Van Eyk Research fires research quality broadside

van eyk research fund managers research houses financial planning industry cent research house morningstar chief executive lonsec

31 August 2010
| By Lucinda Beaman |

The chief executive of van Eyk Research, Mark Thomas, has fired a broadside at the Australian investment research industry, criticising his peers for failing to apply high levels of scrutiny to fund managers that pay for ratings.

In a statement to the media, Thomas said research houses that are paid by fund managers to rate products do not apply as critical an assessment of those managers compared to those with a subscriber-pays model. Thomas asserted that research houses that do not derive their income directly from fees for investment ratings are almost two and half times more likely to critically assess the performance of fund managers.

Specifically, Thomas compared the performance of his research house with that of four of other research companies: Lonsec, Morningstar, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) and Zenith Investment Research.

Thomas based his assertion on an assessment of the number of endorsements issued by the five ratings houses.

The figures were based on 386 fund strategies rated by van Eyk Research, 410 by Lonsec, 554 by S&P and 303 by Morningstar (the statement did not include the number of funds rated by Zenith).

Of those funds, Thomas said van Eyk Research rated 52 per cent as 'investment grade', compared to 87 per cent for S&P, 89 per cent for Lonsec, 93 per cent for Morningstar and 95 per cent for Zenith.

Thomas said the figures proved his group offered research “free from any commercial considerations”. His statement follows similar analysis undertaken by the Australian Financial Review last Thursday, the same day Thomas delivered a speech on the topic. Thomas is working hard to define the value added by his company in an environment where many of its key contracts are under review, but the topic remains one of critical importance to the financial planning industry generally.

Zenith’s John Nichol rebutted the findings, saying Zenith’s process included a detailed screening process that saw only the top 25 per cent of fund managers qualify for ratings — and as such its ratings would be skewed more heavily towards positive endorsements.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

1 month 2 weeks ago

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

1 month 3 weeks ago

Interesting. Would be good to know the details of the StrategyOne deal....

1 month 3 weeks ago

SuperRatings has shared the median estimated return for balanced superannuation funds for the calendar year 2024, finding the year achieved “strong and consistent positiv...

1 week 2 days ago

Six of the seven listed financial advice licensees have reported positive share price growth in 2024, with AMP and Insignia successfully reversing earlier losses. ...

4 weeks 1 day ago

Original bidder Bain Capital, which saw its first offer rejected in December, has returned with a revised bid for Insignia Financial....

2 days 14 hours ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS