Aviva Investors Fined £17.6M over ‘Cherry-Picking’ Trades

Aviva Investors has been fined £17.6 million ($27.2 million) by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for conflicts of interest on its fixed income trading desk.

The FCA’s report detailed how traders were given a greater share of performance fees from long/short hedge funds than for long-only products, resulting in a bias from some traders towards higher-paying strategies through “cherry-picking” securities.

“There were significant deficiencies in responsibilities, policies and procedures, systems, management information, [and] culture.” —FCA“Weaknesses in Aviva Investors’ systems and processes meant traders could delay recording the allocation of executed trades for several hours,” the FCA said. “By delaying the allocation of trades, side-by-side traders could assess a trade’s performance during the course of the day and, when it was recorded, allocate trades that benefitted from favourable intraday price movements to one fund and trades that did not to other funds.”

The trades fitted with the investment mandates and strategies for each product, but the discretion given to traders when buying specific instruments led to the conflicts of interest, the regulator said.

Want the latest institutional investment industry news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters. 

In addition, the FCA reported that there was “no segregation of investment decision-making, order placement, trade execution, allocation and booking of trades”.

“Where firms do not segregate dealing,” the watchdog said, “it is essential that they implement adequate systems and controls to ensure that a compliant order process is followed… Despite this, there were significant deficiencies in responsibilities, policies and procedures, systems, management information, [and] culture.”

In the period covered by the FCA’s investigation, August 2005 to June 2013, £27.4 million was paid out to Aviva Investors’ traders through performance fees—although only two traders were involved in the malpractice. Both traders no longer work for Aviva Investors, and not all of the fees paid out were affected.

Upon discovering the practice in May 2013, Aviva Investors reported itself to the FCA and paid out £132 million to the affected funds in compensation for lost performance.

Euan Munro, Aviva Investors’ CEO, said the company accepted the regulator’s decision.

“We have fixed the issues, improved our systems and controls, and ensured no customers have been disadvantaged,” he said in a statement. “We have also made substantial changes to the management team which is leading the turnaround of Aviva Investors.

“We have a clear focus on simple and specific investment outcomes for clients and we are delivering strong levels of investment performance within a robust control environment.”

Aviva Investors’ co-operation with the FCA resulted in a 30% discount on the fine, which otherwise would have been £25.2 million.

Related Content:Are You Paying Too Much for Your Trades?

Executives at Sweden’s buffer funds have used their annual reports to reignite the debate about the future shape of the country’s pension system.

The four main funds—AP1, AP2, AP3, and AP4—all achieved double digit returns in 2014, driven chiefly by strong equity performance.

AP4, the largest of the funds at SEK 295 billion ($35 billion), led returns with a 15.7% gain after expenses. AP1 registered a 14.6% gain, aided by the strength of the dollar, while AP2 and AP3 returned more than 13%.

However, 2014 was overshadowed by the uncertainty created by an imminent overhaul of the country’s buffer fund system. The five buffer funds, including the smaller private equity specialist AP6, are set to be merged into three larger asset pools under a streamlined governance structure. A centralised “reference portfolio” for all three funds has also been proposed, as has a wage cap for senior staff and an emphasis on lower costs.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news. 

The proposals have been put on hold, however, due to Sweden’s uncertain political landscape. Much of the last quarter of 2014 was dominated by negotiations between the minority government and right-wing opposition groups in an attempt to pass a budget and avoid a second election in March this year.

AP2 CEO Eva Halvarsson said in the fund’s 2014 report that the proposed changes to the system would reduce diversification and have a negative impact on the relative independence of the funds. She added that AP2 had a successful structure, in which administration and management had been “tailored” for each other over a period of more than 10 years, and likened the proposals to “removing one leg from a sturdy stool: The risk is high that it collapses.”

In AP3’s report, CEO Kerstin Hessius engaged in a three-way discussion with Bo Könberg, a former health and social security minister and chairman of Sweden’s Pension Authority, and Anna Hedborg, former chair of AP1’s board. Hessius argued that the new structure could weaken the link between the funds and their wider role in Sweden’s pension system, at a time when much greater demand is to be placed on them as the baby-boomer generation begins to retire.

At AP4, CEO Mats Andersson focussed on the contribution of active management to his fund’s impressive return. AP4’s active portfolio has outperformed its benchmark for 12 consecutive six-month periods, he said.

“The contribution over the past six years totals almost SEK 8 billion, which can be viewed in the context of an annual cost of about SEK 90 million to conduct active management,” Andersson added.

Speaking to Chief Investment Officer last year, Andersson said any cost constraints placed on the AP funds could threaten their ability to take advantage of long-term active management.

Each of the funds has worked hard to keep costs down by negotiating lower fees, bringing capabilities in house, and collaborating on some investments, they said.

Related Content: The Unknown & Power 100: AP2 CIO Hans Fahlin