The Lemon Fool

FredBloggs wrote:
Oh dear, a high flyer in the industry, fingers in the till, maybe, who knows?

From the link itself (my bold) -

The conduct issue was unrelated to his portfolio manager responsibilities and has not impacted the pricing or NAV of any RAMAM fund and no client or investor has been negatively affected in connection with this matter.

http://otp.investis.com/clients/uk/rive ... sid=975136

Itsallaguess

Sounds to me like the usual issues around 'inappropriate behaviour' doesn't it?

Dod

Isn't the most likely explanation that he gave a career start (or boost) to one or more young lady in a manner he wouldn't have done for a young chap?

Or in today's atmosphere, it could just be that he was perceived as such. Men routinely socialise by insulting each other (without really meaning it), but can be in huge trouble if they try to treat a feminist as an equal.

Stonge wrote:It's not really safe for men to work with women any more. Not safe for the men.

It's war now. A shame as half my ancestors were women.

Just to be clear, my post above was pure speculation. I never heard of the person mentioned, and I take Fred's point about this being an exceptional action.

I've generally found my interactions with women in the workplace to be thoroughly positive. Not least, both my female bosses have been among the best people I've reported to. But they weren't BBC-style feminists out to stereotype and belittle the male of the species, they were decent people doing decent jobs.

FredBloggs wrote:Thanks, of course, the cynic in me says "well they would say that, wouldn't they?". You don't the sack for getting a parking ticket. Having said that, we'll never know since both sides will have confidentiality agreements. But it is a pretty rare occurrence I think, hence why I posed it here for general interest . I doubt you'll see him managing another investment despite his stellar record at R&M.

Yes, back when I worked in fund management, there was one manager there who I always thought was a bit dodgy.

It turned out that he had been front-running (buying shares for his own account in the knowledge that his fund was going to buy the same shares). He got caught and there was a "settlement" agreed that included a statement that there had been no wrongdoing. He also had to pay a half million pound fine but of course that wasn't a lot to him.

It's sad but this stuff usually gets covered up for reasons of "reputation".

As a matter of interest, does the phrase professional misconduct narrow down the likely reason?

I just wondered if something like overfamiliarity with a female colleague would simply be misconduct; isn't professional misconduct specifically related to issues relating to the rules and regulatons surrounding the job itself, or am I reading too much into the term?

staffordian wrote:As a matter of interest, does the phrase professional misconduct narrow down the likely reason?

If you Google for his name, this comes up.

http://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/ne ... g/a1090366
and as mentioned in the link
http://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/ne ... th-manager

The FCA allegation is that investment managers colluded over the price they were prepared to pay for IPOs.

If you Google for "On the Beach flotation" you get
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... sting.html

Alaric - nice piece of detection work - thanks

Hargreaves Lansdown has removed his fund from their Wealth 150+ List
http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/research-and- ... wealth-150

The River & Mercantile UK Dynamic Equity Fund has been removed from the Wealth 150+ following the departure of Philip Rodrigs, the fund’s manager, from the business. He left today, 7th February, following an internal investigation into his professional conduct.

Very disappointed with this. I’ve held r&m micro cap (rmmc) from the start and it’s been a brilliant investment. I’ve been lucky with subsequent top ups in terms of timing but it’s been throwing off cash consistently as corporate actions to keep the aum down

My first thought was either either front running or ‘personal indiscretions’, although with transaction reporting the way it is now it would be fairly difficult to get away with front running these days. Pretty stupid if he’s been caught price fixing

Anyway whatever’s happened it’s s shsme as rmmc was going along nicely

Muddywaters wrote:My first thought was either either front running or ‘personal indiscretions’, although with transaction reporting the way it is now it would be fairly difficult to get away with front running these days.

Depends how it is done. His personal accounts will be monitored and he may even need advance permission to buy shares that he has any connection with. Spousal accounts are also tracked.

However, if he conspired with some other person, e.g. friend, neighbour or family member along with some agreement to split the profits, then it's harder to discover.

The front-running case I described earlier involved a small-cap fund - a large fund order can drive up the price of a small company significantly, thereby providing a more profitable opportunity for front-running.

Lootman wrote:

Muddywaters wrote:My first thought was either either front running or ‘personal indiscretions’, although with transaction reporting the way it is now it would be fairly difficult to get away with front running these days.

Depends how it is done. His personal accounts will be monitored and he may even need advance permission to buy shares that he has any connection with. Spousal accounts are also tracked.

However, if he conspired with some other person, e.g. friend, neighbour or family member along with some agreement to split the profits, then it's harder to discover.

The front-running case I described earlier involved a small-cap fund - a large fund order can drive up the price of a small company significantly, thereby providing a more profitable opportunity for front-running.

Yes I don’t disagree with you lootman. I was thinking more about transaction reporting to the regulator as a result of mifid than internal controls on trade disclosure. In your example I wonder whether the algorithm the fca use would pick up suspicious transactions prior to a big order being placed. Especially if micro caps were being traded

A disparaging thread that would be better had it never existed, IMHO.

A disparaging thread that would be better had it never existed, IMHO.

I disagree. There has been some significant misbehaviour which the fund management company is not fully disclosing - hence we have no way of knowing whether or not their funds may be affected - apart from their statement saying that they won't be. Alaric provided some links which stated (in September 2017) that this management company is being probed by the FCA for a possible competition breach. And now they sack a fund manager. Is this related? And if they are found guilty, will there be no affects on their funds? This is a thread I certainly hope remains open - and reports back any other developments.

scotia wrote: Alaric provided some links which stated (in September 2017) that this management company is being probed by the FCA for a possible competition breach. And now they sack a fund manager. Is this related?

I thought the clear indication was that the FCA had caught this fund management group colluding with others to fix the price of an IPO, something they consider "against the rules". The fund manager has been sacked as deemed responsible. Whether he was acting on his own initiative or is a fall guy for a wider failing may be disputed.

Alaric - Yes that is what I inferred from your detective work. And if indeed the company has been found guilty, will there be a financial penalty - or does a sacrificial lamb suffice?

According to an article in the F.T. last week covering the manager leaving, River & Mercantile say it was unrelated to a FCA probe of allegations that they, along with three other fund houses, had broken competition law by illegally sharing information.

EmptyGlass wrote:According to an article in the F.T. last week covering the manager leaving, River & Mercantile say it was unrelated to a FCA probe of allegations that they, along with three other fund houses, had broken competition law by illegally sharing information.

Here's a version of this story

https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/invest ... estigation

Perhaps we are none the wiser.

Thanks EmptyGlass for more detective work.
So it still leaves us wondering what the reason for the departure was.

And thanks again Alaric for your most recent posting of the investmentweek article.
No perhaps about it - I'm certainly none the wiser!
And fortunately I'm not an owner of the R&M UK Micro Cap IT.