets are expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7% to reach $2.4 trillion by 2020.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

Nearly two-thirds of 403(b) plan sponsors engage an adviser or consultant, and survey results suggest that this number could be on the rise, according to the report, “U.S. Not-For-Profit & Governmental Defined Contribution Plans 2016: Addressing the 403(b), 457, and 401(a) Markets.” In the $25 million to $99 million and $100 million and greater plan asset segments, some plan sponsors intend to hire an adviser or consultant in the next 12 months. Cerulli recommends that advisers and consultants hoping to serve this market be prepared to demonstrate 403(b) plan-specific knowledge and not-for-profit expertise.

The 403(b) market is highly diverse and cannot be accurately portrayed in monolithic terms, Cerulli notes. Distribution, client service, and marketing strategies should be deliberately crafted on a segment-by-segment basis (i.e., Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)-covered 403(b) plans versus non-ERISA-covered 403(b) plans, private versus public organizations), and also by sector—health care, higher education, and K-12 schools. Success and credibility in the 403(b) market requires a thorough understanding of each segment’s defining characteristics.

The multi-vendor environment of the 403(b) market introduces many of the complications that make it such a distinct opportunity from corporate DC. In a 2016 Cerulli survey of 403(b) plan sponsors, more than half of respondents cite participants’ preference for having a choice among vendors as the primary reason for the arrangement. This concept of choice and degree of choice available to participants emerges as a divisive topic in the 403(b) market.

Cerulli is most bullish on the health care sector and higher education sector of the 403(b) market in terms of potential for asset growth and as sources of new business within the DC market. Conversely, given its multi-vendor structure and many idiosyncrasies, Cerulli believes the K-12 schools sector presents the greatest barriers to entry for providers and asset managers that do not currently participate in it and would require a significant upfront investment to pursue as a source of new business.

NEXT: The 457 and 401(a) plans market

The 457 plan market divides into two primary categories: governmental 457(b) plans and non-governmental 457(b) and 457(f) plans. The governmental 457(b) market is the larger of the two as these plans are often associated with states or municipalities and sometimes function as an employee’s primary retirement savings vehicle. Acting as a provider for a state-sponsored 457 plan presents a significant asset-gathering opportunity, but the market is both competitive and complex. Operational requirements can be challenging, particularly as each state has different statutes that need to be followed, making a scalable approach difficult to achieve.

The 401(a) plan, also termed “401(a) money purchase plan,” may combine employer and employee contributions based on a set formula by the employer. Government organizations are primary users of the 401(a) plan type, which is typically offered as one of the employee’s mandatory retirement savings plan options (e.g., participate in the 401(a) or DB plan). A 401(a) plan is typically supplemented with optional retirement plans such as a 457 or 403(b) plan (depending on participant eligibility). Experience with this plan type is key to winning new governmental 401(a) plans.

More information about how to purchase Cerulli reports is here.

«