2014 Top Stocks Market, Best Stocks Investment In 2014, Top Stocks For 2014: This investment could cost you

BOSTON (MarketWatch) � Mutual fund sponsors are using a popular type of offering to prop up sibling funds that are struggling, at a cost to investors, according to controversial new research.

At a minimum, investors in affiliated fund-of-funds � the structure for the vast majority of life-cycle and target-date funds and college-savings plans � are exposed to a conflict of interest, the study contends. At worst, that conflict dings returns.

Click to Play

Where the buys are in bonds

Bond investors can still find attractive opportunities, says Tad Rivelle, CIO for Fixed Income at investment manager TCW. He tells MarketWatch's Jonathan Burton about areas of the fixed-income market that offer the best yields.

There has been a buzz in the industry about this Indiana University study, �Conflicting Family Values in Mutual Fund Families� � since a draft version was presented to an industry conference last fall. But now that the study is being released in the Journal of Finance, it will become a popular topic, especially because so many people use fund-of-funds as a default choice for their long-term savings goals.

In order for life-cycle and target-date investors to decide how they want to respond to the research, let�s delve into the study.

Family ties

Fund-of-funds are mutual funds that invest entirely in other funds. An �affiliated fund-of-funds� invests in siblings run by the same management firm; it is how most firms run target-date funds, following an ! asset-al location plan that spreads money into several sisters.

For years, there has been concern that firms propped up their laggards and losers this way. It�s what industry critics assumed was keeping assets flowing into Vanguard U.S. Growth Fund VWUSX � one of Vanguard�s disappointing performers � long after performance had faltered. There are similar examples in almost every major fund family, where the fund-of-funds share the wealth with both good and bad siblings.

The Indiana researchers wanted to see if fund families allocated money into funds that were facing big redemptions or bad performance. Because each fund is an independent entity � even though they are run by the same sponsor � each should be operated with a shareholder-first mentality, and not run in a way that puts the sponsor�s interest first.

The study � using data from October 2002 to January 2008 � found that fund sponsors used the house fund-of-funds as �insurance pools� to offset shortfalls when its managed issues were distressed.

For example, if a firm�s emerging markets fund is facing significant withdrawals, the sister fund-of-funds gets a hankering for emerging-market holdings; its investment provides liquidity to the lackluster fund.

The real question is whether those fund-of-funds needed that new allocation to, say, emerging markets. If not � and most fund-of-funds have static allocations that change slowly over time � fund firms are putting their own interests ahead of shareholders.

�Because shareholders in these [life-cycle and target-date} types of funds are so passive, holding their shares in retirement accounts, the fund sponsor can move the money around without worrying that the fund-of-funds will be facing its own withdrawals,� said Veronika Pool, one of the study�s researchers. �You can say there is some harm to shareholders going on, because every time an investment occurs for reasons other than that it is a good investment opportunity, the underlying shareholders are paying the costs.�

House rules

No one is saying that it is illegal for the firm to follow its own agenda. Fund firms operate under certain rules exceptions that allow for cross-trading and other activities, although those actions should be disclosed in a fund�s prospectus, and the Indiana academics say that isn�t always so

There�s also a significant question as to how much the practice actually costs shareholders. Big redemptions can hurt an underlying fund; thus, if a fund-of-fund buys more of a fund while others are running away, it is helping to reduce damage that remaining shareholders would suffer if nothing was done and there was a run on the underlying fund.

What�s more, affiliated fund-of-funds typically waive costs, so while this conflict-of-interest doesn�t show up when a fund-of-fund invests outside its own borders, investors are paying more to own those non-affiliated funds. Pool said the higher costs almost certainly outweigh any costs created by the conflict of interest.

Further, the researchers noted that the house funds don�t prop up funds that are hurt by lousy management; sibling loy! alty onl y goes so far, according to the study. The cash-flow stops when bad results, rather than market conditions, are pressuring a sibling fund.

The ethical questions are unavoidable, however. While fund-of-fund managers can say they�re not doing anything untoward � insisting they really wanted to make those investments � only a forensic accounting and economics team could ever tell for sure.

For investors who want to avoid the conflicts, Pool suggests they look at the holdings in the life-cycle and target-date funds and loosely approximate the portfolios on their own.

�Obviously, investors can decide on their own allocation and not have these problems,� Pool said. �They should understand when they invest in an affiliated fund-of-funds that what they are getting is convenience, and this is one of the prices they pay for that convenience.�

Related Articles: