View more on these topics

Mifid II: The unintended consequences for stockpickers

Today sees the start of the new Mifid II requirements for the investment management industry, one of the EU’s most ambitious packages of financial reforms.

Designed to provide greater investor protection and transparency across all asset classes, the directive represents the most notable change in UK equity capital markets since the ‘Big Bang’ in 1986.

Included in the reforms is a dramatically changed investment research model, requiring fund managers to budget separately for research and trading costs payable to brokers. Managers will need to split out the cost of research, which is used to help make investment decisions, from the cost of buying and selling securities.

Portfolio managers will no longer be able to receive generic or even tailored investment research from brokers unless they pay for that research themselves, raise management charges to absorb the extra costs or, if the client agrees, use research payment accounts that are funded in advance.

A key decision therefore for investment managers is whether to pass on the cost of research to clients. If they do, they will need to justify this expenditure. While, initially it appears that most fund managers will charge the expense to their own profit and loss account rather than passing the cost onto clients, some are still undecided, given the complexity of the decision.

Doubts remain over asset manager preparedness for Mifid II

In particular, this will pile on pressure on the smaller asset managers who may not be able to afford the research themselves and may well result in portfolio managers being more selective about the investment research for which they pay. A number of commentators are predicting that research spend will fall between 10-30 per cent, and could even fall as much as 50 per cent if there is a full-blown price war.

In our opinion, while the intention is to address the perceived conflict of interest between asset managers and their buy-side customers, a likely unintended consequence of these Mifid II changes will be reduced research coverage of smaller quoted companies. Micro- and smaller-cap companies are already under-researched as it is often not economically viable for brokers to cover these stocks unless it is paid for by the company itself.

But what does this reduced coverage mean for investors, particularly those interested in smaller growth companies? In areas where there are only a handful of analysts there is already less data and insight available to investors. Indeed, there are some asset managers who are heavily reliant on the research produced by sell-side analysts to maintain their knowledge of a particular stock or sector. With less insight and research, investors considering smaller quoted companies will be faced with less information with which to base investment decisions.

However, this limited coverage of smaller companies offers investors with a real opportunity to secure exposure to stocks which may be undervalued, yet high quality. These stocks are under researched and will likely be even more so from 2018 onwards, leading many to trade at a valuation discount to their larger, better-understood peers. Fund managers who can offer insight and are properly resourced to conduct their own research in this area will be potentially well-placed to deliver strong returns.

Ken Wotton is a fund manager at Livingbridge Equity Funds


‘Bizarre at best’: Industry offers mixed reaction as Mifid II comes into force

Investment leaders have given Mifid II a mixed welcome as the new EU regulations come into force today. The regulations are designed to improve consumer protection and accountability when investing. Speaking on the BBC’s Today programme this morning, trading platform Liquidnet’s market structure head Rebecca Healey said the rules would improve transparency of investment costs […]


Doubts remain over asset manager preparedness for Mifid II

Experts have played down any immediate moves from the FCA towards those firms that are not prepared for Mifid II regulation that comes into force on 3 January 2018. However, concerns remain that a “material number” of small asset managers have not yet started preparing for the major European regulation. The FCA expects firms to […]


New Year’s Honours list hails investment and pensions leaders

Leading figures in the investment and pensions space across government, regulators and industry have featured in this year’s New Year’s Honours list. Chief executive of the Green Investment Bank Shaun Kingsbury and adviser to the chair of the Green Investment Bank Irene Adams were both awarded an Order of the British Empire for their services […]

The Investment Clock: Summer – the perfect time for a dip!

The rally in equities that began following the January 2016 China-devaluation shock has proved to be one of the longest ever. As investors have quickly brushed the sand off political events such as Brexit, Donald Trump and the French election, equity indices have repeatedly registered new record high watermarks. Meanwhile, the Investment Clock that guides […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. It’s intentions and its achievements are two very different things. It seems the rules were dreamt-up in the wash room by individuals with good intentions yet litte in the way of practical experience. Why do they not talk to practitioners first? The rules will increase costs to consumers, reduce choices and competition and also favour non-relevant investment products over those which are excluded from the rules. The flow of information provided on transactions too will do nothing aside from creating a new bureaucratic morass without purpose.

Leave a comment