It may not quite be merger mania, but August saw the completion – at least at corporate level – of Standard Life and Aberdeen’s merger including the creation of Aberdeen Standard Life Investments.
Janus Henderson announced that its trans-Atlantic merger was complete in the spring.
In what might be loosely called the mid-range, Rathbones and Smith & Williamson are discussing joining forces.
Finally in what is admittedly an intra-group reorganisation, Prudential and M&G are bringing together the two brands to create a savings and investment business – with a neat explanation of why – to allow it to offer capital-light, customer-focused solutions.
A decade ago, concerns over a merger’s impact on a fund might have been a signal for advisers to switch clients and in cases of severe disruption to avoid a fund house altogether.
Post RDR, the market has a very different structure with increasing influence from fund buyers, with advisers offering clients centralised investment propositions and model portfolios.
But from a fund selection point of view, have the rules of engagement regarding mergers really changed?
John Husselbee, head of multi-asset at Liontrust, says: “The recent news of a potential Rathbones and Smith & Williamson merger is just the latest update in an industry facing waves of increasing consolidation. Standard Life and Aberdeen, Henderson and Janus, and, on the international stage, Amundi and Pioneer have all paved the way for forming single, multi-billion, entities.
“As a fund buyer, what do these mergers mean for me and my clients? I watch with interest as the details of these companies’ deals unfold; the nitty-gritty of a fund manager or team moving to a new firm will of course be noteworthy – but succession planning at fund manager level is not something that overly concerns me as I always have a large bench of potential replacements.”
However he does believe a sweet spot in terms of firm size may be emerging.
