Gender discrimination: Naming, shaming asset managers

Many investors don’t care about gender discrimination within the ranks of the asset managers that run their funds. Yet Morningstar research into thousands of new funds suggests female fund managers are up there with the best investment managers. This is because they have to arguably be even a little better than their male counterparts at what they do in order to get ahead in their chosen careers. And, if gender discrimination isn’t an issue, why do some of the world’s largest asset managers refuse to divulge their employment breakdowns? The Financial Times, influential in the global financial services industry, has taken the step of naming and shaming large asset managers in Europe and the US that will not release data on the percentage of women hired in senior positions. Their silence suggests that these companies have not yet grasped that, by maintaining a boys’ club approach, they are forgoing the opportunity to draw on a vast pool of talent. The big asset managers that have refused to divulge how many women they have hired at a senior level include: Vanguard, the world’s second-largest asset manager, Fidelity Investments, T Rowe Price, Legg Mason, Invesco and Affiliated Managers Group. Those who did reveal their gender diversity statistics include: BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, Schroders, Fidelity International, Amundi, Baillie Gifford and Union Investment. Edinburgh-based Aberdeen has the highest number of women in senior roles (35%), followed by Franklin Templeton (30%) and Schroders (27%), says the FT. – Jackie Cameron

By Christopher Langner

Bloomberg Gadfly - For those in finance, when was the last time you met a woman who was managing a portfolio? There are a few, yes, but how many? A straight answer would be difficult because asset managers don’t like to talk about it.

BlackRock, the largest publicly traded asset manager by market value, agreed to share data for the first time on how many women it employs at a senior level, the Financial Times reported Monday. The newspaper asked the 15 biggest standalone asset managers to unveil such information; six companies declined. For an industry that depends on disclosure to maintain public trust, that’s a conspicuous lack of openness. Unfortunately, it’s also the norm, as Bloomberg data show.

Overall, the industry scores very low in how upfront it is about gender and environmental issues. The median Bloomberg environmental and social governance disclosure score for listed asset managers worldwide is 15.4, on a scale where 0.1 is the worst and 100 the best. That’s below the steel industry’s 17 or the 17.8 of global coal miners, male-dominated industries in which attitudes might be expected to be even more recalcitrant.

Even at the few companies that do report gender diversity, their score is far from perfect.

Sure, asset managers can claim that women are underrepresented in finance in general, a legacy of the industry’s traditional male dominance and cultural disincentives to female participation. Furthermore, many of the people who end up in top jobs come from trading desks, an area where women employees are even scarcer.

That doesn’t justify the lack of disclosure. It’s time shareholders started asking the question of these companies because the continued lack of gender diversity means they are forgoing the opportunity to draw on a huge pool of potential talent. Few industries would benefit as much from having different ideas, approaches to life, views of the world and diverse opinions as money management. As any psychologist will tell you, the first step to dealing with any issue is to talk about it.

• This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg and its owners.

* For more in-depth business news, visit biznews.com or simply sign up for the daily newsletter.