View more on these topics

FCA board feared fund managers could ‘systematically underestimate transaction costs’

Boardroom-Business-Chair-Executive-Corporate-700x450.jpgThe FCA’s board expressed concerns that fund managers could low-ball estimates of their transaction costs to appear more competitive than their peers ahead of publishing its review into the sector.

Minutes released today reveal that in a meeting in June, one week before the FCA’s final report into the asset management market was released, the board discussed how its supervision teams could watch for “systematic under estimation” of costs as it attempted to bring in reforms to bring greater transparency around fees and charges.

The minutes read: “It was suggested that there needed to be some protection against systematic under estimation of transaction costs which could give firms a competitive advantage. It was felt that this was a supervision task and that monitoring patterns of underestimation would expose such practices.”

FCA fightback: Will the regulator’s proposals fix asset management?

While the regulator continues its plans to translate Mifid II for the UK market, the board also noted that it had begun testing on how to implement EU rules most effectively.

The minutes read: “It was noted that European regulations provided greater clarity of what investors need and testing was being undertaken to ensure implementation would be as effective as possible in the UK.”

The minutes also note that chief executive Andrew Bailey “suggested that consideration be given to whether more information could be provided to the industry on Brexit”.

FCA chief Bailey: 12 months in power



FCA chief attacks managers keeping £100bn in ‘partially active’ funds

Financial Conduct Authority chief executive Andrew Bailey has hit out at fund managers for keeping more than £100bn in funds that are only “partially active.” The FCA is “not saying passive management is better than active”, Bailey says, but cites “strong and consistent margins” and unwavering charges in active funds compared to falling passive costs […]


Blog: Calling out Which? on its SJP advice probe

Having a go at St James’s Place has become something of a sport among consumer journalists over recent months. Trade journalists too, are far from immune from embarking in a spot of SJP-bashing should the opportunity arise. In the adviser space, this is because it is written into adviser folklore that most, if not all, […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! Surely it is better to see historic transaction costs and force firms to disclose % turnover to give buyers a better idea of the relationship between turnover and cost.

    An estimate of the future is complete and utter nonsense.

  2. One question that needs to be asked is why UK investors pay far more for retail funds with the same manager than their US compatriots.

  3. So let me just get this straight in my mind….

    The FCA; yes the F.C.A are worried about fund managers “systematically under estimating costs”

    Well I suppose they should know, they are masters of it !

Leave a comment