I think it's a confidence thing @edgescape - APRA has placed additional conditions on Australian Ethical Superannuation's license because AE failed to demonstrate that its processes for scrutinizing and justifying fees paid to its parent company were consistent with the best financial interests of its members. The conditions follow an investigation that identified weaknesses in how the super fund manages related-party expenditure, which includes investment management fees paid to Australian Ethical Investments. 

I had heard there was double dipping on fees because of fees paid to related entities of AE as well as the fees that AE also charge, plus there was also some talk that some of their so-called ethical options weren't nearly as "ethical" as most people would have assumed - so like green-washing. But that's just hearsay.

More here: https://www.investordaily.com.au/apra-raps-aus-ethical-super-over-expenditure-management/

Sounds like they had some governance issues by their own admission, so the fact that APRA has placed additional conditions on their license confirms that Australian Ethical's internal processes have been less than efficient, and/or there has been some dodgy stuff going on there, so APRA found fire below the smoke.

People who invest in the manager (AEF) may well be concerned that (a) their profitability in prior years may have been inflated by double dipping on fees and that is unlikely to be the case going forwards, and (b) that they might become less popular and experience a fair bit of churn considering these conditions that have been imposed suggest that AEF have not been as ethical themselves as what their clients would have expected from them, so there is likely to be clients moving their money to an alternative investment manager. And less FUM means less fees, so a less profitable manager equals less returns to shareholders. Just my take on it, FWIW.