NEWS
11 Nov 2025 - Research house scrutiny needed
|
Research house scrutiny needed Fundmonitors.com November 2025 3-minute read Originally published by SMS Magazine (Self Managed Super) An industry stakeholder has suggested the role of research houses needs to be examined more closely in the wake of high-profile product collapses, such as the Shield Master Fund and First Guardian Master Fund offerings. Research reports and ratings are the first step in the retail distribution chain for fund managers as a report is required for most dealer groups to add a product to their approved product list. "In the case of Shield and First Guardian, it is clear that no rating should have been issued," FundMonitors chief executive Chris Gosselin indicated. "The research process is potentially highly conflicted as the fund manager pays the research house for the report. In reality, the fund manager is not so much paying for a research report, they're paying for the rating." Further, Gosselin noted many in the industry have raised concerns about the current process, which has a lot of fund managers paying up to $35,000 a year per fund for a research report and suggested some could be paying well over $500,000 a year. "A research report should be unbiased, but if the manager is paying the research house, there's the potential for massive conflicts of interest. That's not to say all research is flawed or that conflicts aren't correctly managed in many cases, but Shield and First Guardian highlight the potential issues," he explained. He proposed the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) should be more involved in holding research houses to account for their activities. "A research house should have an AFSL (Australian financial services licence) issued by ASIC, but to date there is a relatively light-touch approach from ASIC to ensure the accuracy and independence of their reports, partly because it is generally only distributed to advisers who are AFSL holders and technically because it doesn't contain advice," he said. In addition, he called for the payment system for research and ratings to be changed. "Rather than the fund manager paying for the research, the platform or end user should pay. A beneficiary-pays approach would remove the conflict inherent in the system," he proposed. |
11 Nov 2025 - New Funds on Fundmonitors.com
|
New Funds on FundMonitors.com |
|
Below are some of the funds we've recently added to our database. Follow the links to view each fund's profile, where you'll have access to their offer documents, monthly reports, historical returns, performance analytics, rankings, research, platform availability, and news & insights. |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Daintree Hybrid Opportunities Active ETF | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
| View Profile | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daintree High Income Trust |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
| View Profile | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daintree Core Income Active ETF |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
| View Profile | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daintree Defensive Plus Trust |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Want to see more funds? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Subscribe for full access to these funds and over 900 others |
10 Nov 2025 - Fund manager ratings: Why due diligence is key, even on ratings houses
|
Fund manager ratings: Why due diligence is key, even on ratings houses Fundmonitors.com November 2025 5-minute read Originally published by IFA (Independent Financial Adviser)
Fund research and fund ratings are intended to be detailed qualitative assessments used by the key parties in the fund distribution chain - advisers, dealer groups, platforms and trustees. They are primarily an essential tool in the marketing process for fund managers wanting to raise funds under management. Research reports should provide key technical and compliance information on the fund, and insights into the operational aspects of both the management company and the fund. In addition to covering both the fund's strategy and investment objectives, the research should include in depth due diligence, and verification of the management company, as well as the people behind the fund including their experience, track record, stability, and alignment of interest of the fund's investment team. It goes without saying there should in-depth investigation of any real or potential conflicts of interest, and verification of any claims made by the manager, as occurs when a company is listed on the ASX. One of the most important aspects of a research report is the fund's current and past performance history to enable the reader to check that the expectation of return and risk - although never a promise - matches reality. Unfortunately, this is frequently either lacking full clarity and analysis, or is out of date, or is covered by the regular disclaimer line "past performance is no guarantee..." Above everything else a fund manager's past performance is essential. While every investment will, or should, come with the "past performance" warning, without looking at a fund or manager's track record, what else is there to judge them by? There are varying thoughts about the ideal length of track record you should look for, and it will vary on asset type and your personal circumstances. Most offer documents will suggest at least five or seven years to ensure you can see across multiple time frames and different market conditions. Although this doesn't guarantee future performance, you will see the manager's track record. Yet, in Shield's case, the fund still had a rating from SQM Research. SQM had given Shield and First Guardian a "favourable" 3.75 stars out of 5, before downgrading them shortly before investor withdrawals were frozen. This rating was given despite the funds having no track record, and it transpires significant conflicts of interest, which proper due diligence or verification should have uncovered. ASIC is going to hold all links in the Shield and First Guardian chain accountable, which highlights that research reports and their ratings can't necessarily be relied upon by advisers, dealer groups, platforms and trustees. As such, they each need to conduct their own research and due diligence. Which of course begs the question - especially when there's a fund failure - why didn't they? For the end investor the issue is compounded further by the fact that the report is rarely available to them. Instead, they are just presented with the rating itself or rely on their adviser - which they should be able to do. There's no guarantee that the rating reflects reality as the rating itself is often taken as gospel, without examining the fund, and without doing their own research, which generally they're not sufficiently equipped to do. This covers a generic industry issue which is going to impact the good and honest players (the majority) as well as those at fault - the so called "bad actors" who in the financial services sector seem to occur with monotonous regularity. In this case, as well as there being a structural problem, the investigation to date suggests that bad actors lured potential investors via false comparison websites, who were then called by lead generators and referred to financial advice providers, who in turn advised investors to roll their superannuation assets into Shield or First Guardian. ASIC is continuing to investigate misconduct relating to the Shield and First Guardian Master Funds to hold those involved to account. However, it is likely that ratings houses are here to stay. If that is the case there needs to be change, and greater transparency, or investors will need to conduct their own due diligence on both the ratings houses and fund managers themselves which of course they are ill equipped to do without the financial knowledge, or the fund's track record to go on. It may be awkward to ask, who pays for a fund manager rating? Does the research house charge advisers, investors or platforms, or continue to charge the fund manager for the rating or subsequent services? There is a good argument for changing the current system from the manager paying for the rating, to a process where the investor, adviser or platform pays for it. Apart from the removal of a potential conflict of interest, that would add to the transparency of the ratings process. However, that risks the situation where the there is no research as no one wants to pay for something they aren't forced to have - even if logic and common sense suggest they should. Maybe ASIC will legislate a solution. Or maybe the advice and platform industry will decide the cost of accepting research commissioned by the fund manager is not worth the risk. In the meantime, while the only way for a fund manager to tick the box and pay for a research report and rating, the status quo is likely to continue.
|
7 Nov 2025 - The need for unconventional oil
6 Nov 2025 - The boom in Australian securitised credit
5 Nov 2025 - Beyond the 'Not so magnificent 17'
4 Nov 2025 - Magellan Global Quarterly Update
|
Magellan Global Quarterly Update Magellan Asset Management October 2025 (Viewing time: 17 mins) |
|
Head of Global Equities Arvid Streimann and Portfolio Manager Casey McLean provide an update on the Magellan Global Fund, reflecting on a quarter dominated by strong equity market performance and heightened investor focus on AI and semiconductor companies. |
|
Funds operated by this manager: Magellan Global Fund (Open Class Units) ASX:MGOC , Magellan Infrastructure Fund , Magellan Global Opportunities Fund No.2 , Magellan Infrastructure Fund (Unhedged) , Magellan Global Fund (Hedged) , Magellan Core Infrastructure Fund , Magellan Global Opportunities Fund Active ETF (ASX:OPPT) Important Information: This material has been delivered to you by Magellan Asset Management Limited ABN 31 120 593 946 AFS Licence No. 304 301 trading as Magellan Investment Partners ('Magellan Investment Partners') and has been prepared for general information purposes only and must not be construed as investment advice or as an investment recommendation. This material does not take into account your investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs. This material does not constitute an offer or inducement to engage in an investment activity nor does it form part of any offer documentation, offer or invitation to purchase, sell or subscribe for interests in any type of investment product or service. You should obtain and consider the relevant Product Disclosure Statement ('PDS') and Target Market Determination ('TMD') and consider obtaining professional investment advice tailored to your specific circumstances before making a decision about whether to acquire, or continue to hold, the relevant financial product. A copy of the relevant PDS and TMD relating to a Magellan Investment Partners financial product may be obtained by calling +61 2 9235 4888 or by visiting www.magellaninvestmentpartners.com Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results and no person guarantees the future performance of any financial product or service, the amount or timing of any return from it, that asset allocations will be met, that it will be able to implement its investment strategy or that its investment objectives will be achieved. This material may contain 'forward-looking statements'. Actual events or results or the actual performance of a Magellan Investment Partners financial product or service may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. This material may include data, research and other information from third party sources. No guarantee is made that such information is accurate, complete or timely and no warranty is given regarding results obtained from its use. This information is subject to change at any time and no person has any responsibility to update any of the information provided in this material. Statements contained in this material that are not historical facts are based on current expectations, estimates, projections, opinions and beliefs of Magellan Investment Partners or the third party responsible for making those statements (as relevant). Such statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and undue reliance should not be placed thereon. No representation or warranty is made with respect to the accuracy or completeness of any of the information contained in this material. Magellan Investment Partners will not be responsible or liable for any losses arising from your use or reliance upon any part of the information contained in this material. Any third-party trademarks contained herein are the property of their respective owners and Magellan Investment Partners claims no ownership in, nor any affiliation with, such trademarks. Any third-party trademarks contained herein are the property of their respective owners, are used for information purposes and only to identify the company names or brands of their respective owners, and no affiliation, sponsorship or endorsement should be inferred from such use. This material and the information contained within it may not be reproduced, or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Magellan Investment Partners. (080825-#W17) |
3 Nov 2025 - Manager Insights | East Coast Capital Management
|
Chris Gosselin, CEO of FundMonitors.com, speaks with Simone Haslinger, Chief Executive Officer at East Coast Capital Management. Simone shares how clear, sustained trends across commodities, precious metals, and tech equities powered a standout quarter for East Coast Capital, emphasizing the strength of their fully systematic, data-driven strategy that thrives on market momentum and delivers steady, uncorrelated returns.
|
31 Oct 2025 - Expert analysis on what the RBA will do next Tuesday, November 4
|
Expert analysis on what the RBA will do next Tuesday, November 4 FundMonitors.com 31 October 2025 |
|
Chris Gosselin, CEO of FundMonitors.com, speaks with Nicholas Chaplin, Director and Portfolio Manager at Seed Funds Management, and Renny Ellis, Director & Head of Portfolio Management at Arculus Funds Management. In this insightful discussion, the trio unpack the latest Australian inflation figures for the September quarter and consider what they might mean for interest rates, economic momentum, and investor sentiment heading into 2025. With the Reserve Bank's next move under close scrutiny, the conversation explores the data behind the numbers -- and what could lie ahead for markets and monetary policy. |
31 Oct 2025 - Janus Henderson x Berkeley Insight Collective: Evaluating corporate transition plans - from theory t
|
Janus Henderson x Berkeley Insight Collective: Evaluating corporate transition plans - from theory to engagement Janus Henderson Investors October 2025 (7-minute read) Drawing on insights from Dara O'Rourke, Associate Professor at UC Berkeley, we explore why a holistic evaluation of climate transition is important - and how our proprietary Climate Transition Assessment (CTA) -- shaped by key learnings from the Berkeley curriculum -- enables investors to better evaluate corporate climate transition plans. Financial materiality of climate riskAs part of the co-developed Janus Henderson x Berkeley Insight Collective curriculum, our investment teams explored how climate change is not only a sustainability issue for investors -- it's a material financial risk. A company's climate transition plan is a strategic commitment that provides investors with essential insight into how the business intends to allocate capital, manage long-term risks, and seize opportunities in the shift to a low-carbon economy - all of which are critical to sustaining competitiveness and value creation. Companies without credible transition plans face mounting exposure to business disruptions, regulatory pressure, reputational damage, and the risk of stranded assets. Those that fail to align their strategies with climate realities may also risk losing their social license to operate -- not only in the eyes of regulators and investors, but in the markets they serve. The question is no longer whether firms should transition, but how credibly they can do so. From the outside, it's often difficult to tell which companies are truly implementing credible transition plans. We believe leaders in this transition will be those that combine bold ambition with tangible action, and strong governance with measurable progress. Dara O'Rourke, Associate Professor at UC Berkeley's Rausser College of Natural Resources:
Elevating engagements through proprietary dataTransition readiness doesn't just help us evaluate companies -- it shapes how we engage with them. Leveraging our proprietary research and data to understand how companies plan to navigate the transition not only informs our investment evaluation, but also shapes how we engage with them. We can tailor our conversations and engagement strategies to specific gaps we identify - helping ensure that capital is aligned with credible, forward-looking strategies. For example, if a company shows strong ambition and governance but weak investment, we can encourage capital expenditure alignment and clearer implementation plans. If a company's achievements are trailing despite having the right frameworks in place, our focus may shift towards enhancing transparency and setting interim milestones. This data-driven strategy allows us to transcend generic interactions and pose questions that are precise, relevant, and rooted in solid data. Assessing the building blocks of a transition plan -- what we look forTo support deeper analysis of climate-related risks and opportunities, we've developed a proprietary, data-driven Climate Transition Assessment (CTA) tool, leveraging insights from our co-developed curriculum with UC Berkeley. Available to all our investors and analysts, this tool draws on dozens of data points from third party providers and applies our proprietary scoring methodology. The CTA evaluates companies across four strategic dimensions - our '4-As' framework:
Ambition is where a company signals its intent. We assess whether that intent is credible, comprehensive, and aligned with global climate goals. This includes the scope and timelines of emissions reduction targets, reliance on offsets, and whether targets are validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Near-term targets are especially important. We also consider whether ambition is grounded in science -- using third-party metrics like implied temperature rise and peer-relative transition scores -- and whether the company's targets reflect its sectoral carbon budget. Action is where ambition becomes operational. We assess whether companies are investing in the transition through capital allocation, operational changes, and innovation. This includes climate-aligned CapEx (capital expenditure) and OpEx (operational expenditure), green revenues, supply chain engagement, deployment of low-carbon technologies and internal carbon pricing. This helps us determine whether a company is actively aligning its strategy with a low-carbon future. Accountability is arguably the most important dimension - it's what turns ambitions into execution and ensures that climate goals are treated with the same seriousness and financial ones. A company can have high ambitions and even take action toward them, but without governance structures that embed climate into decision-making, progress is fragile. We assess whether climate oversight exists at board level, whether executive compensation is linked to sustainability, and whether disclosure practices are in place. We also look for internal actionable metrics -- such as business unit-level KPIs (key performance indicators) or climate-linked performance reviews -- that translate climate goals into day-to-day operations. Governance risks like pay controversies, shareholder dissent, and leadership concerns also inform our view of credibility. Achievements is the ultimate test: is the company delivering results? We assess emissions trends, absolute emissions and carbon intensity, and performance relative to peers. While results must be interpreted in context, they are a critical indicator of credibility. A company may not be hitting every target-- emissions may even be rising -- but if ambition, action, and accountability are strong, we see a clear and credible path to decarbonisation. Temporary emission increases due to acquisitions or strategic investments -- especially in decarbonising technologies -- may be justifiable, but over time, progress must be evident and consistent with stated goals. Our CTA in actionIn a recent engagement with a transportation equipment manufacturer, our CTA revealed a disconnect between the company's stated ambition and its execution. While the company set a 1.5°C-aligned target for Scope 1 and 2 emissions, the lack of SBTi validation and limited investment in green activities raised questions about credibility. The CTA also flagged gaps in verification and capital allocation, prompting us to dig deeper. We asked targeted questions on executive incentives, scenario analysis, and internal carbon pricing -- all informed by the CTA's findings. The company confirmed that while it does not plan to seek SBTi validation, it conducts scenario analysis, applies carbon pricing in select regions, and links sustainability goals to executive bonuses. Our data-driven engagement didn't just highlight gaps -- it enabled a more focused, informed, and ultimately productive dialogue. Dara O'Rourke, Associate Professor at UC Berkeley's Rausser College of Natural Resources:
Key conclusionsClimate transition plans are no longer optional -- they are a financial imperative. Our proprietary data tools and informed client engagements provide clarity to a fragmented and inconsistent landscape, helping investors distinguish between companies that are genuinely aligned with the transition and those that are not. We believe comprehensive investment insights lead to better-functioning markets by enabling more effective comparison across companies, supporting efficient capital allocation, and reducing the risk of misinformed investment decisions. Our comprehensive research and data tools strengthen our ability to better manage financially material risks for our clients-- from stranded assets and regulatory penalties to reputational damage and long-term value erosion. By evaluating ambition, action, accountability, and achievements in an integrated framework, we can engage with precision -- asking the right question to drive targeted outcomes., In a rapidly evolving landscape, these insights help us manage climate risk, protect portfolios, and support the shift to a more sustainable economy. |
|
Funds operated by this manager: Janus Henderson Australian Fixed Interest Fund , Janus Henderson Conservative Fixed Interest Fund , Janus Henderson Diversified Credit Fund , Janus Henderson Global Natural Resources Fund , Janus Henderson Tactical Income Fund , Janus Henderson Australian Fixed Interest Fund - Institutional , Janus Henderson Conservative Fixed Interest Fund - Institutional , Janus Henderson Cash Fund - Institutional , Janus Henderson Global Multi-Strategy Fund , Janus Henderson Global Sustainable Equity Fund , Janus Henderson Sustainable Credit Fund Disclaimer: This article reflects the views of the author(s) at the date of publication and does not necessarily represent those of FundMonitors.com. It is provided for general information only and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Market data, views, and forward-looking statements were current as at 1 October 2025 and may change without notice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Readers should consider their own objectives and obtain professional advice before making investment decisions. All opinions and estimates in this information are subject to change without notice and are the views of the author at the time of publication. Janus Henderson is not under any obligation to update this information to the extent that it is or becomes out of date or incorrect. The information herein shall not in any way constitute advice or an invitation to invest. It is solely for information purposes and subject to change without notice. This information does not purport to be a comprehensive statement or description of any markets or securities referred to within. Any references to individual securities do not constitute a securities recommendation. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. The value of an investment and the income from it can fall as well as rise and you may not get back the amount originally invested. Whilst Janus Henderson believe that the information is correct at the date of publication, no warranty or representation is given to this effect and no responsibility can be accepted by Janus Henderson to any end users for any action taken on the basis of this information. |
