Jupiter has confirmed it is reviewing the management fee structure on the £1bn Chrysalis investment trust after the two managers were paid a £60m performance bonus for the year to September 2021.
Richard Watts and Nick Williamson will receive the £60m performance fee after hitting annual performance targets for the year.
It perhaps reads as just a little more controversial than it is in reality. The bonus and indeed more than half of Jupiter’s fee are to be paid in shares and the bonus will be paid over years. Investors may well be happy with their returns of around 80 per cent over three years.
However, a bonus at this level is often referred to in City circles as a particular type of money because once you have received it, it's what you can say to your boss, if they get on your nerves.
At least at these levels, there is not much risk the managers pop over the road to the nearest hedge fund.
SJP begins its rebrand with the publication of some nice new logos.
It has lost the words ‘Wealth Management’ but not the troublesome apostrophe. (Obviously your reviewer applauds this as a stickler for this sort of thing.)
After its remarkable success in the US, Consultancy Altus’ Janine Menasakanian asks whether customisation will bring the next generation of indexing in the UK?
There are tax differences, but the success in the US has been quite remarkable.
And a long final item.
The Financial Conduct Authority has extended it own complaints deadline for London Capital & Finance investors until March 2022. This covers a group of consumers whose decisions to buy into the mini-bond may have been influenced by communications they had with the regulator.
The claims period, which is typically 12 months, is thus extended to 17 March 2022, to make 15 months in total.
The FCA says the clock for complaints started running on the day it responded to the Gloster report into FCA failings so that was 17th December 2020.
Without wishing to quibble too much, it presumes a high level of engagement with the matter. That is highly likely for this group, but perhaps it should not be taken as read. (Advisers may mutter something about this being a very short longstop as well).
Anyway, these consumers represent a subset of cases with another minority covered by the FSCS and a broader scheme for the majority provided by the government.
This paragraph appears to be the relevant clause for determining the eligible subset in this story from an updated FCA note.
“As part of this process, we have conducted an initial review of LCF investors’ direct communications with the FCA over the period between 1 April 2014 and 10 December 2018, the date of the FCA’s first regulatory intervention. As noted in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report, we have identified investors who were given incorrect information in these direct communications with the FCA which may have led them to conclude their investment would be safer than it was. While we do not believe this was the primary cause of these investors’ losses, those direct communications may have been a factor in their decision to invest, or to remain invested. While each case will be given individual consideration, given the exceptional circumstances the FCA intends to offer ex gratia payments to the small number of investors who fall into this category who have not already been compensated by the FSCS.”
Have to say the whole debacle, but especially the interpretation that some investors had received advice from a non-advisery firm giving them access to the FSCS, leaves a rather bad taste in the mouth.
In addition, given the industry pays for the FCA, the bill for the group above may eventually wend its way to advisers as well.
