Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Colin Ng

Re-bundling investment research costs?

Recommended Posts

Luuk Jacobs

I think this thought of dropping the requirement to pay for external research would go against the direction of FCA developments around this whereas equally it makes indeed the visibility of the real cost of a fund again a game of “Hide and seek”. The research industry has already shown that disruption through MiFid creates opportunities for (new) research firms. I believe that is a better option than trying to stick to the old #algomecommunity

Share this post


Link to post

Become a member to read more and join the discussion

Members can read and contribute to discussions

Join us

Register now for free access.

Create your account

Sign in

Already a member? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  
  • Related Content

    • Rob Carter
      By Rob Carter
      Brexit, MiFID II, GDPR, Gender Pay Gap and Diversity are the themes we consider top of mind currently which is why we’ve created the Summer 2018 AlgoMe Industry Pulse Report.
       
      We wanted to get under the skin of some of these key events and burning issues for 2018. In doing so, we revealed some very interesting results and statistics.
       
      Given a choice of 7 cities, Dublin, Paris and Amsterdam are the top three choices for Asset Managers, Fintech and Financial Services employees to relocate to following Brexit. While 54% would not consider moving as a result of Brexit.
       
      When it comes to regulation; we are not surprised to find MiFID II and GDPR will affect over 60% of the roles in the industry.
      Positively, 59% believe Gender Pay Gap Reporting will improve the career progression of women.
       
      Please read the report for the full information and do get in touch if you would like to know more about your industry workforce.
       
      Rob Carter, CEO, AlgoMe
    • Pierre-Yves Rahari
      By Pierre-Yves Rahari
      https://www.ft.com/content/62097db4-65c1-11e9-9adc-98bf1d35a056
       
      The FCA outlined earlier this week, through the voice of CEO Andrew Bailey, the blueprint of the regulator's approach post-Brexit. In short - the way I read it - the FCA will aim to regulate towards outcomes in line with the European standards ("no race to the bottom") while operating with a hands' off approach ("principles and outcome based"). This is a very tight rope to walk ... Indeed, as I see it, the future UK regulation will need to be aligned with the European one, to ensure continuation of fluid collaboration and cooperation (the Europeans were quite clear on that matter during the Brexit talks), which the FCA is keen to deliver on. At the same time, the FCA seems to be responding to clamours of "too-much-regulation," which emerges regularly from some ranks of the Investment Management industry. I take the view that the FCA post-crisis approach - in line with most European regulators - has been to influence the resolution of issues that our industry is struggling to cope with on its own: Investor protection, transparency on costs, adequate governance models, conduct standards, diversity models and so on. This, to me, amounts to influencing a change of culture in our industry (which does not mean questioning the raison-d'être of the industry, i.e. increase the value of capital entrusted to us). Anyway, ten years of post-crisis regulation has brought some constructive changes to the industry, and some challenges, too, but I am not sure all has been achieved; it takes time to undertake a culture change as ambitious as the one we are tackling. As such, I find it risky that the FCA should lift their foot from the pedal so soon. In my opinion, the odds are high that the industry reverts to pre-crisis behaviours, if the regulator is already signalling that they will relax their grip on execution. I really want to hope that a change in approach will get to the ambitious outcomes that the industry needs, but we have been there before and failed to deliver. What would be different this time?
       
      Or am I seeing the glass half empty?
       
    • Julia Kirkland
      By Julia Kirkland
      Guest blog from Julia Kirkland, Senior Partner at FSTP
      If you don’t know already, which of course you do, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) is EU legislation which first came into effect in 2007. It was created to regulate firms providing services to their clients which are linked to ‘financial instruments’, these being shares, bonds, units in collective investment schemes and derivatives. In addition, it covers the venues where those ‘financial instruments’ are traded.
       
      Fast forward 10 years or so and we have an updated version – MiFID II. This includes the revised MiFID and a new Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR). January 3, 2018 is the day MiFID II must be implemented across Europe.
       
      Now we’re on the cusp of this deadline, the thorny and sensitive topic of Knowledge and Competence (K&C) is bubbling up as a major concern across the industry.  We’ve spoken with numerous firms in both the Asset Management and Wealth Management sectors and they have one thing in common; they’re all grappling with the assessment of competence of information providers.
       
      Who is in scope? 
      In Asset Management, this may cover a wide range of roles from sales teams, client services, broker servicing staff to Portfolio Managers (the really sensitive aspect of K&C). Managers may struggle with the fact they must tell a Portfolio Manager of 20 years plus who hasn’t got a formal qualification, they need to be assessed as competent and in a very short timeframe too.
       
      In Wealth, the scope may cover desk assistants, team secretaries and portfolio assistants who may all be in direct contact with clients, giving them information about prices, valuations, charges and providing generic market or sector views. Additionally, research teams who might attend meetings with clients to provide market, sector or stock views on a non-advised basis may fall under this too. Most of the firms we are speaking to are including research teams. Most of the above staff members have never been included in formal K&C Schemes before but this has changed.
       
      What happens in 2018?
      As it stands, information providers not assessed by January 3 will need to be supervised in their activities and oversight of any client interaction must be in place. If you’re not prepared, January 2018 is fast approaching and maybe it’s time to look outside your company for third party support and assistance.
       
      Our guest blogger Julia Kirkland, is Senior Partner, FSTP
      FSTP is a training solution provider with expertise in MiFID II and the company also runs workshops to cover Wealth and Asset Management to meet the ESMA requirements and provides advanced K&C assessments for more seasoned, professional staff.
    • Colin Ng
      By Colin Ng
      With all the tension and political noise....bit of Brexit humour to lighten the mood :-)
       
      France's Europe minister Nathalie Loiseau has called her cat Brexit
      WWW.STANDARD.CO.UK France’s Europe minister Nathalie Loiseau has told how she calls her cat Brexit as he is “unsure whether he wants to go out or not” when the door is open. “He wakes me up miaowing like mad because he  
Debug info for admin:
appforums
moduleforums
controllertopic
topics/forum ID59
page ID
PHP user agentCCBot/2.0 (https://commoncrawl.org/faq/)
×

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.