Posted inHead To Head

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.
by Rupert Walker

123456

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.

123456

Related Stories

FSA SPY

The FSA Spy market buzz – 24 March 2023

Bitcoin rolling futures, new fund pricing models gather pace, greenbleaching, sustainable bonds (not), thematic investing at the top; consultant jokes, Munger’s wisdom and much more.

Part of Mark Allen.