Spokespeople for the association assured me the utmost care would be taken to make sure the site remained an information portal and didn’t stray too far towards an advisory service.
But the main question for me is how this may or may not change the IMA’s role in the industry or at least people’s perception of it.
Talking over the topic with various industry professionals this week threw up mixed reactions.
Tom Biggar, investments manager at TQ Invest, said: "I think they should still maintain their neutrality. If the IMA provides a research facility and then links straight to fund houses that would leave out a number of options.
"It should make sure it points out investors can then go to seek advice from an IFA, can buy the funds directly or can go to a discount broker."
In principle, however, Biggar thinks the provision of fund information from a independent institution, which is both credible and taken seriously is a good thing.
Certainly, independence of the IMA is an important point to consider.
Is the IMA independent?
It should be remembered not every fund provider is a member of the IMA and so it is not a fully representative organisation.
To be a full member, fund management firms pay a subscription based on their market share. So the big guns of the fund management world, Jupiter, Fidelity, Schroders and the like, will pay significantly more than the minnows and boutique firms.
Representatives from fund houses that hold full membership can then volunteer to sit on various committees and take part in consultations or workshops discussing industry issues.
Like any good club then, there are benefits to being a member and there’s nothing wrong with that, but perhaps benefits are more highly concentrated to the bigger fish.
As a members’ club, the IMA shouldn’t be regarded as representative of the whole industry, which is a point that is sometimes forgotten.
Biggar added: "It’s not for me to say how the IMA should charge their members, however, I think it would be great if they could do something that accomodates all fund management groups."
At the moment some non-member funds are included in IMA sectors. But generally, funds of non-members are excluded from sectors and would therefore be excluded from the new fund research tool.
The IMA said from January 2012 it is bringing out a new form of membership, called sector membership, which would open up consultation on any issue surrounding sectors to those who wish to become solely a sector member.
The move is driven by the fact more offshore funds are expected to try and get into IMA sectors in the aftermath of Ucits IV.
Sector members will pay a lesser fee than full members (of which there are 185).
A final type of membership is affiliate, of which there are approximately 80. These members tend to be companies that provide facilties or services to full members.
Of the IMA’s foray into fund selection, Mark Dampier head of research at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "You either cover the whole market or you don’t. If it is only going to cover its members then it is only covering part of the market and it should have to tell clients that."
The website changes are currently in development stage and there is plenty of time for changes to be made and for all the requisite legal disclosures to be put together.
I’ll be keeping an eye out for the revamp though and I think others would be well minded to as well.
