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
Financial advisers are reminded to ensure their CPD is up to date with the Financial Services and Credit Panel making its second determination in a week after an adviser failed to meet the requirements.
An adviser has received a written reprimand from the Financial Services and Credit Panel after failing to meet his CPD requirements, the panel’s first action since June.
While efficiency remains a top priority for Australian advisers, State Street has revealed the profession is now juggling this desire with the need to maintain personalisation of its service offering.
A possible acquisition of data provider Iress is becoming a greater likelihood after the firm announced it is engaging with multiple interested parties.
