Eliminating GST on Mutual Funds Unlikely to Help Investors Much

In Rob Carrick’s recent election wish list for investors, he led with a wish to eliminate GST on mutual funds. I share his desire to give mutual fund investors a break on mutual fund costs, but I don’t think this measure is likely to help investors much.

Any time there is a reduction in the cost of providing a product or service, the savings get shared by producers and consumers. This split isn’t necessarily even, though. In very efficient markets for commodity items, most of the savings are enjoyed by the consumers. In inefficient markets, producers keep most of the savings.

The mutual fund industry in Canada is competitive, but not on fees charged. Only a small slice of the industry competes on fees. The rest compete for access to customers who don’t understand fees.

The bottom line is that if we eliminated the estimated annual GST of $567 million paid by mutual fund investors, there is little reason to believe that much of the savings would be passed on to investors. Much of it would go to increased profits for mutual fund companies.

I don’t see GST on mutual funds so much as a tax on investors as it is a tax on mutual fund companies. As a result, I’m not in a huge hurry to see this tax go away.

Comments

  1. Chris StephensonMarch 30, 2011 at 11:57 AM

    Even though we aren't competing on fees at Steadyhand...we just believe charging 'fair fees' (read low by industry standards) is the right thing to do if you're looking to get good returns....this proposed GST is going to hurt our unitholders.

    If GST gets passed, we likely have to pass on the costs and raise our fees.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael JamesMarch 30, 2011 at 12:15 PM

    @Chris: For mutual funds like Steadyhand's where fees are fair I have some sympathy. I think a good solution would be to change GST on fees in excess of 1% on equity funds and 0.5% on fixed-income funds. But, this type of fine-tuning is likely to generate even more heated argument.

    ReplyDelete
  3. PatrickApril 30, 2011 at 8:56 AM

    While Mr Stephenson has a point, someone has to pay taxes. The mere fact that taxes raise prices is not a valid argument against them. And these taxes would be paid disproportionately by those with large investment portfolios. What's not to like?

    If the mutual fund industry (Mr Stephenson aside) is so very concerned about its poor, dejected customers, why are they so focused on the $500M in GST, and not that other $10,000M that's going straight into their own pockets?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Short Takes: InvestorLine’s HISAs, 24-Hour Trading, and more

I recently moved some cash into BMO InvestorLine’s high-interest savings accounts (HISAs) that are structured as mutual funds.  Their designations are BMT104, BMT109, and BMT114, and they purportedly pay 4.35% annual interest (which they can change whenever they like).  However, the way they report the monthly interest payments is so baffling that I wasn’t able to sort it out in my first 15 minutes of trying.  A further complication is the following text in the HISA description: “The Bank may pay, monthly or quarterly, compensation to your Dealer at an annual rate of up to 0.25% of the daily closing balance in the BMO HISA.”  I couldn’t find any evidence of such a charge, but I haven’t been invested for a full quarter, and I can’t yet say that such a charge isn’t buried somehow in the confusing reporting.  I have more digging to do before I can recommend these HISAs. Here are some short takes and some weekend reading: Preet Banerjee explains the dangers of Robi...
Read more

My Asset Allocation

I’ve resisted discussing my asset allocation for some time, but now is finally the time to describe it and the reasons behind it. I’m not holding it out as a model portfolio; I believe it’s suitable for me and not necessarily anyone else. With that warning, enjoy the discussion and feel free to ask questions or take some pot-shots. The main reason why I haven’t discussed my asset allocation in detail before now is that I don’t want readers to treat it like a model portfolio and follow it blindly. Everyone’s situation is different. The need for variation in asset allocation from one investor to the next usually isn’t huge, but there is no one-size-fits-all portfolio. A secondary reason for keeping my asset allocation to myself is that I can’t be sure I’ll never change it. For example, I recently made the minor change of switching from an ETF of small-cap stocks to an ETF of small-cap value stocks . I don’t have any plans to change my current allocation, but I may think differe...
Read more

Updated Currency Exchange Method at BMO InvestorLine

There is now a more recent update of the method I use for exchanging currency at BMO OnvestorLine . I recently changed the procedure I use to convert large sums between Canadian and U.S. dollars at BMO InvestorLine. The method I use saves a lot of money compared to using the InvestorLine foreign exchange system. The latest change I made eliminated an annoying interest charge that I had to ask to be reversed. Most people don’t realize how expensive it can be to exchange currency. The extra charge banks and brokerages add gets hidden in the exchange rate. To see this extra charge, start by taking a sum in Canadian dollars, say C$10,000, and finding out how many U.S. dollars you can get. Then see what this U.S. amount would get going back to Canadian dollars. Many people might guess they’d get their original C$10,000 back, but they’d be wrong. In a recent test I did at BMO InvestorLine, I’d get back C$9754, for a loss of C$246 in two currency exchanges. That’s $123 per excha...
Read more

Archive

Show more