View more on these topics

IMA review to clarify risk definitions

The Investment Management Association is set to clarify the way fund managers should define risk in relation to risk-profiling and risk-rated funds.

The trade body has established a working group to study risk measures and risk objectives of UK funds to help members describe risk.

The working group is to publish a white paper for members, expected in the next few weeks, highlighting the distinction between measuring risk at a given point and taking into account future risk objectives.

An IMA spokeswoman says the paper will “encourage good practice by setting out a series of questions that fund managers should ask themselves, and be able to answer, about their risk management and risk objectives.”

Money Marketing understands the white paper will also look at the differences in measuring risk when risk-rating or risk-profiling funds.

The JHC Partnership director Keith Iless says: “The IMA should share this paper with advisers when it comes out, as a lot of advisers still do not understand the implications of investment risk and how risk is assessed.”

Recommended

People on the move

John Beale has left the role of training and competence director at IFA network Pi Financial. He joins Brewin Dolphin in December as regional training & competency manager. Former Towry director Gauis Jones has joined Ashcourt Rowan. Jones, who spent 14 years with Towry, has replaced Chris Williams as chief executive of Ashcourt Rowan’s financial planning business. Lift […]

FCA-FSA-Building-Sky-Contrast-700x450jpg

Axa Wealth fined £1.8m for investment advice failings

Axa Wealth has been fined £1.8m by the FCA for failing to ensure it gave suitable investment advice to its customers. The regulator says it found “serious defects” in the way Axa advisers in Clydesdale Bank, Yorkshire Bank and the West Bromwich Building Society advised customers on investments. Axa Wealth’s final notice, published last week, sets […]

Liz-Field-MM-Peach-300.jpg

Liz Field: Enhanced team performance through effective management coaching

With the UK economy showing renewed growth, businesses that encourage and nurture their employees’ full potential will be ready for long-term success, with strong management teams, long-term employees and active corporate teamwork. Two increasingly, yet sometimes confused, forms of staff nurturing are mentoring and coaching. Both are increasingly accepted as important business tools, yet senior […]

Tax-free gains? That can’t be right, can it?

When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne made several changes to the way in which income is taxed. Personal allowances were increased significantly above the rate of inflation; a starting rate band was introduced for savings income and, with effect from 6 April 2015, this was assessed at 0 per cent. In addition, […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Based on the FCA’s approach to the role of advisers, the IMA can call their funds whatever they like – but advisers will still (unless something else changes) be responsible for matching funds to clients’ needs. Whether a fund is labelled cautious, balanced, marbles or goldfish won’t make one iota of difference when individual client suitability is assessed in hindsight by a regulator who refuses to say clearly what they expect of advisers and their due diligence process.

  2. @Gillian Cardy

    Agreed, the regulator has (on more than one occassion) claimed that it is insufficient for advisers to rely on the information provided by fund managers alone to match funds to a clients risk profile. Therefore what the IMA and it’s members decide to do is irrelevant if the regulator doesn’t change it’s stance.

Leave a comment