Van Eyk Advice eyes expansion

The ratings house has been in the New Zealand market for seven years and purchased the Perpetual Portfolio Management last year, rebranding as Van Eyk Advice.
It has a team of 10 advisers but Mark Thomas said the goal was to get that to 50 or 60 over the next five years or so.

He said the firm wanted to have a deeper relationship with financial advisers, whether that was through providing them research or them becoming part of Van Eyk Advice.

He said: “We’re actively talking to advisers about joining our advice business, engaging us as a consultant or buying research from us.”

Van Eyk was also looking to buy books of business. “Some of our planners’ books are below what we think are economies of scale,” he said. “So we’re looking to build that and looking to attract new advisers as well.”

Advisers were increasingly looking for support from larger organisations, he said. Van Eyk Advice might appeal because it had established infrastructure and could offer research, model portfolios and PIEs used by Van Eyk advisers and external groups.

Van Eyk appealed to some advisers because it was not pushing a particular house product, he said. Some advisers found working for a company that pushed its own product uncomfortable. “They want to be in the independent space and that’s where we resonate. The adviser space is something we’re trying to grow. We’re looking to have as many conversations as we can.”

The wider research market was going through a period of change in New Zealand, Thomas said. Lonsec is pulling out and Chris Douglas, of Morningstar, is moving to the United States.

Thomas said he thought there could be room for one other player in the New Zealand market. But he said models that required fund managers to pay to be rated would not work here.

Van Eyk requires its clients pay for research - Thomas said it was assessing its charges in New Zealand but a complete research package in Australia was A$4000 for a single office.

Comments from our readers

On 29 July 2014 at 9:39 am John Berry said:

Interested in adviser views on Mark Thomas' comment (end of the article) that research models "that required fund managers to pay to be rated would not work" in NZ. It seems to me that research models where fund managers don't pay for research aren't working well in NZ because research houses can't generate enough revenue to staff up and research all funds. Fund manager's paying for research is optically bad - putting the reseacher in a possible conflict of interest. Do advisers feel strongly about this? Is there any way the market can get comfortable the rating given is not influenced by the manager?

On 29 July 2014 at 1:53 pm Pragmatic said:

It's worth understanding the rating process to balance the discussion.
Ratings Houses (globally) enter into a binding agreement to rate a fund manager in exchange for payment - irrespective of the outcome. Credible ratings houses no longer engage with a fund manager if they are obviously poor quality and/or have low levels of comparative advantage – as this is a waste of time for all parties, carries significant reputational risks and is often confrontational.
Understanding the framework is a useful starting point to understanding how ratings agencies are able to operate – with alternative billing mechanisms clunky and inefficient. The regulatory reality is that all dispensers of financial advice now require credible analysis to justify the selection of investment vehicles and their weighting in a relevant portfolio.

On 30 July 2014 at 9:16 am Fred said:

In answer to John Berry, I think Advisers are generally very happy with Fund Manager funded research - from a quality provider. Nobody seems to have any qualms, and indeed insists, that debt issuers obtain a rating from S&P, Moody's or Fitch, at their expense.

Van Eyk Advice eyes expansion

Van Eyk Advice wants to increase its adviser force five-fold over the coming years, its chief executive says.

Tuesday, July 29th 2014, 6:00AM 3 Comments

Comments from our readers

www.GoodReturns.co.nz