Before I answer RedOnion I will set the record straight on this:
1) Ex-ante
I have shown ex-ante that the overall cost of ownership is lower since the RIY figure calculated by FRCL is 1.2%pa (which includes such things as the cost of borrowings to provide leverage)
The RIY I calculated was 0.82%. This is not the TER as was stated above. So, on a like for like basis, the US ETF portfolio is "a materially more cost effective solution"
In addition, to purchase an Investment Trust, an investor would need to pay brokerage costs, Stamp Duty, stock exchange levy and the FX cost to transfer from Euro to Sterling.
Although I'm obtaining wholesale rather than retail FX I'm willing to let that point slide. But all things being equal, the cost to deal will be higher for FRCL just on the basis of the Stamp Duty.
QED
2) Ex-post
Now, in a slightly ironic twist, we actually use Investment Trusts in some of our sophisticated planning strategies so I actually have the historic share-price for FRCL (using monthly data from Bloomberg for the period 1988-2014). For the avoidance of doubt, we recommend that where suitable, some of our clients use Investment Trusts in order to create a proxy for a US ETF portfolio.
To be clear, it is a mathematical certainty (Bill Sharpe calls the arithmetic of active management) that ex-ante a US ETF portfolio will be cheaper, but for certain clients the fact that they pay little or no tax trumps that.
So, to present the case historically, I have taken the index data for the FTSE All World Index and adjusted it downwards by 140bps (1.40%pa) to match the ongoing total costs including financial advice of a typical investment portfolio constructed from US ETFS.
The results are presented below in Irish Punts/Euro at the market exchange rate for both Sterling and US$:
F&C source Bloomberg 2014. FTSE Data published with permission of FTSE
Past performance is no guarantee of future investment returns
I'll leave it there