We compared Gatekeepers in 2017 to 2016 to look for any emerging trends or changing preferences. But it's safe to say that 2017 can be characterised as a year when Gatekeepers continued to stick with big-name funds, despite their non-appearance as top performers. Meanwhile lesser-known funds outperformed, but were unable to get on fund selectors' radars or if they had been noticed, get fund selectors to up their exposure.
The Fundscape Gatekeepers study has attracted a lot of attention. The launch events were exceptionally well attended by fund groups and advisers, and the feedback was emphatically positive. Among the gatekeeper cohort, however, the reception was slightly mixed. Some got in touch to check we’d analysed their lists and sent us their selections. Most kept their distance, but one or two went on the attack, criticising the quality of the research.
The gatekeepers who went on the attack have neither read the report nor seen the analysis. I’ll repeat that again — they have neither read the report nor seen the analysis — which we found amusing and bemusing in equal measure. You see, we got in touch with them and offered them a full demonstration and explanation of our analysis, but they turned us down, so everything they say and write is based on misconceptions, flawed assumptions and conclusions...
Last Wednesday 2nd March, at a breakfast briefing hosted by Schroders, we launched the Gatekeepers report to a packed room of senior figures from the fund management industry. We were overwhelmed by the turnout — of the 50 groups that were invited to attend, 48 attended and demand has been such that we're holding a second event on 30th March (if you'd like to be come, let us know).