This may seem like a little lovefest with TOWER but it's not.
Recently I wrote about the appointment of Jim Minto as the boss of TOWER, and that I thought it was a good appointment. My view remains the same, and it seems clear that Jim is pretty driven to grow this business.
This time I wanted to talk about Tony Hildyard, the guy who has taken over from Paul Bevin as the head of TOWER Asset Management. (I've been reminded that there's two D's in the surname - it's not just one in the wrong place).
He's been with TOWER for yonks - like more than 15 years - but he hasn't had much profile. That's about to change.
I spent some time with Tony yesterday and it's clear he is revved up and ready to do action and the retail space is where attention will be focussed.
One of the things which is interesting is that Hildyard understands what has been, in my view, one of the bugbears of the fund management industry - that is all the old, unprofitable legacy funds which litter the landscape. Many of these, and the systems involved, are the collataral damage from earlier merger and acquisition action which haven't been cleaned up.
These are a financial drag on the managed fund industry. I don't (fully) understand why managers don't get rid of these small funds, which don't get any meaningful funds flow.
The other challenge Hildyard has taken on is "educating" advisers about the products and funds they should use, as opposed to sell "hot products".
I've seen some of the work that TOWER has done in the wholesale space and it is certainly pitched at a different level than some of the retail stuff.It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Can I suggest that Tony also reviews fund performance and particularly the level of management fees extracted from its products. While I believe TOWER will be one of the performers in coming years, the whole area of managed funds as an investment vehicle has had a bit of negative press lately. Many investors who have held fund products (not necessarily TOWER products) have seen their investments stagnate, despite good market performance. This is mainly due to both poor investment decisions by managers and more particularly high management fees.
I also suggest that this could become a strong marketing advantage for TOWER if it could show the lead in this aspect of fund management.
1 Comment
This may seem like a little lovefest with TOWER but it's not.
Phil,
Can I suggest that Tony also reviews fund performance and particularly the level of management fees extracted from its products. While I believe TOWER will be one of the performers in coming years, the whole area of managed funds as an investment vehicle has had a bit of negative press lately. Many investors who have held fund products (not necessarily TOWER products) have seen their investments stagnate, despite good market performance. This is mainly due to both poor investment decisions by managers and more particularly high management fees.
I also suggest that this could become a strong marketing advantage for TOWER if it could show the lead in this aspect of fund management.