You check your energy bill. Why not your investment fees?
- Robin Powell
- 4 hours ago
- 9 min read
You spotted the £3 monthly charge your broadband provider slipped in. You haggled your energy bill down by £200 a year. But you're almost certainly overpaying by tens of thousands — possibly hundreds of thousands — on your investments. And you probably don't even know it.
You check your energy bills religiously. When British Gas raised your monthly direct debit by £12, you noticed within days and rang to challenge it. When Sky tried sneaking in a mid-contract price rise, you threatened to leave and negotiated them back down. You've compared broadband providers three times this year alone, saving £8 a month by switching to a faster deal.
This vigilance makes financial sense. The average UK household now pays around £143 monthly for energy — £1,720 a year. Broadband adds another £30-40. These costs hurt, so you watch them.
But when did you last calculate your all-in investment cost?
Most investors can't answer that question. They might know their financial adviser charges 1%, perhaps. But the platform fee? The fund management charge? The transaction costs buried inside their holdings? These remain invisible, despite costing exponentially more than any household bill.
Here's the uncomfortable arithmetic. That £3 monthly broadband overcharge you spotted equals £36 a year. A 1% overcharge on a £500,000 portfolio equals £5,000 annually — 139 times more. Yet one prompts immediate action whilst the other often goes unnoticed for decades.
This gap isn't an accident. It's a business model. The investment industry has spent generations perfecting the art of charging fees that feel small whilst being systematically large. They've learned that investor inertia — your tendency to leave things as they are — can be monetised far more lucratively than engagement.
You need to see exactly how much it's costing you.
This gap isn't an accident. It's a business model.
How investment fees compound
A 1% fee difference doesn't sound like much. One penny per pound. Surely that's immaterial compared to market returns?
The mathematics of compound interest doesn't care what sounds significant. Over a 40-year investment horizon, percentage points that seem trivial become the difference between financial freedom and forced frugality.
Imagine two people each investing £500 a month for 40 years. Both enjoy the same 7% annual market return before costs, but one keeps a tight grip on fees whilst the other doesn't.
Investor A chooses a low-cost global index portfolio with all-in charges of just 0.25% a year. Her money compounds at 6.75% after costs, leaving her with around £1,193,000 after 40 years.
Investor B pays 1.75% a year once active fund fees, platform charges and trading costs are included. His net annual return is just 5.25%, producing a final pot of about £768,000.
The wealth destruction: £425,000. That's nearly a third of his potential wealth gone, purely through higher costs compounding over time. Every extra percentage point in annual charges quietly erodes the power of growth.
Translate that to retirement reality. The £425,000 difference represents:
14 years of £30,000 annual spending
The entire purchase price of a comfortable home in most UK regions
The gap between retiring at 60 versus working until 67
Both investors took the same risks and contributed identical sums. But one ends up financially free whilst the other must keep working. The lesson is simple — you don't need to beat the market to win; you just need to stop overpaying it.
"Both investors took the same risks ... But one ends up financially free whilst the other must keep working."
You wouldn't let a builder overcharge you £5,000 on a kitchen renovation without challenging every line item. Yet the same overcharge happens every single year on your investments, compounding into six-figure theft from your future self, and you probably haven't calculated it once.
How does this happen?
The fee layers most investors never see
You don't pay one fee. You pay four to seven layers, most of which never appear on your statement.
Investment advice fees: 0.50-1.50% typically. This ongoing charge covers portfolio reviews and recommendations. It appears in your client agreement, deducted quarterly. Red flag: paying continuously but receiving no proactive contact.
Platform fees: 0.25-0.45% typically. This covers the technology hosting your investments. It appears on your platform statement as a separate line item. Red flags: premium fees for basic service; platforms earning 4-5% on your uninvested cash whilst paying you 0.50%.
Fund management fees: 0.05-1.50%. This cost is embedded in your fund. It appears on the fund factsheet — NOT on your statement. It's baked into the unit price, so you never see it deducted. Red flags: paying 0.75%+ for funds underperforming their benchmark; paying 1.00%+ for passive index tracking.
Transaction costs: 0.05-0.50%+. These cover trading costs, spreads, and stamp duty. They appear nowhere on most statements. They're hidden inside fund operations. Red flag: active funds with high turnover can exceed 0.50% annually in transaction costs alone.
Additional stealth charges:
ISA and SIPP admin fees: up to £200 annually per wrapper
Exit fees when switching providers
Dilution levies when funds experience heavy redemptions
Currency conversion fees on international holdings
These fee layers exist across millions of UK investors. But don't take my word for it — let's examine a case study where the system was caught red-handed.
How child trust funds became an inertia lab
The Child Trust Fund scandal isn't an isolated failure. It's the blueprint for how UK financial services extracts wealth from consumer passivity.
Telegraph Money recently revealed what many had suspected but few had quantified. Between 2005 and 2011, Gordon Brown's government gave 6.3 million children a financial head start: £250 each (£500 for low-income families) invested in long-term savings accounts. The promise was simple — this money would grow into "several thousand pounds" by age 18, giving young adults a deposit, education funding, or business capital.
The reality proved grimmer. 758,000 accounts holding £1.5 billion remain unclaimed. More damningly, 210,000 accounts are now worth £499 or less — despite starting at £500. Some children's "financial head start" became a financial step backwards.
How? The mechanism of extraction was elegant in its simplicity.
When parents didn't choose a provider within 12 months, HMRC automatically allocated children to "stakeholder" providers. These firms could charge up to 1.50% annually — six times the cost of equivalent FTSE 100 trackers available elsewhere. The National Audit Office estimates these providers earned collectively up to £100 million per year through charges on accounts composed largely of government money.
The mathematics became inevitable. A £500 account growing at 5% gross annually but losing 1.50% to fees delivers just £724 after 18 years. The same account at 0.25% fees delivers £1,176 — 62% more wealth for the child, simply by avoiding the inertia trap.
The industry response
When challenged, providers offered predictable defences. They claimed 1.50% charges funded customer service for non-engaged parents who never logged in. They argued stakeholder CTFs required different cost structures. They suggested that without their "management," these accounts would have earned nothing.
This reasoning collapses under examination. The accounts weren't actively managed — they held basic tracker funds requiring minimal oversight. The non-engagement they cited as justification was the very inertia they profited from. And the alternative wasn't zero growth — it was identical market exposure at one-sixth the cost.
The CTF saga matters not because it's unique. It matters because it's instructive. Remove choice, exploit inertia, charge maximum permissible fees, and defend the extraction as necessary service provision. That's not an isolated failure. That's the operating manual.
Why you should care
Your portfolio operates under identical principles. The moment you stop actively managing costs, the costs actively manage themselves — upwards. Platform providers know you're unlikely to switch. Fund houses know you rarely audit OCFs against benchmarks. Advisers know most clients never challenge ongoing fees against delivered value.
Your energy provider doesn't assume you'll tolerate unexplained price rises. They know you'll switch within weeks. Your investment providers assume the opposite — and price accordingly.
Understanding the mechanism matters because it determines your response. This isn't about corporate villainy. It's about systemic incentives. The moment you act, the system stops working on you.
"The moment you act, the system stops working on you."
Your inertia audit — seven actions to take control
The industry depends on your inaction. Your audit breaks that dependence.
Action 1: Calculate your true all-in cost
Open every statement. List every fee: adviser, platform, fund OCF, wrapper admin charges. Don't estimate — record precise figures. Add them up. If your total exceeds 1.50%, you're almost certainly paying too much. Even 1.00-1.50% deserves scrutiny. Under 0.85% all-in for a fully advised portfolio suggests you've already done this work. Your target: know the exact percentage standing between your returns and the market.
Action 2: Audit your fund holdings against passive benchmarks
Identify every active fund in your portfolio. Check its performance over five and ten years against its benchmark index — not its peer group, its actual benchmark. If it's underperforming after fees, you're paying for failure. Check the OCF against equivalent index funds. If you're paying 0.75%+ for an active fund that's lagging, you're subsidising systematic underperformance. Your question: what exactly am I paying extra for?
Action 3: Challenge your adviser on value justification
If you pay for ongoing advice, demand explicit justification. What proactive actions did they take this year? How many reviews did you receive? What changes did they recommend? Did they initiate contact or only respond when you called? Ongoing fees require ongoing service. If your adviser charges 1%+ for an annual meeting and no proactive contact, you're overpaying by approximately 0.50%.
Action 4: Review platform alternatives
UK platforms now range from 0.15% (Vanguard Investor) to 0.45% (Hargreaves Lansdown). The difference on £250,000: £750 annually. Most platforms offer identical core functions. Premium pricing should deliver premium service — personalised research, sophisticated tools, or advisory access. If you're paying 0.45% for basic buy-and-hold functionality, competitors offer identical service for 0.25% or less. The transfer process takes two to four weeks. The saving is permanent.
Action 5: Eliminate unnecessary layers
Do you need both an adviser and discretionary fund management? Are you paying platform fees on cash that should be in a high-interest savings account? Could your active funds be replaced with passive equivalents at one-fifth the cost without sacrificing performance? Every layer should justify its existence. Cut what doesn't.
Action 6: Review all legacy holdings annually
Pre-2013 investments may still carry trail commission to advisers no longer providing service. Old pension transfers might sit in expensive legacy funds. Previous employers' schemes might charge 1.50% when your current scheme charges 0.50%. Set an annual calendar reminder: "Review all legacy holdings." The accounts you forget are the accounts overcharging you.
Action 7: Benchmark against DIY alternatives
Even if you value advice, understand what the DIY route would cost. Vanguard LifeStrategy funds charge 0.22% all-in. A low-cost platform adds 0.15-0.25%. Total DIY cost: 0.37-0.47%. If you're paying 1.50%, you're paying a 1.00%+ premium for advice. That premium should deliver tangible, measurable value — better returns, behavioural coaching that prevents costly mistakes, or tax efficiency that saves more than the advice costs. If it doesn't, you're subsidising something other than performance.
The process takes one weekend. The benefit compounds for decades. The industry's inertia dividend only functions if you let it. The moment you audit, compare, and act, the business model collapses — and your wealth preservation begins.
What needs to change at system level
Your audit protects your wealth. But structural reform would protect everyone.
What's improving:
The Consumer Duty, which came into force in July 2023, raised the bar significantly. Firms must now demonstrate they're preventing foreseeable harm from customer inertia — not merely disclosing risks. The Pensions Dashboard, rolling out through 2025, will consolidate all your pension pots in one digital view, making lost and forgotten pensions dramatically easier to locate. The Value for Money framework for workplace pensions forces trustees to justify costs against outcomes, creating pressure for low-cost defaults. Stronger FCA enforcement on Assessment of Value reports means fund houses must explain persistently poor performance or high charges.
What remains broken:
Legacy trail commissions persist on pre-2013 business despite providing zero ongoing service. Platform cash interest skimming continues unchallenged — providers earn spreads of 3-4% by paying you minimal rates whilst placing your cash with banks. Transaction cost disclosure remains deliberately opaque, buried in supplementary documents most investors never request. Default pathways in auto-enrolment still favour high-cost active funds far too often.
Beyond your own portfolio — collective action:
Workplace pension trustees: Push for low-cost index defaults. The evidence is overwhelming. Active management fees create a significant handicap few managers overcome. Employers: Review your pension scheme value for your staff. Choosing the cheapest compliant provider isn't sufficient — you owe employees genuinely competitive costs. Everyone: When firms send Assessment of Value reports, read them and challenge poor value. Most investors bin these documents unread. That silence enables mediocrity. Support transparency advocates like TEBI, The Lang Cat, Which?, and the Money and Pensions Service.
Individual vigilance breaks the business model for you. Collective pressure breaks it for everyone.
The vigilance you already have
"The inertia dividend only works if you let it. The moment you audit, compare, and act, the business model collapses."
You already check your energy bill religiously. You've haggled broadband providers three times this year. You spotted that £3 monthly overcharge within a week and challenged it immediately.
You already possess the discipline this requires. You already have the financial vigilance that would protect hundreds of thousands from your retirement pot.
The difference: energy bills cost you hundreds. Investment fees cost you hundreds of thousands. Yet somehow the smaller cost receives far more attention.
Apply your existing vigilance to the costs that actually determine your financial future. The inertia dividend only works if you let it. The moment you audit, compare, and act, the business model collapses — and your retirement brightens by six figures.
Start with Action 1. It will only take you about 15 minutes. Do it today.
Recently on TEBI
Prefer watching to reading?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel for evidence-based investing insights explained visually. Complex concepts made clear in under 10 minutes. New videos every week — hit subscribe so you never miss one.
