Page 78 - Profile's Unit Trusts & Collective Investments - September 2025
P. 78

Chapter 4                                                      The CIS industry

           In preparing a mandate, a CIS manager must propose a fund classification in terms of ASISA’s
         classification structure, but this is subject to ASISA approval. Other information that must be defined
         in the mandate includes:
           R   A concise statement of the fund objectives
           R   The investable universe of the fund, which includes a definition of the asset class or classes of
              the fund (eg, equities, multi asset or interest bearing)
           R   The benchmark of the fund (only one, clearly defined benchmark is accepted by ASISA)
           R   Fund limits and constraints (eg, whether the fund invests only in SA or only offshore)
           R   Type of fund (retail or institutional)
           R   Nature of the fund (index fund, fund of funds, multi-manager, general or “other”)
           R   Details of the portfolio manager
           A  fund’s  mandate  will  often  include  specific  constraints  limiting  the  investment  universe  to
         particular  types  of  shares,  or  limiting  exposure  to  certain  types  of  assets.  In  order  to  qualify  for
         membership of a particular ASISA category, the constraints in the fund’s mandate must obviously
         conform to the requirements of the category as laid down by ASISA (see Chapter 8 which deals with
         classification).

         Discretionary fund managers
           A discretionary fund manager (DFM) creates and manages portfolio investments on behalf of
         clients. A DFM is not a CIS management company but a financial service provider (FSP). The rise of
         DFMs, however, illustrates the overlap of portfolio management and discretionary advice and shows
         how easily the demarcation gets blurred and confuses investors.
           This blurring is particularly evident in comparing a multi-manager fund to a DFM. A multi-manager
         fund  is  typically  a  unitised  CIS,  whereas  a  DFM  manages  a  portfolio  of  underlying  funds  on  a
         per-client basis using a consistent set of advice and risk management principles. This means, in
         practice, that similar clients will often invest in similar or identical model portfolios – which makes
         the DFM offering look much like a selection of multi-manager funds even though they operate under
         different rules.
           The  rise  of  discretionary  fund  management  is  linked  largely  to  the  FSCA’s  Retail  Distribution
         Review  (RDR),  which  is  modelled  on  the  UK’s  RDR.  The  ever-increasing  regulatory  demands
         make it difficult for independent advisers to fulfil the many requirements of a compliant investment
         process; this situation has created an opportunity for DFMs.
           The FSCA’s RDR proposals in 2014 suggested that financial advisers may be required to have a
         “centralised investment proposition”. This follows the principle of consistent client outcomes, which
         seeks to overcome legacy practices where advisers chose products for clients based on idiosyncratic
         factors. A centralised investment proposition means that advisers have to be able to demonstrate
         how client needs were assessed and why recommendations were made, a responsibility that is
         daunting for many advisers.
           An adviser working in conjunction with a DFM is able to use the DFM’s systems in the assessment
         process  and  rely  on  the  DFM  for  the  applicable  portfolio  model.  As  a  specialist  in  discretionary
         advice, the DFM provides experts, tools and a range of wrappers or model portfolios that can be
         applied to meet desired outcomes.
         ASISA
           The Association of Unit Trusts (AUT) was established in 1967 to represent the interests of South
         African unit trust management companies and their investors. The primary aim of the Association
         was to facilitate the development and growth of the industry.
           With the advent of the Collective Investment Schemes Control Act (CISCA), the AUT changed its
         name to the Association of Collective Investments (ACI). Under CISCA, the ACI became a licensed
         body in terms of Part III of the Act. Schedule 4 of the Act sets out the matters to be provided for in
         the rules of association. By licensing the ACI under the Act, the legislation allowed a degree of self-
         regulation according to prescribed requirements.


       76                Profile’s Unit Trusts & Collective Investments September 2025
   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83