REUTERS/GORAN TOMASEVIC
EUROPEAN FUND
MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
sfdsfdsfds
© Thomson Reuters 2013. All Rights Reserved. This report is for informational purposes only, and
does not constitute investment advice or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any
security of any entity in any jurisdiction. No guarantee is made that the information in this report
is accurate or complete and no warranties are made with regard to the results to be obtained from
its use. In addition, Lipper will not be liable for any loss or damage resulting from information
obtained from Lipper or any of its affiliates. For immediate assistance, feel free to contact Lipper
at 44.20.7542.2710 or via email at lipperfmi@thomsonreuters.com. For more information about
Lipper, please visit our website at www.lipperfmi.com or www.lipperweb.com.
EUROPEAN FUND
MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
OVERVIEW
This year’s front cover is our nod to the current discussion as to whether there
is a ‘Great Rotation’ underway, or on its way, in the funds industry. But before
addressing this issue, it is important to look at the current state of the industry and
the sales activity that has characterised the past year.
KEY DATA:
TOTAL # OF MASTER GROUPS . ..............................1,914
Sales across Europe totalled €230.4bn for ‘long-term’ funds in 2012, the fifth best
year for the industry over the last decade (behind 2005-06 and 2009-10). However
redemptions from money market funds totalled -€44.5bn over the year, and when
these withdrawals are included the industry’s sales shrink to €185.9bn (only the
seventh best total over the past ten years).
TOTAL # OF COMPANIES........................................ 2,817
Bond funds dominated the year’s sales to a degree not previously seen in Lipper’s
records, attracting €225.2bn. High Yield bonds and Emerging Market debt funds
together accounted for 40% of the net flows into the broader asset class, with the
former attracting €49.7bn (across different currencies) and the latter attracting
€40.9bn (across both hard and local currency funds).
ASSET GROWTH (2011 - 2012)......................... €644.1BN
By contrast equity funds suffered redemptions of -€8.8bn over the course of the
year. Having said this, sales activity for equity funds has generally improved over
the sixteen months since the low point of August 2011 (the month in which €32bn
was withdrawn from equity funds). This trend culminated in equity funds attracting
€13.1bn in December 2012. Despite this, so far one can identify “Small Oscillations”
rather than a “Great Rotation” in evidence among European fund investors. Bond
funds still attracted €19.4bn in December, above their monthly average for the year
(€18.8bn).
The rest of this report is presented as a three course meal, with some introductory
comments offered as an hors d’oeuvre, the main course of charts and tables from
Lipper’s FundFile database, before ending with a dessert from SalesWatch, Lipper’s
unique confidential benchmarking service that allows leading groups to track their
cross-border sales and assets against competitors.
A few new ingredients have been added to the recipe that makes up the European
Fund Market Review, with some articles written over the course of the year to spice
up the data that forms the base of this annual feast. Most of these articles were
originally written for Reuters, and so thanks are due to Joel Dimmock, Reuters’ Top
News Investment Management Editor, who has clearly shown that another cook
does not “spoil the broth”.
TOTAL # OF FUNDS............................................. 35,407
TOTAL NET ASSETS ....................................€5,930.6BN
ESTIMATED NET SALES (2012)........................€185.8BN
COMMENTARY BY:
ED MOISSON
HEAD OF UK & CROSS-BORDER RESEARCH
ed.moisson@thomsonreuters.com
PRODUCT MANAGER, LIPPER FUNDFILE:
JÉRÔME COUTEUR
jerome.couteur@thomsonreuters.com
PRODUCT MANAGER, LIPPER SALESWATCH:
BARBARA FERRARESI
barbara.ferraresi@thomsonreuters.com
LIPPER DATABASES FEATURED:
FUNDFILE - http://bit.ly/LipperFundFile SALESWATCH - http://bit.ly/LipperSalesWatch
Please note that the views expressed in this
document are intended as non-consultative and do not
constitute legal advice.
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
BEST SELLERS
Three groups attracted inflows into long-term funds
of more than €10bn: PIMCO (€35.1bn), AXA (€24.0bn,
including AllianceBernstein) and BlackRock (€14.8bn).
Still attracting impressive inflows, but just failing to
make it onto the medal rostrum were Prudential/M&G
(€9.4bn) and Nordea (€8.8bn).
Reflecting where investors’ product preferences lay
in 2012, inflows for each group were – to a greater or
lesser extent – dominated by sales of these companies’
bond funds. One interesting ‘twist’ on this theme is the
relative flows into BlackRock’s ETFs (iShares), where
€11.4bn of inflows are almost equally split between
bond and equity products.
The best-selling individual funds are highlighted in
the tables below, with the importance of fixed income
plain to see. Also included this year is a dedicated table
for mixed asset funds to reflect the scale of some of
FIGURE 1A
FIGURE 1B
FIGURE 1C
these funds’ success of late. All of the funds included
here are categorised as ‘asset allocation’ products,
with the individual managers able to invest across the
spectrum as opportunities arise, often (but not always)
with an absolute (i.e. above zero) return targeted as
part of an investment objective. Interest in such funds
has been strongest in the UK over the past year, but it is
interesting to note that 115 asset allocation funds being
sold cross-border were launched over the past year,
with a further 51 launches of such products specifically
targeting German investors.
Writing as the IMA’s review into its Absolute Return
sector is about to be revealed, it is perhaps the way
of things that this fund association will be knocked
irrespective of what they announce. But the UK is just
one market in Europe, and funds seeking absolute
return come in different guises in different markets.
BEST-SELLING BOND FUNDS IN 2012
FUND
BOND SECTOR
SALES (€M)
AllianceBernstein American Income Portfolio
USD
8,234.5
PIMCO GIS Total Return Bond Fund
USD
8,061.6
PIMCO GIS Global Investment Grade Credit
Global Corporates
5,865.0
PIMCO GIS Diversified Income Fund
Global Corporates
5,582.5
M&G Optimal Income Fund
Flexible
5,138.3
BEST-SELLING EQUITY FUNDS IN 2012
FUND
EQUITY SECTOR
SALES (€M)
M&G Global Dividend
Global
2,720.9
Morgan Stanley-Global Brands
Global
2,437.8
BlackRock IS Emerging Markets Index Fund
Emerging Markets
2,401.9
Aberdeen Global Emerging Markets Equity
Emerging Markets
2,352.0
DWS Top Dividende
Global
1,801.7
BEST-SELLING MIXED ASSET FUNDS IN 2012
FUND
MIXED ASSET SECTOR
SALES (€M)
Standard Life Global Absolute Return Strategies Asset Allocation
5,489.7
Newton Real Return
Asset Allocation
2,390.0
Baillie Gifford Diversified Growth
Asset Allocation
2,255.2
Invesco Balanced-Risk Allocation Fund
Asset Allocation
1,996.8
Baring Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund
Asset Allocation
1,976.7
4
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
As this report offers a perspective on the state of the European funds industry,
it is also important to be aware of a wider global perspective. Of course as US
mutual funds account for roughly half of the global assets under management,
any worldwide data will inevitably be skewed to activity in that market. By contrast,
European funds account for around one third of global fund assets.
This is useful context when considering fund flows in different parts of the world. Net
sales of bond funds (excluding ETFs) in Europe totalled €217bn in 2012, nearly the
same level as was seen in the US (€228.5bn). Furthermore, if one sets aside sales
activity for money market funds and instead looks only at ‘long term’ funds, European
products attracted €212.2bn, while US mutual funds saw inflows of €175.1bn. The
European industry was helped here by the fact that investors only withdrew -€16.9bn
from equities, whereas this totalled -€82.2bn in the US.
When money market funds are included US mutual funds enjoyed net sales of
€182.5bn in 2012, compared to €168.8bn for funds in Europe. Having said this, one
cannot forget that a sizeable portion of European-domiciled UCITS’ inflows come
from non-European investors. Lipper SalesWatch data (highlighted later in this
report) indicates that among the largest cross-border groups, 26% of assets are
sourced from investors based in countries outside Europe.
FIGURE 1D INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
Bond
Equity
Mixed
M.Mkt
Others
300,000
250,000
Net Sales (€m)
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
-50,000
-100,000
USA
Europe + Intl
Asia Pacific Latin America
5
MEA
“Long-term fund sales in
Europe were greater than in
the US.”
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
SHIFT TO CROSS-BORDER
It is important to paint in some of the detail in the European funds landscape, most noticeably by looking solely
at funds sold cross-border. The importance of the cross-border dimension of the industry is such that these funds
now account for 45% (€2,662.9bn) of European industry assets. This has risen from 21% of at the end of 2001.
Cross-border funds attracted inflows of €220.7bn in 2012 (‘long term’ funds only) a sales total that is second only to
the tally achieved in 2010 (€234.1bn) in our record books for the past decade. Interest in cross-border equity funds
had already clearly picked up in the last four months and sales reached €23.3bn for the year, although appetite for
bond funds still dominates, with their one year total reaching a whopping €182.1bn.
The relative sales for cross-border funds (i.e. those funds generating more than 20% of their assets from a second
market) compared to domestic funds is well illustrated in the chart below. The impact of the financial crisis should
not be underestimated here, although the seeds had been sown for a divergence in fund flows as early as 2006.
This then leads to the longer-term factors that have helped boost the cross-border industry, including both
organic (for example providing products not available locally) and structural reasons (the decisions of some fund
companies to re-domicile their funds to Luxembourg or Ireland in order to expand their investor base).
Linked to the trend above, while it is significant that there was a net decline in the number of funds in the industry
for second year in a row – truly a rare occurrence in historical terms - if local product providers come back to
promoting their mutual fund businesses, it would come as no surprise that this trend will be reversed in 2013.
FIGURE 1E INDUSTRY SHIFTS TO CROSS-BORDER
Domestic Europe
International
250,000
200,000
150,000
Net Sales (€m)
100,000
50,000
-50,000
-100,000
-150,000
-200,000
-250,000
-300,000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
6
2009
2010
2011
2012
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
WINNERS OVER THE PAST DECADE
This annual review provides the opportunity to look back at longer-term trends in the industry. This year the
average annual sales of fund management groups over the past decade have been analysed to get a better sense
of who has been able to attract inflows throughout this period. Only groups active for at least five years have been
included, with money market funds and ETFs excluded.
Master Groups are ranked by their average (mean) annual net sales and the best sellers featured in the table
below, although the median annual sales figure is also included to account for situations where an asset manager’s
average figure may be weighted to a shorter time period.
PIMCO tops this chart with average annual sales of €8.7bn, although Franklin Templeton and BlackRock only just
miss the €8bn mark, as well as each achieving a median annual sales level in excess of €6bn.
It is interesting that the 20 companies that feature in the best sellers list for the past decade are a real mix of
business types, ranging across independent or ‘pure play’ asset managers, private banks, and the arms of banking
groups. In this context it is worth mentioning the other groups with a median annual sales total above €2bn, but
with a lower average (mean), are Amundi, Aviva, HSBC, KBC and Union.
FIGURE 1F GROUP WINNERS OVER THE PAST DECADE
1
PIMCO
US
AVG ANNUAL
SALES (€M)
8,668
2
Fr Templeton
US
7,824
6,321
3
BlackRock
US
7,797
6,049
4
AXA/AB
FR
5,386
5,297
5
Prudential/M&G
GB
4,420
3,496
6
Carmignac
FR
4,053
2,072
7
Pictet
CH
3,907
4,324
8
BNY Mellon
US
3,367
3,802
9
Schroders
GB
2,763
2,260
10
Cr Suisse
CH
2,616
2,896
11
GAM Holding
CH
2,476
2,459
12
Standard Life
GB
2,475
2,829
13
RBC
CA
2,378
1,857
14
Nordea
SE
2,295
2,124
15
Vanguard
US
2,091
2,358
16
JP Morgan
US
2,072
4,687
RANK
MASTER GROUP
NAT
MEDIAN ANNUAL
SALES (€M)
3,945
17
Goldman Sachs
US
1,859
2,938
18
Invesco
US
1,855
881
19
Investec
ZA
1,782
1,443
20
Lloyds/SWIP
GB
1,751
1,855
7
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
THE COMING YEAR
Monitoring fund flows each month, eyes will be looking keenly for signs of whether
there really is a rotation back to equity funds. My expectation would be that the
gradual, but uneven, improvement in equity fund sales will continue as 2013
progresses. But the sheer scale of flows into more adventurous bond fund sectors
in recent years must mean that such a rotation is very unlikely to be swift. And with
around 50% of emerging market debt funds in Europe having been launched in the
past three years, certainly there are many asset managers who have been betting
on continued growth in this sector.
Where there has been equity appetite, it has been focused on global (often global
equity income) and emerging market funds. For long-term investors, emerging
markets are still hard to avoid in a well-diversified portfolio, but expectations for
growth in these markets in 2013 must be lower.
If equity markets continue in a generally upward trend, expectations must be that
product development within the European industry will pick up. The pre-disposition
of many fund management companies in Europe remains to launch new funds
when the opportunity to do so arises.
Staying with product development, 120 new ETFs were launched in Europe in 2012
(excluding ETPs). An article later in this report explores ETF developments more
fully, although even continued strong growth in terms of assets does not mean that
they will form significantly more than 10% of the industry soon. Having said this,
when including index tracking mutual funds too, passive funds’ combined portion
of the equity fund pool of assets now stands at a healthier 16%, albeit still notably
lower than the equivalent figure for the US (32%) or Asia Pacific (30%).
When considering fund sales, there must also be an awareness of the way funds are
sold. The scale of the change brought about in the UK with the Retail Distribution
Review (RDR) cannot be underestimated. This includes the banning of annual
distribution fees (or trail commission) on new product sales, and negotiating fees
directly between the investor and intermediary.
At a European level, almost by accident similar steps are being taken in various
different countries. In the Netherlands a ban is being introduced on the receipt or
payment of inducements for acting as product provider, intermediary or adviser
in relation to new sales of financial products. Meanwhile the full implications
of the Swiss Federal Court ruling last year that retrocessions received by banks
for asset management services belong to the client are still being digested.
Such independent moves might almost overshadow MiFID II, which may yet ban
independent advisers and portfolio managers from receiving commissions —
although improved disclosure seems the more likely outcome.
We hope that you find this report useful. As always, while these comments provide
an overview of the key trends, the detailed numbers on activity in different markets
and for different products can be found in the tables and charts that follow. Please
feel free to get in touch with any feedback or questions!
8
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
EUROPEAN ASSETS
FIGURE 2
EUROPEAN ASSETS BY
INVESTMENT TYPE (%)
Other
5%
Mixed Assets
10%
Property Commodity
1%
2%
Equity
35%
Money Market
18%
FIGURE 3
EUROPEAN ASSETS BY MARKET AT DECEMBER 2012 (€BN)
RANK FUND MARKET
1
2
3
4
6
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
19
21
22
23
24
26
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Bond
29%
BOND
COMMODITY
EQUITY
MIXED
MM
International
United Kingdom
France
Germany
Switzerland
Italy
Sweden
Spain
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Austria
Netherlands
Finland
Poland
Portugal
Turkey
Hungary
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
Greece
Slovakia
Russia
Romania
Croatia
Slovenia
Liechtenstein
Malta
Estonia
Bulgaria
Latvia
Lithuania
Ukraine
866.4
163.3
70.8
111.5
107.0
153.2
28.4
32.7
26.6
42.7
20.0
32.5
17.8
18.3
9.0
3.1
1.5
1.2
0.8
2.1
1.8
0.6
0.8
1.5
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
19.0
0.0
0.5
3.8
25.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
945.7
438.5
123.4
129.9
108.0
50.7
89.7
11.1
20.7
26.8
34.2
9.9
27.4
21.4
5.1
1.5
0.3
0.6
1.6
1.0
1.4
0.1
1.2
0.1
0.3
1.1
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
153.0
114.1
29.8
87.9
31.9
56.2
28.2
10.2
32.3
1.9
1.1
6.3
6.2
3.5
5.2
1.9
1.3
0.3
3.6
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
579.4
33.8
321.7
23.1
32.6
27.9
11.6
9.1
5.9
0.4
13.0
1.7
0.2
7.3
3.9
3.6
7.9
4.6
0.8
1.4
0.9
1.1
0.0
0.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
11.0
1.0
13.9
1.5
0.6
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL EUROPE
1,714.7
49.7
2,052.4
578.6
1,093.9
31.6
9
MM ENH PROPERTY
OTHER
TOTAL
5.0
19.7
0.0
81.8
4.1
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
83.4
7.4
46.6
39.8
5.4
12.6
9.6
51.1
19.9
0.4
0.5
3.4
0.9
1.1
0.5
0.4
0.2
1.2
0.0
1.1
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2,662.9
777.8
606.5
479.2
315.0
303.2
167.6
118.4
105.6
72.2
68.7
57.2
52.7
52.1
23.7
14.7
11.6
8.7
6.9
6.8
5.4
3.0
2.5
2.3
1.7
1.7
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
123.8
285.9
5,930.6
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
EUROPEAN ASSET GROWTH
FIGURE 4
EUROPEAN ASSET GROWTH BY MARKET IN 2012 (€BN)
RANK FUND MARKET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
BOND
COMMODITY
EQUITY
MIXED
MM
International
United Kingdom
Switzerland
France
Germany
Sweden
Italy
Norway
Denmark
Finland
Poland
Austria
Netherlands
Hungary
Portugal
Luxembourg
Greece
Romania
Czech Republic
Croatia
Slovakia
Russia
Liechtenstein
Slovenia
Malta
Latvia
Estonia
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Ukraine
Turkey
Belgium
Spain
249.3
24.8
9.6
11.7
14.8
3.3
25.4
6.7
3.3
3.1
4.8
3.4
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
4.1
-3.5
0.9
0.0
2.8
-0.3
-0.7
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.2
0.0
0.0
134.7
62.9
19.4
4.7
9.0
14.4
0.3
5.4
4.8
4.1
0.8
1.4
1.8
0.0
-0.2
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
-0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.5
24.9
23.5
1.1
-0.4
8.9
3.5
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.1
-0.3
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
3.8
-0.8
-38.0
2.9
-0.8
16.5
-2.5
0.0
-11.6
-0.3
-0.2
-0.8
-0.2
-0.4
0.0
0.5
1.7
-0.1
0.3
-0.3
-0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-6.9
0.3
-0.8
0.0
0.1
2.6
-1.3
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
TOTAL EUROPE
365.0
2.6
267.6
67.4
-40.5
1.7
10
MM ENH PROPERTY
OTHER
TOTAL
0.3
-0.6
0.9
0.0
-2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-3.6
0.6
0.8
-4.0
-2.7
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.6
-1.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.1
-5.4
-1.8
367.6
114.2
33.9
30.9
23.2
22.2
15.5
12.3
8.2
6.9
5.6
4.5
1.6
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.4
-1.6
-5.5
-1.5
-18.3
0.6
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
EUROPEAN SALES
FIGURE 5
EUROPEAN MARKET RANKING BY ESTIMATED NET SALES IN 2012 (€M)
RANK FUND MARKET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
BOND
COMMODITY
EQUITY
MIXED
MM
International
Switzerland
Norway
Sweden
France
United Kingdom
Poland
Finland
Denmark
Portugal
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
Romania
Austria
Hungary
Croatia
Bulgaria
Latvia
Lithuania
Ukraine
Slovakia
Malta
Estonia
Liechtenstein
Slovenia
Russia
Greece
Turkey
Germany
Netherlands
Italy
Belgium
Spain
182,123.6
5,142.9
5,434.0
1,640.4
6,050.1
2,189.0
3,664.1
1,089.2
-92.5
130.9
-65.8
527.0
267.2
728.4
143.6
-39.9
2.6
5.9
2.8
0.0
6.6
14.1
2.4
33.5
2.3
246.5
-210.8
562.3
8,937.2
-826.0
8,335.8
2,105.3
-2,920.1
1,618.1
1,891.4
40.2
76.3
-202.1
-16.4
0.6
-2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.1
0.0
-5.8
18.9
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-3.0
0.0
29.1
-27.7
-197.8
-454.6
-1.9
-11.9
-2.0
-8.6
23,256.8
6,078.2
729.4
1,684.4
-12,914.7
-14,520.8
-473.3
1,088.4
1,378.9
-343.7
248.0
140.0
-9.9
8.6
-63.5
-46.2
2.2
0.7
-3.1
-0.2
-13.5
-0.5
-34.3
-56.7
-32.4
-287.7
-67.4
-47.1
-7,510.5
-1,727.1
-4,860.3
221.3
-597.2
17,437.0
-677.1
118.3
1,434.1
-2,476.8
12,505.6
-829.6
30.6
43.3
-420.8
455.2
31.8
0.8
-65.3
13.3
-40.6
1.6
-0.3
-1.1
-4.8
-40.6
-3.3
0.1
-3.9
-55.7
-121.0
-6.3
248.4
4,232.7
-575.5
-3,374.7
1,259.1
-1,271.4
TOTAL EUROPE
225,232.4
2,752.8
-8,773.1
27,843.3
11
MM ENH PROPERTY
OTHER
TOTAL
-38,458.2
-788.8
-1,074.1
-763.6
13,458.7
2,121.8
-780.3
-1,066.8
-250.3
1,597.8
-118.7
-336.6
89.2
-429.1
9.5
224.3
-4.0
-3.8
0.0
-0.4
-67.8
4.3
0.0
0.0
-3.1
7.1
216.9
-1,320.2
-2,608.5
-20.7
-5,612.3
-6,775.7
-1,716.4
-1,114.6
102.9
0.0
0.0
2,172.5
-40.6
21.6
295.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
-7.7
0.1
-19.6
4.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
-3.0
0.0
-18.0
-14.2
0.0
-0.6
-0.1
0.0
-3.7
0.0
-1,293.7
0.0
879.8
-84.9
16.3
296.9
538.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
-494.2
0.0
12.8
0.0
-158.3
0.0
7.7
0.0
376.1
-54.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
146.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-3,379.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
-41.6
-2,936.2
474.2
158.4
405.5
-2,320.8
253.5
-20.9
-133.1
85.9
-28.8
0.0
95.3
-2.5
-368.7
38.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
-19.7
-13.2
0.0
-2.8
-0.2
0.0
-67.6
-4.6
-1,035.3
-1,386.1
-641.7
-3,614.6
-3,746.5
182,223.4
12,762.6
5,406.1
4,477.2
3,766.9
1,997.8
1,582.2
1,314.0
1,165.3
777.2
518.6
469.6
344.9
224.5
109.9
97.6
2.8
2.5
-4.4
-5.6
-6.5
-12.9
-31.8
-33.5
-89.1
-126.1
-166.7
-758.9
-3,112.0
-4,537.3
-5,285.2
-6,891.5
-10,285.5
-44,469.8
892.7
-2,749.5
-14,832.3
185,896.4
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
TIME FOR A CRUYFF TURN IN THE FUNDS INDUSTRY?
By Ed Moisson | 5 January 2013
A version of this article originally appeared in The Financial Times (FTfm) on
14 January 2013.
When first executed on the world stage, the Cruyff Turn was surely one of the
iconic moments in football, with an unexpected change of direction bamboozling
opponents. Recently some fund companies in Europe have been contemplating
whether they have the nerve and the skill to make a similarly dramatic change.
For the funds industry this is the shift from being perceived as short-term salesmen
to longer-term stewards of their investors’ assets, which both the Kay Review of
UK Equity Markets and the 300 Club’s recent report addressed. This article will
question the notion that asset managers across the board can build businesses
with a limited range of funds in a certain niche and for fund performance to attract
‘buy and hold’ investors steadily over time.
If possible, such a change could be good for both clients and asset managers
alike. But I can’t help thinking that expectations of such a change are a bit like the
newspaper headlines that proclaimed the death of catenaccio (Italian defensivestyle football) after the stylish exponents of totaalvoetbal (total football), Ajax, beat
Internazionale in the 1972 European Cup final.
Sadly history shows that, despite Dutch teams’ other considerable successes, the
Netherlands lost the 1974 World Cup final to West Germany. And it is this result
that a fund company must consider before overhauling its business strategy and
product range. What looks good for one group doesn’t always work for another.
This is not to say that asset managers should not consider their clients’ interests
– they are duty-bound to do so – and I have spent many years saying that more
companies should spend greater efforts minimising fund costs that their retail
investors bear. But too often observers assume that what is logical in the industry
will naturally happen. This is rarely the case.
For example, criticisms of the number of funds in Europe (currently around 35,000)
often focus on the vast arrays of funds that the largest groups manage. Yet
hundreds of groups in Europe have mutual fund assets below €100 million.
Where is the business case – not least for those asset managers with shareholders –
for the former to slash hundreds of funds (rather than just trimming a few, which we
have seen of late)? The risk is clear of losing either current or future clients as investor
preferences change.
So a big group with equivalent distribution ambitions, will almost inevitably expand
its fund range as investor demands evolve but also withstand larger outflows when
an asset class is out of favour (not necessarily because of under-performance).
A small manager with more limited distribution may be able to manage shorterterm changes in investor appetite. But this underlines that it would be a hard
task to force many of the long list of small groups to shut up shop for an apparent
‘greater good’ of increasing the industry’s average fund size.
12
Besides, I am bound to wonder whether a larger
average fund size really would translate generally into
economies of scale being passed on to retail investors
across Europe. If the industry was serious about this,
then there are many large funds or fund companies
that could have grasped this issue already.
There is a crucial accompanying issue that cannot
be ignored: the frequency with which European fund
selectors buy and sell active fund managers. Since
2005 the annual redemption rate for cross-border
funds in Europe ranges between 48% and 97%
(source: Lipper). But in the US the range was between
24% and 36% (source: ICI). Regardless of one’s views
on such buying and selling activity, it is a reality to
which pan-European asset managers cannot be blind.
In this environment it is little wonder that launching
new funds is such a feature of the industry. A
recent slowing of such activity has not changed the
fundamental predisposition to develop new products.
After all, if no new funds had been launched over the
past decade then industry assets would have stayed
at €3 trillion. Instead €2.8 trillion of the industry’s
current €5.8 trillion sit in funds launched in the
intervening years.
Very few football teams have the players to enable
them to play stylish ‘total football’ and expect to win
regularly, and perhaps even fewer fund managers
would expect to find a particular strategy or security
selections in favour with investors and fund selectors
in all market conditions.
Or as Johan Cruyff himself put it, “Simple football is
the best, but it is very difficult to play simple football.”
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
ALL SECTOR RANKING
FIGURE 6
TOP 25 SECTORS IN EUROPE (€M)
RANK
RANK '11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
20
2
6
33
26
37
3
9
7
8
10
213
1
190
21
19
126
18
42
28
11
54
32
155
FIGURE 7
FUND SECTOR
ENS '12
Bonds Emerging Markets
Bonds USD Corp. High Yield
Asset Allocation
Bonds Global Corporates
Bonds USD
Equities Emerging Markets
Bonds Global High Yield
Bonds Global Currencies
Target Maturity Euroland
Equities Global
Bonds Emerging Markets - Local Currency
Bonds Flexible
Bonds EUR Corp. Inv. Grade
Money Market GBP
Fund of Funds Bonds
Bonds USD Short-Term
Bonds Speciality
Bonds EUR Corp. High Yield
Fund of Funds Asset Allocation
Bonds NOK
Bonds Asian Currencies
Bonds Inflation Linked
Bonds PLN
Bonds USD Corp. Inv. Grade
Bonds CHF
REST
TOTAL
27,610.0
24,722.3
24,143.3
20,942.3
19,858.4
17,956.4
17,729.0
17,042.8
16,124.7
13,441.2
13,296.5
12,902.2
12,776.0
8,813.3
7,176.9
6,820.8
6,012.3
4,636.7
4,379.8
4,123.4
3,357.5
3,314.3
3,280.2
3,158.8
2,992.1
-110,176.5
186,434.8
TOP AND BOTTOM FIVE SECTORS BY SALES
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
-10,000
-20,000
-30,000
-40,000
-50,000
Bnd Em
Mkt
Bnd USD
Corp HY
Asset
Alloc
Bnd Gl
Corp
Bnd USD
Bnd Eur Guarant'd FF Hdge
Sh-T
13
Eq UK
MM Euro
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
FUNDS OF FUNDS
FIGURE 8A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FUND MARKET
DEC-12
France
United Kingdom
Germany
International
Italy
Spain
Sweden
Belgium
Switzerland
Austria
REST
TOTAL
69.8
59.9
40.2
36.8
28.6
11.0
10.9
8.7
8.4
8.3
13.4
296.1
FIGURE 9A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
EXTERNAL FUNDS OF FUNDS
ASSETS (€BN)
EXTERNAL FUNDS OF FUNDS
SALES (€M)
FIGURE 8B
MARKET SHARE OF EXTERNAL FOF ASSETS
Rest
21%
France
23%
Italy
10%
United Kingdom
20%
International
12%
Germany
14%
FIGURE 9B
FUND MARKET
2012
5,000
United Kingdom
International
Sweden
Italy
France
Finland
Belgium
Switzerland
Norway
Slovenia
REST
TOTAL
4510.7
3309.6
1836.9
944.8
651.9
509.4
445.9
255.5
211.4
130.2
-4389.1
8417.2
4,000
MARKET SHARE OF EXTERNAL FOF SALES (€M)
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
-1,000
-2,000
-3,000
-4,000
UK
14
International
Sweden
Italy
France
Rest
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
FUNDS OF FUNDS’ HOLDINGS
FIGURE 10
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FIGURE 11
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MOST POPULAR GROUPS FOR THIRD PARTY FUNDS OF FUNDS
PROMOTER (ex-ETFs)
NO. FOFS INVESTING
ASSETS FROM FoFs (€M)
1,277
1,104
994
872
809
785
739
729
699
691
4,462.0
3,046.8
2,398.1
2,461.8
2,189.8
3,713.4
1,906.9
3,379.4
1,700.5
4,799.6
BlackRock
JPMorgan
Schroders
Fidelity
Franklin Templeton
DWS
Aberdeen
Invesco
BNP Paribas
M&G
MOST POPULAR INVESTMENTS FOR THIRD PARTY FUNDS OF FUNDS
FUND (EX-ETFS)
NO. FoFs INVESTING
ASSETS FROM FoFs (€M)
171
171
152
151
135
127
124
122
114
108
831.8
510.9
388.5
739.9
356.1
250.4
305.3
132.3
278.5
407.6
M&G Optimal Income
Aberdeen Global - Emg Mkts Equity
Templeton Asian Growth
First State Asia Pacific Leaders
Alken Fund - European Opportunities
Templeton Global Bond
Morgan Stanley Global Brands
BlackRock GF World Gold
Fidelity FAST Europe
Allianz Europe Equity Growth
Note: Based on analysis of holdings of 2,000 European-domiciled third party funds of funds
15
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
FUNDS WILL FIND A CHILL WIND IN THE WILLOWS
By Ed Moisson | 5 October 2012
This article was originally published by Reuters – http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/
“Asset managers are emerging from their comfortable burrow to face a battery of lights.”
Sheila Nicoll, Director of Conduct Policy at Britain’s Financial Services Authority (FSA), had perhaps been reading
Kenneth Grahame before her recent speech, and her words are likely to have sent a chilly wind through the willows
of the UK funds industry.
The warning “poop poop” being sounded by the regulator has been getting louder and louder. Indeed the FSA may
even be traveling faster than Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, who has recently suggested that he would impose a
1 percent cap on pension charges.
It was not so long ago that the FSA took a very different approach and removed its rules on excessive charges on
the basis that “there may be no appropriate benchmarks” to determine this. They went so far as to say that “we do
not act as a price regulator, and we do not consider it appropriate for us to take such a role.”
At the time, this move seemed all the more surprising as it was this very regulation that the FSA had referred to
when trying to allay the Financial Services Consumer Panel’s fear that in allowing performance fees for open-ended
funds, there was no requirement to cap such fees.
The more recent change in the FSA’s thinking was shown in its paper on product intervention, stating its intention
to scrutinise both performance fees and the high charges for some index-tracking funds. The FSA did not shrink
from suggesting that “it is possible to envisage the role of the regulator in imposing limits on price or excessive
charges to remedy competition problems.”
FIDUCIARY DUTY
The loudest voice in the woodland is surely that of Martin Wheatley, the future head of the FSA’s successor, the
FCA, who has questioned how an investor can tell whether charges are fair. He has promoted the idea of fund
managers “adopting a fiduciary duty to their investors, something that would offer an extra level of commitment
beyond simply the letter of our rules.”
While the Investment Management Association (IMA) is looking again at this issue, the funds association initially
responded to Wheatley’s speech by questioning the “legal underpinning” of the term fiduciary duty. Having said
this, the IMA has not stuck its head in the sand, publicly recognising such obligations earlier this year.
It also detailed the governance arrangements of funds back in 2005 in a paper which gave a succinct definition of
‘fiduciary duty’: “Both the Manager and the Depositary have an obligation to act at all times in the best interests of
Investors, disregarding their own interests where they conflict with those of the investor.”
But the IMA made it clear that this duty stopped short of the depositary taking a view on “commercial matters”
such as the level of the manager’s fee.
The Wild Wood that is the US funds industry casts a shadow over the discussion. First, the US regulator models
itself as “The Investor’s Advocate” – an approach more akin to the new FCA – and second, it holds that fiduciary
duty does relate to the oversight of funds’ fees.
Here, section 15c of the 1940 Investment Company Act comes to light, whereby fund boards (a majority of which
are independent) must monitor their funds’ fee and expense levels in relation to the rest of the industry. This need
not create a decisive argument that fund boards are a panacea, but it does demonstrate a different and viable
approach to overseeing fees.
16
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
One way this scrutiny manifests itself is in passing on economies of scale achieved to investors, as discussed in a
previous column. If the UK and European industries are to demonstrate that they are giving investors as fair a deal
as possible, then this nettle needs to be grasped. Simply capping fee levels at a fixed percentage will not suffice.
WEASELS OR BADGERS?
If funds can justify the fees they charge by their performance – as many do – then some of the critical voices may
be quieter, or find a less receptive audience. But demonstrating this over both the long term (as mutual funds are
designed to do) and the shorter term (say up to 3 years, which has a more significant impact on fund sales) remains
the challenge for asset managers.
Some consumers may well see fund managers as weasels, rather than an array of friendly moles, wise badgers or
shrewd water rats. But such a perception crucially highlights the problem of exactly how consumers think of fund
fees: some see them simply as the fuel for a lifestyle of fast cars and mansions out of step with the rest of society,
while others will look at fees from an investor’s viewpoint, as a downward ‘drag’ on returns.
Despite this, retail investors have traditionally given more weight to funds’ past performance then their ability to
keep costs low. This leads on to a question that the FSA’s Wheatley posed: “we might ask ourselves whether it is a
problem that the industry appears to compete predominantly on the aspirational aspect of its service… when it is
the one thing that cannot be compared and measured by potential investors.”
The counter-argument to this question must be that as long as investors, or their advisers, place a greater
emphasis on a manager’s track record than on charges, then it remains a very tough proposition to grow a retail
business based on what investor behaviour should be (depending on your perspective), rather than one based
on what it is. Perhaps this is the equivalent of traveling quietly in a horse-drawn caravan while others race by in
motor cars.
The impact of such attitudes is that the average annual charges at mutual funds in the UK have slowly been rising.
Part of the reason for this may be laid at the feet of independent financial advisers (IFAs) and platforms, in the form
of trail commission, and it is this that will be radically changed with the Retail Distribution Review (RDR) next year
as customers will have to agree separately the fees they pay for advice.
So are managers really emerging from their burrows? Surely all fund companies have been buffeted by the
financial crisis and witnessed the march towards greater regulation, not only the RDR in the UK, but also laws from
across the Channel and the Atlantic.
As for investors, there is greater cost disclosure underway, although this need not mean they will pay less overall.
Regulatory changes have already resulted in there being far more choice for cost-sensitive investors, who can
certainly pay much lower fees unless they believe a manager is really worth it. Or as Kenneth Grahame put it,
“good, bad, and indifferent – I name no names – it takes all sorts to make a world.”
17
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
PAN-EUROPEAN MASTER GROUPS
ASSETS
FIGURE 12 TOP 25 EUROPEAN MASTER GROUPS BY ASSETS IN 2012 (€M)
RANK
RANK'11
MASTER GROUP
NATIONALITY
# FUNDS
DEC-12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
3
4
2
5
6
7
15
12
26
11
10
8
9
13
21
17
19
18
16
22
14
20
23
25
BlackRock
Amundi
Deutsche/DWS
JP Morgan
BNP Paribas
UBS
Fr Templeton
AXA/AB
Lloyds/SWIP
PIMCO
Fidelity
BNY Mellon
Cr Suisse
Intesa SP
Union
Prudential/M&G
HSBC
Schroders
Deka
Goldman Sachs
Pictet
Natixis
Pioneer
Allianz GI
Invesco
TOTAL TOP 25
REST
TOTAL
US
FR
DE
US
FR
CH
US
FR
GB
US
US
US
CH
IT
DE
GB
GB
GB
DE
US
CH
FR
IT
DE
US
440
760
956
259
1,333
643
108
416
230
62
210
190
473
473
285
121
484
176
372
115
230
315
439
513
152
9,755
329,928.6
218,925.0
197,626.5
187,378.0
166,094.5
154,755.0
118,666.4
117,816.4
115,692.6
107,968.4
106,736.2
106,419.6
104,549.2
103,550.3
99,127.0
89,504.7
87,809.9
87,366.9
86,234.1
83,795.3
81,411.1
80,134.3
80,024.3
77,526.7
77,475.6
3,066,516.6
2,864,107.3
5,930,623.9
FIGURE 13 MARKET SHARE OF LEADING MASTER GROUPS
Top 5
19%
Rest
20%
Next 25
8%
Next 10
19%
Next 20
14%
Next 15
20%
18
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
PAN-EUROPEAN MASTER GROUPS
SALES
FIGURE 14 TOP EUROPEAN MASTER GROUPS BY SALES IN 2012 ( €M)
RANK
RANK '11
MASTER GROUP
NATIONALITY
# FUNDS
2012
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
1,768
1,773
1
1,652
14
10
1,723
6
1,762
11
1,749
1,765
12
2
1,710
1,693
26
92
75
72
1,682
17
22
32
PIMCO
AXA/AB
Amundi
BlackRock
Nordea
Prudential/M&G
Morgan Stanley
Aberdeen
Standard Life
Cr Mutuel
Pictet
RBC
Carmignac
Muzinich
BNY Mellon
GAM Holding
Vanguard
MMC/Mercer
Vontobel
MFS
Lombard Odier
Baring
Stone Harbor
Sv Handelsbanken
Baillie Gifford
TOTAL TOP 25
REST
TOTAL
US
FR
FR
US
SE
GB
US
GB
GB
FR
CH
CA
FR
US
US
CH
US
US
CH
US
CH
US
US
SE
GB
62
414
758
437
278
121
86
143
73
334
229
45
15
10
189
264
41
38
71
35
125
52
12
95
30
3,957
28,538
32,495
34,827.8
24,003.6
22,592.7
19,919.0
9,932.6
9,424.8
8,455.8
7,677.8
6,645.2
6,068.0
4,953.4
4,555.5
4,488.1
4,449.4
3,214.6
3,182.7
3,171.8
3,161.3
3,149.9
3,147.2
3,112.8
2,990.7
2,870.4
2,837.2
2,575.9
201,408.1
-15,511.6
185,896.4
FIGURE 15 MARKET SHARE OF LEADING MASTER GROUPS BY SALES
16-25
15%
Top 5
55%
6-15
30%
19
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
PAN-EUROPEAN FUND LEADERS
ASSETS
FIGURE 16 TOP 25 FUNDS BY ASSETS (€M)
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RANK '11 MASTER GROUP
1
2
4
3
6
9
14
5
26
10
8
66
7
310
22
11
43
12
16
13
17
134
34
15
20
Fr Templeton
Carmignac
PIMCO
Fr Templeton
AXA/AB
Standard Life
PIMCO
Invesco
Prudential/M&G
BlackRock
Fr Templeton
AXA/AB
Deka
Lloyds/SWIP
Aberdeen
Invesco
AXA/AB
BlackRock
Swisscanto
Commerzbank
Prudential/M&G
PIMCO
Pictet
BlackRock
RBC
NAT
FUND NAME
US
FR
US
US
FR
GB
US
US
GB
US
US
FR
DE
GB
GB
US
FR
US
CH
DE
GB
US
CH
US
CA
Templeton Global Bond Fund
Carmignac Patrimoine
PIMCO GIS Total Return Bond Fund
Templeton Global Total Return Fund
AllianceBernstein - Global High Yield Portfolio
Standard Life Global Absolute Return Strategies
PIMCO GIS Global Investment Grade Credit
Invesco Perpetual High Income
M&G Optimal Income Fund
iShares DAX® (DE)
Templeton Asian Growth Fund
AllianceBernstein - American Income Portfolio
Deka-ImmobilienEuropa
Scottish Widows UK All Share
Aberdeen Global Emerging Markets Equity Fund
Invesco Perpetual Income
AXA IM FIIS - US Short Duration High Yield
BlackRock Global Funds - Global Allocation Fund
ZKB Gold ETF
hausInvest
M&G Recovery Fund
PIMCO GIS Diversified Income Fund
Pictet - Emerging Local Currency Debt
BlackRock Global Funds - World Mining Fund
BlueBay - Investment Grade Bond Fund
TOTAL TOP 25
REST
TOTAL
Note: Excludes money market funds.
FIGURE 17 MARKET SHARE OF LARGEST 25 FUNDS
Top 25
8%
Rest
92%
20
DOMICILE
TYPE
DEC-12
LU
FR
IE
LU
LU
UK
IE
UK
UK
DE
LU
LU
DE
UK
LU
UK
LU
LU
CH
DE
UK
IE
LU
LU
LU
Bnd
Mix
Bnd
Bnd
Bnd
Mix
Bnd
Eq
Bnd
Eq
Eq
Bnd
Prop
Eq
Eq
Eq
Bnd
Mix
Cmdty
Prop
Eq
Bnd
Bnd
Eq
Bnd
34,251.6
28,013.9
25,831.6
22,255.8
18,757.3
18,282.6
17,492.1
14,630.2
13,768.4
13,539.5
13,318.1
13,099.3
11,983.8
11,882.5
11,780.5
11,171.7
10,137.6
9,823.1
9,621.0
9,235.2
9,096.3
8,968.7
8,964.0
8,886.3
8,817.5
363,608.5
4,473,108.4
4,836,716.9
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
PAN-EUROPEAN FUND LEADERS
SALES
FIGURE 18 TOP 25 FUNDS BY ESTIMATED NET SALES (€M)
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RANK '11 MASTER GROUP
276
29,993
9
32
6
5
31,338
25
1,794
11
14
29
2
13
22
10
15
93
34
687
131
23
19
932
31,340
AXA/AB
PIMCO
PIMCO
PIMCO
Standard Life
Prudential/M&G
AXA/AB
AXA/AB
Allianz GI
PIMCO
Muzinich
Prudential/M&G
Fr Templeton
Morgan Stanley
BlackRock
BNY Mellon
Aberdeen
Baillie Gifford
Neuberger Berman
AXA/AB
Invesco
Stone Harbor
Baring
Pictet
Carmignac
NAT
FUND NAME
FR
US
US
US
GB
GB
FR
FR
DE
US
US
GB
US
US
US
US
GB
GB
US
FR
US
US
US
CH
FR
AllianceBernstein - American Income Portfolio
PIMCO GIS Total Return Bond Fund
PIMCO GIS Global Investment Grade Credit
PIMCO GIS Diversified Income Fund
Standard Life Global Absolute Return Strategies
M&G Optimal Income Fund
AXA IM FIIS - US Short Duration High Yield
AllianceBernstein - Global High Yield Portfolio
Allianz Global Investors Fund - Allianz US High Yield
PIMCO GIS Unconstrained Bond Fund
Muzinich Short Duration High Yield
M&G Global Dividend
Templeton Global Total Return Fund
Morgan Stanley-Global Brands
BlackRock Index Selection - Emerging Markets Index Fund
Newton Real Return
Aberdeen Global Emerging Markets Equity Fund
Baillie Gifford Diversified Growth
Neuberger Berman High Yield Bond Fund
AXA World Funds - US High Yield Bonds
Invesco Balanced-Risk Allocation Fund
Stone Harbor Emerging Market Local Currency Fund
Baring Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund
Pictet - Global Emerging Debt
Carmignac Patrimoine
TOTAL TOP 25
REST
TOTAL
Note: Excludes money market funds and funds of funds.
FIGURE 19 MARKET SHARE OF BEST-SELLING 25 FUNDS
Top 25
38%
Rest
62%
21
DOMICILE
TYPE
2012
LU
IE
IE
IE
UK
UK
LU
LU
LU
IE
IE
UK
LU
LU
IE
UK
LU
UK
IE
LU
LU
IE
IE
LU
FR
Bnd
Bnd
Bnd
Bnd
Mix
Bnd
Bnd
Bnd
Bnd
Bnd
Bnd
Eq
Bnd
Eq
Eq
Mix
Eq
Mix
Bnd
Bnd
Mix
Bnd
Mix
Bnd
Mix
8,234.5
8,061.6
5,865.0
5,582.5
5,489.7
5,138.3
4,550.1
3,796.0
3,716.3
2,916.2
2,779.5
2,720.9
2,576.7
2,437.8
2,401.9
2,390.0
2,352.0
2,255.2
2,138.9
2,027.9
1,996.8
1,976.8
1,976.7
1,974.1
1,970.7
87,326.1
143,040.2
230,366.3
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
PERFORMANCE FEES AND APOLOGIES
By Ed Moisson | 24 September 2012
This article was originally published by Reuters – http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/
As Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister is finding, apologising when you have let people down is no simple matter. The
worry for some absolute return funds must be that they are heading for a similar fate to Nick Clegg (even if they’re
unlikely to suffer the same level of autotuned mockery).
One of the reasons for the rise of absolute return funds – those seeking to deliver positive returns in all market
conditions – is that the industry has been trying to deal directly with client expectations left shattered by the
financial crisis.
On top of their investment objectives, one way that absolute return funds say they have tried to better align investor
and fund manager interests is by the use of performance-related fees, paid as a proportion of a fund’s returns, not
a fixed percentage of assets (although pretty much all funds will charge the latter fee too). But do performance
fees actually help to deliver more consistently positive returns, and do they do this for lower levels of risk? Or, much
like making ill-advised promises about tuition fees, do performance fees actually make it more likely that a fund
manager will have to say sorry down the line?
In the IMA’s Absolute Return sector (established in April 2008), 63.5 percent of funds have a performance fee
structure in place. That contrasts with about 3 percent for all UK-domiciled funds.
Because funds in this sector are managed with the aim of delivering above zero returns on a rolling 12 month basis,
it is this that has been used to compare their performance. Each fund’s performance was calculated at monthly
intervals, looking at a 12-month period for each interval (up to the end of July 2012.
As a result, the data does not reflect a simple snapshot of how absolute return funds have performed over any one
period, but instead gives a more detailed view of their ongoing performance since the inception of the sector (or
since a fund’s launch, if later).
Using this measure, we can show that funds with performance fees delivered positive returns 62.1 percent of the
time, while their peers with a more traditional fee structure managed it 63.5 percent of the time.
RETURNS AND RISK
In this analysis, funds are put into three groups: those achieving positive 12-month rolling returns less than 50
percent of the time, those achieving this between 50 percent and 74 percent of the time, and those funds achieving
this goal at least 75 percent of the time. The funds are also split between those with and without performance fees.
This shows that funds with performance fees are relatively evenly split between the three performance ‘bands’,
while there are more significant differences for those with a traditional fee structure. While the latter have fewer
‘poor’ funds (21 percent versus 31 percent among funds with performance fees) and more ‘average’ funds (46
percent versus 33 percent), the ‘good’ funds make up a fairly similar proportion of both totals (33 percent compared
to 36 percent).
A different approach has to be taken when looking at risk. Here two universes of absolute return funds were
assessed: funds with at least 3 years history (37 funds, of which 20 have a performance fee), as well as a larger
universe of funds with just 1 year history (69 funds, of which 45 have a performance fee).
Both volatility of returns, expressed as standard deviation, and maximum drawdown were calculated. To gain a
further level of granularity in this comparison, both the mean and the median was calculated to present average
historical risk measures for these funds.
22
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
The findings seem to be fairly clear: in seven of the eight comparisons made, funds with performance fees look to
have been more ‘risky’, on average, than those funds without performance fees.
But further exploration of historical risk is warranted. Plotting standard deviation and maximum drawdown for
each fund over 3 years, and distinguishing between funds with and without performance fees, reveals that 8 funds
with performance fees are out of line from the other 29 funds (of which 12 have a performance fee) in their historical
‘riskiness’ (as measured by maximum drawdown and standard deviation).
Quite simply, those funds with historical characteristics that suggest greater risk all have performance fees. This
also seems to support the point that a variety of strategies – with different risk profiles – are employed by funds
seeking absolute returns.
Absolute return investors in the UK are not being forced to invest in funds with performance fees, both because a
sizeable proportion (36.5 percent) of these funds maintain a more conventional fee structure, and because funds
with performance fees have not demonstrated, on average, that they deliver better returns or lower risk.
Hugh Hendry, founding partner of Eclectica Asset Management, has gone so far as saying that “It is outrageous
that managers with no long/short experience have the audacity to charge a performance fee.”
Clegg’s contrition was for making a pledge in the first place, not for breaking it. And with the sustained
scepticism of financial advisers in mind, it’s no surprise that the number of UK fund launches with
performance fees attached has declined.
It’s certainly difficult to make out a clear case for the better client/manager alignment that performance fees were
designed to bring for absolute return funds. Some will plough on; some might make a good fist of it. But what odds
on the poor performers plucking up the courage to apologise?
23
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
PRODUCT THEMES
ABSOLUTE/TOTAL RETURN
FIGURE 20 TOP 10 MASTER GROUPS BY ASSETS (€M)
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MASTER GROUP
NAT
DEC-11
DEC-12
Standard Life
BNY Mellon
GAM Holding
JP Morgan
PIMCO
Baring
Amundi
Schroders
Intesa SP
Ruffer
TOTAL TOP 10
TOTAL
GB
US
CH
US
US
US
FR
GB
IT
GB
12,899.3
9,599.6
9,995.5
8,161.4
4,514.1
4,907.9
7,260.9
7,910.4
3,899.2
4,990.4
74,138.8
154,856.5
21,853.8
13,680.1
13,368.0
7,953.1
7,670.3
7,452.3
7,106.3
6,065.3
5,816.1
5,558.9
96,524.1
182,873.5
FIGURE 21 TOP 10 MASTER GROUPS BY SALES (€M)
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MASTER GROUP
NAT
2012
Standard Life
BNY Mellon
PIMCO
GAM Holding
Intesa SP
Baring
Volksbanken Raiffeisenbanken
Wellington
Bantleon
Assenagon
TOTAL TOP 10
TOTAL
GB
US
US
CH
IT
US
DE
US
CH
LU
7,273.5
3,318.3
2,921.8
2,717.0
2,270.3
2,114.1
1,848.5
1,528.8
1,341.5
1,082.9
26,416.6
21,789.4
24
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
PRODUCT THEMES
ABSOLUTE/TOTAL RETURN
FIGURE 22 TOP & BOTTOM THREE SECTORS BY SALES (€M)
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
-2,000
-4,000
Asset Alloc
Bnd Flex
Bnd Speciality
Mix Cons
ST Dynam
Bnd Em Mkt
FIGURE 23 TOP 10 FUNDS BY SALES (€M)
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MASTER GROUP
FUND NAME
2012
Standard Life
PIMCO
BNY Mellon
Baring
Volksbanken Raiffeisenbanken
Standard Life
GAM Holding
Wellington
Amundi
GAM Holding
TOTAL TOP 10
TOTAL
Standard Life Global Absolute Return Strategies
PIMCO GIS Unconstrained Bond Fund
Newton Real Return
Baring Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund
Flossbach von Storch SICAV - Multiple Opportunities
Standard Life Investments Global - Global Absolute Return Strategies Fund
Julius Baer Multibond - Absolute Return Bond Fund Plus
Wellington Management Portfolios II - Global Total Return Portfolio
Amundi Funds Absolute Volatility Euro Equities
Julius Baer Multibond - Absolute Return Bond Fund
25
5,489.7
2,916.2
2,390.0
1,976.7
1,812.4
1,725.9
1,094.5
1,047.3
946.9
882.8
20,282.4
21,789.4
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT GIVING
By Ed Moisson | 9 July 2012
This article was originally published by Reuters – http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/
“Wouldn’t you rather your donations achieve a lot rather than a little? Then you’ll need to get serious and
proactive. If you do it wrong, you can easily waste your entire donation.”
Caroline Fiennes is not one to pull her punches when talking about charitable giving, but the more I talk to her,
or read her new book – ‘It Ain’t What You Give It’s The Way That You Give It’ – the more it becomes apparent that
her philosophy is not all that different from that of a professional fund manager.
No self-respecting fund manager would invest in a company just because they were asked to. A fund manager
will choose to invest (or disinvest) because they believe it will help their fund perform well and that the
investment fits within their investment objectives. Fiennes, who advises companies and individuals on their
giving, advocates a similar approach for any donor: be clear about your objective and find organisations that
have done a good job of achieving this, not just the ones that market themselves well.
This is just the start. As James Caan, entrepreneur and philanthropist, puts it, “Finding, investing and supporting
good businesses is hard, but identifying, donating and supporting great charities poses the same challenges.” This
is all the more apt as Caan has also been the chairman of a fund manager, Insynergy Investment Management.
This is not to say that giving and fund management are natural bedfellows. A collaborative exercise between
several fund groups created the Invest & Give fund, but sadly it did not generate significant investment and was
eventually closed. Lipper data reveals that socially responsible investment (SRI) equity mutual funds in Europe
have healthy assets of just over 50 billion euros, but this still accounts for less than 3 percent of the equity fund
universe (1.8 trillion euros).
Yet investing and giving can learn from each other, despite their differences. Those fund managers who avoid
hugging an index are clearly pro-active in their selection of investments. By contrast, charitable donations are
typically made reactively.
At a simple level, most people are more likely to give to those charities that shake a tin on the high street rather
than tracking down a cause they really care about. While relevant for anyone, for those giving more sizeable
sums it is all the more important to make a pro-active decision.
“Start with your heart and then engage your mind,” as Rebecca Eastmond, Head of Philanthropic Services at
JPMorgan Private Bank puts it. This emotional dimension is crucial: which cause really matters to you and what
sort of impact are you hoping to have?
DONKEY DONATIONS
Fiennes urges potential donors not to follow the herd – a classic dictum for many fund managers. For example,
she cites data which show the Donkey Sanctuary spending over 2,000 pounds a year per donkey, while mental
health charities in the UK only get 714 pounds for each of their beneficiaries. Is this really where our priorities lie?
Having decided where you want your money to go, you should then decide how you want to give, or in other words,
the type of change you hope to make. Fiennes illustrates the dilemma by citing the work of New Philanthropy
Capital, which attempts to give potential donors a better understanding of the difficult relationship between
identifiable, and satisfying, outcomes for individuals (or donkeys) and the more nebulous pursuit of a wider, and
potentially more useful, impact on society. The fact is, one tends to diminish the likelihood of the other.
26
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
Listening to this being explained, I could not help but hear echoes of different fund managers’ relative emphasis
on ‘top down’ versus ‘bottom up’ investment (i.e. macro vs stock-picking) and the consequences of getting these
calls right – or wrong. It is also apparent that ‘bad’ giving can be equally wasteful.
Such echoes could also be heard when discussing investment objectives. Fiennes’ advice is to give with no
strings attached, echoing the unconstrained approach which has come increasingly to the fore in the investment
industry, moving beyond hedge funds to the likes of PIMCO, for example.
She also warns against making too many demands of charities, with comments that will chime with fund
companies sometimes weighed down by a constant cycle of completing requests for proposals (RFPs).
Having to complete a bespoke assessment of their activity for each major donor can be a massive burden for
charities. As Fiennes says: “For sure, a charity should report on its overall effectiveness, but don’t make it write a
long report just for you.”
COST COMPARISON
Parallels are not always appropriate. The relative importance of costs remains hotly debated in the funds industry,
where they are inevitably a drag on returns to investors. But for charities the evidence seems to be pretty clear that
administration costs are no indicator of whether a charity is any good. GiveWell, an independent charity evaluator,
has gone so far as to describe costs (specifically the overhead ratio) as “the worst way to pick a charity”.
Picking a charity is no easy task. If you thought it was difficult to decide which mutual fund to invest in (there
are about 2,500 domiciled in the UK and 35,000 across Europe), spare a thought for the charities vying for your
attention – there are more than 160,000 of them, according to the Charity Commission.
Fiennes makes me squirm in my chair for suggesting that mydonations aren’t big enough to make much of a
difference, pointing out that over half of personal giving in the UK is by people giving less than 100 pounds a
month. She argues against diversification, suggesting that I give more to fewer charities (akin to those ‘high
conviction’ portfolio managers that hold a concentrated portfolio of stocks), clubbing together with others (very
apt for ‘mutual’ fund comparisons), or giving something other than hard cash.
On this last aspect, such views have recently been given shape with Miller Philanthropy’s launch of the Goodwill
Exchange, a not-for-profit forum where professionals can register their area of expertise to provide small
charities support on a project basis. Founder Gina Miller urges people to “give smarter, not just give more” with
the specific aim of helping the smallest charities struggling to attract the money they need to undertake their
work. In turn, spending more time on raising money can only undermine their efforts to concentrate on their
charitable works.
Of course big donors can make a big difference – particularly if they give smarter. Fiennes cites the example of
the Shell Foundation, which initially provided short-term, project-based support to many charities. Its grants
failed 80 percent of the time. It then shifted its way of giving to finding a few charities, each of which was given
a substantial investment (around 10 million pounds) over a longer period of time (normally five to seven years).
The Foundation’s track record was transformed to succeeding 80 percent of the time.
Such an example shows that numbers can speak louder than words. Although what makes the numbers say
what they do in this case was Shell’s change in approach, away from a quick tick in the charity box, to making
their charitable giving a long-term investment. Or as Fiennes concludes, “to get your giving to achieve all it can,
approach it as strategically and intelligently as you approach investing.”
27
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
PRODUCT THEMES
RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT
FIGURE 24 TOP 10 MASTER GROUPS BY ASSETS (€M)
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MASTER GROUP
NAT
DEC-11
DEC-12
Nordea
Amundi
Storebrand
Natixis
BNP Paribas
KBC
Aviva
Allianz GI
MACIF
Pictet
TOTAL TOP 10
TOTAL
SE
FR
NO
FR
FR
BE
GB
DE
FR
CH
58,393.5
25,860.7
9,013.4
7,178.4
3,536.3
3,559.0
2,392.2
3,416.2
1,814.1
2,685.8
117,849.7
178,882.4
75,124.8
31,006.8
12,386.0
4,618.6
4,132.2
3,530.6
2,971.5
2,952.3
2,792.2
2,673.4
142,188.4
210,556.0
FIGURE 25 TOP 10 MASTER GROUPS BY SALES (€M)
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MASTER GROUP
NAT
2012
Nordea
Amundi
Storebrand
MACIF
LGT
Aviva
SEB
BNP Paribas
Mediolanum
State Street
TOTAL TOP 10
TOTAL
SE
FR
NO
FR
LI
GB
SE
FR
IT
US
9,551.5
2,409.8
2,337.5
940.2
414.8
395.7
333.8
301.4
295.2
271.7
17,251.6
12,592.2
28
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
PRODUCT THEMES
RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT
FIGURE 26 TOP & BOTTOM THREE SECTORS BY SALES (€M)
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
-500
-1,000
-1,500
Eq Global
Bnd NOK
Bnd Gl HY
Eq Env/Eco
Eq Ren Engy/Clim
Chg
Bnd DKK
FIGURE 27 TOP 10 FUNDS BY SALES (€M)
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MASTER GROUP
NAT
FUND NAME
2012
Amundi
Storebrand
Nordea
Nordea
Nordea
Aviva
Amundi
MACIF
Nordea
Nordea
TOTAL TOP 10
TOTAL
FR
NO
SE
SE
SE
GB
FR
FR
SE
SE
Amundi Tréso Eonia ISR
Storebrand Stat A
Nordea 1 - US Corporate bond Fund
Nordea Invest Engros Internationale aktier
Nordea Institutional Investment Fund, SICAV-FIS CLO Fund
Aviva Monétaire ISR
SG Monétaire Jour ISR
MACIF Court Terme ISR (C)
Nordea 1 - Norwegian Bond
Nordea Dedicated Investment Fund FIS - US High Yield Fd
Note: Data includes both RI Screened and RI Extended funds.
29
2,006.8
1,288.0
1,003.3
963.2
698.6
641.2
605.2
566.5
515.3
482.9
8,771.0
12,592.2
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
ETF TIDDLERS FOR THE CHOP?
By Detlef Glow | 8 August 2012
This article was originally published by Reuters – http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/
The exchange-traded fund (ETF) market has shown strong growth since its inception in Europe. Many fund
promoters have sought to capitalise on this, seeking to differentiate themselves from rivals and match client
needs by injecting some innovation into their product offerings. This has led to a broad variety of ETFs competing
for assets, both in terms of asset classes and replication techniques.
Looking at assets under management, however, the European ETF market is still highly concentrated. The
five top promoters account for more than 75 percent of the entire industry. On a fund-by-fund basis the
concentration is even greater.
The ten top funds by assets under management (AuM) account for 25.68 percent of the overall total, while the
largest fund in the European ETF universe, iShares DAX, accounts for 11.624 billion euros or 4.75 percent of the
overall market.
A closer examination of the AuM shows that only 47 of the 1,727 ETFs registered for sale in Europe hold assets
above one billion euros. These funds account for 49.92 percent of the overall assets under management and are
highly profitable “bread and butter” products for their fund promoters.
According to iShares, the world’s largest ETF provider, the largest funds in the markets also tend to have the
highest turnover, making them attractive to institutional investors who can buy and sell large holdings without
making a significant market impact. In addition, institutions such as funds of funds are, under the EU’s UCITS
regime, not allowed to hold a major stake in any given fund in their portfolios, making a fund with higher AuM
even more attractive.
It starts to look like a scale business, where size is its own reward.
MINNOWS
What of the vast majority of ETFs which don’t boast the muscle of their 47 ‘billionaire’ peers? Actively-managed
funds can be merged or liquidated if they don’t gather a certain amount of money over time. So are these lowervolume ETFS now more subject to possible consolidation?
The “poor funds” with lower AuM levels have to deal with a lot of pressure. All funds in a product range will incur
legal, listing and marketing costs, among others, and since these exist regardless of a fund’s size, some ETFs are
simply not profitable.
As long as the industry is enjoying healthy growth, where the overall AuM of a promoter are rising on a
steady basis, a promoter can absorb this with the proceeds from more sought-after funds. But in an unstable
environment, marked by falling revenues and an increasing regulatory burden, fund promoters are forced to
review their product ranges, and may make the decision to liquidate funds that are not contributing to earnings.
Weighing the cost/benefit characteristics of an ETF is no easy matter and depends on how it is structured, listed
and managed. But industry players tell me a good rule of thumb is that a fund can become profitable when AuM
exceed 100 million euros. This gives the fund promoter has a solid stream of income from the management fee
and they may be able to receive income from trading in the fund as well as from securities lending.
So maybe this is the level at which ETFs might suffer a similar fate to their underperforming peers in the activelymanaged sector. Certainly from my point of view, an ETF that has not been able to gather at least one hundred
million euros over a three-year period is in serious danger of closure.
30
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
A detailed, and updated, view of the European ETF industry which Lipper produced recently showed that 294 of
the 1,727 funds fall into this category. You can view graphics from the initial findings here. Note: the totals have
changed since the update.
DANGER ZONE
With around one sixth of funds in the ‘danger zone’, this might sound pretty tough already for the industry, but
it’s worth noting that the number of funds with subpar AuM dramatically increases if we do not apply the three
year limit.
The complexity of cost-bases and income streams makes trial by AuM a bit of an unfair way of estimating the
profitability of an ETF. But it can be taken for granted that larger funds are unlikely to be closed and smaller
funds that fail to attract enough investors are on thin ice.
This was demonstrated by ETF Securities in June, when it liquidated nine of its funds because they didn’t meet
targets for AuM or turnover volume.
Things may look grim for the minnows of the ETF market, but there are considerations aside from cold, hard cash.
In a number of cases, the fund promoter will keep an unprofitable ETF purely to complete a product offering. Larger
players especially like to present clients with a one-stop shop and a near-complete product offering.
And the flipside to possible consolidation in the ETF industry is a sustained pressure for innovation, notably in
new initiatives toward more active indices, i.e., indices that optimize their risk-return profile, which is creating a
new posse of niche products.
Despite the fund closures we are seeing over the short term, from my point of view the ETF industry will grow
further in all areas, not just in terms of assets under management. We will see more ETFs that track an even
broader range of indices coming to the market in the future. This behavior is rational, since product innovation
and investor demand are the growth drivers of the industry. Nobody can know what will be the next strategy
index to become a mega seller, so index providers and ETF promoters need to continue to be creative, even if
they do choose to embark on the odd stint of housekeeping among the back markers.
31
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
PRODUCT THEMES
EXCHANGE TRADED FUNDS
FIGURE 28
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FIGURE 29
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOP 10 MASTER GROUPS BY ASSETS (€M)
MASTER GROUP
NAT
DEC-11
DEC-12
BlackRock
Deutsche/DWS
Soc Gen/Lyxor
Cr Suisse
Swisscanto
UBS
Amundi
Source
GAM Holding
Commerzbank
TOTAL TOP 10
TOTAL
US
DE
FR
CH
CH
CH
FR
US
CH
DE
81,509.3
32,207.7
27,064.0
12,047.9
11,292.1
8,100.2
6,402.8
3,675.3
4,603.3
5,451.5
192,354.2
208,078.1
105,711.5
36,529.0
30,669.4
13,344.1
12,293.9
9,071.5
8,569.9
5,810.2
5,178.9
4,879.2
232,057.6
252,274.7
TOP 10 MASTER GROUPS BY SALES (€M)
MASTER GROUP
NAT
2012
BlackRock
State Street
Source
Amundi
PIMCO
HSBC
GAM Holding
Swisscanto
Deka
Deutsche/DWS
TOTAL TOP 10
TOTAL
US
US
US
FR
US
GB
CH
CH
DE
DE
11,394.6
1,878.4
1,685.1
1,160.2
861.4
624.4
441.6
393.2
367.2
259.6
19,065.8
17,062.0
32
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
PRODUCT THEMES
EXCHANGE TRADED FUNDS
FIGURE 30 TOP & BOTTOM THREE SECTORS BY SALES (€M)
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
-1,000
-2,000
Bnd Eur CIG
Eq Europe
Commod
Bnd Eur Sh-T
MM Euro
Eq DE
FIGURE 31 TOP 10 FUNDS BY SALES (€M)
RANK MASTER GROUP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
BlackRock
BlackRock
BlackRock
BlackRock
BlackRock
BlackRock
BlackRock
BlackRock
PIMCO
BlackRock
TOTAL TOP 10
TOTAL
FUND NAME
2012
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets
iShares BC Euro Corporate Bond ex-Financials
iShares JPMorgan USD Emerging Markets Bond Fund
iShares MSCI World
iShares Markit iBoxx Euro High Yield Fund
iShares BC Euro Corporate Bond
iShares Markit iBoxx USD High Yield Capped Bond
MSCI Europe
PIMCO US Dollar Short Maturity Source ETF
iShares FTSE Gilts UK 0-5
33
1,056.6
848.6
830.6
823.3
698.7
574.2
566.9
460.7
454.0
417.5
6,731.0
17,062.0
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
PRODUCT THEMES
BONDS HIGH YIELD
FIGURE 32
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FIGURE 33
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOP 10 MASTER GROUPS BY ASSETS (€M)
MASTER GROUP
NAT
DEC-11
DEC-12
AXA/AB
Fidelity
Nordea
Goldman Sachs
Pioneer
Neuberger Berman
Schroders
BlackRock
PIMCO
Fr Templeton
TOTAL TOP 10
TOTAL
FR
US
SE
US
IT
US
GB
US
US
US
21,425.8
6,676.7
5,801.5
4,781.3
3,887.0
3,646.4
3,644.4
3,614.7
3,423.6
3,231.5
60,133.0
123,611.2
35,390.6
9,271.6
9,434.9
6,315.2
5,505.6
6,676.1
3,582.0
7,296.6
6,738.8
4,520.4
94,731.9
193,953.1
TOP 10 MASTER GROUPS BY SALES (€M)
MASTER GROUP
NAT
2012
AXA/AB
Allianz GI
BlackRock
PIMCO
Nordea
Neuberger Berman
JP Morgan
Aviva
UBS
Amundi
TOTAL TOP 10
TOTAL
FR
DE
US
US
SE
US
US
GB
CH
FR
11,194.5
3,918.5
2,759.1
2,694.5
2,504.0
2,377.3
1,732.9
1,656.0
1,648.7
1,606.1
32,091.6
49,735.0
34
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
PRODUCT THEMES
BONDS HIGH YIELD
FIGURE 34 TOP & BOTTOM SECTORS (€M)
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Bnd USD Corp HY
Bnd Gl HY
Bnd Eur Corp HY
Bnd Europ Curr Corp
HY
Bnd GBP HY
FIGURE 35 TOP 10 FUNDS BY SALES (€M)
RANK
MASTER GROUPS
FUND NAME
2012
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
AXA/AB
AXA/AB
Allianz GI
Neuberger Berman
AXA/AB
PIMCO
JP Morgan
Fidelity
Mediolanum
BlackRock
TOTAL TOP 10
TOTAL
AXA IM FIIS - US Short Duration High Yield
AllianceBernstein - Global High Yield Portfolio
Allianz Global Investors Fund - Allianz US High Yield
Neuberger Berman High Yield Bond Fund
AXA World Funds - US High Yield Bonds
PIMCO GIS Global High Yield Bond Fund
JPMorgan Investment Funds - Global High Yield Bond
Fidelity Funds - US High Yield Fund
Mediolanum Best Brands Global High Yield
BlackRock Global Funds - US Dollar High Yield Bond Fund
35
4,550.1
3,796.0
3,716.3
2,138.9
2,027.9
1,906.5
1,490.0
1,288.4
1,272.8
1,231.9
23,418.7
49,735.0
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
NEW FUNDS BY SECTOR
FIGURE 36
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FIGURE 37
TOP 25 SECTORS OF NEW FUNDS (€M)
FUND SECTOR
# FUNDS
ENS '12
115
275
111
69
116
55
38
115
40
45
118
21
44
25
25
28
68
24
47
66
18
19
9
15
45
1,436
2,513
19,530.9
9,868.6
6,506.7
6,189.7
4,603.6
4,260.4
4,101.0
4,022.7
3,945.8
3,556.7
3,392.3
3,318.6
3,210.7
2,618.0
2,377.2
2,347.4
2,247.2
2,086.6
2,057.3
1,859.4
1,732.2
1,709.9
1,642.8
1,472.8
1,437.0
100,096.0
136,036.0
Target Maturity Euroland
Asset Allocation
Guaranteed Fund
Bonds Global Currencies
Equities Global
Bonds EUR
Target Maturity Other
Protected Fund
Fund of Funds Guaranteed
Mixed Assets Balanced
Fund of Funds Asset Allocation
Money Market EUR
Bonds Emerging Markets
Bonds Global High Yield
Bonds EUR Corp. Inv. Grade
Bonds Global Corporates
Equities Emerging Markets
Bonds Flexible
Equities North America
Equities Speciality
Fund of Funds Bonds
Bonds USD
Bonds EUR Corp. High Yield
Bonds Emerging Markets - Local Currency
Commodities
TOP 25 SECTORS
TOTAL
MARKET SHARE OF LEADING SECTORS OF NEW FUNDS
Rest
25%
Top 5 sectors
35%
16-25 sectors
14%
Next 10 sectors
26%
36
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
ACTIVE VS. PASSIVE, ROUND 3,462
By Ed Moisson | 7 June 2012
This article was originally published by Reuters – http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/
Our team at Lipper spent much of the first quarter handing out awards to fund managers round the world who
have delivered exceptional performance to their investors. Since then, I’ve had time to take a step back and
assess just how good the wider European industry has been at outperforming over the longer term.
Active fund managers’ ability to out-perform their benchmarks sits near the heart of any discussion on the
relative merits of active versus passive. In broad terms the argument against investing in an actively-managed
fund is that one takes on the additional risk that the fund will significantly under-perform the index, a risk that is
exacerbated over time by the additional costs associated with such a fund.
The argument against passive is that one not only misses out on the possibility of superior, but also that, in
principle, one is guaranteed to under-perform the index.
Clearly the case for active fund management goes hand-in-hand with the case for prudent fund selection. Indeed
an industry has grown up trying to deliver the latter for investors, with professional fund selectors choosing funds
to invest in and packaging this up as a product of itself: funds of funds. Assets invested in funds of funds in Europe
stand at around 360 billion euros – noticeably greater than the assets invested in passively managed funds.
The most straightforward means to assess actively managed funds’ success in beating their benchmarks is to
look at their latest performance figures. To this end all actively managed equity funds’ performance relative to
their benchmarks was assessed over 1, 3 and 10 years to the end of December 2011.
The proportion of funds that out-performed varied from 26.7 percent in 2011, 40.0 percent over 3 years and
34.9 percent over the past 10 years. Solely for managers of UK equity funds, the figures were 22.4 percent, 42.4
percent and 37.6 percent. But the issue of survivorship bias also needs be grasped. To do this, funds’ rolling
returns were assessed every year from 1992 to the end of 2011. For 1-year periods, the proportion of equity funds
that out-performed has varied between 59.1 percent and 26.7 percent, coincidentally the first and last years in
this analysis.
TOUGH MARKETS
The annual average proportion of out-performing funds is 42.8 percent, at the higher end of the spectrum found
in the initial analysis above. This suggests that the difficult recent market conditions have indeed had a negative
impact on the proportion of active managers that have been able to beat their benchmarks.
The wide variation in out-performance depending on classification of funds is highlighted in 1-year rolling
returns. For example, funds investing in Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) ranged from 8.3 percent (in 2004) to 83.8
percent (in 1999) of funds out-performing their benchmarks, while for UK equities the range has been much
narrower, between 23.1 percent (2011) and 64.5 percent (2000).
For long-term investors the fact that an active manager does not out-perform in every calendar year is likely to
be less significant than whether he/she can out-perform over a longer time period. To examine this, the data was
expanded to look at rolling 3-year and 10-year periods.
For 3-year rolling periods the proportion outperforming is 41.4 percent and for 10-year rolling periods it is 39.7
percent. In other words, the proportion of funds out-performing over longer periods may have dropped very
slightly, but it remains largely stable.
37
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
Over 3-year periods, a greater proportion of UK equity managers generally outperform than for other
classifications. While the average proportion of Asia Pacific funds out-performing is slightly higher than that for
the UK (48.9 percent compared to 47.6 percent), this is clearly the result of results posted over the first 10 years,
while the more recent period has seen a significant fall for Asian fund managers.
For 10-year rolling periods among the largest classifications, UK equity managers impressively maintain their
average proportion of out-performers (47.4 percent), while North American equities – already relatively poor
cousins – worsen dramatically over this longer period, with an average of just 20.8 percent of funds outperforming their benchmarks.
These findings will clearly not settle the active versus passive debate one way or the other, but they do provide
robust statistical research into funds’ relative performance. Such insights can better inform this ongoing discussion.
38
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
CROSS-BORDER PROGRESS
GROUP WINNERS
FIGURE 38
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOP 25 INTERNATIONAL GROUPS BY ESTIMATED NET SALES IN 2012 (€M)
MASTER GROUP
NAT
# FUNDS
ASSETS DEC '12
ENS '12
PIMCO
AXA/AB
BlackRock
Aberdeen
Prudential/M&G
JP Morgan
Allianz GI
Nordea
Morgan Stanley
Pictet
Amundi
Carmignac
HSBC
Muzinich
Goldman Sachs
RBC
State Street
Invesco
MMC/Mercer
MFS
Vontobel
Stone Harbor
GAM Holding
Lombard Odier
Neuberger Berman
TOP 25
TOTAL
US
FR
US
GB
GB
US
DE
SE
US
CH
FR
FR
GB
US
US
CA
US
US
US
US
CH
US
CH
CH
US
59
215
369
84
66
189
53
94
68
175
213
14
135
9
107
39
79
92
36
35
44
12
134
97
13
2,431
9,318
107,603
79,768
213,089
45,018
49,764
61,507
14,295
27,983
24,321
44,085
30,884
50,218
31,208
10,128
27,612
23,608
11,467
21,231
9,890
13,952
9,244
11,760
28,819
14,324
7,497
969,277
2,083,492
35,128.2
24,118.7
12,717.1
9,062.2
8,997.1
6,464.2
6,360.3
5,866.8
5,396.8
5,091.6
4,988.2
4,862.7
4,618.6
4,448.2
4,026.9
3,730.3
3,291.0
3,211.5
3,158.1
3,147.2
2,940.6
2,870.4
2,698.0
2,485.5
2,475.0
172,155.2
220,681.6
230,366.3
Note: Excludes money market funds.
39
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
CROSS-BORDER PROGRESS
GROUP WINNERS
FIGURE 39
GROUP POSITIONING BY SALES AND PERFORMANCE CONTRIBUTION
TO ASSET GROWTH
26,000
24,000
BlackRock
22,000
Performance contribution (annually) (€m)
20,000
18,000
16,000
Fr Templeton
14,000
Intesa SP
12,000
Invesco
UBS
10,000
8,000
Allianz
6,000
AXA/AB
Aberdeen
PIMCO
BNY JPM
GAM
4,000
Nordea
Pictet
Standard Life
Carmignac
Morgan Stanley
Goldman Sachs
Muzinich
2,000
0
-2,000
-12,000
Prudential/M&G
Deutsche/DWS
-6,000
0
6,000
12,000
18,000
Sales contribution (annually) (€m)
Note: Excludes money market funds.
40
24,000
30,000
36,000
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
CROSS-BORDER PROGRESS
FOREIGN SHARE OF SALES IN EUROPE
NET SALES OF CROSS-BORDER GROUPS BY MARKET
FIGURE 40 IN 2012 - ALL FUNDS (€M)
Domestic
Cross-Border
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
-5,000
-10,000
-15,000
CH
IT
FR
UK
SWE
DEU
AU
SP
NL
BE
NET SALES OF CROSS-BORDER GROUPS BY MARKET
FIGURE 41 IN 2012 - EQUITY ONLY (€M)
Domestic
Cross-Border
10,000
5,000
0
-5,000
-10,000
-15,000
-20,000
CH
SWE
BE
AU
SP
NL
IT
DEU
FR
UK
NET SALES OF CROSS-BORDER GROUPS BY MARKET
FIGURE 42 IN 2012 - BOND ONLY (€M)
Domestic
Cross-Border
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
-5,000
IT
CH
FR
DEU
UK
BE
SP
SWE
AU
41
NL
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
CROSS-BORDER PROGRESS
FOREIGN SHARE OF SALES OUTSIDE EUROPE
NET SALES OF CROSS-BORDER GROUPS BY MARKET
FIGURE 43 IN 2012 - ALL FUNDS (€M)
Domestic
20,000
Cross-Border
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
-5,000
-10,000
-15,000
HK
ARG
SNG
TW
PER
CHL
JPN
NET SALES OF CROSS-BORDER GROUPS BY MARKET
FIGURE 44 IN 2012 - EQUITY ONLY (€M)
Domestic
500
0
-500
-1,000
-1,500
-2,000
-2,500
-3,000
-3,500
-4,000
-4,500
HK
TW
ARG
Cross-Border
PER
SNG
CHL
JPN
NET SALES OF CROSS-BORDER GROUPS BY MARKET
FIGURE 45 IN 2012 - BOND ONLY (€M)
Domestic
Cross-Border
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
-5,000
-10,000
-15,000
HK
TW
SNG
PER
ARG
CHL
42
JPN
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
CROSS-BORDER PROGRESS
FOREIGN SHARE OF ASSETS
CROSS-BORDER FUNDS’
FIGURE 46 SHARE OF ASSETS BY REGION
TOP FIVE MARKETS FOR
FIGURE 47 CROSS-BORDER ASSETS
Offshore
South America 2%
Rest
6%
2%
Asia Pacific
15%
Switzerland
16%
Rest
43%
Europe
75%
United Kingdom
6%
Italy
16%
Taiwan
7%
Germany
12%
FIGURE 48 CROSS-BORDER FUNDS’ SHARE OF ASSETS (€M)
COUNTRY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Switzerland
Italy
Germany
Taiwan
United Kingdom
Spain
France
Hong Kong
Netherlands
Singapore
TOP 10
REST
TOTAL
DEC-11
DEC-12
GROWTH %
113,423.2
95,652.3
78,481.9
44,916.9
32,454.9
23,578.8
21,002.5
24,487.5
19,191.1
12,247.7
465,436.8
251,833.8
616,773.2
126,588.1
121,202.9
90,541.6
55,084.2
49,069.8
33,198.1
31,560.0
31,107.1
22,034.2
16,963.6
577,349.5
326,958.3
11.6
26.7
15.4
22.6
51.2
40.8
50.3
27.0
14.8
38.5
769,528.5
1. Assets of cross-border funds domiciled in Europe and sold worldwide.
2. Actual asset data contributed by 45 group members of the Lipper AssetWatch service.
3. Data is third party retail only.
43
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
CROSS-BORDER PROGRESS
DOMESTIC VS. FOREIGN SECTORS
FIGURE 49 TOP 5 DOMESTIC AND CROSS-BORDER SECTORS IN THE MAJOR MARKETS
FRANCE
1
2
3
4
5
DOMESTIC
Bonds EUR Short-Term
Short Term Dynamic
Target Maturity Euroland
Bonds EUR Corp. Inv. Grade
Fund of Funds Money Market
ENS '12
3,222.1
2,221.1
1,616.2
1,610.0
756.0
CROSS-BORDER
Bonds USD Corp. High Yield
Bonds Emerging Markets
Bonds Flexible
Bonds Global Corporates
Bonds EUR Corp. Inv. Grade
REAL SALES '12
Confidential
GERMANY
1
2
3
4
5
DOMESTIC
Asset Allocation
Bonds EUR Corp. Inv. Grade
Target Maturity Euroland
Bonds Emerging Markets
Mixed Assets Conservative
ENS '12
3,502.6
1,923.5
1,581.5
1,338.0
1,334.1
CROSS-BORDER
Mixed Assets Balanced
Bonds EUR
Bonds Emerging Markets - Local Currency
Bonds Global Currencies
Bonds Flexible
REAL SALES '12
Confidential
1
2
3
4
5
DOMESTIC
Target Maturity Euroland
Fund of Funds Bonds
Bonds Global Currencies
Bonds Global High Yield
Currency Exchange Strategies
ENS '12
10,825.8
3,134.8
1,593.8
1,358.0
1,138.1
CROSS-BORDER
Bonds Global Corporates
Bonds Global Currencies
Bonds USD
Bonds Emerging Markets
Bonds Flexible
REAL SALES '12
Confidential
iTALY
SWITZERLAND
1
2
3
4
5
DOMESTIC
Equities Emerging Markets
Bonds CHF
Equities North America
Bonds Global Currencies
Equities Europe
ENS '12
3,011.8
2,847.2
2,016.5
1,242.6
859.1
CROSS-BORDER
Bonds USD Corp. High Yield
Bonds USD
Bonds Global Corporates
Bonds Emerging Markets
Bonds Flexible
REAL SALES '12
Confidential
1
2
3
4
5
DOMESTIC
Asset Allocation
Fund of Funds Balanced
Fund of Funds Conservative
Equities Emerging Markets
Equities North America
ENS '12
11,071.3
1,835.4
1,711.5
1,569.4
1,206.2
CROSS-BORDER
Asset Allocation
Bonds Global Corporates
Bonds USD Corp. High Yield
Bonds USD
Bonds Global Currencies
REAL SALES '12
Confidential
UK
Note: Excludes money market funds
44
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
CONNECTION: RETURNS AND SALES IN THE UK
By Ed Moisson | 11 December 2012
This article was originally published on Lipper Insight - http://lipperinsight.thomsonreuters.com/
It is not a surprise to discover that funds with first quartile performance attract the greatest inflows in the UK, but
some new research from Lipper goes beyond the headline to investigate how the relationship between fund sales
and performance has changed over the past ten years, with variations by sector, different rolling periods, and
relative sales for lower quartile returns.
The research establishes the proportion of net sales attributable to funds with different returns. Net sales were
calculated every three months for funds with 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year rolling returns, not simply a snapshot of one
period, and grouped by performance quartile.
Taking all funds together, for 1-, 3- and 5-year performance, first quartile funds in aggregate have attracted inflows
in every quarter over the past ten years. For those funds with 10-year returns, the value of first quartile performance
is less pronounced, but even here in 25 out of 33 quarters (i.e. more than 75% of the time), first quartile funds in
aggregate enjoyed inflows.
For second quartile funds, on average positive sales activity is registered when looking at 1-year rolling returns across
the ten years assessed. But second quartile funds typically suffered outflows for 3-, 5- and 10- year rolling returns.
This seems logical, for example with fund selectors giving managers the opportunity to improve returns when
performance has dropped out of the highest quartile for one year. Even so, ultimately the dominance of first quartile
performance in driving sales prevails, with some “tough love” shown to those that drop out of this top group for
longer periods.
The findings can be broken down to see how sales activity has varied between IMA Sectors. Most striking is perhaps
the success in generating inflows for poorer performing funds in the Mixed Investment 20-60% Shares sector
(formerly Cautious Managed). This is most obviously the case when looking at 1-year returns, but even for 3-year and
10-year periods lower quartile funds fare relatively well in sales terms.
In particular one can see that between 2002 and the end of 2007 outflows from any quartile of funds were
negligible in this sector, although the financial crisis has changed this somewhat for those with poorer 3-year or
5-year returns.
For equity funds it is worth noting that this asset class has been largely out of favour since 2008 and this is reflected
in the findings for European, UK and UK Smaller Companies funds (although first quartile performance generally
helps even here).
Having said this, Emerging Markets and Asia Pacific funds present different results, with inflows to first quartile funds
generally outpacing all other funds (except for 10-year data). The former sector in particular has seen very limited
outflows, even when looking at aggregate data for poorer performing funds.
Turning to Sterling Corporate Bond funds, it is interesting to find the degree to which aggregate sales for poorer
performing funds – most notably those ranked in the second quartile – have regularly pushed into positive territory and
look to be detracting from sales of those funds with first quartile performance.
This pattern is partly the result of the significant rise in sales of funds in this sector from the fourth quarter of 2008 to
the third quarter of 2009, as the reverberations of the financial crisis were first being felt. It does look as though the
managers that were most favoured in this period were those with at least 10 years experience, i.e. a proven track record
(even if such a track record was not first quartile over shorter periods).
45
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
Among conclusions, it is worth saying that just because sales are greater for first quartile funds this does not mean
that these funds do not also exhibit other characteristics that warrant investment. This is all the more the case when
bearing in mind that there is likely to be wide variations in inflows for funds within the first performance quartile.
The difference in fund sales between those with good shorter performance periods (1- and 3-years) compared to longer
periods (5- and 10-years) also suggests that some investors are taking advantage of a manager’s “winning streak” or,
more precisely, the short-term persistence in fund performance.
Evidence for the phenomenon of short-term persistence has been found by various academics, including Bernhardt
et al (2003), Bollen and Busse (2004), Carhart (1997), Hendricks et al (1993) and Zheng (1998). While definitions of
“short-term” used in these papers vary, Wermers (2003) certainly goes further when he concludes that out-performers
“continue to outperform other funds for at least two years following the ranking year.”
In such a situation it is certainly possible that investors, or their advisers, are effectively buying and selling perceived
alpha generated by funds in an effort to stay ahead of benchmarks. Certainly there is much use of quant screens of
different kinds by fund selectors – hardly surprising given the thousands of funds available.
This research does not mean that a fund manager has to be short-termist, but the sales patterns identified will
inevitably put pressure on a manager’s recent track record if a fund wants to achieve significant inflows over time.
46
EUROPEAN FUND MARKET REVIEW
2013 EDITION
FOOTNOTES
1.
All data as at 31 December 2012 unless otherwise stated.
2. ‘International’ fund market. Lipper defines an International fund as a fund that sources less than 80% of its
assets from any single country. Some fund groups have domestic and international funds.
3. ‘Domestic’ fund market. If a fund sources more than 80% of its assets from a single country then the fund is
allocated to that market regardless of its domicile.
4. Funds of funds have been excluded from all charts and tables (to avoid double-counting) unless otherwise
stated. Therefore a market total is the sum of all the investment categories excluding the three funds of funds
categories (in-house, ex-house and hedge).
5. The investment category ‘other’ includes a variety of different product categories. For most markets,
especially Belgium, Spain and France, the figure comprises guaranteed funds, but there are also derivatives,
commodities and other speciality funds in the ‘other’ category.
6. Property funds are open-ended property funds only.
7.
Master group. Analysis that aggregates the European mutual fund assets under the umbrella of their parent
company name.
8. ENS stands for estimated net sales.
9. ETFs are included in Lipper’s database on mutual funds, but this excludes exchange-traded commodity
products that are not mutual funds.
10. References to foreign activity relate to actual sales as measured by Lipper’s SalesWatch confidential service.
The 48 SalesWatch members are estimated to account for 75-80% of total cross-border sales activity.
11. Funds of funds holdings data based on analysis of 2,000 European-domiciled third party funds of funds.
CONTACT US
PRODUCT MANAGER, LIPPER FUNDFILE:
JÉRÔME COUTEUR
jerome.couteur@thomsonreuters.com
SABINA GRABOWSKA
sabina.grabowska@thomsonreuters.com
PRODUCT MANAGER, LIPPER SALESWATCH:
BARBARA FERRARESI
barbara.ferraresi@thomsonreuters.com
ELISABETTA FORELLI
elisabetta.forelli@thomsonreuters.com
CHERYL PATE
cheryl.pate@thomsonreuters.com
DESIGNED BY:
NAOMI HANDKE
LIPPER DATABASES FEATURED:
FUNDFILE - http://bit.ly/LipperFundFile SALESWATCH - http://bit.ly/LipperSalesWatch
47