10X Investments zero-rates fees on new policies

[BusinessTech]

10X Investments zero-rates fees on new policies

10X Investments has announced that it will be reducing the fees on new investment policies to zero for most of the year.

 

[Kosmik]

TBH I think investment fees are ridiculous. They are playing with your money on the stock market, if they make a loss, you take the knock and they still get fees. Fees should be waived and rather be a cut of returns commision base or some such.

 

[newby_investor]

Well, fees are there because they're performing work for you. I've done the whole thing about trying to buy shares myself, reading companies' financial statements, watching the markets, deciding asset allocation. It's hard work. Even for 10X who mostly follow indexes there is some work that needs doing. So I don't object to the fees as such.

BUT, asset managers in this country have obscenely high fees compared with even active managers in the US and Europe.

 

[bchip]

BUT, asset managers in this country have obscenely high fees compared with even active managers in the US and Europe.

The reason for this is numbers. The number of people who invest in the stock markets is a lot
more, as its both US and foreign investors that invest through US firms.

I.e. its easier to take $1 from a pool of 50 million ppl a year, than here.
Robin Hood (in the US) charges zero fees but makes enough money from advertising
through their app...crazy

Here investing on your own is not that common.
Most people in SA only get exposure through their company's pension fund.
On their own they invest in property and stockvels.

 

[Kosmik]

Well, fees are there because they're performing work for you. I've done the whole thing about trying to buy shares myself, reading companies' financial statements, watching the markets, deciding asset allocation. It's hard work. Even for 10X who mostly follow indexes there is some work that needs doing. So I don't object to the fees as such.

BUT, asset managers in this country have obscenely high fees compared with even active managers in the US and Europe.

I don't disagree that there should be some form of compensation but too many times I see or hear of folks paying a ton of fees which actually reduce their returns even more, especially in a downward economy.

 

[bchip]

Fees should be waived and rather be a cut of returns commision base or some such.

Playing devil's advocate here a bit, considering that asset firms have zero control over the market.
The market moves on events like the US banks lowering and hiking interest rates (yes even the SA markets).
Decisions made by European banks, US banks and Japanese banks.
Currency moves (like we saw with Zuma 3 years ago)...

The equivalent would be to say that your monthly salary is dependent on the sales of Ocean Basket.

I don't disagree that there should be some form of compensation but too many times I see or hear of folks paying a ton of fees which actually reduce their returns even more, especially in a downward economy.

This is because of the economy, not because of the broker.

That's their point of view....I dont really disagree and have been managing my own funds
for years though, as overally I stopped trusting that industry.
I even disagree with their calculations and how their determine if something could potentially be profitable.

However the average person really shouldnt be in charge of their own finances.
Its WAY worse than what the asset funds return.

 

[backstreetboy]

No thanks. Their fund fact sheet state the performance before their fees. Don't trust them.

 

[Kosmik]

Playing devil's advocate here a bit, considering that asset firms have zero control over the market.
The market moves on events like the US banks lowering and hiking interest rates (yes even the SA markets).
Decisions made by European banks, US banks and Japanese banks.
Currency moves (like we saw with Zuma 3 years ago)...

The equivalent would be to say that your monthly salary is dependent on the sales of Ocean Basket.



This is because of the economy, not because of the broker.

That's their point of view....I dont really disagree and have been managing my own funds
for years though, as overally I stopped trusting that industry.
I even disagree with their calculations and how their determine if something could potentially be profitable.

However the average person really shouldnt be in charge of their own finances.
Its WAY worse than what the asset funds return.

The economy argument doesn't always fly as good trading happens even in downward economies. And about the monthly salary comment, hardly, your salary is effectively based on commision, lots of folks are employed in that manner.

We can go round in circles but the truth is that financial fees are too high in this country, regardless of what manner.

 

[bchip]

The economy argument doesn't always fly as good trading happens even in downward economies.

Ok...which shares would you have bought in October 2007 and 1 year later
had to explain to investors.

You also have the requirements that you are only allowed to invest in
- high liquidity shares
- +ve P/E ratios
- in the top 50
- 80% of the cash HAS to be invested locally
- 70% has to be invested in equities, max 15% was allowed in bonds.
- no 1 share may hold more than 5% position
- you need to hold at least 40 shares (to get the Beta rating)
- you are not allowed to go short
- and at that time Resources was all the buzz.

Let me know what strategy you wouldve used, which shares were positive
how you applied this without any hindsight privilege.

The economy argument doesn't always fly as good trading

These are investment firms not trading firms. Huge difference

 

[bchip]

We can go round in circles but the truth is that financial fees are too high in this country, regardless of what manner.

They are high, i dont disagree, but the issue has more to do with the amount of people invested.
Get everyone in the country to buy shares, create better competition, automate some stuff and we all win.
(Not with making it contingent to returns received.)

Truth is the traders in those industries are struggling...10x to lower to free fees is VERY telling of
how the people in that job is suffering...they are not exactly coining it right now.

This is exactly what Michael Jordaan has been trying to do with his fund NMRQL
http://www.fundsdata.co.za/scripts/redirect.aspx?ac=F_FSSummary&tn=3569

As you can see, lower fees but AI choices are still down 8% for the year

 

[Kosmik]

Ok...which shares would you have bought in October 2007 and 1 year later
had to explain to investors.

You also have the requirements that you are only allowed to invest in
- high liquidity shares
- +ve P/E ratios
- in the top 50
- 80% of the cash HAS to be invested locally
- 70% has to be invested in equities, max 15% was allowed in bonds.
- you are not allowed to go short
- and at that time Resources was all the buzz.

Let me know what strategy you wouldve used, which shares were positive
how you applied this without any hindsight privilege.


These are investment firms not trading firms. Huge difference

The strategy is why we pay them but if returns for say a year are below a simple basic interest baring account and there are fees above that, then there is a problem. My retirement as per my company policy is with Alex Forbes but the one year, year on year I only netted 1% according to their growth tool which is ridiculous.

Sad thing is I think the highest I ever netted with them is in the region of 14-16% which was great but that was many years ago and recently I think the returns have been sub inflation. Trying to double check but there website again is a slower than oxen mail.

 

[bchip]

Aaah, Ive managed to circle the problem for you there






My wife was with them (through their company).
I worked out her returns to be around 2% per annum, in the bull years
A quick CAGR calc tells me it shouldve been around 11-14%.

AF is on another level...

 

[supersunbird]

10X employer funds performance after fees:

2013 - 20.4%
2014 - 12.2%
2015 - 8.3%
2016 - 1.4%
2017 - 13.3%
2018 - -5.5% (preliminary, data only up to 21 Dec)

 

[Kosmik]

Aaah, Ive managed to circle the problem for you there

View attachment 598104




My wife was with them (through their company).
I worked out her returns to be around 2% per annum, in the bull years
A quick CAGR calc tells me it shouldve been around 11-14%.

AF is on another level...

View attachment 598106

Lol yes , hence my pain. And as our contributions are matched I can't exactly change the provider