if you compare funds that charge performance fees ( Forager, WAM, WAX, Magellan, Platinum etc )
versus the traditional low fee LICs ( AFI, Argo, Milton, BKI ) that don't charge any performance fees, the former outperform the latter by a country mile.
low fees and low performance funds versus higher fees and much higher performance.... I know which I prefer.
don't forget that performance fees are only charged when they OUTPERFORM the index.
many of the low fee traditional LICs have been UNDERperforming the ASX 200 index over the past 1, 3 , 5, 7 and 10 year periods !!
after all fees, here is a comparison as of May 31 of per annum returns ( share price + dividends )
the Forager fund includes figures from their unlisted fund which existed prior to listing on the ASX but run exactly the same way by Steve Johnson
1 yr 3 yr 5 yr 10 yr 15 yrs
AFI 8.5% pa 3.1 6 5% p.a
Argo 7% 3 7.8 4.6 % p.a
Milton 5.8% 4.1 7.6% 5.8% 8.86% p.a
BKI -0.41 0.13 4.8 5.9 8.6 ( 14 yrs )
WAM 10.6% 13 14 13% p.a 17.5% p.a since 1999
Forager 7.31 14.68 15.1 13.76% pa
( since 2009)
XAOAI 10.7% 6.4% 9% 5.1 % 9.46% p.a
( All Ords accumulation index )
as you can see, the traditional low fee LICs have often underperformed the Index.
Milton is still behind the Index over a 15 year period ( unable to find figures for AFI & Argo but expect
very similar ) as is BKI over 14 yr period. really pathetic !!
whereas the newer higher fee funds have delivered great double digit returns over the past 10 years
even after performance fees.
with regard to global funds, Templeton global growth charges no perf fee whereas MFF does.
total returns after all fees
