The research ownership question
VanEyk Research has enjoyed a long and illustrious reputation in financial services industry and deservedly so.
The group, owned largely by Stephen van Eyk and his fellow directors and staff, has been the only truly independent research house in the industry. And van Eyk — the man and the group — has never been afraid to call a spade a spade.
Which is what makes the news that van Eyk Research has sold 20 per cent of its shares outside the group to a consortium of industry figures such a cause for discussion.
Announcing the new ownership structure last week, the van Eyk group did not disclose the identity of the investors involved in the deal, arguing that it was too early to do so.
However, what was obvious from the outset was that the deal would increase the stake of those from outside the group in van Eyk to just under a third, a situation which could lead to industry questions regarding the group’s independence.
Exactly what influence will these outside investors have over the operation of the group? An interesting question, given the sensitivity over research.
Expressing his disappointment over the collapse of Mercer’s proposed buyout of van Eyk earlier this year, Stephen van Eyk had said Mercer was the only buyer the group was likely to consider because they were not tied to fund managers.
Does the fact the van Eyk group was unwilling to disclose the names and affiliations of its newest investors mean that there was some sensitivity over their affiliations that could influence how van Eyk operates?
Maybe it’s an unfair question, especially considering the ownership of other research houses — Assirt is wholly owned by St George, InvestorWeb until about 18 months ago was for some time a stable mate of Investor’s Mutual and Lonsdale Securities is wholly owned by Zurich.
Each of these groups is still in business and is still producing research for the planning industry and no-one says anything about their relationships — past or present.
AUTHOR
Jason Spits
Recommended for you
ASIC has released the results of its first adviser exam to be held in 2025, with 241 candidates attempting the test.
Quarterly Wealth Data analysis has uncovered positive improvements in financial adviser numbers compared with losses in the prior corresponding period.
Holding portfolios that are too complex or personalised can be a detractor for acquirers of financial advice firms as they require too much effort to maintain post-acquisition.
As the financial advice profession continues to wait on further DBFO legislation, industry commentators have encouraged advisers to act now in driving practice efficiency.
