Like a kid picking from his classmates for the playground kickabout, M&G and Schroders are two of the names you’d would want on your team, between them managing around 10% of the total assets the IA oversees.
At this stage, there’s been very little comment from the parties involved, despite unverified rumblings that members are unhappy with the association’s forward direction.
The IA has only existed in its current form since January, when it rebranded from the Investment Management Association following last year’s merger with the Investment Affairs team at the ABI.
Suggestions that members have since been unhappy with a “blurring” of the roles of the IA and the FCA make little sense to me. The IA can only react, not make the rules, and is only as powerful as its very public roll of members, not faceless bureaucrats.
That’s what makes today’s news so concerning – lose the big players and the IA’s credibility is severely dented. Not that there’s been any indication of doubt from groups about the IA’s Statement of Principles on good practice, but from a wealth manager’s perspective does this mean M&G and Schroders could exclude their funds from the IA sector classifications, or vice versa?
The IA can roll off a number of notable achievements over the past year, including, as CEO Daniel Godfrey told Portfolio Adviser in August, the aforesaid Statement of Principles, its investor forum and the ‘pounds and pence’ cost disclosures on fund fees that comes into effect in 2016.
