Funds-of-funds carry higher expense ratios due to their layered fee structure. Investors pay their own management fees plus those of the underlying funds held. This model deserves examination to determine if funds-of-funds warrant the costs through sufficient added value. Assessing their pros, cons, and investor objectives provides perspective on whether their fees-on-fees are justified.
Fund of funds explained offer built-in diversification by investing in a basket of specialized funds. The fund manager allocates across a spectrum like stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. This diversified exposure may benefit investors unwilling or unable to research and assemble their own optimized portfolio. Funds-of-funds offer a pre-packaged, professionally managed mixed-asset solution.
Access To Top Fund Managers
Skilled funds-of-funds managers possess research capabilities individual investors likely lack. They can identify elite hedge funds, mutual funds, and other niche investment vehicles delivering top performance. The fund-of-fund then purchases shares of those hand-picked funds on the investors’ behalf. This provides access to top fund managers’ expertise that investors may be unable to tap directly.
Active Asset Management
Rather than passively sticking to a fixed allocation, funds-of-fund managers actively shift the fund’s holdings based on opportunities. When specific categories or funds outperform, they overweight them to capture gains. Conversely, laggards get underweighted. Actively reallocating and rebalancing across the diverse holdings aims to optimize returns. This tactically managed approach attempts to boost performance.
However, funds-of-funds also carry risks and limitations. The extra layer of fees charged reduces net returns. Performance chasing by managers may add costs without benefits if trades are ill-timed or unfocused. Diversification may dampen, not enhance, returns if fragmented too thinly. Indexing may achieve better results for some investors. The pros may not outweigh the cons.
Higher Overall Costs
The fees-on-fees structure of funds-of-funds inherently comes with higher expenses. The fund manager charges their fee, often 1-2%. The underlying funds held each carry their own expense ratios too, averaging another 1-3%. That results in total annual costs of 2-5% versus just 0.5-1% for an index fund. Excessive fees majorly eat into long-term compounded gains.
Questionable Added Value
Given the availability of diverse yet inexpensive index funds and ETFs, funds-of-funds offer debatable value. Passive asset allocation in a single fund can provide instant diversification for just 0.1-0.3% fees. Similarly, target date funds automatically adjust allocations over time. Do funds-of-funds managers have sufficient expertise to justify far higher costs? The incremental benefits may not warrant the added expenses.
Funds-of-funds tend to realize capital gains more frequently as holdings are rebalanced. This increases an investor’s tax liability compared to a more passively managed fund. Their turnover results in greater taxable distributions. While this impact varies by account type, it detracts from net after-tax returns. For taxable accounts, the tax costs magnify the expense ratio costs.
When Funds-of-Funds Excel
Despite drawbacks, funds-of-funds remain appropriate for some investors. Those with minimal time, confidence, or expertise to research multiple funds benefit from delegating that asset management. Investors who want active oversight rather than passive indexing may find value in their tactical trading. Also, retirement accounts shield funds-of-funds from tax inefficiencies.
Assessing Priorities And Options
Ultimately, determining if their benefits warrant the fees-on-fees requires assessing priorities. Weigh the need for diversification, manager access, active management, convenience, and personalized advice against taxes and costs. Compare to options like target date funds. Analyze whether a fund-of-funds structure and strategic expertise align with your investing situation and goals.