The FSA Spy market buzz – 19 April 2024
Doom and gloom on China, Peaks and troughs from First Sentier, Ninety-One looks at failure, Lombard Odier’s good news, Corporate jargon hell, Visit cheap Japan and much more.
HEAD-TO-HEAD: Jupiter versus Pimco
FSA compares two global fixed income funds: the Jupiter Dynamic Bond Fund and the Pimco GIS Total Return Bond Fund.
Fees
“Both funds’ fees are probably higher than they should be,” said Poole.
Jupiter charges 1.45% and Pimco’s fees are a little less at 1.4% – which is actually in line with the median rate ongoing charges figure (OCF) for Hong Kong and Singapore-authorised US dollar fixed income funds (the Pimco fund’s sector) but above the 1.1% median for global fixed income funds (the Jupiter fund’s sector).
There are many funds in both sectors with OCF’s of less than 1%, and few funds of similar size that charge such high fees.
Poole believes that more asset management firms will eventually have to cut their charges to the relatively low levels charged by European and especially US distributed funds, as competition increases and the fee disparities between Asia and other fund centres gain more critical attention.
“Investors seem prepared to pay Jupiter and Pimco for their expertise and experience for now, but fees in general will be lower in time,” he said.
Related Stories
Promoted Content
-
Thematic investment series: Innovative transformation cuts across “old” and “new” economy companies
-
M&G Episode Macro shines after tough year
-
Dynamism is the name of the game for this global macro strategy
-
The year of living dangerously for income investors
-
Driving decarbonisation: how to access new forms of alpha
-
Nuveen broadens income sources via private capital and real assets
-
Your Questions Answered by Federated Hermes Impact Opportunities
-
China’s post-pandemic growth gathers pace
-
Ninety One: Finding opportunities in times of change
-
How ETFs offer an active way to drive sustainable returns
