When I started my career with a wealth manager over 40 years ago, clients were charged 1.65% for the first part of a trade, with lower rates depending on the size of the order. Not so long ago, institutional fees were around 40-50bp, whereas today they are typically somewhere between 4 - 6bp: virtually nothing. When I managed a smaller company fund, I would often pay well above bid-ask spreads to either acquire shares that were in scarce supply or conversely sell at prices well below, when I felt fundamentals were deteriorating and I wanted to exit.
The cost of dealing, commission or spread always ended up as being insignificant compared to the impact of the investment decision.
Last year, according to the London Stock Exchange, investors withdrew £15.13bn from active UK strategies[1]. In April 2003 UK investors held around 66% of their assets in equity funds. Today it is less than 50%[2]. Alternative assets have no doubt taken some share, but the biggest impact has been the use of ETFs. These funds have, rightly, displaced many active funds that charged high fees for a portfolio very similar to that of the index. With annual costs of around 20 basis points for the most popular global equity ETFs, they have provided low cost and strong performance.
However, financial products are often undone by their own popularity, and they rarely provide a free lunch forever. The largest indices that passive funds follow are now heavily skewed towards a few countries, companies and sectors.
The US now dominates. The MSCI World Index, which should maybe be renamed, has over 74% exposure to the US, with the top 10 holdings being US companies, including all of the Magnificent 7. This is way beyond the US’s share of global GDP which is closer to a third.[3]
While share prices should follow earnings, not GDP, corporate valuations must still be anchored to something real for them to make sense. Accordingly, the US appears over-represented in this index and does not provide the diversification that some investors might expect.

