Mary Cahani will take on the newly created role of head of defined contribution (DC) Client Engagement with responsibilities to include engaging with DC trust-based schemes and independent trustees focused on DC to strengthen Invesco’s solutions and presence in this market.

Tom Banks has been promoted to head of UK ETFs and will join Invesco’s UK Distribution Management Team. ETFs are a key growth engine and strategic priority for Invesco, and Tom’s expertise will be instrumental to driving Invesco’s ETF business forward and ensuring it is well positioned within a competitive market.

Joe Bello will expand his role to include pension and insurance clients and has been promoted to head of ETF institutional and asset managers, reporting to Tom Banks. Joe’s extensive ETF knowledge and experience will be critical to growing this segment of Invesco’s ETF business.

Ashar Muhammad has been appointed head of UK and alternative consultants to will oversee Invesco’s UK consultant strategy and working closely with Sachin Bhatia, Invesco’s head of UK pensions & EMEA consultant relations, to enhance its alternative consultant approach across EMEA.

Kate Dwyer, head of UK distribution, said: “All four promotions are a recognition of the expertise and quality of experience we have in our distribution team. Invesco has a track record for nurturing talent and after considering a wide pool of talent, I am excited to be able to give Mary, Tom, Joe and Ashar the opportunity to drive growth and engage with clients to support our strategic priorities.”

In the annual rebalance, which highlights the top 10% of UK retail-facing managers over the course of their careers, managers such as Goldman Sachs’ Jeroen Brand, Pimco’s Daniel Ivascyn, Wellington’s Evan Ouellette and Axa IM’s Nicolas Trindade also received the accolade for the first time.

Alongside the 18 new entrants, four managers returned to the list having been featured once before: Tim Gregory, who runs the Vermeer Global fund; David Absolon, who heads up the Handelsbanken Defensive Multi Asset fund; Raymond Ma of Fidelity China Consumer; and King Fuei Lee, who manages the Schroder ISF Asian Equity Yield fund.

From a group perspective, Fidelity boasts the largest number of FE Alpha Managers at 10, followed by JP Morgan at nine. Baillie Gifford, Schroders and Wellington Management Funds all have seven FE Alpha Managers, while Janus Henderson has six. Royal London Asset Management, Premier Miton and Jupiter each have five FE Alpha Managers.

Charles Younes, deputy chief investment officer at FE Investments, said: “The Alpha Manager Rating is our most consistent rating at FE Fundinfo, as it considers a manager’s track record across his or her entire investment career. That rating is therefore immune to short-term investment cycle and market rotations.

“Therefore the list of Alpha-rated managers tends to be unchanged year on year, although it is always great to find rising talents reaching this distinction. And the 2024 vintage is no different to previous years”.

This article was written for our sister title Portfolio Adviser

The range features six investment portfolios across different risk levels, managed by investment solutions director Ben Gutteridge (pictured) and multi-asset fund manager David Aujla.

The portfolios will hold an average of 22 funds each across a variety of asset classes and geographies, with the aim of achieving high levels of diversification.

See also: Premier Miton’s David Jane: Reframing income as an output rather than a style

Invesco funds will be included, but the portfolios will predominantly be invested in funds managed by other firms. The ongoing annual charge for each of the portfolios is 0.1%.

The new MPS offering has been created by the solutions team within the firm’s multi-asset strategies group, which has been assembling portfolios for a decade and currently manages over $75bn.

The full range, in order of risk target from low to high:

• Invesco Managed Cautious Portfolio, which targets between 25% – 55% of global equity volatility.
• Invesco Managed Cautious Balanced Portfolio, which targets between 40% – 70% of global equity volatility.
• Invesco Managed Balanced Portfolio, which targets between 50% – 80% of global equity volatility.
• Invesco Managed Balanced Growth Portfolio, which targets between 65 – 95% of global equity volatility.
• Invesco Managed Growth Portfolio, which targets between 80% – 110% of global equity volatility.
• Invesco Managed Adventurous Growth Portfolio, which targets between 90% – 120% of global equity volatility

Gutteridge said: “We’ve worked closely with advisers to better understand the challenges the advisory community faces, and so have placed equal importance on delivering a premium level of service, enabling access to our solutions in a straightforward and accessible way, accompanied by exceptional levels of investment support.”

See also: Why investors need to take outlooks with a pinch of salt

Aujla added: “In an environment of economic uncertainty and changing market dynamics, a diversified investment approach backed by robust research and risk management is as important as ever in achieving investors’ investment goals. Our model portfolios deliver that for a broad range of investor risk appetites.”

2024’s calendar of elections kicked off this weekend with the Taiwanese election, which immediately careered into controversy. However, markets appear to be untroubled by any potential escalation in geopolitical tensions it may bring about. Is this a sign of things to come, where markets largely ignore the outcome in the busiest year for elections in history?

The Taiwanese election demonstrated some of the potential pitfalls for the year ahead, as China condemned global governments for welcoming the pro-independence victor from the Democratic Progressive party. A US State Department spokesperson congratulated the Taiwanese for “demonstrating the strength of their robust democratic system and electoral process”. This drew ire from China’s foreign ministry, which said the comments “seriously violated US promises that it would only maintain cultural, economic and other non-official ties with Taiwan”.

Markets have taken no notice of this exchange, possibly because relations between the US and China were already weak and it does not alter their position significantly. This reinforces the prevailing narrative that elections don’t matter very much for developed markets. Certainly, analysis of stock markets through history seems to support this view.

Dina Ting, head of global index portfolio management at Franklin Templeton ETF, says: “Data for US markets show that over the longer term, presidential election outcomes tend to have very little impact on market moves.”

See also: Momentum: Seven risks for investors to watch for in 2024

Analysis from Brian Levitt, global market strategist at Invesco, shows that in the US, neither party can claim superior economic or market performance. The stock market posted positive returns across most administrations, with the rare exceptions of presidencies that ended in deep recessions. He adds that the S&P 500 index has delivered an average annual return of approximately 10% since it started in 1957 through both Democratic and Republican administrations.

A similar picture emerges in analysis of UK markets. Research by AJ Bell of all 16 of the general elections since the inception of the FTSE All-Share in 1962 shows that the UK stock market is indifferent to a change of government – and may even welcome it: “On average, the FTSE All Share has recorded a double-digit percentage gain in the first year after an election which sees one prime minister ejected from office and another ushered into it. There are also greater average gains when a government changes relative to when it remains the same.”

However, it can create volatility, and this appears more likely this year than in previous election cycles.

Ting adds: “Typically, the widest range of possible market outcomes relative to other periods of the election cycle occur during the uncertain 12 months preceding election day. With current volatility in the low teens, we see the risk of politically induced spikes throughout the year. Historically, the 12 months leading up to elections post average volatility of 17% in years when the same party continues its hold on the White House; in years when the presidency flips, that figure rises to over 20%. Given the fraught political backdrop, we may see a more nervous market than what is currently priced.”

Anthony Willis, investment manager at Columbia Threadneedle, says there is significant potential for politics to influence markets in the year head. He sees an ‘ugly battle for democracy in the US’ adding: “We are likely to see legal processes involved and the Supreme Court will probably have a role. With the election so tight, it may make a difference. This will be a backdrop all year.”

He also believes it may affect economic outcomes for the year ahead: “Incumbent leaders are going to do all they can to stay in power, so expect governments to do what they can on the fiscal side.”

Oxford Economics is expecting major changes to tax policy in 2025 whatever happens in the election: “Republicans will rush to prevent Trump-era tax cuts from expiring at the end of the year, while Democrats will also feel an urgency to prevent a similarly timed expiration of expanded subsidies for health insurance. In a divided government, a grand bargain that permanently extends key tax priorities of both parties would add at least $1trn to deficits through 2033, and even more beyond.”

Under either party, trade policy is likely to remain protectionist, though in different ways. The Democrats may continue to favour industrial subsidies and regulation, while a Republican administration would likely turn to imposing more tariffs on the rest of the world.

In emerging markets, it is possible that a change of government may create specific investment opportunities. In Mexico, for example, there is a view that the incumbent government has not been friendly to companies looking to ‘near-shore’, meaning the country is missing out on an historic opportunity to draw in investment. The elections in June 2024 could bring in a more investment-friendly government and exploit an easy win for the Mexican economy.

Equally, elections around the world may provide an important barometer of the support for democracy. In major countries such as India and the US, democracy is wobbling. EU parliamentary elections may also see the strength of support for far right parties across Europe. It may be destabilising for markets if democracy appears to be under significant threat.

However, in all these cases, there are two problems for investors. The first is that even if they can predict the outcome for an election, and then the economic changes that are likely to stem from it, it is difficult to pick the resulting market outcome. The second is that there is not much they can do about volatility, and the right course of action is usually to stay invested.

Levitt concludes that monetary policy and innovation are likely to be far greater drivers of market returns: “Investors should be less interested in politics and more interested in private sector business leaders who are going to harness artificial intelligence and robotics. They may be able to help cure debilitating diseases, evolve the nation’s energy sources, and develop new technologies and industries that aren’t even on the radar.”

Markets may not be as sanguine over all the election outcomes as they have been over Taiwan and there could be plenty of noise around elections in the year ahead. However, trying to predict investment returns based on an election outcome is tough and investors are likely to be better off riding out market volatility and staying invested.

This article was written for our sister title Portfolio Adviser

Investors used a variety of methods to enter the precious metal market, with 77% using either the Mint’s digital platform, DigiGold, or purchasing fractional coins and bars. Simultaneously, the Mint’s buyback scheme increased its payout by 46% from 2022, resulting in the highest number on record.

The Mint credits the numbers to a “flight to safety” attitude from investors.

Stuart O’Reilly, market insights analyst at The Royal Mint said: “The potential for central bank rate cuts in 2024 is boosting the gold and precious metals market, as the prospect of lower rates boosts demand for non-yielding assets. Traders and investors are increasingly pricing in a Fed rate cut some time in 2024, which could accelerate the price of gold alongside a weakening of the US dollar.

See also: Why portfolio diversification is the only free lunch

“The dual impact of this move could turbocharge gold beyond recent market highs, as recent geopolitical and economic uncertainty, alongside strong central bank gold buying, has kept precious metals markets elevated.”

While the Silver Britannica remained the most popular product, the Mint also saw interest in its ‘fractional’ products, which can include a £25 investment through DigiGold or investment of physical gold for around £75.

Andrew Dickey, The Royal Mint’s director of precious metals, said: ‘We’re able to offer investors competitive prices for their gold, silver or platinum bullion products, whether they bought them from The Royal Mint or not.

“We tend to see a mix of investors and inheritors selling gold coins, particularly Britannias, Sovereigns and Krugerrands. This service enables investors to realise a profit, and supplies The Royal Mint with metal it can re-sell or recycle.”

Invesco also saw an increase in the gold market, with an increase of 11.6% in the fourth quarter of 2023, ending December at a price of $2,063 per fine troy ounce. Invesco noted that while political uncertainty may drive prices, it has also been helped by buyback programmes by central banks.

This article was written for our sister title Portfolio Adviser