Kutxabank Fund Loses 55% Since 2010

Kutxabank 0/100: The Fund That Has Lost 55% Since 2010

A fund marketed within Kutxabank's delegated portfolios has accumulated a 55% drop since 2010, according to data circulating about the product. During that same period, global markets rose by 400%. The Kutxabank 0/100 Carteras FI (ISIN ES0113053005) is part of a service where more than 130,000 clients have delegated the management of their assets. Investors sign, delegate, and trust. Many do not know this product is in their portfolio.

Recent history leaves no room for interpretation. Since 2016, the fund has closed with positive returns in only one year: 2020, with +0.26%. The other nine years saw losses. Between 2022 and 2025, it has posted four consecutive negative years, with annual drops between 7% and 12%. And the pattern continues.

What Is Kutxabank 0/100 and Why Does It Lose Money?

The product is not sold at the counter like a standard fund. It is embedded within delegated portfolios: the client hires a management service, not a specific product, and the bank decides what goes inside. This is the design trap. Participants do not choose Kutxabank 0/100; they find themselves invested in it.

According to public information on the fund, its declared strategy combines financial criteria with extra-financial ESG criteria: human and labor rights, environmental care, good governance, and anti-corruption efforts. Economic sustainability, the great forgotten factor. The brochure speaks of respect and best practices; the results speak of something else.

Regarding composition, data from those tracking the product point to a portfolio loaded with bonds and cash. Some argue the fund is long on government debt and short on US equities, losing on both fronts. If the market rises, it does not participate; if interest rates move against it, it misses again. A cocktail that explains the annual trickle of losses.

Ten Years Losing While Markets Hit Highs

The detail that confuses anyone with basic investment knowledge is the starting point. Beginning in 2010, with markets at lows after the financial crash, and losing money over the trinc decade takes some skill. Any vehicle indexed to the MSCI World multiplied capital several times over. This one cut it in half.

The calculation circulating among those who have trinc the product is devastating: a portfolio replicating the global index would have quintupled the money. The Kutxabank 0/100 portfolio has nearly halved it. For an average asset base, the difference between these scenarios amounts to tens of thousands of euros.

Some go further, arguing the fund seems designed to lose. This is not a formal accusation, but the reading some make given the persistence of poor results: if the manager charges a fee regardless of performance, the incentive is to gather assets, not generate returns. Fees are charged equally in good and bad years. In this fund, good years can be counted on one hand.

Fees, Delegated Portfolios, and Bank Business

The business model explains much. Traditional Spanish banking investment funds often benefit the bank before the client. Management fees are charged on assets under management, not on performance. If the fund falls, assets decrease and so do fees, but the bank still collects. Meanwhile, participants bear the full loss.

Comparison with institutional funds is inevitable. Products with good results and low fees are usually reserved for high-net-worth individuals, institutional investors, or clients with access to vehicles not sold in branches. Small savers get what remains. This is not conspiracy theory: it is how product tiering works in most banking networks, according to some debate participants.

This case recalls other episodes. About 25 years ago, another entity launched thematic telecom and tech funds during the dot-com boom. They promised everything. Values crashed 90% and took years to recover, while stock markets returned to highs. History repeats itself with different packaging.

What Can a Client Do With This Fund in Their Portfolio?

The first step is knowing if you have it. Delegated portfolios do not always break down each product's details, and many participants discover years later that their money was in a vehicle they would not have chosen. Reviewing the contract and requesting a full portfolio breakdown is the minimum.

From there, the decision is individual. Those invested can consider switching to another fund without tax cost, provided it is done between investment funds. Switch taxation allows moving money without passing through Hacienda (Spanish Tax Agency), something many clients do not know. Banks rarely make it easy, but regulations support it.

The underlying debate is different: to what extent can a delegated management service maintain a product with this track record without accountability? Supervision exists on paper. In practice, funds with poor results continue to be marketed for years because clients do not look, do not understand, or do not want to accept they were sold something that doesn't work.

---

Analysis gets stuck here. Fund data is public, history is verifiable, and comparison with the market is fruta. What doesn't add up is why such a product remains in the portfolios of 130,000 people without anyone raising an alarm sooner.