Consultants Slip the Regulatory Noose…for Now

Despite calls to the contrary, a review of regulation for UK investment consultants is not on the horizon.

The UK’s Law Commission has side-stepped demanding a regulatory review of the sector, despite demands from investors.

In its response to a consultation on “Fiduciary Duties of Investment Intermediaries” the independent body set up to oversee and review UK regulation said: “We have decided not to recommend a review of the regulation of investment consultants. It is important that investors are able to obtain advice easily and cheaply. Increasing the scope of regulation in such a way that makes this more difficult is likely to be detrimental for both investors and financial markets generally.”

Currently, the UK’s investment consulting industry does not fall within the scope of Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules if they only give “generic” advice.

The report added that as investment consultants were often regulated through some of their other activities “and will in any event owe duties of care in respect of all advice they give” it did not see an immediate need for change.

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

However, this response flew in the face of the majority of those who had submitted responses to the commission’s consultation document.

Strathclyde Pension Fund, the UK’s largest in the public sector, said in its response to question 20—Is there a need to review the regulation of investment consultants?—that it “would welcome a review”.

Avon Pension Fund, another public sector scheme, said: “It would seem that other aspects of the chain have far greater regulatory scrutiny or oversight.”

Several academics specialising in institutional investment agreed, while Shareholder Action, a group encompassing economic and financial foundations, and Baroness Jeannie Drake—a prominent pensions figure who has held several government advisory roles—recommended a review of the sector as a whole.

“Consultants have a direct commercial incentive to advise funds towards complexity, which may help to explain the growing complexity of pension funds’ investments strategies,” Shareholder Action’s response said. “This in turn further reduces the scope for effective fiduciary oversight of investment strategies by trustees and increases their reliance on professional investment agents.”

Even consulting firm Towers Watson agreed that there should be a review of regulation in the sector.

“The regulation of investment consultants now seems somewhat dated, with advice on the provision of pooled vehicles regulated, unlike similar advice on segregated portfolios,” the consulting firm said in its response. “Furthermore, advice on portfolio strategy can have a more profound impact on a scheme’s finances than advice on manager selection, yet it does not need to be provided by a regulated advisor. In order to help all trust‐based pension funds to get a minimum standard of advice in these matters, we would advocate that such advice be regulated.”

The Society of Pension Consultants said: “We agree that a review of the regulation of investment consultants would be justified, without wishing to pre-judge what the outcome of the review should be.”

The Association of British Insurers, which represents many investment managers, echoed the line taken by most of the fund houses that responded to the consultation with this response:

“Yes – asset allocation decisions have been found to account for a significant proportion of investment returns, over and above manager or fund selection. It is therefore difficult to justify the focus of current regulation where advice on pooled funds is regulated and advice on segregated or directly held investments is considered to be generic advice.”

Some were less keen to rock the boat, however. Mercer’s response outlined the reasons it did not feel a review was necessary. “In summary, we do not consider it necessary to extend FCA regulation to cover generic advice. Mercer chooses to apply the same best practice procedures to all of our advice.  Whilst widening the regulatory regime would not alter our practices, it would likely cause a reduction in the number of sources of generic advice and information (and potentially entrench the position of the investment consultants).”

The Law Commission said that consultees had “not identified a specific risk which would objectively justify extending regulation in this area” and as such a review would not be requested.

However, it conceded that “the lack of regulation of investment consultants does appear anomalous, and we would ask that the government actively monitor this area”. It suggested one possibility would be for the government to commission independent research into the issues raised by the current regulation of investment consultants and concluded: “If specific risks become apparent, further regulation would be justified.”

A spokesperson from the Law Commission told CIO that despite the high number of “yes” responses to the question on a review on investment consultant regulation, the institution did not feel the risk to investors had hit a level where one would be required.

“There were 61 responses on the issue; 47 said ‘yes’, six said ‘no’, and eight gave other responses,” she said. “The difficulty is not the number of responses, [but] we didn’t think they showed a specific risk to investor protection or market integrity that would justify regulation under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive. It’s quite a high hurdle and we didn’t think it had been met yet, although we did have concerns about the future.”

Related content: Buylists: Help or Hindrance? & Consultants Accused of Serial Conflicts

How to Make the Endowment Model Viable

The alternatives-heavy model is far from a “one size fits all” solution, NEPC has said.

David Swensen’s model for the Yale endowment may not be suitable for all endowments and foundations, according to consulting firm NEPC, but they shouldn’t rush to a 60/40 portfolio either.

Instead, smaller and mid-sized endowments—with less than $500 million in assets—may be better suited to a hybrid investment program that falls somewhere between the “illiquid, complex endowment model and the liquid, traditional 60/40 portfolio,” the consultancy firm said in a paper.  

“Higher returns generated by 60/40 portfolios over recent periods have led some endowment and foundation investment committee members to consider the endowment model’s long-term viability and whether the traditional allocation split is perhaps a better solution for meeting spending needs,” Scott Perry, partner and member of NEPC’s endowments and foundations team, said.

According to the 2013 NACUBO-Commonfund study of endowments, institutions saw an average one-year annualized return of 11.7% and a three-year return of 10.2%. A combination of the S&P 500 and Barclays Capital Aggregate indices returned 20.6% and 18.5% respectively.

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

The concern was greatest among smaller institutions with limited resources unable to take on significant illiquidity and complexity, NEPC said.

“The endowment model is not a ‘one size fits all’ solution,” Perry said. “A holistic approach that integrates the spending needs of the endowment with the operating budget is central to success.”

Along with understanding one’s budgetary needs, endowments and foundations should employ a multifaceted and dynamic asset allocation structure, take advantage of the illiquidity premium when possible, maintain an appropriate number of manager relationships, consider using passive management in certain areas to reduce fees, and think long-term, the paper said.

According to NEPC, a more diversified portfolio, with a balanced target asset allocation to equities, fixed income, multi-asset, and alternatives, had an expected return of 7.1%, slightly lower than the endowment model’s forecasted 7.6%. However, Perry noted that the custom model “has all the potential to satisfy the investment program’s return goals.”

The 60/40 portfolio, on the other hand, projected just over 5% expected return according to the consulting firm’s data.

“While a simple 60/40 portfolio has performed admirably over the past five years, the pendulum will likely swing back in favor of a more diversified approach,” Perry said. “Many asset classes that have performed well of late—domestic equities and fixed income—are now looking towards more subdued returns in the next five to seven years.”

Related content: Is the Yale Model Dead?

«