Are there too many ratings houses in Australia?

research-houses/ASIC/van-eyk-research/australian-securities-and-investments-commission/financial-crisis/united-states/australian-market/asset-classes/

5 July 2013
| By Staff |
image
image
expand image

Last year saw one of the major investment research houses, Standard & Poor’s (S&P), exit the Australian market.  

Related: Rate the Raters 2013

But with five companies currently operating in this space, many still consider the Australian investment research space to be rather crowded. The significantly larger United States market, for example, only has three major ratings houses – S&P, Moody and Fitch. 

That’s not to say that some Aussie researchers haven’t tried to diversify and/or bring unique offerings to the market. 

van Eyk Research, for example, recently boosted its research in asset classes the company believes will add most value to investor portfolios over the coming years, such as the alternatives sector. 

However, the biggest challenge this year came from the regulator, as it placed further pressure on researchers to better manage their conflicts of interest. 

In its Regulatory Guide (RG) 79, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) set out increased requirements for ratings houses with respect to disclosure of conflicts, transparency, and the quality of the research process. 

This means that those research houses who take either direct or indirect payments from fund managers will have to disclose it on the first page of their report. 

The requirement was widely welcomed by the industry, and all major researchers claimed they already had compliant systems in place, despite ASIC finding their understanding of the current regulatory policy was limited. 

ASIC’s revised approach comes as industry and consumer representatives pushed the regulator in the years since the 2008 market collapse by raising concerns about whether research houses are managing their conflicts adequately, and otherwise providing high quality, appropriate and compliant services.  

“During the recent financial crisis, some of the investment products that failed were covered by research houses; some of these products were highly rated or had positive recommendations published about them at or close to the time they collapsed,” ASIC said in its consultation paper which preceded RG79. 

“We understand many retail clients and their advisers rely, at least in part, on expert research in making investment decisions and formulating financial advice,” the regulator added.

“We are considering whether the current regulatory requirements for research houses are adequate in the light of recent events.”

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

1 month 3 weeks ago

Glad to see the back of you Steve. You made financial more expensive, not more affordable as you claim, and presided ...

2 months ago

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

4 months ago

Entireti has unveiled the new name for the AMP financial advice businesses that it acquired last year....

4 weeks ago

A Sydney financial adviser has been permanently banned from providing any financial services, with the regulator deriding his “lack of integrity, trustworthiness and prof...

2 weeks 6 days ago

Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones, has provided further information about the second tranche of the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes (DBFO) reforms....

1 week 4 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS