Twitter icon Email alerts icon Latest News RSS icon Magazine icon Stay connected:

View the article online at

Wealth managers must address their role in fund market oligopoly

by Jon ‘JB’ Beckett on Dec 03, 2013 at 11:58

Wealth managers must address their role in fund market oligopoly

It is well known dirty secret that the UK fund industry has been one of the most lucrative fund markets for more than 20 years. It has enjoyed the best of both worlds: the open competition of the US, allied to the higher fees of Europe.

A star manager culture has helped support higher charges and advisers bought in hook, line and sinker. Why else do you think so many large US fund managers came to the UK?

Many confuse funds under management (FUM) with profit or shareholder assets; the reality is that FUM is an input cost for asset houses. An asset business can run multibillion portfolios and still make a loss if its operating margin is wrong.

Sweating assets

There is a term used in the fund industry but rarely openly discussed, it’s how much a fund manager can ‘sweat’ their assets (basically how much they can charge).

The implications of compressing fees are that large houses will be less able to sweat assets in future as margins fall. What are the signs – are the revenues of the larger houses going up or down?

Schroders reported £315 million in net revenue in Q3 2013, up from £246 million in Q3 2012. Excluding the addition of acquired Cazenove assets of £27.2 billion, Schroders’ assets over the same period went from £212 billion to £229.5 billion (£12 billion in investment returns and £5.5 billion in inflows).

That works out as £728 revenue for every £1 million assets in Q3 2013, compared to £846 revenue for every £1 million assets in Q3 2012.

Admittedly some of the earnings from the asset growth will have yet to be realised at the reporting date, but generally speaking earnings appear to be going up but at a slower rate than FUM. Looking at the earnings results of a few of the other IMA premiership revealed similar stories.

Now the UK market is going through the biggest reform since polarisation with the retail distribution review (RDR) and rising scrutiny over fund fees.

I suspect if the government weren’t looking into such a long-term savings abyss then it would be quite happy to keep the status quo and keep the taxes coming through the square mile.

Sign in / register to view full article on one page

1 comment so far. Why not have your say?


Dec 03, 2013 at 16:55

Free competition and a willingness to break away from the fund-based service that "wealth managers" offer. As the percentage of Rathbones FUM held in collectives rises past 40%, is it not time to be go the other way?

Take a step into the bright sunlit meadows of free choice, of portfolios with TER's of sub 1%, of portfolios invested in the time-honoured assets classes of equities and bonds without layers of cost.

I can understand why the "Wealth Manager" name is so popular - none of you manage direct investments any more.

report this

leave a comment

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.

News sponsored by:

Sponsored Video: Bringing it all back home

As the UK coalition government strives to rebalance the national economy, so called 'reshoring' looks set to play an increasingly important role in economic recovery.

Today's top headlines

Sponsored Video: Barings on investing in Frontier Markets

From Nigeria to Pakistan and from Kenya to Kuwait, frontier markets are catching investors' attention as never before.

More about this:


On the road

Click here to find out more from the Audience Development team.

Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet