Posts Tagged Common Trust Funds
Westwood Trust’s “Common Trust Funds” Emerge as Bellwether Business Model for Advisors
Posted by Jerry Cooper in News, Practice Management on January 22, 2010
Exclusive
CEO says new funds can be started in minutes, not months, at a fraction of the cost of a mutual fund.
Earlier this month The Trust Advisor reported Westwood Holdings Group, Inc. (NYSE: WHG), through its trust company unit Westwood Trust, helped forge gains by landing large new accounts while other firms sat on the sidelines. Westwood managed to bring in $2 billion in new assets during the toughest year in recent financial memory.
As part two of our report on Westwood Trust, I had an opportunity to chat once again with Brian Casey, President and CEO of Westwood, to drill down into the topic of interest to most wealth advisors – common trust funds.
New Money from an Old Idea
Simply stated, common trust funds or “CTFs” permit the commingling or pooling of investors’ money into one account (known as a common fund) for the purpose of creating a single investment. In other words, they are much like a mutual fund. They actually pre-date mutual funds so they are an old concept. Since they are a bank product, CTFs are not required to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and they are not considered to be a security under state and federal securities laws. They are regulated under OCC Regulation 9 (12 CFR 9.18) and are supervised by state or federal bank regulators. Read the rest of this entry »
Westwood Trust Shines Helping Advisor Pull In $2 Billion in New Accounts During Meltdown
Posted by Jerry Cooper in News, Sales and Marketing on January 8, 2010
In a year when registered investment advisors have faced impossible challenges to stay ahead, one wealth management firm in Texas found opportunity and success.
Westwood Holdings Group, Inc. (NYSE: WHG) through its trust company unit Westwood Trust, helped forge gains by landing large new accounts while other firms waited, worried, and sat on the sidelines.
Last summer my research team noticed a blip on our radar screen when looking for firms that stood out during the meltdown. These are firms that increased managed assets for the year September 30, 2008 to September 30, 2009.
The firm that stood out was Westwood Holdings Group, company with little press attention, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, and a top performing wealth manager.
Last month I had an opportunity to chat with Brian Casey, President and CEO of Westwood, to discuss how his firm managed to bring in $2 billion in new assets during the toughest year in recent financial memory. Reviewing SEC reports, I looked at money managers that weathered the meltdown and it was not hard to understand how Westwood was able to mark this achievement.
The Secret
Although Westwood has been in business since 1983, its strategies were illuminated when it became public in 2002. But, the true story of Westwood Trust began in 1998.
Westwood Trust’s mission is to provide high quality products and services to its high net worth clients. Casey calls it “offering a competent investment professional to assist them with structuring a portfolio, and meeting the objectives whatever they may be trying to accomplish.”
Westwood is not a financial planning trust company that provides directed trusts, dynasty trusts or self-settled trusts. It is basically an eloquent investment store for a catered high end investment business segment.
In the past five years Westwood’s managed assets have grown from $4.5 billion to $9.5 billion.
The reason for this growth was due largely to the way the firm had been structured. Many channels of diversification contributed and provided a continuous and steady growth.
Casey, a native Texan for 40 years, describes Westwood as a diversified wealth management organization with three different business lines. The first, Westwood Management Corp., began its investment business in 1983 as an institutional money manager. Next, its trust company, Westwood Trust, a fully licensed and chartered trust company based in Texas that has been up and running for 12 years. Third, its mutual fund business called WHG Funds, which has been in business for four years.
The story of success is credited, in part, to Westwood Trust. Casey noted while other firms sat on the sidelines Westwood got its sales team out and prospected for new accounts.
The result of course is recorded history. Offsetting Westwood’s market losses experienced by most firms in the industry, Westwood was able to show net asset gains of $2 billion going from $7.5 billion at 9/30/08 to $9.5 billion at 9/30/09.
Casey attributes this influx of new accounts to one concept: “high quality.” Westwood knew it would have to rely on its high net worth business in order to sustain its asset levels, so it used its trust company as a main vehicle to reach new investors.
The notion of providing an institutional quality product to its institutional clients, and having access to that through its trust company, created a unique combination of delivering quality to the marketplace to high net-worth clientele.
I asked Casey whether he described the business at Westwood Trust as “retail.” He did not feel comfortable with that word and said that his customers would not like to consider themselves retail customers. He prefers to call them private wealth investors—meaning the average account size for Westwood Trust is $2 million.
How Did They Do It?
Casey says that they’re constantly on the lookout for new customers in a way that’s different for most RIAs. They primarily work through referrals and referral sources but have no wholesalers. Casey adds “If you’re looking for the client that has $2 million or more you’re not going to find him answering an ad. He’s going to have to come through a referral or direct call.”
He adds that clients are doctors, professionals and entrepreneurs that have accumulated wealth over a lifetime but who see Westwood Trust as a shop that puts value and income first.
Of particular importance is the fact that Westwood Trust offers common trust funds or commingled trust funds. These are funds that act and behave like mutual funds and what Casey calls the precursor to mutual funds. “They are a tremendously efficient way of delivering institutional-quality investment products to clients.”
He adds, “Commingled or common trust funds is a tool that allows us to deliver a well-diversified institutional-quality product at a more reasonable fee than by trying to cobble together some outside mutual funds along with a separate account.”
About Westwood
When looking at Westwood it’s best to view Westwood in comparison to its peers. The quick take snap shot provided by Morningstar gives Westwood stellar financial grades. There are only three firms in the group which include Franklin Resources and T. Rowe Price that have “A” financial health ratings.
Westwood’s market cap is only $268 million while the market cap of T. Rowe Price is $14 billion and Franklin’s is $25 billion. So for a small company being managed efficiently they have done quite well in comparison to their peers. Westwood is also accorded a “B” rating in profitability from the Morningstar analysis.
All this being said, Westwood is an interesting story to follow both from the point of being a stellar asset manager, and owner of a trust company, and using that trust company in a way that allowed it to bring in important new accounts and new assets at a volatile time.
Next week more about Westwood, its operations, and an acquisition.
Jerry Cooper, senior editor, The Trust Advisor Blog.
Story Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/westwoodtrust1
Advisor Managed Common Trust Fund Accounts Disappear as Fiduciaries Fear Risk
Posted by Jerry Cooper in News on November 13, 2009
Trust Advisor Survey: Surge in ERISA lawsuits, 2008 Advisor Performance Prompts Trustees to Turn Down New CTF Business; Regardless of Risk Compelling Benefits Remain
Exclusive Report
Common trust funds aren’t so common anymore. Wall Street’s on‐again off‐again love affair with common fund pooling arrangements appears to be on the rocks (at least for the time being), according to research conducted by The Trust Advisor Blog since the beginning of the year.
Chicago‐based Northern Trust, known to be a CTF platform provider of third‐party hosting arrangements for RIAs, reported “they no longer offer their platform for managers,” said Anna Jamroz of Northern Trust’s Global Fund Services group. Several other major banks have also ended the practice of permitting third‐party investment advisors to direct the portfolios held in common trust fund accounts.
These arrangements permit the CTF’s to re‐create mutual fund portfolios. Typically, this helps investors by lowering operating costs. Common fund accounts don’t require the expensive operating costs of a mutual fund such as printing, compliance, call centers, etc. All of this translates into lower expense ratios which benefit investors. Both Morningstar and Lipper maintain databases of over 1,000 funds for the purpose of tracking performance. Most of these CTF’s are hosted by banks or trust companies that also serve as investment advisor to the fund.
The history of common trust funds, or CTF’s, dates back to the Jules Verne era and they are almost as old as Wall Street itself. In simple terms, these arrangements permit the comingling or pooling of investors’ money into one account (known as a common fund) for the purpose of creating a single investment.
In other words, they are much like a mutual fund. However, CTF’s are not required to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and they are not considered to be a security under state and federal securities laws. They are regulated under OCC Regulation 9 (12 CFR 9.18) and are supervised by state or federal bank regulators.
Just 16 months ago, collective funds were the darlings of Wall Street. They were featured in a July 24 article in The Wall Street Journal, “‘Collective Funds’ Gain Traction in 401(k)”. The WSJ reported “collective funds pool investors’ assets and invest in stocks, bonds and other securities. The chief difference: Collective funds are typically available only in retirement plans. Because they aren’t sold directly to the general public, they generally aren’t regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.” The story added, “Collective funds tend to be substantially cheaper than mutual funds, largely because they don’t have to comply with SEC regulations or market to retail customers. That’s driving 401(k) plans to embrace these products, which are offered by big fund providers like Fidelity Investments, Vanguard Group and Charles Schwab Corp.”
Risky Third Party Arrangements
In a typical CTF setup, there is a trust and a trustee. The investors are called participants which are similar to shareholders. But because of the very nature of the arrangement as a trust, the trustee maintains full fiduciary responsibility. This includes responsibility for the profit or loss of the fund. The trustee cannot unload, delegate or bifurcate investment responsibility to a third party investment advisor without liability. In other words, the trustee is liable and responsible for the investment decisions of the advisor. If the common trust fund loses money, the trustee may be on the hook to make the investor whole in the event of a claim against the fund for a recovery.
All of this makes trustees very nervous when it comes to serving as trustee of a CTF managed by an investment advisor whose track record may have sustained losses. Since most advisors sustained double‐digit losses last year, it’s easy to see why trustees are scared.
In recent years, trustees have prided themselves on opting into roles that expressly limit their liability. These include directed trusts which permit the trustee to bear no responsibility for investment decisions as long as a directed trust is properly constructed and administered.
The Next Bull Market Scenario
A serious market recovery, renewed investor confidence and a boost in retirement wealth may spark another round of CTF mania in the coming years. If it does, there are mutual benefits for both the investor and the provider.
For the investor: he gains the ability to participate in fractional shares of managed accounts normally reserved for ultra‐high net worth investors who are prepared to put in $3 million to $4 million. With a common trust fund, an investor with as little as $100,000 or $200,000 can buy a share of a managed account and participate in the strategy and the gains (or losses) of a best‐of‐breed advisor.
Models that Work Now
According to reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Westwood Trust‐owner Westwood Holdings Group (WHG) of Dallas, TX hosts multiple common trust fund accounts. In this case, Westwood is also an investment advisor and also owns a trust company. This all‐in‐one arrangement does not put the responsibility of third‐party risk on its shoulders since the parent/owner is familiar with the strategy of the advisor and owns the trust company.
In a situation where the investment advisor owns a bank or trust company, CTF’s can make a lot of sense. Since there is no outsourcing of risk, the advisor feels comfortable about its strategy and therefore is willing to accept the additional responsibility associated with maintaining the CTF account.
In another scenario, Davidson Trust of Montana is a combined trust company and investment advisory firm which offers its customer CTF accounts of pre‐approved and selected portfolios. I spoke to Davidson Trust Vice President Dennis West, who told me that their CTF accounts are popular with their investors. The firm has six different portfolios to choose from. Although the loads are somewhat heavy for smaller accounts of $1 million or less, the fees become lower when you leave Davidson more funds to work with. For more information, you can reach Dennis West at 1‐888‐389‐8001.
As more investment advisory firms begin to integrate trust operations, it makes more sense to also host common trust funds for these purposes. Given the compelling benefits these arrangements can yield investor savings and an ability to get into a fund with a best‐of‐breed strategy for a lower entry charge.
Jerry Cooper, senior editor, The Trust Advisor Blog. Steven Maimes contributed to the research.
Can Launching a Mutual Fund Help an Advisor Boost Managed Assets?
Posted by Jerry Cooper in News, Practice Management, Sales and Marketing on November 6, 2009
Start-up Guru Jeff Provence Offers Tips on What an Advisor Must Know Before Getting Started
Within the next few months wealth managers and advisors will consider new ideas and strategies for attracting new clients for 2010 and beyond. Many will turn to campaigns such as direct mail, email marketing, sponsoring sporting events, and cultivating referrals. However, others whose clients may have been more deeply impacted by the crunch of the meltdown will consider recovery of lost business by moving downstream by attracting smaller investors.
In this report, The Trust Advisor found that advisors can:
- Can Start a Mutual Fund for as Little as $35,000
- Begin to be Profitable with $8 million in the Fund
- Buy the Management Rights of an Existing $10 million Fund for $350,000
For my report, we interviewed key players in the field who offer proven perspectives on this traditional strategy. This included: a firm that specializes in turnkey operations; a successful advisor who launched his own fund in 2004; and a valuation specialist who offers his own unique viewpoint on whether to start a fund from scratch or simply acquire one.
Mutual funds are part of America’s investment fund marketplace. The landscape includes SEC unregistered funds, such as hedge funds and private placements. It also includes common trust funds, a $3 trillion market alone which The Trust Advisor will cover next week. But, our focus this week is becoming part of the 8500 SEC registered funds or better known as mutual funds consisting of a $12 trillion target marketplace.
The benefits of starting a mutual fund are compelling:
- Attract Smaller Investors. Private-managed accounts cater to large investors. The cost of keeping small investors is prohibitive. By launching a fund an investor can participate in the strategies of the advisor for amounts as low as $5,000.
- Easier Target Market to Reach. Investors are hard to reach. The cost of marketing directly to the client or the investor is heavy and requires building a longstanding relationship. By selling to an advisor you reach the investor directly. You reach the investor through the advisor which builds brand awareness and loyalty to a potential fund family.
- Lower Marketing Costs. Advisors can be reached through wholesalers or through direct email marketing which permits the creation of marketing channels that are reasonable and economical and paid for out of the load of the mutual fund. The spin-off potential of building those distribution channels can be significant.
- Cross-Selling Opportunities. Once a mutual fund or a family is created, an advisor can harvest its mutual fund client base for other products or services and provide unique ways to involve the advisor in the process.
- Low Start-up Cost. Start-up costs can run as low as $35,000 and can yield asset bases of $50 million or more after several years.
The Investment Company Institute or ICI is the industry association. The ICI publishes industry statistics and provides a great deal of investor education.
I interviewed Jeff Provence who runs Premier Fund Solutions, Inc near San Diego California. He isn’t your typical fund consultant. He set out 11 years ago to offer advisors a turnkey service for those who are interested in launching a mutual fund. Provence has built a string of successes that has helped advisors bring more than 20 mutual funds to market from around the country.
Provence says that beginners should keep it simple. He says that the Investment Company Act of 1940 provides for a straight and simple way to adapt any core strategy and turn it into a mutual fund capable of bringing in small to medium size investors. Core strategies include large cap, small cap, medium cap, growth or value-oriented approaches.
Since all purchases and sales of securities in a mutual fund are done on a cash basis and all securities are typically held with a bank custodian, there is no leverage involved. He says borrowing can be involved but it must work outside the account using special arrangements.
Provence adds that mutual funds that tend to do best adopt strategies that appeal to large mass audiences. Strategies that most investors can’t understand like options and going short appeal to smaller audiences and therefore are less likely to attract investors. Provence says that an advisor should have a well-defined action plan and a strong sense of the costs to support the structure. I asked him what amount of assets under management an advisor must have in order to consider transitioning some of his existing investors into a fund.
Surprisingly, he says it takes only $7.5 million of assets under management with a load of 175 basis points or 1.75 percent to break even. After that a fund can be made profitable. Therefore an advisor with at least $100 million of assets under management can clearly begin their own mutual fund simply by arranging a transition effort to the fund with a minimum start-up of $8 million.
Provence charges between $35,000 and $40,000 to go through the process. This includes filing the prospectus with the SEC, going through the legals, setting up the policies and procedures, writing the prospectus and arranging for the accounting and custody. That fee includes the attorney’s fees. U.S. Bank Fund Services told us this week they charge between $60,000 and $100,000 for the same service. Provence says that you can expect the ongoing maintenance costs to run between $120,000 to $125,000 minimum on an annual basis to launch a fund. More details are available on his website: http://www.pfsfunds.com.
Satisfied Client
One of Provence’s successful and outspoken clients is Canadian-born Paul Frank. Frank is the solo operator of New York based ETF Market Opportunity Fund, “ETFOX.” ETFOX is a fund of ETF funds. Frank launched the fund in 2004 with mere token investors of $100,000 and after six years has grown it to $58.9 million. His performance and handling of his large growth cap fund has earned him a 4‑star Morningstar rating.
Given that most funds lost 30 percent or more of their value in 2008, his ETFOX’s lackluster performance last year put him at the top of his group, permitting him to retain his champion rating. Frank’s pragmatism seems to strike a chord with the industry in that, in spite of the fact that he only lost 23 percent last year in fund value, he is in a category called “one of the least of the losers.”
Frank says that this is not a business where if you build it they will come. “It will take hard work and cultivation in order to bring the business in.”
Morningstar has a three-year performance requirement in order to get rated on its service. Frank added that just because you are on Morningstar or Lipper doesn’t mean that investors will come to you. You need to go out there “and bring in the investors”.
To do that he has his fund listed on Schwab’s platform which charges him 40 basis points out of his operating expense just for Schwab to handle his transactions. Given that his management fee is 175 basis points; his no-load fund still makes money in spite of what he pays distributors. In addition he has recently hired a group of wholesalers to promote the fund to advisors. They too are paid fees out of the load, which can eat up some of the profits.
Launch #2
Frank has done so well that he has retained Jeff Provence once again to establish an international fund which is set to launch in January. Given ETFOX’s success he feels reasonably confident that his international fund will be a success. But he adds, “no one knows for sure until the check has clears the bank.”
He encourages others to get involved in it, but suggests they make certain that they have thought the process with care. He recommends that advisors contact somebody like Provence who can put all the pieces together.
Are Acquisitions Better?
I asked Frank whether it would have been better to have acquired a fund rather than start his own. He said that if you’re starting from scratch it’s probably better to start your own because the cost of acquisition may be prohibitive. He says that in today’s market the cost to acquire the management rights to a mutual fund can run two to three times the fund’s gross revenue. It can also depend on the fund’s performance. He adds, “if the fund had a poor track record it would not get a great price.”
Frank’s estimates as to what a fund might go for in the open market were corroborated by both Provence and an executive at U.S. Bank Fund Services. For example, the fund with $10 million of shareholder assets which has a mediocre growth record would probably sell at a multiple of two times gross earnings. For example, if the load is 175 basis points or 1.75 percent, then the value of the fund if bought or sold by another management company would be 175 basis points multiplied by the asset base of $10 million, which comes to $350,000.
I spoke to Jon C. Walls, a financial analyst and former Lehman Brothers’ investment banker, about whether it would be advisable to start one’s own or buy a fund with these low valuation multiples caused by a depressed market.
Walls said that if a relatively small fund were offered with approximately $10 million under management for two times an expense ratio of 175 basis points, it could make more economic sense to buy a fund than to start your own. The value of being able to control a $10 million asset base and the requisite fund management infrastructure all while avoiding the hurdles of a start‐up for a mere $350,000 is compelling and reasonable, assuming the fund is of a reasonable quality and the investor base can be retained.
Fund management company transactions are difficult to find on the Internet or from most reporting services. SNL Financial, which tracks these transactions, has reported about 15 transactions in the last year. There is no comparable sales history. It essentially is a workout process when it comes to determining how much to pay for a mutual fund management rights, based on the principle of multiples of gross revenue of the acquiring fund.
Philadelphia Fund Moves to Dallas
Shareholders today (November 6) of the Philadelphia Fund (PHILX) have approved the acquisition of their fund into Dallas based Westwood Group’s WHG Large Cap Value Institutional Fund (WHGLX). The transaction will be able to boost the Westwood’s fund’s $131.3 million asset base by $53.6 million immediately. Although the specific terms and conditions of the merger were not disclosed in the proxy statements, industry experts believe that Westwood may have paid as much as $2 million in WHG stock for the fund.
As a growth strategy for most advisory firms launching a mutual fund or a series of them, this seems a logical action. It’s actually hard to find a wealth management organization with a $1 billion AUM that does not have one or two mutual fund properties under its roof. Benefits include increasing the shareholder base so that investors will now appreciate the advisor and his other strategies while making the adviser aware of the brand name. Plus there is the referral potential of having smaller investors taking notice of the name of the fund family.
Jerry Cooper, senior editor, The Trust Advisor Blog. Steven Maimes contributed to the research.




