Fund Benchmarking Proposals Set Tongues Wagging

August 02, 2023
  • Investor Services
The EU Commission’s Retail Investment Strategy is a behemoth set of policy revisions to revise and revamp EU regulated investment funds. However, one specific proposal has attracted vast industry commentary.

The Challenge

The European Commission launched the EU Retail Investment Strategy (RIS)1 to increase the protection and participation of retail investors in the capital markets across Europe.

Despite being considered relatively “well-off” by global standards, EU citizens do not invest in securities markets to any great extent for reasons that include the market dominance of banks and the absence of an investment culture and mindset. Some EU statistical data provide stark examples:

  • Only 17% of EU household assets were held in financial securities in 20212
  • On average, EU retail investors pay 40% more than institutions to invest3
  • 45% of EU investors are not confident that the investment advice they receive from their financial advisors is in their best interest4

The Solution

The EU RIS proposes material changes to the foundational regulations such as:

  • The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II)
  • The Undertaking for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS)
  • The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD)5        
  • A fundamental revamp of packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) 

So, it’s a big deal for regulated EU funds overall. The package of proposals considers crucial items such as inducement rules, best interest tests, and revised client categorization definitions.

While there has been overall industry support for EU RIS, cost benchmarks and a narrowly defined “value for money” proposal have caught the attention of the asset management community more than any other topic. Industry believes this disproportionately homes in on costs/price points and sets ESMA as a de facto pricing regulator.

Value For Money  

The supervision of value for money is intended to address concerns that the price of retail funds remains too high. European regulators have recently focused on “undue costs” and “value”, as shown in their reviews of closet tracking funds. The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has been particularly vocal on the topic and EU RIS proposals have been heavily influenced by the recent common supervisory actions on undue costs by EU regulators. While the industry broadly acknowledges that the concept of value for money has merit to investors, a prevailing narrow definition which focuses on fund costs might lead to unintended negative consequences.  

Fund Cost Benchmarks

By far the most contentious part of the proposals relate to the suggestion that ESMA be given a mandate to create cost and performance benchmarks of some 30,000 UCITS sub-funds under their supervision. Individual fund manufacturers would need to compare their own funds against the benchmark products and take certain actions should their fund deviate from the benchmark.

Any material deviation from the benchmark would assume the price point of the fund is too high and possibly require the asset manager to suspend new subscriptions to the sub-funds until they have justified the cost deviation. The reputational impact of such deviation could be difficult (if not impossible) to manage.

The primary industry concern of such cost benchmarking is that it could negatively impact product diversity and innovation, taking its biggest toll on smaller funds and asset managers, and possibly resulting in a herding of investors into the lowest cost products such as passive funds. There is initial skepticism about whether cost benchmarks can ever appropriately reflect the diversity of investment strategies across a wide spectrum available in the market currently.

All this focus on “undue costs” also comes at a time where data shows that average ongoing charges for UCITS funds have been steadily falling since 20136. Industry also contends that such a benchmark would disproportionately focus on costs to the exclusion of value or desired outcomes. More broadly, many in the industry believe the proposals are premised on UCITS funds being homogenous, when in reality, this is not the case.    

UCITS currently provide retail investors with a raft of investment diversification opportunities for many disparate asset classes, industries, and geographies. Bond funds tend to be cheaper than equity funds and emerging market or small cap equity portfolios generally are more expensive than large cap equity funds. The reasons for fund cost differentials are relatively well known and disclosed. They can vary depending on asset classes, distribution models, geographic focus, and a host of other factors.

At Odds with UCITS?

Setting a midpoint UCITS fund cost benchmark appears to disregard the fact that the market is in fact quite heterogenous in terms of differing types and sizes of funds. The fact that there is not a “template UCITS fund” makes it extremely difficult to construct a precise and fully representative benchmark across the spectrum of UCITS funds. One of the beauties of the UCITS regime is that it houses a wide spectrum of investment strategies within a single pan-EU governance regime.

The initial suggestion seems a very blunt mechanism premised on a single correct price for a UCITS against which all other funds should be required under regulation to calibrate themselves instead of leaving pricing to competition and market forces.

Costs are a really important element in any value assessment, but they aren’t the only element to consider. Factors such as investment performance, diversification, the overall investment objective, the condition of the retail investor, and the quality of service to be provided are all considered in a holistic assessment of product “value”. Industry debate will continue to focus on whether cost benchmarks will help or hinder investment choice and whether ESMA has overstepped its investor protection mandate to become a de facto pricing regulator for the asset management industry. One thing is for sure, the EU RIS cost benchmarking proposals have set tongues wagging.

For more information, please contact Adrian and read his article on the latest UCITS revisions.

The views and opinions expressed are for informational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice and are not intended as an offer to sell, or a solicitation to buy securities, services or investment products. Views and opinions are current as of the date of the publication and may be subject to change.

European Union Flags in Strasbourg
Up Next
Up Next

A Big Deal: UCITS 6 & 7

With 35,000 funds and €12 trillion of assets in scope , any substantive changes to the UCITS framework are usually worthy of asset managers’ attention, writes Adrian Whelan

2 Source: Eurostat
ESMA costs and performance report
4 Source: Eurobarometer 2023
Source: Investment Company Institute calculations of Morningstar Direct data. See ICI Research Perspective. “Ongoing Charges for UCITS in the European Union, 2021”

Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“BBH”) may be used to reference the company as a whole and/or its various subsidiaries generally. This material and any products or services may be issued or provided in multiple jurisdictions by duly authorized and regulated subsidiaries. This material is for general information and reference purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax or investment advice and is not intended as an offer to sell, or a solicitation to buy securities, services or investment products. Any reference to tax matters is not intended to be used, and may not be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or other applicable tax regimes, or for promotion, marketing or recommendation to third parties. All information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but accuracy is not guaranteed, and reliance should not be placed on the information presented. This material may not be reproduced, copied or transmitted, or any of the content disclosed to third parties, without the permission of BBH. All trademarks and service marks included are the property of BBH or their respective owners.© Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. 2023. All rights reserved. IS-09118-2023-07-24.

As of June 15, 2022 Internet Explorer 11 is not supported by

Important Information for Non-U.S. Residents

You are required to read the following important information, which, in conjunction with the Terms and Conditions, governs your use of this website. Your use of this website and its contents constitute your acceptance of this information and those Terms and Conditions. If you do not agree with this information and the Terms and Conditions, you should immediately cease use of this website. The contents of this website have not been prepared for the benefit of investors outside of the United States. This website is not intended as a solicitation of the purchase or sale of any security or other financial instrument or any investment management services for any investor who resides in a jurisdiction other than the United States1. As a general matter, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. and its subsidiaries (“BBH”) is not licensed or registered to solicit prospective investors and offer investment advisory services in jurisdictions outside of the United States. The information on this website is not intended to be distributed to, directed at or used by any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to law or regulation. Persons in respect of whom such prohibitions apply must not access the website.  Under certain circumstances, BBH may provide services to investors located outside of the United States in accordance with applicable law. The conditions under which such services may be provided will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis by BBH. BBH will only accept investors from such jurisdictions or countries where it has made a determination that such an arrangement or relationship is permissible under the laws of that jurisdiction or country. The existence of this website is not intended to be a substitute for the type of analysis described above and is not intended as a solicitation of or recommendation to any prospective investor, including those located outside of the United States. Certain BBH products or services may not be available in certain jurisdictions. By choosing to access this website from any location other than the United States, you accept full responsibility for compliance with all local laws. The website contains content that has been obtained from sources that BBH believes to be reliable as of the date presented; however, BBH cannot guarantee the accuracy of such content, assure its completeness, or warrant that such information will not be changed. The content contained herein is current as of the date of issuance and is subject to change without notice. The website’s content does not constitute investment advice and should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. There is no guarantee that any investment objectives, expectations, targets described in this website or the  performance or profitability of any investment will be achieved. You understand that investing in securities and other financial instruments involves risks that may affect the value of the securities and may result in losses, including the potential loss of the principal invested, and you assume and are able to bear all such risks.  In no event shall BBH or any other affiliated party be liable for any direct, incidental, special, consequential, indirect, lost profits, loss of business or data, or punitive damages arising out of your use of this website. By clicking accept, you confirm that you accept  to the above Important Information along with Terms and Conditions.

1BBH sponsors UCITS Funds registered in Luxembourg, in certain jurisdictions. For information on those funds, please see

captcha image

Type in the word seen on the picture

I am a current investor in another jurisdiction