Client first 'means responsible investment'
New Zealand advisers and fund managers need to consider clients’ desire for responsible investment of their money if they are to meet their duty to act in clients’ best interests, the Responsible Investment Association of Australasia says.
Thursday, January 18th 2018, 6:00AM 
8 Comments
by Susan Edmunds
It has released new research that shows 90% of respondents expect their investments to be managed in a way that is responsible and ethical.
Under new rules, all New Zealand financial advisers will have a duty to put their clients’ interests first. Investments advisers already have the obligation but the new move will capture some KiwiSaver advisers who have not been operating as AFAs,.
Chief executive Simon O’Connor said his organisation thought responsible investment practices were part of that duty.
In its submission on FSLAB, it said: “It is RIAA’s view that under the new legislation, the new code should explicitly clarify this issue that financial advisers must explicitly ask questions regarding a client’s ethical values, and any other ESG preferences.”
O'Connor said those who wanted to fulfill fiduciary duties when entrusted with client money would have to consider how clients would expect their money to be invested in line with their values.
A growing number of clients were becoming sophisticated investors who wanted good investment products that ticked responsible investment boxes, too, he said.
The RIAA survey showed younger consumers were more likely to want to invest in a responsible superannuation savings fund than one that only looked at maximising financial returns.
That data was sourced from Australian consumers but O’Connor said attitudes were broadly consistent on both sides of the Tasman.
He said that viewpoint could come under pressure if markets came off their strong run.
“Very few are willing to say they put their values first and don’t care at all about returns. Where the vast majority sit is they want very good products and providers that fit with their ethics and beliefs as well.”
New Zealand’s big shift to responsible investment had happened, he said, as KiwiSaver providers installed negative screens on all default products.
But over the next year fund managers would find ways to do more than exclusions, he said, including more active ESG work to drive value on investments and corporate engagement.
There would be more differentiation among managers with nuanced RI strategies, he said, and a much more detailed conversation.
More KiwiSaver providers and fund managers were using responsible investment as part of their marketing pitch. “These conversations are a nice way to get deeper engagement with clients.”
| « No safe harbour for new advisers | Mann on a mission to diversify financial advice » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
In reality, most investment managers consider E, S & most definitely G elements when appraising stocks... which makes any additional pricing for this service a bit of a rort.
That aside, the biggest challenge for RI is around who's ethics are most relevant?
I tend to agree that the best way forward is to invest into the most appropriate vehicle, and understand their philosophy (which will capture ESG by default)
You raise an important point. Whilst ESG might be popular with institutions my guess is that they would not embrace it at all if the only way they could do so involved being ripped off by high cost managers. An important role for financial advisers is to minimise fees and my view is if you can’t do the right thing at the right price, as is the case with ESG in NZ, you invest widely and donate your excess income to charities like Forest and Bird rather than pay extra fees to fund managers. Once I explain the fees to clients they almost always adopt this strategy.
Thanks for those comments Pragmatic you make a good point – I’m sure our active managers also consider “E,S and most definitely G elements” when appraising stocks too. I am very definitely of the view that for retail investors locally ESG is a big scam designed to further exploit retail investors.
Coincidentally there is a great story on the problems with ESG investing in the Financial Times today.
Regards
Brent Sheather
I have checked global equity fund fees of 3 managers who hold themselves out as managing responsibly - their fees are not above the average. And they don't have performance fees. Not sure who you have based your "extremely high fee" claim on.
Regards
John
I don't think it's appropriate to benchmark ESG fees against high cost funds no institution would buy. Our view is that best practice when selecting funds for our clients is to aspire to the low fees that the likes of the Super Fund and ACC deem worth owning.
Fees on ESG funds should be reasonable in relative and absolute terms. We can buy active Australian equity for clients at less than 15 bps and passive at around the same price. For global equities we pay between 10 and 50 bps for active and passive. The ERP is about 3 percent for global equities so even 50 bps is a big hit and 150 bps effectively appropriates half the risk premium.
Can you advise the all up fees of the 3 responsible managers you have investigated and their names so readers can see if they are extremely high or not?
Regards
john
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
If I get any individual who expresses a wish to buy RI I tell them I don’t want to deal with them as most times it indicates the individual is stupid and doesn’t appreciate reality. The best way to handle this issue is to invest widely, stress low fees and then make donations to charitable causes. Once I explain the fees to clients they almost always s adopt this strategy. Far better than getting ripped off by scammers masquerading as responsible investors.