Look, I hold Wilson so I am not here to down-ramp anything. What...

Look, I hold Wilson so I am not here to down-ramp anything. What you need to read in the report is below section.




Now, calculate the total fees including management and performance fees %.

Total fees charged are = (14883996+14015604+173333)/(285,626,844+93,943,426)/ = 13%.

So basically at the end of the year total gain plus revenue of operating income was only 379m and they charged 13% to get that and paid 7% to the holders whose money they used to invest (it is not management money).

Also, the year they don't perform there will not be any performance fees and they don't recover that lack of performance in future years.

NO GO FIGURE... dividend of 7% at the fees of 13% is day light robbery ... In my opinion... !

Remember next time in AGM if someone ask for the performance shares or re-election then you think of the fees they charged when voting... IMO.

Majority retail holders read the report but don't read it in the context of what is important to read in the report.

A wider industry wide reform through royal commission is required similar to superannuation and banking sector.

Every fund (LIC or ETF or any other type of funds) must prepare fees summary where they declare how much fees charged over the financial year against the real value created for the shareholders and show this on their website clearly written on the front page of each fund not hidden in 200 page annual report somewhere in tiny letter.

No point charging 1% fees on total share value of 3,000,000,000 when you actual movement of value is 150,000,000 over 1 year. Fund managers get paid for net realised/unrealised gain not on the value of the portfolio.

All fund manager should be banned to charge fees on the value of the portfolio but instead they must charge on value they create at the end of the book closure which is what they created. You don't pay if they don't create value or pay and deduct in future years when they create value.

It is not only WAM but other LIC is also in the race but if you look at the graph below you realise that WAM substantially under performed over last 5 years. WAM performed negative since 2017 from capital gain point of view and way out of touch to performance of S&P/ASX 200.

Obviously if you go to WAM website they will say they out perform market over the years because they count on last 16 years when CBA share price was probably $38.

why did shareholder paid performance fees to WAM when they actually not created any capital gain over the last 5 years? the reason is the fees calculated in a way that benefit management and that is why you must be aware of how you vote in AGM for all LIC & ETF & PE not just WAM.. IMO.