Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo
 
 

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 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

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

1 week 6 days ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

2 weeks 5 days ago

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

6 months 3 weeks ago

After last month’s surprise hold, the Reserve Bank of Australia has announced its latest interest rate decision....

2 weeks ago

A professional year supervisor has been banned for five years after advice provided by his provisional relevant provider was deemed to be inappropriate, the first time th...

3 weeks 6 days ago

WT Financial’s Keith Cullen is eager for its Hubco initiative to see advice firms under its licence trade at multiples which are catching up to those UK and US financial ...

2 weeks 4 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
Fund name
3y(%)pa
1
DomaCom DFS Mortgage
74.26 3 y p.a(%)
3