By Jeff Wafula

Standard Investment Bank has every reason to celebrate.

Its Standard Investments Trust Funds, the umbrella collective investment scheme behind the Mansa-X Special Funds, ended the second quarter of 2026 with approximately KSh188.6 billion in assets under management, enough to propel it to the top of Kenya’s fast-growing Collective Investment Schemes market.

Industry figures reported following the release of the Capital Markets Authority’s Q2 data indicate that SIB overtook Sanlam Investments, whose AUM stood at about KSh171.4 billion, while CIC followed at KSh105.2 billion. SIB’s assets reportedly jumped 23 percent from KSh153.2 billion in March to KSh188.6 billion in June, against overall CIS industry growth of about 11 percent. (LinkedIn)

That is a remarkable achievement.

But SIB’s September 7 press release celebrating the milestone also provides an excellent example of why journalists and investors should look beyond triumphant corporate announcements.

Strip away the congratulations, superlatives and carefully selected statistics and a much more interesting question emerges:

What exactly is happening inside a fund-management operation that now controls almost one shilling in every five held in Kenya’s CIS industry?

The press release doesn’t provide nearly enough information to answer that.

And when nearly KSh190 billion of investors’ money is involved, that’s not a small omission.

First Problem: KSh188 Billion Is Not a ‘Market Share’

The problems begin almost immediately.

SIB’s release states that Standard Investments Trust Funds is now Kenya’s largest CIS with a “market share of KES 188Bn.”

That is financially incorrect terminology.

KSh188 billion is an amount of assets under management. Market share is the proportion of the overall market represented by those assets and should ordinarily be expressed as a percentage.

With industry CIS assets reported at KSh948.7 billion, KSh188.6 billion represents approximately 19.9 percent.

In other words, SIB can legitimately celebrate controlling roughly 20 percent of industry AUM.

So why describe KSh188 billion itself as “market share”?

For a press release issued by an investment institution managing nearly KSh190 billion, basic financial terminology should be precise.

This isn’t a roadside investment club. This is a CMA-regulated investment business telling the market it has become Kenya’s biggest CIS manager.

Words matter.

Is Mansa-X Number One, or Is Standard Investments Trust Funds Number One?

There is another ambiguity running through the announcement.

Its headline declares:

“Mansa-X Special Funds Now Market Leader Commanding 20% of CIS Market Share…”

But the opening paragraph identifies Standard Investments Trust Funds (SITF) as the largest Collective Investment Scheme.

Which one is actually number one?

Mansa-X is a collection of funds. SITF is described as the umbrella fund. The release repeatedly moves between Mansa-X, individual Mansa-X funds and SITF as though the three descriptions are interchangeable.

They aren’t.

If SITF’s aggregated funds hold KSh188.6 billion, then say precisely that.

If Mansa-X alone accounts for the entire amount, explain how.

Financial reporting requires investors to understand exactly which legal or regulated entity owns the reported market position.

The distinction becomes particularly important when discussing market share, performance and risk.

Even the KSh188bn Number Deserves Better Explanation

The individual figures provided by SIB are interesting.

The company says:

  • Mansa-X Special Fund KES: KSh163.8 billion
  • Mansa-X Special Fund USD: KSh20.6 billion
  • Mansa-X Shariah Special Fund KES: KSh3.6 billion
  • Mansa-X Shariah Special Fund USD: KSh599 million

Those numbers total approximately KSh188.599 billion.

So the more precise figure appears to be about KSh188.6 billion.

That aligns with the independently reported industry figure. (LinkedIn)

The discrepancy isn’t enormous. But precision should be the easiest part of a financial press release whose primary purpose is celebrating an AUM milestone.

If the actual number is KSh188.6 billion, say KSh188.6 billion.

The Biggest Missing Number: How Much Did Investors Actually Make?

Here is where the release becomes much more interesting for journalists.

SIB repeatedly celebrates 23 percent AUM growth.

Excellent.

But AUM growth is not the same thing as investment performance.

A fund’s assets can grow because investors pour additional money into it.

They can grow because investments appreciate.

They can increase because foreign-currency assets become worth more when translated into Kenyan shillings.

Assets can also shift between products or be affected by other valuation movements.

Yet SIB’s announcement doesn’t tell investors how much of that extraordinary quarterly increase came from net new subscriptions and how much resulted from investment returns or valuation effects.

That distinction is fundamental.

Based on the reported figures, SITF added roughly KSh35.4 billion in AUM in just three months, rising from KSh153.2 billion to KSh188.6 billion. (LinkedIn)

Where did that KSh35.4 billion come from?

That’s arguably the biggest unanswered question in the entire release.

If KSh30 billion represents new investor money, that demonstrates extraordinary fundraising and investor confidence.

If a substantial portion represents investment gains, then investors will want to understand what produced those gains.

If currency movements contributed materially, that deserves explanation too.

Instead, SIB simply attributes the expansion broadly to “rising investor demand.”

That’s not enough.

Where Are the Returns?

Perhaps the most striking omission is that a press release celebrating the country’s largest CIS manager gives virtually no useful information about investment returns.

What did Mansa-X return during Q2?

What is its year-to-date return?

What did investors earn over the preceding 12 months?

How does that compare with its benchmark?

How does performance compare with competing funds?

What has performance looked like after fees?

None of those figures appears in the release provided.

Instead, investors are given the size of the fund.

But fund size and fund performance are two completely different things.

KSh188.6 billion tells us how much money is under management.

It doesn’t tell us whether an investor putting KSh1 million into Mansa-X at the beginning of the year now has KSh1.15 million, KSh1.05 million or less than the original investment.

For the ordinary investor, surely that matters.

‘Protection Against Market Volatility’ — Protection How?

Then comes one of the most problematic phrases.

SIB Executive Director for Global Markets and Mansa-X portfolio manager Nahashon Mungai attributes demand partly to investment solutions offering:

“protection against market volatility.”

That statement deserves interrogation.

What protection?

Is investors’ capital guaranteed?

Is there a capital-protection mechanism?

Are losses contractually limited?

Is there a hedging strategy specifically designed to protect principal?

Or does SIB simply mean diversification may help manage risk during volatile markets?

Those are very different propositions.

An investment product can be diversified and still lose money.

A sophisticated multi-asset strategy can hedge certain risks while remaining exposed to others.

If Mansa-X genuinely offers “protection,” investors deserve an explanation of precisely what is protected, against which risks, and under what conditions.

If there is no guarantee, the language should be considerably more careful.

‘Unparalleled’ Compared With What?

Mungai’s statement goes further, describing Mansa-X as providing:

“unparalleled exposure to more than 200 assets across global markets.”

Again, this sounds impressive.

But “unparalleled” is a comparative claim.

Which competitors were examined?

Does no other Kenyan-regulated fund provide comparable global diversification?

What measurement makes Mansa-X unparalleled?

Unless SIB can demonstrate the comparison, the word belongs in advertising copy rather than serious financial disclosure.

And the “more than 200 assets” figure itself needs unpacking.

Does Mansa-X currently hold positions in more than 200 individual assets?

Or can it trade from an investment universe containing more than 200 assets?

Are those assets equities, currencies, commodities, bonds, indices or derivatives?

How much exposure is obtained directly and how much synthetically?

A headline number without portfolio context tells investors surprisingly little.

Nearly KSh190bn — But How Many Investors?

Another crucial number is missing.

How many people actually have money in these funds?

SIB tells us the size of the pot but not how many investors contributed to it.

That’s important because KSh188.6 billion distributed across hundreds of thousands of retail investors would demonstrate broad-based adoption.

The same KSh188.6 billion concentrated among a relatively small number of institutions and wealthy clients would tell a completely different story.

Neither model is inherently problematic.

But they aren’t the same thing.

How much of Mansa-X’s AUM comes from retail investors?

How much comes from institutions?

How much is held by the ten largest investors?

How concentrated are redemptions?

If SIB now commands around 20 percent of Kenya’s CIS industry by AUM, these become increasingly important market questions.

What About Liquidity?

That leads directly to another issue absent from the release: liquidity.

Suppose several major investors decide to redeem simultaneously.

How quickly can Mansa-X meet those withdrawals?

How much of the portfolio is held in highly liquid instruments?

What proportion is subject to settlement delays?

Are there redemption restrictions or notice periods?

These may sound like technical questions, but when a fund grows by tens of billions of shillings in a single quarter, they matter.

Celebrating scale without discussing the mechanics required to manage that scale presents only half the picture.

Global Diversification Also Means Global Risk

SIB emphasises Mansa-X’s global reach as a strength.

Fair enough.

Global diversification can provide access to opportunities unavailable in the domestic market and reduce concentration in Kenyan assets.

But global exposure isn’t synonymous with safety.

It introduces its own risks.

There is foreign-exchange risk.

There is counterparty risk.

There is geopolitical risk.

There can be derivatives exposure.

There can be leverage depending on strategy.

There are different market hours, liquidity characteristics and regulatory environments.

The release enthusiastically sells global diversification but says remarkably little about the risks accompanying it.

That imbalance matters.

What Does the Investor Pay?

There is another word almost entirely absent from the celebration:

Fees.

What does it cost to invest in Mansa-X?

What is the management fee?

Is there a performance fee?

Are there entry or exit charges?

Are underlying transaction and trading costs reflected in published returns?

Do the KES and USD funds have different fee structures?

How do Mansa-X’s total costs compare with competing CIS products?

When a fund manager controls nearly KSh190 billion, even seemingly small percentage charges can translate into substantial amounts.

Investors deserve to understand not only what the fund manages and earns, but also what the manager earns from the fund.

The Shariah Claim Also Needs More Meat

SIB says its Mansa-X Shariah Special Fund KES grew 20 percent from KSh3 billion to KSh3.6 billion, while the USD version increased from KSh528 million to KSh599 million.

It then says this further cemented its position as:

“the largest Shariah Compliant Investment Fund in Kenya.”

Again: largest by what measurement and against which competitors?

Presumably AUM.

If CMA’s data establishes that ranking, SIB should say so explicitly and provide the comparison.

And if the KES and USD Shariah funds are being combined to claim leadership, that should also be clear.

The underlying growth is impressive enough. It doesn’t need vague superlatives.

Market Leadership Is Real — Which Makes the Weaknesses More Unnecessary

None of this means SIB hasn’t achieved something significant.

Quite the opposite.

Available industry figures indicate it overtook Sanlam to become the largest manager in the CIS rankings during Q2, with Sanlam at approximately KSh171.4 billion and CIC at KSh105.2 billion. (LinkedIn)

Total CIS assets rose from KSh851.7 billion to KSh948.7 billion, putting Kenya’s industry within touching distance of the KSh1 trillion mark.

SIB’s reported 23 percent quarterly growth substantially outpaced the industry’s approximately 11 percent expansion.

Those are powerful numbers.

That’s precisely why the marketing excess is unnecessary.

The numbers can speak.

KSh188bn Should Invite More Scrutiny, Not Less

Becoming number one changes the nature of the questions a fund manager should expect.

When you’re a challenger managing a modest amount of money, growth is the story.

When you’re controlling approximately 20 percent of an entire regulated investment market, governance, transparency, liquidity, risk management, investor concentration and performance become equally important.

SIB should therefore expect harder questions.

How much of the growth came from fresh deposits?

What returns generated the rest?

What are the underlying asset exposures?

How much leverage, if any, exists?

How are derivatives used?

How much foreign-exchange risk is being taken?

How concentrated is the investor base?

What happens under a major redemption event?

What fees are investors paying?

What did investors earn after those fees?

And what exactly does “protection against market volatility” mean?

Those questions don’t diminish Mansa-X’s achievement.

They are questions that naturally follow from it.

Investors Need More Than a Victory Lap

The most frustrating thing about SIB’s press release is that underneath the corporate self-congratulation sits a genuinely important Kenyan financial story.

The country’s CIS industry is approaching KSh1 trillion.

A single manager has rapidly accumulated almost KSh190 billion.

Its flagship KES Special Fund alone reportedly controls KSh163.8 billion.

Its Shariah products are expanding.

Kenyan investors appear increasingly willing to put substantial amounts into sophisticated investment structures offering international exposure.

That is fascinating.

But instead of giving the market a deeper look at how this growth happened and what it means for investors, the release largely serves up a victory lap.

Big AUM makes a fund manager important. It doesn’t automatically make a fund better.

Market leadership isn’t the same as superior investment performance.

Rapid inflows aren’t the same as high returns.

Diversification isn’t the same as capital protection.

Access to 200 assets isn’t automatically superior diversification.

And KSh188.6 billion under management certainly isn’t a substitute for transparent information about where that money sits, what risks are being taken and what investors are earning.

Standard Investment Bank deserves recognition for building Mansa-X into a formidable force in Kenya’s investment industry.

But with that success comes a higher standard of scrutiny.

At nearly KSh190 billion, investors should be asking considerably more than how big is Mansa-X?

They should be asking:

How did it become this big?

Where exactly is the money?

What risks are being taken with it?

What does the manager earn from it?

And, above everything else, what are investors themselves earning after fees?

Those are the numbers that should accompany the champagne.

Because once a fund manager controls roughly one out of every five shillings in Kenya’s CIS market, KSh188.6 billion isn’t the end of the story.

It’s where serious scrutiny should begin.