While there are advantages to public ownership, listed asset managers have been ever more constrained by quarterly reporting cycles.
Consolidation in the wealth sector has been a long-established trend, especially with firms being snapped up by private equity houses, but now some of the bigger asset management players have also started to go private in multi-billion-pound deals.
In December 2025, Janus Henderson was acquired by Nelson Peltz's Trian Fund Management and General Catalyst Group in a $7bn deal.
At the time, several analysts questioned whether the take-private deal could become the catalyst for other asset managers to follow suit in favour of a private structure over the publicly listed one.
It was not long until part of that prediction materialised, with Schroders agreeing to be bought by US fund manager Nuveen for £9.9bn earlier this month (February).
While issues such as valuation, the impact on the listed market and the degree of complementariness between the acquirer and acquired have been discussed at length, most analysts agreed there are several benefits for asset managers going private.
From battling cost pressures, need for scale, performance and profit expectations, the quarterly reporting cycle of listed companies has become a burden and growth constraint for some firms.
According to Paul Angell, head of investment research at AJ Bell, the "distraction" of quarterly earnings reports competing with longer-term strategies would disappear under private ownership, freeing up management's time and ability to take a longer-term approach to their businesses.
"The cost of active management continues to fall, putting active managers in a bind as to whether they pre-emptively reduce their own fees to defend assets, and perhaps even capture market share, or instead look to defend shorter-term revenues by sticking with the higher fees on the basis that defending the assets themselves is tomorrow's problem," he argued.
Clémence Droin, partner at consultancy Indefi, echoed Angell, highlighting there has been a "growing mismatch" between public market expectations and the strategic realities asset managers have to face today.
'A blow to the LSE': Industry raises concerns about Schroders takeover
She explained that while there are clear advantages to public ownership – including access to capital, shareholder liquidity and enhanced visibility – listed asset managers have been ever more constrained by quarterly reporting cycles, which often "fail to capture long-term investment performance, intangible assets or the cyclical nature of flows".
Dani Hristova, CEO of the Independent Investment Management Initiative (IIMI), made a case for private ownership, especially for smaller asset managers.
The ability to think long-term, be more measured in growth objectives and prioritise specialism over scale, with partner and employee ownership being a way to align manager and client interest, were but a few factors Hristova presented in favour of going private.
She warned, however, that asset managers should examine some "key considerations" before deciding between a private or public structure.
These include whether the business has the products and capabilities to allow it to scale up; potential reduction to key-person risk while gaining greater liquidity or flexibility to exit the business; and whether the firm aims to increase access to capital to grow liquidity and diversify.
'Overlooking' corporate culture in M&A process could hurt investment firms' success
But according to Johann Scholtz, senior equity analyst at Morningstar, what has been "truly shaping" consolidation in the sector has been a set of strategic repositioning motives, with US firms looking to acquire European product capabilities, while traditional asset managers accelerate their expansion into private markets and broaden their product offerings.
Indefi's Droin agreed but highlighted the increasing involvement of US businesses "does not necessarily imply a fundamental shift in European firms' identity or geographic focus".
This is because most of the M&A targets already operate at a global level, she explained, and transactions appear to be aimed at sharpening the merged business' growth agenda rather than redefining it.
Yet Scholtz noted that private ownership does not come without challenges, as liquidity will be limited and firms will face a lower level of "market recognition that comes with being publicly traded".
He cautioned: "Management teams need to be careful not to get swept up in the current momentum. There is a real risk of reacting out of ‘fear of missing out,' which could lead to overpaying or acquiring businesses with limited cultural, operational or strategic compatibility.
"In this part of the cycle, discipline matters just as much as ambition."
