Dear Fund Director,
Historically, the turnover rate has been a double edge sword. Fund managers were afraid of it because it meant more cost (and less performance), while financial executives tended to like it because it was seen during several decades as the milky cow of the group. In my opinion, regulation was soft at that time when TER ratios were promoted and did not include the impact of brokerage fees in the ratio. However, Mifid II tried to correct it kind of successfully. Find below the evolution of this ratio, which is showing a decrease in these last years.
Having said that, some investment strategies and asset classes require higher turnover rates. The size of the fund matters as well, given the difficulty of rolling big positions in some funds with huge assets under management.
A high turnover rate should not be considered as a negative element for itself. It may show that the fund manager is active and in this case, if this higher activity means higher returns and lower volatility for the fund, then it could be more than welcome. On the other side, if fund performance is average or poor, drawdowns are not reduced and volatility is average within their asset class, you should really ask the fund manager to explain why the figures are so high?
The Indeep Fund Director