Invesco and Wellington eye global adoption of Mifid II

Lobbying of SEC fuels speculation that fund groups want to extend model to the US

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.comT&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/075382ef-6c58-3b21-9010-63aa8e013d70

Invesco and Wellington Management are pushing the Wall Street regulator to allow them to apply Mifid II cost transparency rules in the US, a move that underlines the growing global impact of the EU legislation.* The fund groups, which collectively manage nearly $2tn, attended a discussion with the Securities and Exchange Commission last year. This focused on obtaining changes to so-called soft dollar rules in the US, according to people familiar with the meeting. Under these rules, brokers cannot receive direct payments for research unless they are formally registered as investment advisers, which increases compliance obligations. The law clashes with the EU’s Mifid II, which came into effect last year. The directive requires asset managers to split the cost of investment research from that of buying and selling securities, a process known as unbundling. Asset managers can pass on the unbundled fees to clients or fund them from their own resources, with most European groups opting for the latter. The lobbying by Invesco and Wellington will fuel speculation that the groups are minded to extend the Mifid II research payment model to the US. Invesco gave a strong indication of this when it said in its annual report in February that “client-driven competitive pressures may cause an expansion of [the Mifid II research payment model] to other business regions” in which it operates, including the US. Invesco and Wellington declined to comment. Dodge & Cox said it attended the meeting for educational purposes. The meeting with the SEC was arranged by T Rowe Price, the $991bn fund group that recently pledged to absorb research costs globally. Also in attendance were Sands Capital and the UK’s Baillie Gifford, two other asset managers that have gone down this route. These managers had to think creatively over how they implement this model in the US, given local regulatory hurdles. Some continue to pay bundled commissions to brokers and then reimburse clients. Such solutions are administratively complex. In addition, some groups lament going without the benefits of Mifid II, specifically the freedom to procure research from providers that do not provide execution to them. Since full unbundling is not possible in the US, managers have to buy research from the same brokers they use for trading. Tyler Gellasch, executive director of Healthy Markets Association, an investor-focused trade group, said: “Asset managers need to be able to shop separately for research and trading.” He said US fund groups felt they were at a disadvantage to their European peers, which have freedom about how to procure research. The regulatory clash also results in a disparity of treatment between European and US investors. American clients continue to fund asset managers’ research spend, while most EU investors escape the charge. The discrepancy has been laid bare by the SEC’s decision to grant a temporary exemption allowing European managers that source research from US brokers to unbundle research costs. The exemption applies only to managers investing on behalf of EU investors. Critics believe it gives these groups a pecuniary incentive to use US client money to subsidise European research. The SEC last year invited industry input on the cross-border effect of Mifid II, as it prepares to decide whether to extend the exemption beyond July 2020. The route the regulator will pick is unclear. Some managers have urged it to make the exemption permanent and broaden it to all fund groups while others want the regulator to let the arrangement expire and allow the market to adapt. Sanford Bragg, principal at Integrity Research Associates, said many US fund groups were in “watching-waiting” mode on whether to adopt Mifid II globally. They are “waiting to see what the SEC does, waiting to see if there is a huge outcry from asset owners generally, and waiting to see if competitors other than T Rowe, Capital and MFS make the plunge”. Dick Weil, chief executive of Janus Henderson, recently said his group “[does not] have any plans currently to change how we are treating research in the US”. *The article has been amended to make clear that Dodge & Cox did not lobby for a Mifid II extension