Is it for fear of peers learning their perceived magic formula? Or fear of clients realising they don’t have one?
Especially in the UK equity income space, where so many ‘me-too’ funds are criticised for failing to differentiate themselves from their peer group, perhaps demonstrating greater insights by having an interesting ‘tail’ of names would provide a USP to be proud of.
Romer-Lee adds: “Each company will have their own reasons and it’s not necessarily a size issue.
“There are some quite large companies that only disclose certain information but the direction of travel is certainly towards greater transparency and I think if people are not [sharing all the information] then they will start be asked why not.”
Of course, the larger, more established investors – the great and the good of the wealth management community – may be granted such an open door, at the discretion of the manager.
Woodford’s approach however appears to treat clients of all portfolio sizes with the same respect.
Romer-Lee added: “People can see what they are investing in and as people are prepared to be open I think it will be an increasing trend.
“I think Woodford was smart because when they set their business up they thought about where the industry was going to get to not where it had been until they launched.
“And that applies to their approach on pricing as well as transparency of holdings.”
Whether hands are being forced by the regulator or groups are taking the approach proactively, greater disclosure seems to be the way forward.
Newman said: “We believe investors have the right to know where their money is invested, from the biggest holding in the fund to the smallest.
“Disclosing the entire portfolio each month is a more appropriate guide to how the fund is evolving and being constructed, than merely revealing the top-10 stocks.
“It is also why we reveal the breakdown of our fees. Investors can see exactly what they are being charged each month and for what, so they can judge whether they are getting value for money.”
