Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 196

Fairer performance fees for limited-capacity managers

Some years ago, we tagged the crowding out of super funds from investing in limited-capacity smaller funds as the ‘Allocation Gap’. Many larger funds and consultants like the performance of these managers but with insufficient capital allocation for a large super fund to move their total performance needle, it was not justified.

At the same time, limited-capacity managers did not want a concentration of money from a single client. Hence money stopped flowing to good small managers and alpha was left on the table for other investors, but not the big super funds. The Allocation Gap is still alive today, especially in the microcap space, except now there are further considerations around performance fees that challenge investors.

The investment rationale for limited-capacity equity investment managers is well known; small boutiques focused on less scalable ideas because of liquidity, for example. But to harvest good things in small packages requires a sustainable business model and appropriate pricing. In the case of microcaps, where liquidity is limited and managers need to cap their FUM, performance fees are widely used to bolster the business economics.

This practice should not bother serious investors provided the fee structures are fair.

Smaller companies can produce dramatic relative outperformance

As the table below shows, the performance of ASX small and emerging companies indices varies considerably relative to the broader All Ordinaries index. The relative performance of the Emerging Companies index and the other indices has been very high in the past 10 years, ranging from negative 33% (-15%) to positive 56% (+38%) versus All Ords and Small Ords respectively. When the smaller companies ‘run’ they can produce dramatic relative performance in both absolute and relative terms.

Further, the small and microcap managers’ performances can add an additional volatility in investor returns. It is well established that small and micro-cap managers outperform their relative benchmarks strongly in some periods and yet underperform in others, whilst importantly many outperform over the longer term.

A set of eight microcap managers we reviewed outperformed the S&P Emerging Market index by an average of 3 to 4% per annum during the past 13 years and by about 7% per annum over a 10-year period. Managers outperformed by double-digit amounts in some years and would have charged very high performance fees. In subsequent years, underperformance was common. Other research has found that smaller cap fund managers have a higher probability of generating larger value add compared to the average large cap fund manager.

Investors carry the costs of fee structure

The important point is that this manager excess return volatility can have significant implications for the investor’s periodic fee expense. With a typical performance fee of 20% in excess of the benchmark, a manager may earn a multiple of its base fee in one year only to underperform in subsequent periods. When the high-water mark recovery period is long, and it can be many years, it is the investor who carries the cost of having paid out for unsustained outperformance.

Such is the potential for high performance fees in bumper years — think 20% fee on excess performance of 10 - 20% — questions come to mind. Does the presence of a performance fee change a microcap managers’ behaviour? Further, can there be temporal alignment of interests between the manager and the client, when the shorter the period under review for paying out performance fees, the less reliable is the track record data. We know good managers can underperform or have very little value-add primarily because of market noise, and the reverse applies for unskilled managers who experience a run of better fortune.

Managers should smooth the impact

To deal with this, where performance fees are accepted practice (as with microcaps), we suggest smoothing the impact of large performance fees on the investor by staggering the payment of the fee for a vesting period after it is earned. For example, the manager might be paid in three one-third installments. This method could be applied over shorter or longer periods with different proportions and can be integrated into the high-water mark.

In the longer term, the manager will receive its duly-earned fee while the investor will incur a smoothing of the cost. The investor would have gained a put option by deferring the fees of the manager in case the performance deteriorates after the initial period (that is, strong first-year performance, say 10% excess return, is not followed through in the second and third year, say -5% in the second year and 0% in the third year).

Opportunity to harvest returns left by large funds

The Allocation Gap is crowding out big super funds from microcap alpha and beta opportunities because of their scale and the manager’s capacity allocation across clients. This is an opportunity for smaller funds and investors to harvest the returns ‘left on the table’ by their larger peers. Performance fees can be an acceptable feature of limited-capacity microcap funds, but it is important that the impact of high periodic performance fees on the investor is reasonable, as such performance is often not sustained.

 

Dr Steven Vaughan is Managing Director and Sriram Srinivas is Research Assistant at Queen Street Partners. This information is general only and does not take into account the personal circumstances of any individual.

 

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.