We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Investment Managers performance bonus

I have a holding in a large investemnt trust where the managers get a performance related fee if they better a laid down yardstick.
If they under perform they do not suffer any deduction. This one sided arrangement seems to cut across present bonus thinking. Should this be a matter for the FSA to consider?
Some investment trust mangaers have a rolling system where the bonuses are carried forward and negative years are charged. Should this not be the system for all such arrangements?
«1

Comments

  • RayWolfe
    RayWolfe Posts: 3,045 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Lots of investment managers do the same. I understand the practice is growing. It stinks. I refuse to invest in any UT or IT that does it. Vote with your feet.
  • purch
    purch Posts: 9,865 Forumite
    Vote with your feet

    Yes.

    Coming to a (hopefully) informed decision to Invest in a particular Fund or Trust, and then complaining about the AMC afterwards is pointless.

    If you don't agree with the system, don't invest in the product.
    'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'
  • I have 2 funds with a performance related bonus if they exceed expectations or "high water mark" as they call it Im delighted .
    It gives the managers an incentive to put the extra effort in to achieve there bonus.

    To be honest I am more than happy to pay it .
    I think it 20 percent on top which means I get to keep the extra 80 percent performance.....simples
  • I have 2 funds with a performance related bonus if they exceed expectations or "high water mark" as they call it Im delighted .
    It gives the managers an incentive to put the extra effort in to achieve there bonus.

    To be honest I am more than happy to pay it .
    I think it 20 percent on top which means I get to keep the extra 80 percent performance.....simples

    We know MPs and bankers are dishonest. If the fund managers know that they are having a bad year why not make it a worse year. After all it costs them nothing and leads to a bigger bonus next year should things pick up.
  • If they underperform the market then less people will join the fund and more people are likely to take there business elswhere
  • purch wrote: »
    Yes.

    Coming to a (hopefully) informed decision to Invest in a particular Fund or Trust, and then complaining about the AMC afterwards is pointless.

    If you don't agree with the system, don't invest in the product.


    If you do not agree with the system get it changed!
    Banker's bonuses are under the microscope and fund managers on a heads I win tails I do not lose bonus should be similarly sorted out.
  • purch wrote: »
    Yes.

    Coming to a (hopefully) informed decision to Invest in a particular Fund or Trust, and then complaining about the AMC afterwards is pointless.

    If you don't agree with the system, don't invest in the product.

    No get the system changed! Bankers bonuses are under review and similarly invetment mangers on a heads I win tails I do not lose agreement should come under the same scrutiny by the FSA
  • purch
    purch Posts: 9,865 Forumite
    If you do not agree with the system get it changed!

    It's not a system.

    It's a product, that you chose to purchase.

    If you don't like the way the Fund Manager is renumerated, don't buy the Fund.

    Moaning about it after the fact, does you no favours.

    Yes, it's a stupid and unfair way to renumerate the Manager, which is why you would be stupid to go along with it by buying the product.

    No one makes you.
    'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'
  • As long as the fund manager is outperforming the top of the market not just the average then I am happy to pay 20 percent over and above the ordinary rate.

    If you dont like the fund then there are plenty other underperforming funds that will gladly take your business but you wont make as much money

    Its a no brainer
  • purch wrote: »
    It's not a system.

    It's a product, that you chose to purchase.

    If you don't like the way the Fund Manager is renumerated, don't buy the Fund.

    Moaning about it after the fact, does you no favours.

    Yes, it's a stupid and unfair way to renumerate the Manager, which is why you would be stupid to go along with it by buying the product.

    No one makes you.
    Read the original posting . I was talking about the system. It was you who raised the question of a product.
    Charm will get you everywhere!
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.3K Life & Family
  • 258.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.