Views on improving the integrity of global capital markets
20 March 2013

Corporate Access: Should Investors Really be Paying for It?

Posted In: Market Structure

Since 2006 the U.K.’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) has limited investment managers’ use of dealing commissions to the purchase of trade execution and research services. More than six years later it would appear that not everybody has been abiding by these rules; the FSA is shining a spotlight on the opacity surrounding who pays whom, and what they are being paid for, in the non-transparent world of corporate access.

Under FSA rules, asset managers and investment banks can charge for the cost of making a deal and for research but not for setting up face-to-face meetings. The FSA probe into research costs is part of a broader investigation into how asset managers look after their clients’ money. On 9 November 2012, the FSA published the Dear CEO letter and report Conflicts of interest between asset managers and their customers: Identifying and mitigating the risks. This letter follows the FSA’s reviews of asset management firms carried out from June 2011 to February 2012 focusing on assessing firms’ arrangements for managing conflicts of interest. These reviews were prompted by evidence that some firms no longer saw conflicts of interest as a key source of potential detriment to their customers and that they had in fact relaxed controls that were considered to be well-established market norms. The report suggested that conflicts were widespread, with asset managers failing to meet requirements on disclosing commission payments, as well as using customers’ money to purchase research and execution services without checking that they were eligible to be paid for in that manner. The FSA also wrote that in some cases buy-side firms were unable to demonstrate how corporate access constituted research or execution services.

Corporate access has been a growing trend as analysts and fund managers become more pressured to find an informational advantage, and they seek better and deeper knowledge for their research, as well as seek to engage and further improve fund and issuer performances. Although the figures appear high, the 2012 Thomson Reuters Extel Survey shows that the proportion of dealing commissions used to pay for corporate access is on an increasing trend rising to 29% in 2012 (from 27% in 2011 and 21% in 2010). As an ex-market participant, I find these corporate access figures hard to believe. It would not be a stretch to assume that these figures are likely to be inflated given that corporate access is a bundled service and does not exist as a single reporting line item in any fund management or brokerage firm.

So change to the business model is more than likely. Concierge-style broker services will become more difficult to charge for, and commissions allocated to corporate access are likely to dramatically decline. Transparency will have to improve. Nonetheless, the opportunity to revisit this topic should be welcomed as we continue to ask why fund managers are being charged for this access to company management in the first place. It would be unusual for large funds to struggle getting face time with management — sadly the same cannot be said for the smaller players. Whilst the FSA is in listening mode, maybe they could read the CFA Institute guidance for ethical practices involving client brokerage. It may just be helpful.

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to Market Integrity Insights.


Image Credit: ©iStockphoto.com/Jirsak

About the Author(s)
Claire Fargeot

Claire Fargeot is a former head of Standards and Financial Market Integrity at CFA Institute for the Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region. She was responsible for leading CFA Institute efforts in advocacy, policy development, and regulatory outreach in EMEA.

4 thoughts on “Corporate Access: Should Investors Really be Paying for It?”

  1. tom brakke says:

    For another perspective, please see my recent essay on issues about this face time between managements and investors.

  2. CC says:

    Unfortunately, some of your data points are incorrect. There is no “charge” for access to a management meeting and/or access to a corporate management team. I have been in the business for many years and know this for a fact to be true. Thank you.

  3. Claire Fargeot says:

    Thank you for your comments. Sadly this issue is current for the U.K. corporate access market. As the article mentions the U.K. regulator is looking into this (predominantly U.K.) issue of asset manager commissions being used to pay for research and/or company acces,s and the data points are those that have been widely circulated in the press.

  4. This article is so valuable tell to change the business model according to corporate and concierge-style broker services.Thanks for share this valuable information on UK corporate access market.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.



By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close