IT IS fortunate that Morgan Grenfell has such a wealthy backer, given the financial scale of the disaster which befell its fund management side last year.
Had it occurred in one of the smaller independent fund management houses, it could well have been brought down, which is a sobering thought.
Morgan Grenfell and its parent Deutsche Bank have acted with commendable thoroughness to correct the impact of the affair and investors will be no worse off. It remains extraordinary that Mr Young was able to continue his activities for four months after doubts were raised about the Europe Growth fund at a high level in Morgan Grenfell Asset Management.
Clearly, so long as the performance appeared to be coming through, senior executives were prepared to turn a blind eye and not check that compliance procedures were being followed.
The bloodletting at the top which followed was entirely appropriate. Now the whistleblowers can bypass the top brass altogether and go direct to Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt if necessary.
A raft of recommendations from internal and external sources have been implemented to ensure a similar thing cannot happen again. A list of prescribed shares has been drawn up, and many signatures have to be obtained if a fund manager wants to buy a share not on the list.
There was much talk about pension funds withdrawing their custom from MGAM following the Young affair and the separate noisy departure in January of Nicola Horlick. But this has not occurred to any significant scale. In fact, the company has more under management now that it did before the Young scandal broke.
So MGAM's reputation appears not to have suffered, and it will soon be able to put the affair behind it. Another similar scandal in the industry is unlikely for a time at least, because firms will have double checked their compliance procedures and will be extra vigilant.
The real test will come when the memory of the Young affair fades. Unfortunately, one cannot be confident further scandals will not occur then.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article