Jump to content
  • Luuk Jacobs
    Luuk Jacobs

    Sign in to follow this  

    The FCA Asset Management review… evolution or revolution?

      Time to read: 3min

    On June 28 the FCA published its highly anticipated Asset Management Study. This final report, which was initially commissioned in 2015, reviews the UK’s Asset Management sector impacting fund managers, pension schemes, investment consultants and fund platforms.

     

    While the announcement delivered no big shocks, initial industry reactions have been varied in their interpretation of the study. “The FCA is sending a clear message about what sort of behaviours it expects” said Saker Nusseibeh, Hermes Investment Management while Daniel Godfrey, chief executive of the People’s Trust said “The regulator has gone light pretty much across the line”.

     

    The FCA has put together a ‘package of remedies designed to bring together a consistent and coherent framework of interventions for the industry’. It will clearly take some time for the dust to settle on this and the impact on the Asset Management industry to be understood.

     

    The regulator is clear the rules of the game will change with a heightened focus on the value for money the industry delivers. It believes the price competition in the market is too weak and a comprehensive package of reforms is needed to make competition work better and help both retail and institutional investors to make their money work well for them.

    Greater transparency of the cost and charges has been a topic for several years.  The FCA seems to have set out a simple path to follow; clear disclosure to institutional investors or an ‘all-in fee’ for retail investors, combined with potentially tightening rules on performance fees.

     

    On the governance front, the report indicates a strengthening of the duty of fund managers to act in the best interest of investors, this will not mean a change in the law however.  The value for money Asset Managers deliver to investors will be introduced through the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR, applicable to the wider financial services industry as of 2018).

     

    Fund boards are to appoint two independent board members to improve governance structures. Some say this does not go far enough and it should have driven a far more independent board by the appointment of either an independent Chairman or a majority of independent board members.

     

    Another criticism is that this comes at a crucial moment for the industry which is concentrating on MiFID II (which some argue addresses some of the highlighted issues) and Brexit. These, along with other regulatory changes have potential to be counterproductive for the industry and investors.

     

    It’s fair to say the FCA is not introducing tough rules to revolutionise the market. The emphasis is on principles and consultation which will evolve the industry rather than revolutionise it. As Keith Baird of the Cantor Fitzgerald Europe said, “This report is not confrontational, indeed the tone is quite friendly.”



    Sign in to follow this  

    Share this  

    Member Feedback



    Recommended Comments

    There are no comments to display.

    Become a member to read more and join the discussion

    Members can read and contribute to discussions

    Apply

    Register now for free access.

    Create your account

    Sign in

    Already a member? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

  • Related Content

    • Colin Ng
      By Colin Ng
      Continuing with our thinking of CMU & the future of EU Supervision, it’s apparent the creation of a Single Capital Market, brings with it a need to have a single set of rules to govern it. Early last year ESMA launched an Interactive Single Rule Book for the securities market to help market participants understand the Level 1, 2 and 3 rules laid out in order to facilitate consistency in application across the member states.
       
      However, this is not as straightforward as it looks. Whilst a single rule book for all member states is important (and the ESMA will ‘watch’ over it), the EU still has to recognise that a certain degree of national independence is afforded to the member states and its supervisory authority/ies as well.

      We observed over the recent years that there has been a steady concentration of power at the ESMA, with some parties crying ‘land grab’ by the EU as a result of the UK’s imminent exit from the bloc. This may also be in part borne out of the growing call from the Commission for ESMA to play a stronger role in enhancing convergence. In a nutshell, this is the convergence dilemma: How much is too much centralisation / concentration?
       
      What does it mean for investors, businesses and the asset management industry?
      Historically, retail investors & businesses in the EU have preferred safer investments, i.e. more willing to invest within their national borders and in debt than in equity for fear of less certain returns.

      A key objective of the CMU is to increase the range and choice of investments available to investors and businesses. And this is where we see the asset management industry can play a key role.

      Armed with years of cross-border investing experience and management expertise, asset managers are able to assume the position as the ‘gel’ that brings together the interest of investors, businesses and new investment opportunities offered by the wider financial markets.

      From an investor perspective, by making it easier for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) to raise capital on public markets, they have a wider range of investments to choose from leading to a potentially better diversified portfolio. However, these less established firms do come with a higher risk (and also higher expected returns) so acceptance and general take-up will take time.

      For SME businesses, this is good news as the ‘promised land’ of public market capital may no longer be a thing for the distant future but something that can be seriously considered in the short to medium term. Having said that, businesses still have to weigh up the pros and cons as high listing fees and initial low take-up may still be deterrents.

      CMU proposals are also opening up more avenues for SMEs and infrastructure projects to secure financing through pan European crowd funding platforms and cross-border business angel networks.
       
      What does it mean for product development?
      The CMU proposals and legislations to date have offered up new financing avenues and investment opportunities, with the addition of new products, fund vehicles and investment strategies, all geared towards the vision for a border-less capital market in the EU.

      The European Long Term Investment Fund (ELTIF) Regulation, which came into force in 2015, created a new AIF cross-border fund vehicle that enables asset managers to offer investment opportunities in SME capital, infrastructure projects and real estate projects within the EU. They essentially have been created to raise funds to channel towards public projects and smaller businesses which historically have had less luck with raising capital.

      Having said that, ELTIFs generally offer fewer liquid assets (hence higher returns and more diversification) but is another example of how the CMU have created different investment strategies.

      Another important theme arising from the CMU proposals is the alignment with improving the market’s understanding of environmental, social and governance related risks and returns (responsible investing). It seeks to provide opportunities to connect capital with greener and sustainable infrastructure projects and SME businesses.

      Another important measure from the CMU proposals is to promote retail savings and investment through capital markets via the creation of a pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP).

      The introduction of PEPP has increased choice for retirement savings and builds an EU market for personal private pensions which pension providers could opt for when offering private pensions across the EU. Importantly also, it helps to channel EU savings to much needed long-term infrastructure investments.

      Four years on, we observe that take-up has been relatively low with only a couple of Italian fund houses having set them up (Muzinich & Cordusio SIM, and Eurizon). The right incentives have to be looked at, and there is still work to be done to local level tax laws to remove any cross-border obstacles. Also, consideration needs to be given towards a more suitably calibrated calculation of the regulatory capital that institutional investors should hold against infrastructure investments.

      With new products and investment strategies, comes the need for enhanced promotion of financial education and setting up a market infrastructure to improve financial regulation and market efficiency. Though take-up is relatively low at the moment with ELTIFs and PEPP, we see this is as expected as it requires a cultural shift. Rome was not built in a day.
       
      What does this all mean and what is left to do?
      Careful expectation management is important here. The Juncker Plan is ambitious, and the CMU is not any different. Capital markets are still fairly diverse and for all EU28 states (maybe 27 in a few months) to fully embrace the changes and lower their national barriers, less political hustling and more results need to surface (which also begs the question of how we can concretely measure its success). All member states need to accelerate discussions of the remaining proposals with a common goal in mind; much-needed lasting reform of the European financial markets.

      The recent European elections will bring a new Parliament into Brussels. It remains to be seen what future impact this new Parliament will have on the outstanding CMU work. However, with economic short-termism, nationalism and populist politics on the rise in recent years, now is the time more than ever for initiatives such as the CMU to deepen the unity of the EU.
       
      This article originally appeared on the AlgoMe Consulting web site
       
      Authored by Colin Ng and Pierre-Yves Rahari 
    • Pierre-Yves Rahari
      By Pierre-Yves Rahari
      Juncker once famously said “Borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians”.
      Since taking up office in 2014, his Commission has been addressing exactly that: Remove obstacles for sustained improvement to the economy which will benefit the European people, regardless of where they are located. This is embodied in Juncker’s ambitious Investment Plan for Europe.

      Five years on from the conception of Juncker’s Plan, it has been reported that EU GDP is up by 0. 6%, it is set to create 1.4 million jobs by 2020 and has helped to mobilise billions in private investment for the public good (exceeding original target of €315 billion).
      These are not modest statistics – Juncker’s Plan is showing results and have laid down the foundations for further growth in the future. But there is still much to do.

      A key ingredient in Juncker’s Plan is the Capital Markets Union (CMU). Since 2014, EU press have been dominated by a blizzard of challenging news; the monumental bailout of the Greek economy, a migration crisis and more recently, the UK’s Brexit referendum result so it is no wonder the CMU has had modest publicity to date. But it is an important Single Market project and one of the key pillars of Juncker’s Plan.

      Essentially, the CMU’s key objective is to improve the free flow of investment all across Europe by providing the infrastructure to encourage people and companies to look across their national borders for investment opportunities and capital to benefit its people, businesses and infrastructure.

      The CMU & the future of EU Supervision
      Refreshingly, the CMU is not another stand-alone piece of regulation or legislation that adds to the mounting compliance burden that most European firms are already grappling with. Instead, the CMU is an umbrella for 23 separate but complementary proposals; a few of which have been adopted into legislation so far.

      In its essence, most of the proposals formed under the CMU umbrella is to move the European economy in one direction; To rejuvenate investments and deepen its integration by harmonising national regulation, legislation and supervision, and breaking down obstacles to cross-border investments.

      As with any growth programmes, ensuring that proper safeguards are in place is crucial to ensure lasting and sustained results, whilst protecting all parties involved. To be fair, major European regulations introduced in recent years such as MiFID II (and also those about to be enforced e.g. PRIIPS) are playing a part in this vision for Europe by enhancing investor protection, increasing transparency and improving market efficiency to bring the confidence back into the European investments market. Though it may seem that the list of new regulation is ever increasing, we see that the themes and ambition are very much aligned.

      With respect to supervision, removing national obstacles to cross-border investment and flow of money has accelerated the call for supervisory and regulatory convergence in the EU. This is particularly important in the area of funds distribution to encourage more cross border investments and support the creation of a Single Capital Market.

      Perhaps, another argument for more commonality in supervisory principles, outcomes and culture is that one must also consider that breaking down national barriers may come with risks to the financial stability of the bloc. National crises will no longer be contained in the scenario of a true Single Market; the European Union will truly be operating as one. Enhanced convergence in supervision will help to address this new systemic risk and has been a strategic priority of the CMU proposals.
       
      This article originally appeared on the AlgoMe Consulting web site. 

      Authored by @Pierre-YvesRahari and @ColinNg
    • Lydia Francis
      By Lydia Francis
      The following is a brief overview of the Treasury Select Committee meeting with the Financial Conduct Authority on 25th June 2019.
       

       
      Woodford Investment Management
      Unsurprisingly, the highly anticipated subject of Woodford Investment Management’s (WIM) shortcomings was the first topic for discussion at the meeting.
       
      The following observations are FSTP’s own view of the possible implications of Woodford Investment Management’s demise (we still don’t know what we don’t know and feel this subject has got some distance to run before all the facts are known).
       
      Key points:
      This failure of a retail fund will have serious and lasting impact on the operation of Asset Management in the UK.
      It throws into sharp relief the requirements falling out of the FCA’s Asset Management Market Study, in particular the need for independent Non-Executive Directors (NED) to challenge at Authorised Fund Manager (AFM) level and the production of qualitative value for money statements for all UK funds.
       
      From what we heard, we suspect there will be changes to the rules governing the liquidity of funds which retail investors are able to invest in. Andrew Bailey (FCA’s CEO) highlighted the Regulator’s view that European Union (EU) legislation has failed to manage retail funds. However, FSTP is concerned about an over reliance on principles based regulation (i.e. living within the ‘spirit of the rules’) in this area of Financial Services. Our clients operating in this arena are always looking for clarity and are generally welcoming of prescriptive rules in this area.
       
      Despite the introduction of formalised rules on product governance via MiFID II’s implementation in January 2018, distributor/manufacturer relationships and due diligence arrangements appear to be falling well short of regulatory expectations. We surmise that this is likely to result in a greater degree of regulatory intervention.
       
      The remuneration of individuals will attract the attention of the wider media and public as this situation develops. In this instance the Senior Managers and major beneficiaries of fees charged are one and the same. On the face of it there appears to be precious little individual accountability and a lack of challenge by others – the prevailing attitude seemingly being, “We pay ourselves what we think we are worth”. However, when that premise is built upon the investments of retail investors (bear in mind how much pension fund money will be tied up here) there has to be a day of reckoning. The message? If you are not providing retail investors with the service they have been led to expect, you cannot continue to reward yourselves so disproportionately. In short, Senior Managers must now be seen to be taking a more overt, moral stand on what is right and fair.
       
      Bailey was very strict to follow what he’s already told the media and the Committee’s Chair Nicky Morgan’s question, “Does anyone at the FCA read the papers and listen to what’s going on in the industry?” received a curt reply.
       
      The question, “Is it a failure of rules, or a failure of FCA supervision?” received a straight forward response of, “A failure of rules”, with Bailey’s reasoning being that whilst WIM has often had long periods of strong performance and long periods of poor performance, in this instance it is has not been able to save the situation, or the many reputations that have been tarnished as a result.
       
      The responsibilities of Link – the AFM for Woodford Funds – was centred on by Bailey who reiterated the regulatory contact that is now well publicised. The Committee observed that Link – previously owned by Capita – did not have a good record of managing Investment Managers on behalf of investors, given they were at the centre of the Arch Cru issues. (N.B. An article in the FT on 25 June alleges that the FCA pressured WIM into using the services of Link – as the largest provider of ACD services – in order for the necessary regulatory permissions to be granted).
       
      The relationship between WIM and Hargreaves Lansdown (HL) was raised by the Committee and it became obvious that once the immediate issue of fund liquidity is resolved, a review of the relationship between distributors and manufacturers will be instigated. (N.B at the Investment Association’s annual Policy Conference on Wednesday (26 June) Morgan remarked that the methodology behind Wealth 50’s composition raised questions as to whether customers are being treated fairly, after the TSC received a letter from HL confirming that its influential Wealth 50 list was not solely compiled on performance and that WIM’s inclusion on the list, despite under performance, was impacted by fee discounts offered to the platform).
       
      Justice for individuals
      A common theme throughout the discussion was ‘justice for individuals’. There is a high degree of dissatisfaction with the complexity of regulation and the consequent lack of clarity for consumers and practitioners alike, with the suggestion being made for the FCA to sort their impenetrable verbiage as most people don’t understand certain aspects such as T&Cs. This concept was understood by attendees from the FCA, who proceeded to mention that they do have enough resources to deal with all issues, and a review of systems and capabilities needs to be looked into.
       
      The FCA was forced to comment on its responsibilities under the Equality Act, bearing in mind TSC’s disappointment with the Regulator’s response to the report, ‘Consumers’ Access to Financial Services’, published by the Committee in May 2019. FCA’s Chairman, Charles Randell, stated that this is, “By no means us saying we don’t take our responsibility to consumer vulnerability very seriously”.
       
      Culture
      Culture was brought into question and Randell mentioned that the FCA’s focus is shifting to outcomes supported by principles. After some bad tempered exchanges Rushanara Ali, MP quipped, “Some would argue that you are not tough enough with bank bosses…are you too nice to bankers. Is it better to be feared, than liked or loved?” Bailey’s quick response of, “I don’t get up in the morning hoping people will love me”, will surely resonate for some time. He also added the FCA has 650 investigations currently underway, compared to the 250 when he took on the role.
       
      Brexit
      Of course, Brexit did rear its head and Bailey made frequent references throughout the discussion to the fact that regardless of the issues raised and the revisions suggested, Brexit will have a big impact on the FCA’s plans, such as the intended investment in data analytics. However there will be one area that can be assured of relatively no change post-Brexit, the Senior Managers & Certification Regime – it was made clear that the Regime will be implemented in its entirety.
       

       
      And finally....
       
      Overall, Randell (above left) and Bailey (above right) held their own against some intense questioning, but one wonders how much Bailey’s ambition to be the next Governor of the Bank of England tempered his responses.
       
      This was first published on the FTSP LLP blog.
    • Eva Keogan
      By Eva Keogan
      We all want to love our jobs but what if the environment you are working in doesn't love you back? That's something many women are facing daily. Sexism is such an old fashioned concept and it’s really time for it to go, but it still exists.  How can firms stamp it out when it seems to be ubiquitous?
       
      You may have spotted the headlines recently about the Lean In survey which found 60% of male managers are ‘uncomfortable participating in a common work activity with a woman, such as mentoring, working alone, or socialising together’. 
       
      The choice of wording used is a bad start as it immediately puts the man in the role of the victim, with him being the one made to feel ‘uncomfortable’. And the study finds even worse thinking. 
       
      Apparently, senior male professionals are less likely to fraternise with junior females than they are with junior males. This is underpinned by these startling statistics: 
       
      Men are 12x more likely to hesitate to have 1-on-1 meetings with women Men are 9x more likely to hesitate to travel together for work with women Men are 6x more likely to hesitate to have work dinners with women  
      And to top it off, 36% of men say they’ve avoided mentoring or socialising with a woman because they were nervous about how it would look.
       
      If we look at these figures from the other side it becomes even more alarming – women are 12x less likely to get a meeting with a senior manager. Women are 9x less likely to get go on business trips. Women are 6x less like to be invited to work dinners.
       
      Yet this doesn't seem to be a case of fixing one problem and causing another, as 57% of women still report that they’ve experienced some form of sexual harassment in the workplace. 
       
      So what exactly is going on here? It's surely enough to put many women off working in a corporate environment altogether. 

      Data and Facts

      While it’s always difficult to apply generic survey data to a particular industry – especially when it’s a sample size of 2000 and generated in the US – there’s no denying that these issues are global, and that sexism and sexual harassment are still rife in the City of London.
       
      In 2017, the FTfm Women in Asset Management Survey found 70% of women have been the subject of sexism. That’s pretty depressing.
       
      It’s really important for everyone to enjoy work – we work longer hours in the UK than our European counterparts and the City is no exception. But while on the one hand we have diversity drives, returnships and Gender Pay Gap reporting designed to give women and other groups support and reassurance through legislation and behaviour change campaigns, recent stories coming out of the City at large show types of misconduct such as sexism, exploitation and at the very least crass jokes, are by no means going away any time soon. 
       
      The Toxic City?

      News stories around sexism in the City aren't positive at the moment - here are just some which have made the news:
       
      James Conmy and his ‘glazed ring’ comment ended up with him being fired. The Bloomberg exposé The Old Daytime-Drinking, Sexual-Harassing Ways Are Thriving at Lloyd’s  which contributed to the banning of alcohol. Coutts is facing a significant pay out to a female employee of its ‘unspoken culture of sexism’.  In February 2019, the FCA met Nathalie Abildgaard, a former employee of IFM Investors, an Australian investment manager with an office on Gresham Street, to discuss her claim that a senior manager sexually harassed her on a work trip – she has settled out of court this April for a six figure sum.  
      With all of this on the table it’s quite easy to lose faith in change at all but we just can’t give up and go home if we want to see change. 

      Who is responsible?
       
      Organisations themselves are responsible for their own culture but they need more than a gentle nudge. Campaigns such as Women in Finance are pushing for the numbers of women in the industry to increase. 
       
      The Investment Association also has a role to play. It currently campaigns around Diversity & Inclusion as well and while it has written to FTSE 350 companies about diversity it has not been so vocal about sexism in the industry itself – but is this something it should champion or should it tackle broader issues?  The Diversity Project, the campaign set up to promote Diversity & Inclusion in the industry has a broad remit across the diversity spectrum and is a force for good overall but holds no power to enforce rules or regulation.
       
      All the above are working towards change but it is only when there is jeopardy, or high stakes, we will see any kind of radical reform or progress.
       
      Calling out to the FCA
       
      When it comes to any kind of enforcement, the FCA is the only organisation with real teeth and it has stated over the last few months sexual harassment falls within its remit, so perhaps we will start to see some tangible movement on the issue.
       
      Speaking at City and Financial's Women in Finance Summit 2019 this month, Nausicaa Delfas, executive director of international at the FCA, pointed to an increase in non-financial misconduct as a threat to the sector's diversity.
       
      "This type of serious misbehaviour is toxic to a working environment and can lead to bad outcomes for customers, staff, stakeholders and the firm. In our view, tolerance of this sort of misconduct would be a clear example of a driver of unhealthy culture. This area clearly requires management attention and a broader change in the firms’ mindset."
       
      Will this effect change?
       
      First and foremost, we’ve seen little change in the Gender Pay Gap reporting figures so should women expect much else to change? Yes of course women should. 
       
      According to Wealth Manager ‘The FCA has said firms need to demonstrate good practice in purpose, leadership, rewarding and managing people, and governance arrangements.'
       
      With SMCR coming into play in December 2019, company culture is being given increasing importance in the Investment Management sector, and the risk of high profile fines for senior management and directors from the regulator may encourage organisations to stamp out any form of misconduct – sexual or otherwise – more quickly than before.

      Let’s hope 2020 sees a step change in stamping out sexism and misconduct for once and for all and we can all enjoy our jobs, regardless of gender or identity.
    • Ben Cole
      By Ben Cole
      Whilst the FCA has stipulated the mandatory introduction of independent  non-executive directors (INEDS) as part of the AMMS, should the FCA extend this to include mandatory diversity of experience?
       
      The recent coverage of Woodford Equity Income fund highlighted a high proportion of the portfolio was held in unquoted stock, therefore should the board (in this example) have had someone with experience of the unlisted equity market?
       
      I’d be interested in other views has to board diversification.
Debug
Debug info:
You may be asked to provide the below information to an AlgoMe administrator if you are facing any problems with the app:
appcms
modulepages
controllerpage
topics/forum ID26
page ID
PHP user agentCCBot/2.0 (https://commoncrawl.org/faq/)
ThemeAlgoMe v2.1.1a
Mobile appNO
Member ID
×

We use cookies to give you the best possible experience. If you continue, we’ll assume you are happy with this. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.