This from Moneyweb and it backs up what I have been saying:
"A second major factor in fund selection, in the US at least, is fees. There is clear evidence that investors are demanding, and increasingly getting, lower cost products.
“A recent report by Morningstar indicates that the asset-weighted expense ratios across all US funds have declined to 0.64% in 2014 compared with 0.76% in 2009,” the study notes. “Coinciding with this fee decline, the report finds that flows into passive investments far outstrip their active counterparts. Even within US active funds, Morningstar found that the funds in the cheapest quintile received approximately 95% of the estimated net new flows during that past decade.”
This is an astonishing finding – that just 20% of the actively-managed funds in the US saw 95% of new investments into such funds, and their common attribute is that their fees are below average. It’s even more compelling when one considers that Morningstar found that US equity funds with a higher than average net expense ratio experienced negative flows over the same period.
The study did note that this demand for lower cost is far more pronounced in the US than it is anywhere else, but that should not be taken as cause for relief by fund managers elsewhere. The US is at the forefront of the world’s mutual fund market and trends that take hold there almost inevitably spread across the globe."
So what conclusion can we get from this? The days of charging high fees on actively managed funds are done. That is why I won't invest in Coronation, Peregrine, Anchor, etc. Long term their prospects aren't looking good.
