Over the last 20 years, corporations have become increasingly aware about the importance of making space for women in their leadership ranks. But that hasn’t yet translated into meaningful change, at least in the fund management industry.
At the end of 2019, only 14% of managers running investment funds were women, according to research firm Morningstar. That’s exactly the same number as in 2000, which was so long ago that the iPhone hadn’t even come out.
It gets worse. The U.S. and the U.K. — the world’s financial centers — scored below the global average at 11% and 13% respectively. Morningstar’s British team found that in their country there were 108 funds run by dudes called David or Dave, and only 105 run by all women.
Meanwhile, the ranks of U.S. fund managers swelled between 2000 and 2019 but the number of women was constant or even dropped, according to Morningstar.
For example, women made up 19.4% of managers running passive funds in 2000, which track a financial index instead of actively buying and selling securities. By 2019, that number had slid to 13.2%.
Not all was doom and gloom. Hong Kong, Singapore and Spain handily beat the two superpowers with a share of women managers of over 20%, but that’s still not a stat to write home about.
The financial industry likes to boast that it’s a strict meritocracy given that returns are a highly visible metric, so it’s obvious if investing professionals are slacking off.
But studies have shown that the gender of a fund manager doesn’t affect performance, according to Morningstar. So why are women still underrepresented?
The research firm points to “a complicated combination of structural barriers and implicit biases.” Judging by the numbers, those roadblocks haven’t given much way since the early 2000s.
Photo by Carlos Muza on Unsplash
Cooper Square News 