Survey results 2013: Surprise, surprise, gaining new clients is important!

May 28, 2013

Gaining new clients was indicated as the key priority in 2013 for asset management firms, with 46% of respondents flagging new client acquisition as an important factor in their 2013 plans, according to the recent MoneyMate Data Management 2013 survey.

The rest of the factors had a mixed response when it came to flagging their importance:

- reducing costs did not feature highly at all with most respondents ranking it on the lower end of the importance scale

- increasing efficiency had a similar result, not surprising when you consider the relationship between cost and efficiency

- complying with new regulation polled lower on the priority rankings than I expected with a 53:47 split between those that ranked it as a high, rather than low, priority across the result spectrum

- there was no surprise that launching new products polled as the lowest priority in 2013 – 46% ranked it low, in fact I suspect that had we asked if product consolidation was a high priority, it would have figured prominently

- improving client service had a balanced view with the results spread across the range of priorities indicating that new client acquisition was higher priority than servicing existing clients – this is the type of result you tend to expect in a strongly bullish market – so maybe good times are ahead.


Survey results 2013: Regulation and client servicing are driving the demand for better data management

May 23, 2013

According to the recent MoneyMate Data Management 2013 survey, regulation is the top driver of new data management projects for asset managers in 2013, with 68% of respondents flagging it as a key driver.

This was closely followed by client servicing, with 60% of respondents indicating that demand for better client service was driving demand for new data management initiatives.

Interestingly, driving efficiency was flagged by only 30% of respondents. This tallies with the view that strategic spend is outweighing tactical spend in 2013.

I was encouraged to see client service polling so high in this survey.  I believe it validates my long-held view that the reason we focus so heavily on applying good governance to client facing investment product data is because data is the oil in the distribution engine for many investment managers – feed the engine with poor quality oil (data) and within a short space of time that engine will seize up.

The indication that 68% of firms’ new initiatives are driven by regulation correlates tightly with what I hear on the ground – many firms are cognizant of the fact that transparency is something that is going to have to be embraced. Those that see this as a strategic opportunity are positioning themselves now for even greater demands for data in the to-be regulatory landscape that is developing in front of us.


10 Things worth remembering about Solvency II – Part 1

February 21, 2013

JD has some great insight here on lesser known salient points many S2 practioneers should take note of 10 Things worth remembering about Solvency II – Part 1.


Solvency II News: regulators consider easing Solvency II look-through

February 14, 2013

Interesting news on Solvency II Wire blog today Solvency II News: regulators consider easing Solvency II look-through.


Financial Technologies Forum LLC – FATCA Kills the Data Silo?

February 4, 2013

Interesting article on FTF about FATCA….Financial Technologies Forum LLC – FATCA Kills the Data Silo?.


How will daily NAV disclosure impact money funds?

January 29, 2013

As posted in Ignites Q&A of the week on 25th January, I thought I would share my response here

What is the potential impact on the industry now that some mutual fund firms are starting to disclose daily NAVs for their money market funds?

Scrutiny of money market funds has never been more intense, and the industry must prepare for further changes to the regulatory regime. Specifically, daily disclosure of money market funds’ net asset value (NAV) has become a reality, and that will have ripple effects throughout the industry.

Some of the key players in the money market fund business have taken a pre-emptive move to provide the transparency that regulators and investors have been demanding since the Reserve Primary Fund broke the buck in September 2008.

The daily NAV disclosures are obviously a step toward improving fund firms’ client services to investors. Clearly, it will benefit investors by increasing transparency and helping them to better understand money market funds and their risks. But there will be operational and compliance challenges coming from this trend that fund firms must consider. Some of the measures firms will have to implement include the following:

  • Reassess existing investment processes. Fund firms will need to reevaluate their investment process to ensure that the daily shadow NAV does not materially deviate from the buck;
  • Strengthen data-reporting process. They will need to ensure they have a systematic, auditable and repeatable process for distribution of the data to market; and
  • Reevaluate communications strategy. Fund firms will need to reevaluate how they communicate the NAV to the market and gauge any potential impacts on their marketing and regulatory documents that are in the public domain.

Daily disclosure of the NAV for a money market fund gives investors the reassurance that the fund manager is committed to being transparent and open about the current state of the fund. In the past, most money managers were distributing this data monthly, which led to a level of investor angst that the fund manager was not always showing all their cards.

The breadth of securities that money market funds invest in means that each holding can have multiple levels of credit exposure, and so for many, transparency is a must.

In order to deliver the NAV daily, firms need 100% belief in their investment process. The shadow NAV must not deviate materially from the buck on an intra-month basis. Firms that are publishing daily NAVs will most likely guarantee redemptions at the buck if the shadow NAV drops below the buck.

Beyond daily NAV publication, I expect to see more announcements from asset managers on moves toward becoming more transparent in other areas as well. One of the key demands from regulators and investors is the timeliness of the publication of portfolio holdings.

Current practice sees most managers publishing data quarterly, with some publishing monthly. However, in nearly all cases, the data is embargoed or time-lagged to prevent front-running and free-riding. There is considerable pressure being brought to bear by institutional investors and regulators to increase frequency of publication to monthly across the board and reduce the embargo periods. Some asset managers are preparing for a situation where they believe ultimately a daily reporting of holdings will be demanded.

One of the biggest obstacles to becoming more transparent can be the exposure to manual processes. Fund product data comes from a variety of different sources and has to be checked and double-checked before the information can be released. An organization that validates its product data at the source and stores it efficiently can ensure it is always ready for publication. It is vital for fund firms to get their product data to market on a timely basis, ensuring it is always accurate and consistent. That includes daily money fund NAVs.

Firms must also consider the impact on marketing and regulatory documents that they distribute to the market, including their own website, in the context of any data reporting trends. Additionally, they should review how the external distribution networks, platforms, broker-dealers and other intermediaries will be impacted by any change to daily publication on short notice.

I am delighted to see this move toward transparency represented by the daily disclosure of money market funds’ NAVs.

We are going to hear more and more about investor and regulator demands for more information as the pressure to deliver transparency continues to grow. The overriding themes in asset management for the next 10 years will involve transparency and risk.

To adapt to the current environment, fund firms, especially those offering money market funds, should reassess existing investment processes, strengthen their data-reporting process and re-evaluate their communications strategy.


The Changing Investor Landscape

November 30, 2012

The fund distribution, sales and marketing landscape is changing rapidly, which in turn is leading to significant shifts in how asset management firms are facing their product data management challenges. Applying a formal data quality management process to investment product data was not always the highest priority in the data governance programs in place in most US and European asset management firms – but this is not the case any longer.

The sales networks are becoming dis-intermediated, which is driving needs within distribution and marketing to develop a closer more trustful relationship with distributors and end investors. The impending RDR directive in the UK is, in my opinion, a sign of things to come – the world is looking on to see how the UK market reacts to the withdrawal of commission-led incentives within the advisor community, what is obvious is that firms are upping the ante when it comes to promotion of their products, often specifically highlighting the depth, breadth and timeliness of their product data communications as a reference for how trustworthy the firm is. Lobbyists in the US who have resisted moves to implement a similar regime on the other side of the Atlantic must be looking on with trepidation and a certain amount of fear, as it appears the RDR is not going to be the disaster for the industry many had feared. Certainly, many financial advisers have decided to retire rather than re-educate themselves or seek the correct certification to allow them continue their current business activity – some asset managers have dipped into the market to purchase a once independent network, and in doing so transforming it to a tied network of agents to preserve their channels for routing product to end investors.

Performance is no longer the king it once was – the playing field has been levelled significantly and the discerning distribution networks and end investors are seeking out firms and products in which have significant levels of trust. Trust is built in many ways, so consider the following points in preparation for the new landscape:

-          While brand was always a key decision criteria in the investment process, it will become even more so – hence protection of investment in brand will become paramount – do not allow your brand be dragged into the mire by shoddy data publication processes that make you a target of the regulators who are only delighted to launch PR campaigns to demonstrate how they are protecting the interests of the main street from the perceived avarice of Wall Street.

-          Depth and breadth of data availability was always a key criteria for institutional investors – this trend is now prevalent in the retail community as investors become more savvy and discerning – ensure you have an investment product data strategy which unlocks the availability of the full breath of quantitative risk and performance attribution data for both equity and fixed income lines. Be careful though, unlocking Pandora’s box without advisors and investors alike having a correct level of education and training about the products is a potential landmine – consider also the qualitative data available – investors who are bamboozled by statistics need to understand the human element of the fund – promote the fund management team and their outlook and philosophy

-          Timely access to data will become critical not just in keeping investors happy – but also regulators – there is an unprecedented wave of regulation coming our way, with demands for ever-increasing levels of transparency at the macro (firm) and micro (fund-specific e.g. holdings) levels

-          The web is the firm’s shop window – if your web and social media experiences are damp squib experiences, do not expect to excite or retain your investors – the new investor market is the Google and iPhone generation, so your marketing strategies need to be ready now to grab a slice of the inflows.

 So the key takeaways are:

– ensure your firm’s strategy and governance programs have a focussed stream on Investment product data management

– ensure you have a dynamic flexible technology framework that is capable of reacting to the current and future needs of the distribution network, the end investor and the regulator alike

 – the landscape is changing and it is changing fast – don’t be left behind.


Solvency II – timeline…

October 9, 2012

The recent comments from Michel Barnier, the EU commissioner for ‘Internal market & services’ and responsible for regulation of financial markets, on a potential Solvency II timeline delay of up to 1 year, have not gone down well with the various project teams that are working flat-out to prepare their various organizations for this impending regulation.

Of course there are project teams and firms that were ill prepared, and they must welcome the concept of a delay – but I suspect they are in the minority and instead the many firms that have poured 10′s and 100′s of million of Euro into Solvency II projects to date must be fairly miffed, since these project teams will now not roll-off in the time frame budgeted for, thus adding 10′s if not 100′s of million to the cost of implementation for some of the larger firms.

EIOPA is clearly not impressed, they have defended the timeline vociferously and a recent letter from Gabriel Bernardino (EIOPA chairman) to Michel Barnier lays bare the frustration they have with this process. Meanwhile the FSA have been very clear that the timeline has not changed “Recent media coverage has centred on Commissioner Barnier’s comment on the possibility of a delay of one year, i.e. transposition in July 2014 and implementation from 1 January 2015. No new timetable has been confirmed; the current timetable remains with transposition by 30 June 2013 and implementation from 1 January 2014.


Recent webcast survey results – update #3

September 13, 2012

Following on from my previous blogs, the third question we asked in the survey during my recent webcast was “Which regulation is causing you most concern?

The result set had 5 options:

- Retail Distribution Review (UK)

- Solvency II (Europe/ Global)

- UCITS V / KID / KIID (Europe)

- FATCA (US / Global)

- Other….

As I would have expected, respondents indicated Solvency II is the regulation that is causing them most concern.

What I was a little surprised with, was that FATCA, RDR and UCITS V/KID were all equally ‘second’ the terms of concern. Specifically what surprised me was that FATCA was not the stand-out focus behind Solvency II.

I can honestly say that in my 13+ years operating in this market I have never seen a piece of regulation have such a profound impact as that which Solvency II is having today. Now clearly if your domain of focus is T/A and maintenance of share/unit holder records then FATCA is without doubt having a life changing impact on your business – but for the rest, Solvency II is a game changer.

What is most disconcerting though is that Solvency II is a piece of regulation that emanates from the European insurance industry, yet it is having a global impact on investment management businesses which are exposed to existing insurer-led mandates, or which have a specific institutional focus on attracting insurer AUM.

For many investment managers there is a lot of well-founded fear of the unknown, because while at face value their direct book of record may not indicate a large exposure to insurer investments, many are completely unaware of their indirect exposure via e.g. fund-of-fund investors which in turn have exposure to the insurance industry.

I was not surprised that RDR featured in joint second place in the response – this correlates strongly with the upcoming enforcement, same for UCITS V – this has a lot of visibility  as there have been updates from Brussels last month that elaborated on previous information updates.

There was a high percentage of ‘other’ in the response and I understand that this may relate to EMIR (European Market Infrastructure Regulation) which I will cover some other time.

In my next post I will consider the final question in the survey “What is your biggest challenge in getting your investment product data to market?

Talk soon….


Recent webcast survey results

September 5, 2012

For anyone who attended our webcast in July (The Impact of Upcoming Regulation on Data Management), you will be aware we conducted a survey during the webcast which asked the following questions:

  1. Do you have a formal data quality management process for client facing data?
  2. Would you say the investment product data that you distribute is good quality?
  3. Which regulation is causing you most concern?
  4. What is your biggest challenge in getting your investment product data to market?

The results were really interesting and I did promise I would post a review of the feedback – so here it is….

For question #1 “Do you have a formal data quality management process for client-facing data?” the results were really encouraging, with 58% indicating that YES they did have a formal data quality management process for client facing data – I say this is encouraging because not too long ago the core and sometimes sole focus of data governance programs was on the foundational layers of the EDM process in the middle-office  i.e. security and reference master projects, trade reconciliation, shadow accounting, and so forth – now the focus is clearly switching to include the data that asset managers are pushing into the public domain, the data that describes their own products and which is used to market, sell and position their products to the investor community – the Investment Product Master.

So while there will always be a strong requirement for governance programs to oversee and apply structure to the systems on which business intelligence is dependent  and which support the internal function of an asset management business – there is a clear realization that the information that the organizations are putting in front of clients requires equally high levels of attention.

Something else to note is that this is not a “fear-led” strategy i.e. it is not the fear of regulatory scrutiny and public sanctions that is driving this to the fore, it is in fact sales and distribution that are focussing the light on investment product data, as there is growing awareness that high quality and timely product data is a key driver in maintaining AUM and grabbing an even greater slice of available inflows – remember data is the oil in the investment sales engine!

In my next post, I will consider the results to the second question in the survey “Would you say the investment product data that you distribute is good quality?

BTW If you missed the webcast – there is a playback link here


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers