IFM maintains silence on remuneration

IFM Investors tim wilson remuneration super funds superannuation funds managed funds pension funds sovereign wealth funds Insurers

10 March 2020
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

The chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Tim Wilson has made another attempt to extract information from industry funds-linked investment manager, IFM Investors, but has had no better success.

IFM Investors made headlines late last year by declining to answer a range of questions asked by Wilson and some other members of the committee, but an IFM Investors document filed with the committee on 28 February, suggests little further progress has been made.

The IFM Investors letter responded to a letter from the committee received on 31 January requesting responses to additional questions.

Those additional questions covered governance, clients and commercial relationships, investments, valuations and performance and remuneration.

However in almost all cases, IFM Investors held the line on what it had told the committee last year, and noting that in “answering the Committee’s questions IFM does not prejudice the interests of the approximately seven million Australian industry super fund members, and the beneficiaries or our investors in other countries, who ultimately benefit from IFM’s investments”.

The IFM response said it managed funds on behalf of 443 institutional investors globally, including superannuation and pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, insurers, endowment, foundations and universities.

“IFM does not have any retail clients or clients who are individuals,” it said. “IFM’s clients are large sophisticated institutional investors, with all or substantially all having funds under management in excess of $100 million,” it said.

On the key question of remuneration, the IFM maintained its relative silence, arguing that the information being sought by the committee “departs from market practice and regulatory requirements in major financial services hubs including London and New York”.

“Public authorities in Europe, the US and the UK do not require private fund managers like IFM to disclose the remuneration information being sought by the committee.”

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 3 weeks ago

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

2 months ago

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

2 months 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...

2 weeks 2 days ago

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

1 week 2 days ago

The FAAA has secured CSLR-related documents under the FOI process, after an extended four-month wait, which show little analysis was done on how the scheme’s cost would a...

1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS