Why the rush to internalise?

15 June 2022
| By Laura Dew |
image
image
expand image

Hostplus chief investment officer, Sam Sicilia, has questioned why funds would look to internalise their investment management nowadays when fees are already low.

Speaking to Super Review, Sam Sicilia, chief investment officer at Hostplus, said when Australian Super moved in-house back in 2013, costs were a lot higher but that they had now come down in light of fee pressures and savings from mergers.

“In 2013, investment fees were up there and Australian Super worked out they could do it themselves for less. Now fees are coming down so why would you start to internalise now? Why would you bring that investment risk in-house if external managers can wear that risk instead?”

He added that Hostplus had benefitted by being able to pick up mandates that had been terminated by Australian Super without having the HR, systems and compliance requirements of internal management.

“When a fund terminates a manager then we can step in and get a discount, it’s like being a younger sibling who gets the hand-me-downs.

“We have spent 10-15 years building relationships [with managers] so we are well positioned for the next 10-15 years.

“Increasingly, we are also creating supply and proactively seeking ways to work with trusted relationships to build capabilities where they may not have existed before. We consider external managers to be an extension of our business, an investment team in another building.”

External managers who were unwilling to negotiate discounts would have a tough time in the Australian market, he said, as there was such fee pressure on super funds.

“Fund managers have to learn that they can’t be having three or four Mercedes Benz, the times of charging two and 20 [fee structure] are gone and if they want that, then they should go to Europe. Either give us a discount or go away.”

As to whether there had been a rush by other funds to internalise and whether there could be future side-effects, he said it was unlikely any fund would ever go back on their decision. This was because of the ‘sunk cost fallacy’ where they would likely feel they had done all this work and had to make it succeed.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest developments in Super Review! Anytime, Anywhere!

Grant Banner

From my perspective, 40- 50% of people are likely going to be deeply unhappy about how long they actually live. ...

11 months ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

11 months 1 week ago
Anthony Asher

No doubt true, but most of it is still because over 45’s have been upgrading their houses with 30 year mortgages. Money ...

11 months 1 week ago

Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Co...

19 hours ago

Demand from institutional investors was the main driver of growth in Australia’s responsible investment (RI) market in 2023, as the industry continued to gain momentum....

19 hours 39 minutes ago

In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges....

20 hours 37 minutes ago