The asset management industry has been accused of making only “grindingly slow” progress on gender diversity, with women still accounting for just 13% of UK fund managers — a figure virtually unchanged over the past decade despite numerous high-profile initiatives.
According to the latest Citywire Alpha Female report, the UK figure mirrors the global average. Out of more than 18,400 money managers worldwide, just 12.9% are women, compared with 12.5% last year and 10.3% in 2016.
Sophie Downes, who co-authored the report, said: “We’ve heard a lot about diversity initiatives in investment firms, but progress on the overall numbers has been grindingly slow.”
The absolute value of assets managed by women has tripled over the past ten years to £4 trillion, but this growth reflects a rise in mixed-gender teams, which now manage almost 15% of funds, up from just 6.7% a decade ago.
Data shows these mixed teams often outperform their peers on risk-adjusted measures. Analysis reveals they delivered the lowest volatility in four of the past five years, supporting the long-held argument that gender-diverse teams bring more balanced risk management.
Baroness Helena Morrissey, (pictured) former chief executive of Newton Investment Management, said: “We know that men and women have complementary approaches to risk. We think differently, and that leads to better outcomes.”
Despite the evidence, nearly 80% of funds are still managed exclusively by men, overseeing £11.7 trillion of assets. By contrast, funds run solely by women or all-female teams oversee just £548 billion. The disparity extends to fund size too: the average male-only fund controls £535 million, compared with £362 million for those overseen by women.
New launches remain heavily skewed towards men. Just 3% of newly launched funds this year were handed to sole female managers, down from 5% last year, and none to female-only teams. These plum assignments are viewed as critical career accelerators, raising concerns that women are systematically overlooked for high-profile opportunities.
The report also highlights a retention gap. Flexible working post-pandemic was expected to benefit women in financial services, but turnover among female portfolio managers is significantly higher than men. The study found 44% turnover for women compared with 30% for men.
Representation also varies sharply by asset class. The lowest levels of female fund managers are seen in commodities and alternative assets, at 8.2% and 5.7% respectively, while bond funds fare only slightly better at 13.6%.
The findings come at a time of wider global pushback against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In the US, companies including Goldman Sachs and Deloitte have rolled back DEI policies, while the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority confirmed earlier this year it would not impose new rules on diversity and inclusion.
Sonia Jenkins, chief people officer at Schroders, said the backlash had forced employers to reassess their approach: “It’s too easy to get caught up in DEI as a fad rather than as something that is integral to business. The more data points we have that support the business case, the more credibility it gives us.”
Industry leaders insist that while the regulatory framing may be shifting, the commitment to diversity remains. Karis Stander, director of culture, talent and inclusion at the UK’s Investment Association, said: “Should reaching 50/50 be the goal? I’m less interested in that and more interested in whether women feel they can enter the industry and access the rich tapestry of roles that are out there. Some firms are reframing their programmes less as ‘diversity initiatives’ and more as ‘talent programmes’. This can open the door to broader thinking about inclusion and opportunity.”
For campaigners, however, the headline numbers remain damning. After a decade of targets and initiatives, only a modest increase from 10% to 13% of fund managers being women suggests that real structural change in asset management has barely begun.