CFS global property funds reassigned S&P rating
Standard & Poor’s (S&P) bumped Colonial First State’s (CFS’s) Global Property Securities funds from ‘on hold’ status to a three-star rating. High staff turnover led the research house to place the funds on hold in April when the head of global property securities, John Snowden, left the team.
S&P revised the rating following the promotion of senior portfolio manager Andrew Nicholas to top spot, noting that he was the funds team’s third manager in less than three years.
S&P fund services analyst Nathan Bode said they will be “looking for improved team stability in the future”, noting that further turnover in staff is likely to reduce S&P’s “conviction in the manager’s ability to select and retain key investment staff”.
“S&P considers CFS’s intention to appoint another Hong Kong-based analyst to focus on Asian-listed property securities, and to augment the two-person Europe/UK team with a new appointment, as important commitments to the capability — given the small size of the investment team and the disparate nature of the Asian and European property securities markets,” Bode said.
S&P said “a competitive advantage of the capability is the investment team’s access to the CFS equities, credit and infrastructure investment teams”. CFS’s listed property team also benefits from a strategic joint venture with Colliers International, which gives them access to “additional data and insights not available to some of the other rated managers”.
Recommended for you
The Financial Advice Association Australia has released its pre-budget submission, including six key items to help reduce the cost of professional advice and increase its accessibility.
Phil Anderson, general manager for financial advice at the FAAA, believes the CSLR levy could reach $100 million if Dixon Advisory complaints are allowed to continue.
Proposed legislative changes to safe harbour duty could result in advisers having reduced professional indemnity costs, a joint submission by seven major licensees said.
With 66 per cent of newly established advice licensees being sole advisers, what are the risks and legal ramifications to consider when taking the plunge into self-licensing?