2018 SURVEY OF THE ASSET MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY€¦ · CRM Portfolio accounting / reconciliation...

2018 SURVEY OF THE

ASSET MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY Operations and Compensation Metrics and Best Practices

Selected Highlights

2018 Asset Management Operations and Compensation Survey Results Page 1

INTRODUCTION Investment managers enjoy a well-deserved

reputation as some of the steadiest businesses

in a sometimes chaotic financial sector. There is

occasional drama, but change comes slowly.

It is therefore not immediately obvious that the

business is more competitive than it has ever

been. Global firms and startups alike are casting

about for mind-share. Passive investing

continues to gnaw away at the market share of

active managers. Regulatory complexity

challenges some firms, and virtually everyone is

being subjected to more transparency and

scrutiny. Furthermore, political uncertainty and

market volatility hint at trouble ahead.

Most investment firms will flourish as long as

the markets support their continued growth.

Many will even routinely upgrade their product

offering, client experience, and operating

infrastructure. None of this guarantees

immunity in the case of another downturn.

Firms that are already struggling with stagnant

growth and weakening margins will be among

the first victims, but even well-intentioned firms

could succumb if they fail to sufficiently adapt.

Financial performance is strong, but many firms

already face difficulty in finding new clients or

raising assets. Sustainable success in this

environment is going to require a sharp strategy

and solid execution. Products and services will

need to be relevant and competitive.

Relationships with clients and intermediaries

will need to be managed on their terms and

perhaps even beyond their expectations.

Technology savvy will be more important than

ever, not only to keep things humming along

smoothly, but also so transformative, long-term

initiatives can be undertaken with confidence.

The smartest firms will create and foster

innovative environments, empowering their

employees and clients with new tools that allow

effective collaboration in order to navigate the

investing landscape with a speed, precision and

transparency that could only have dreamed of a

few years ago.

It is vital during times of change to keep tabs on

industry trends and understand what your

competitors are doing. Industry metrics are vital

in attracting the right people to help you build

the type of firm that can compete effectively.

Competitive intelligence can also support crucial

management decisions and help avoid costly

operational missteps.

It is for these reasons The Exchange launched an

annual survey to provide leaders in the

investment business with the data and insights

necessary to make informed decisions. The

results represent one of the most complete sets

of industry metrics available. We are grateful to

all who took the time to participate. Your

contribution is greatly appreciated, and we hope

you find the results informative and useful as

you plan for your firm’s future.

Note to Readers This document contains selected highlights only.

Survey participants receive an in-depth 60 page

report along with a full set of data tables

tabulated by asset size (Figure 1).

Please refer to the end of this document for

more information on the contents of the full

report as well as information on how to

participate in the next survey.

Figure 1. AUM peer groups

ALL All Respondents ALL All Respondents

XL Extra Large: More than $5 bill ion AUM MA Mid-Atlantic (DE,VA,MD,DC,PA,WV)

L Large: $2 bill ion to $5 bill ion AUM MW Midwest (OH,IN,MI,IL,WI,MN,IA)

M Medium: $1 bill ion to $2 bill ion AUM NY New York (NY,NJ)

S Small: Less than $1 bill ion AUM NE Northeast (ME,NH,VT,MA,CT,RI)

NW Northwest (WA,OR,ID,MT,WY,NE,AK,ND,SD)

SC South-Central (TX,OK,MO,KS,AR,LA)

SE Southeast (NC,SC,GA,FL,AL,MS,TN,KY)

SW Southwest/California (CA,AZ,NM,UT,NV,CO,HI)


SELECTED FINDINGS

Assets Declining asset flows are testament to the fact

that the investment business continues to

become more competitive. Gross new assets

accounted for an average 9.6% of assets under

management, which is down from 13% a year

earlier and more than 20% in 2014 (Figure 6).

Average outflows of 6.4% mean net new assets

account for only 3.2% of assets, the lowest level

since we began tracking these metrics. More

than four out of every ten firms in the survey

now report net redemptions up from one in

three the previous year.

Figure 2. Asset flows

Clients Firms are still adding new accounts, but client

acquisition is becoming challenging. More

importantly, client retention has become a

critical issue for some firms. The largest

participants are the worst affected, but the

average firm in the survey nevertheless

reported a net decline in the number of clients

over the past year (Figure 3). Median new client

growth of 2.8% seems more optimistic, but it is

the lowest level reported in at least five years.

Figure 3. Client turnover

0

5

10

15

20

25

2014 2015 2017 2018

Avg % of AUM Assets gained Assets lost Net new assets

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2014 2015 2017 2018

% of Clients Clients gained Clients lost Net change in clients


Financials Headwinds in asset-raising could be alarming,

but the cushion afforded by market appreciation

makes some complacency understandable. Year

over year revenue growth averaged almost 12%,

up significantly from a brief slowdown the prior

year. Firms of all sizes reported average revenue

growth of 9% or more (Figure 4).

The effect of scale is clearly visible in labor costs.

While XL firms reported average investment

labor costs of 7.3 bps, they were twice as high at

smaller firms. Total labor costs accounted for an

average 19.8 bps across all firms, but ranged

from an average of 11.3 bps at XL firms to 28.8

bps at the smallest (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Revenue

Figure 5. Labor costs by function as a percentage of AUM

Personnel Headcount by functional area tends to remain

relatively stable year over year, although client

service has moved up the ranks to now

comprise the second largest group at the

average firm.

Hiring activity gained pace, but employee

turnover meant very little net change to overall

personnel levels. Net new employees accounted

for only 1.8% of total headcount, compared to

2.3% a year ago and 4% before that.

Average assets per employee more than

doubled over the past five years to top $200

million for the first time this year (Figure 6). A

similar story can be seen playing out across

other ratios, with productivity growth

disproportionately benefiting larger firms.

Figure 6. AUM per employee

Average $000s ALL XL L M S XS

2016 17,612.7 34,256.5 17,069.3 7,173.0 4,037.5

2017 19,747.6 38,716.5 18,842.9 7,981.5 4,643.5

1 Year % Δ 11.8 13.4 9.5 9.7 15.6

Median $000s ALL XL L M S XS

2016 11,892.0 34,100.0 15,000.0 7,907.5 4,123.5

2017 12,952.0 41,078.0 15,000.0 8,735.0 4,631.5

1 Year % Δ 11.7 12.2 10.5 10.5 14.0

Average basis points (bps) ALL XL L M S XS

Investments 10.1 7.3 8.7 14.9 13.3

Marketing, Sales, and Client service 5.4 1.7 6.1 3.9 11.3

Administration 4.3 2.3 5.4 5.3 4.3

Total 19.8 11.3 20.2 24.1 28.8

Median basis points (bps) ALL XL L M S XS

Investments 9.8 4.0 9.8 17.7 15.0

Marketing, Sales, and Client service 4.4 2.1 5.6 3.0 6.0

Administration 3.5 2.4 5.7 3.5 3.5

Total 21.5 8.2 20.7 30.5 27.8

0

50

100

150

200

250

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018

$ millions Average Median


IT Priorities Cybersecurity concerns mean almost 23% of all

firms now say network security is their top IT

initiative. This is up from 6% five years ago and

ties client service databases—another recent

gainer—as the top choice. Portfolio accounting

systems (another top choice) garnered fewer

votes than five years ago (Figure 7).

Perspectives can shift over the course of even

one year. Disaster recovery, compliance

systems, and websites were areas of emphasis

for many years, but now that many of the core

systems and processes are in place, there is

more stress on optimizing them and protecting

the firm from a growing array of threats.

Figure 7. Top IT initiatives by year (current top 3 only)

Outsourcing Like many businesses, asset management is

increasingly about a network of firms

establishing relationships with one another to

produce an end result. Partnering with external

firms allows investment firms to focus on things

like research, marketing, and relationship

management. Cost can be a consideration, but it

may be outweighed by other factors including

scalability, accuracy, and redundancy.

Some functions are almost universally

outsourced. Others are handled almost

exclusively in-house. Many fall between these

two poles. Shareholder services, for example,

are now outsourced by more than 90% of firms.

This is a marked increase from five years ago

(Figure 8). CRM is still outsourced by less than

four out of every ten firms, but this is up from

only one out of ten in 2013.

Figure 8. Functions with largest shift to outsourcing over past five years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018

Portfolio accounting and client reporting

Client service contact management

Network / systems security

% of respondents

0

20

40

60

80

100

CRM Portfolio accounting /reconciliation

Trading / ordermanagement

Document Storage(electronic)

Shareholder services

% of respondents

2018

2013


New Technology Initiatives Aiming to streamline their investment process,

transform their client experience, or produce

more effective research, firms are beginning to

explore newer technologies. Process

automation has quickly moved past the

theoretical stage and is being embraced by six

out of every ten firms (Figure 9). A significant

number of firms are also moving to implement

more interactive technologies for their clients.

Some cutting edge technologies are only

beginning to make waves. These include

applications that enable the integration of

artificial intelligence (AI) with research

processes and harness the power of predictive

analytics to unlock the value in the vast pools

structured and unstructured data found

internally and externally.

Figure 9. Rate your firm’s view on each of the following technology initiatives

Trading and Settlement Operational complexity and costs are correlated

to the number of and types of portfolios

managed. This is not always related to size. The

average firm participating in the survey

reconciles and maintains 1,245 portfolios on its

system.

Endeavoring to ameliorate some of this

complexity, there is widespread interest in

optimizing trade and compliance workflow.

Asked for the first time what might best

accomplish this, survey participants point to

systems integration as the source of greatest

potential (Figure 10). Systems maintenance,

updates, flexibility, scalability, and speed of

response were all viewed as showing some

promise.

Figure 10. Rate each factor on its potential to improve trading and compliance workflow

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Artificial intelligence for research

Big data and predictive analytics

Interactive technologies for clients

Process automation

% of firms

Actively Implementing Interested but still exploring Not important or suitable for us

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Integration betweensystems

System maintenance,updates/upgrades

Flexibility of models orrebalancing scenarios

Scalability/speed ofresponse

Asset class coverage

% of firms Significant Potential 2 3 4 Little or no Potential


Social Media There is still widespread skepticism about the

long-term value offered by social media, but

there is growing buy-in in several areas: raising

brand awareness, sharing thought leadership,

and sharing news with clients and prospects.

There is less enthusiasm for social media as a

tool to facilitate two-way dialogue or develop

sales pipelines (Figure 12).

Social media is valued much more by smaller

firms. Across virtually every attribute, large

firms were much more dismissive of the

potential benefits accrued from social media

use. This might point to its true value as a tool of

asymmetric warfare with which smaller firms

can more effectively compete against much

larger firms.

Figure 11. Long-term value of social media, from 1 (not valuable) to 10 (extremely valuable)

Business Continuity Disaster recovery initiatives were the focus of

many operational plans over the past decade,

but they now receive less attention. While still a

priority with room for improvement, much of

the hard work has already been done.

Most firms employ multiple approaches and

redundant processes, but not every firm

approaches disaster recovery solutions in an

identical way. The general trend has been

toward more sophisticated and often

automated approaches aimed at zero loss of

data. This can be seen in the fact that 46% of

firms now say they have a Tier Six solution in

place with the expectation of zero data loss

(Figure 13). Only 29% of firms reported Tier Six

solutions in 2013.

Figure 12. Disaster recovery solutions currently employed

2

3

4

5

6

2013 2014 2015 2017 2018

Avg Rating (10 = Most Valuable)

Developing sales pipeline

Dialogue with prospective clients

Distributing expert commentary

Raising general brand awareness

Servicing existing clients

Sharing news with clients and prospects

0

10

20

30

40

50

2013 2018

% of respondents Tier 5 Tier 6 Tier 7


Employee Benefits Health insurance is universally made available to

the employees. Other types of insurance plans

are also widespread. Like last year, dental plans

are offered by 83% of firms and vision insurance

can be found at 61% of firms.

Families of employees are almost always

covered by insurance plans, but premiums may

be subsidized to a lesser degree. Companies pay

for a median 90% of employee health insurance,

for example, but this drops to 74%% for family

members (Figure 13). Firm size still exerts a

substantial influence on the level of subsidies

paid, particularly for less common types of

insurance.

Figure 13. Percentage of insurance paid by company

Compensation Structure Annual cash bonuses have historically played an

important role in the overall compensation of

those in the investment business. All firms use

them, and it is not unusual for all employees to

be eligible to some degree.

Discretionary bonuses are the norm at most

investment firms, but that does not mean

variable compensation is not linked to metrics.

More than half of all firms say they rely at least

in part on the use of objective measures to

determine bonuses.

Performance metrics differ from one firm to

another, but they are - in aggregate - reasonably

consistent from one year to the next. We are

now seeing more emphasis placed on client

retention, which swapped places over the past

five years with asset growth as the third most

popular metric when it comes to distributing

bonus pools (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Objective (non-discretionary) measures used to award incentive pay

Median % ALL XL L M S XS

Health insurance - employee 90.0 90.0 75.0 100.0 77.5

Dental insurance - employee 80.0 85.0 50.0 97.5 80.0

Vision insurance - employee 80.0 90.0 50.5 100.0 50.0

Health insurance - employee family 74.0 77.5 74.0 30.0 40.0

Dental insurance - employee family 44.0 77.5 50.0 0.0 0.0

Vision insurance - employee family 0.0 66.0 41.5 0.0 0.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Individualperformance

measures

Firmprofitability

Client retention AUM growth New clients Investmentperformance

(relative)

Investmentperformance

(absolute)

% of respondents

2018

2013


Compensation Data Asset raising challenges aside, the industry has

enjoyed a benign operating environment over

the past year. Market appreciation provided a

comfortable cushion of rising revenue as most

refocused on retaining clients. There are

concerns over the ultimate impact of

automation, indexing, regulation, and a host of

other challenges, but none of these pose an

immediate existential threat. As a result,

compensation continues to rise.

Firm size used to be a relatively dependable

guide to senior executive compensation, but

that connection is less evident among this year’s

firms. Rather than size, the type of firm in

question is more likely to have a material

bearing on senior management compensation

levels. CEOs of asset management firms, for

example, earn approximately double the

compensation paid to CEOs of RIA firms.

CEOs and other senior leaders registered some

of the biggest gains in compensation. Average

compensation for all CEOs rose a modest 7%

from a year earlier, but a dramatically higher

median highlighted the improving fortunes of a

wide range of firms.

Some of the most consistent gains can be found

among Chief Technology Officers. Still typically

paid less than most others in the C-suite, CTOs

have nevertheless seen their average and

median compensation grow steadily in recent

years.

Depending on their function, between 75% and

100% of investment professionals reported

gains in the value of their compensation

packages from the prior year. Improvements

range from the modest (a 5% rise in median

compensation for senior portfolio managers) to

the more dramatic (the 12% rise in total

compensation for senior research analysts).

Here again, pay levels are not correlated to

AUM, but rather to firm time. Average total

compensation for investment professionals runs

between 1.2x and 2.0x pay levels at RIA firms,

depending on the job.

With a few minor exceptions, compensation

rose across almost all distribution jobs, including

sales, marketing, and client service. Increased

emphasis on client retention also means

compensation levels have normalized among

these three groups. Heads of sales still earn

more, but they are followed closely by Heads of

Marketing and Heads of Client Service.

Less affected by variable elements in their

compensation plans, operational and

administrative roles tend to see more stable

compensation year over year. The most notable

changes this year could be found among two

groups. The growing emphasis on efficiency

means Operations Managers saw their average

total compensation climb 12% from the prior

year. Tasked with managing an increasingly

diverse collection of talent in a tightening job

market, Heads of Human Resources experienced

an even more substantial 26% bump in average

compensation.

Detailed compensation information was

collected for forty positions ranging from

CEOs to receptionists. Salary information,

incentive pay, and ownership distributions

were captured to arrive at total cash

compensation figures. Experience levels

and changes in compensation from the

previous year are also captured.

Data for the 2017 compensation cycle was

once again gathered for approximately

1,000 individuals. All data has been

tabulated by AUM for purposes of

statistical analysis. Results are aggregated

into print-ready tables and provided to

survey participants in Excel format.


TABLE OF FIGURES (FULL REPORT) Figure 1. Survey topics ________________________________________________________________ 2

Figure 2. AUM and geographic peer groups _______________________________________________ 2

Figure 3. AUM peer groups ____________________________________________________________ 3

Figure 4. Location of firm headquarters __________________________________________________ 3

Figure 5. Asset classes currently managed ________________________________________________ 4

Figure 6. Asset flows _________________________________________________________________ 5

Figure 7. Does your firm plan to refocus its offering in the coming year? _______________________ 5

Figure 8. Asset classes being added within next 12 months __________________________________ 6

Figure 9. Investment product packages offered as percentage of AUM _________________________ 6

Figure 10. Socially responsible investing (SRI) screens used ___________________________________ 6

Figure 11. Client types _________________________________________________________________ 7

Figure 12. Number of client relationships managed/serviced __________________________________ 8

Figure 13. Client turnover ______________________________________________________________ 8

Figure 14. Methods of assessing client satisfaction __________________________________________ 9

Figure 15. Revenue __________________________________________________________________ 10

Figure 16. Fee realization _____________________________________________________________ 11

Figure 17. Profit (EBITDA) margin _______________________________________________________ 11

Figure 18. Client and portfolio metrics ___________________________________________________ 12

Figure 19. Labor costs by function ______________________________________________________ 13

Figure 20. Labor costs by function as a percentage of AUM __________________________________ 13

Figure 21. Labor costs by function as a percentage of revenue________________________________ 13

Figure 22. Direct non-labor costs by function______________________________________________ 14

Figure 23. Direct non-labor costs by function as a percentage of AUM _________________________ 14

Figure 24. Direct non-labor costs by function as a percentage of revenue _______________________ 14

Figure 25. Total direct costs by function __________________________________________________ 15

Figure 26. Total direct costs by function as a percentage of AUM _____________________________ 15

Figure 27. Total direct costs by function as a percentage of revenue ___________________________ 15

Figure 28. Functional headcount as percentage of total _____________________________________ 16

Figure 29. Hiring activity ______________________________________________________________ 17

Figure 30. Employee turnover __________________________________________________________ 17

Figure 31. AUM per employee _________________________________________________________ 17

Figure 32. Employee ratios ____________________________________________________________ 17

Figure 33. How did investment operations spending change year over year? ____________________ 19

Figure 34. Current and projected IT and operations expenses ________________________________ 19

Figure 35. Distribution of IT and operations spending _______________________________________ 19

Figure 36. Changes in IT and operations spending over time _________________________________ 19

Figure 37. Factors causing IT costs to rise _________________________________________________ 20

Figure 38. Top IT initiatives by year (current top 3 only) _____________________________________ 20

Figure 39. Top IT priorities (combined top 3) ______________________________________________ 21


Figure 40. Are you satisfied the following systems meet your firm's needs? _____________________ 21

Figure 41. Change in outsourced functions from previous year _______________________________ 22

Figure 42. Systems developed by outside providers ________________________________________ 22

Figure 43. Outsourced vs. internal functions ______________________________________________ 23

Figure 44. Systems develop internally vs. externally ________________________________________ 23

Figure 45. Rate your firm’s view on each of the following technology initiatives__________________ 24

Figure 46. Which best describes your cloud strategy? _______________________________________ 24

Figure 47. Are all trades executed electronically? __________________________________________ 25

Figure 48. Trades executed on a monthly basis ____________________________________________ 26

Figure 49. Number of brokerage houses used regularly _____________________________________ 26

Figure 50. Percentage of trades on trade networks _________________________________________ 26

Figure 51. Trade networks used ________________________________________________________ 26

Figure 52. Method(s) of notifying brokers of allocations for executed trades ____________________ 27

Figure 53. Method(s) of notifying custodians of allocations for executed trades__________________ 27

Figure 54. Number of custodians and prime brokers dealt with on ongoing basis _________________ 27

Figure 55. Number of portfolios reconciled and maintained on firm’s system ____________________ 28

Figure 56. Percentage of accounts reconciled electronically __________________________________ 28

Figure 57. Rate each factor on its potential to improve trading and compliance workflow _________ 28

Figure 58. Do you have one core performance system for all accounts? ________________________ 29

Figure 59. Is the performance engine a component of your investment accounting system? _______ 29

Figure 60. Level to which performance is calculated ________________________________________ 29

Figure 61. Benchmarks used ___________________________________________________________ 30

Figure 62. GIPS compliant firms ________________________________________________________ 30

Figure 63. Investment operations activity metrics __________________________________________ 31

Figure 64. Features and functions on website _____________________________________________ 32

Figure 65. Is account information available to clients via your firm’s website? ___________________ 32

Figure 66. If not, will this feature be made available within the next year? ______________________ 32

Figure 67. Primary concern with using social media for business purposes ______________________ 33

Figure 68. Does your firm have social media compliance guidelines in place? ____________________ 33

Figure 69. Types of social media used by firm _____________________________________________ 34

Figure 70. Long-term value of social media, from 1 (not valuable) to 10 (extremely valuable) _______ 34

Figure 71. Disaster recovery solutions currently employed ___________________________________ 35

Figure 72. Recovery Time Objective (RTO) by system _______________________________________ 36

Figure 73. Recovery Point Objective (RPO) by function ______________________________________ 36

Figure 74. Types of insurance offered ____________________________________________________ 37

Figure 75. Percentage of insurance paid by company _______________________________________ 37

Figure 76. Flexible health plans _________________________________________________________ 38

Figure 77. Other types of coverage offered _______________________________________________ 38

Figure 78. Retirement plan options _____________________________________________________ 38


Figure 79. Employee leave policies ______________________________________________________ 39

Figure 80. Determining vacation eligibility ________________________________________________ 39

Figure 81. Days off ___________________________________________________________________ 39

Figure 82. Additional employee benefits _________________________________________________ 39

Figure 83. Types of incentive compensation offered ________________________________________ 40

Figure 84. Use of objective measures in awarding of incentive compensation ___________________ 40

Figure 85. Objective (non-discretionary) measures used to award incentive pay _________________ 41

Figure 86. Commission schedules _______________________________________________________ 41

Figure 87. Senior Executives – Compensation by AUM ______________________________________ 44

Figure 88. Senior Executives – Summary compensation statistics _____________________________ 44

Figure 89. Senior Executives – Change in compensation _____________________________________ 44

Figure 90. Investments – Compensation by AUM __________________________________________ 45

Figure 91. Investments – Summary compensation statistics __________________________________ 45

Figure 92. Investments – Change in compensation _________________________________________ 45

Figure 93. Sales – Compensation by AUM ________________________________________________ 46

Figure 94. Sales – Summary compensation statistics ________________________________________ 46

Figure 95. Sales – Change in compensation _______________________________________________ 46

Figure 96. Marketing – Compensation by AUM ____________________________________________ 47

Figure 97. Marketing – Summary compensation statistics ___________________________________ 47

Figure 98. Marketing – Change in compensation ___________________________________________ 47

Figure 99. Client Service & Relationship Management – Compensation by AUM _________________ 48

Figure 100. Client Service & Relationship Management – Summary compensation statistics _________ 48

Figure 101. Client Service & Relationship Management – Change in compensation ________________ 48

Figure 102. Operations – Compensation by AUM ___________________________________________ 49

Figure 103. Operations – Summary compensation statistics ___________________________________ 49

Figure 104. Operations – Change in compensation __________________________________________ 49

Figure 105. Compliance – Compensation by AUM ___________________________________________ 50

Figure 106. Compliance – Summary compensation statistics __________________________________ 50

Figure 107. Compliance – Change in compensation __________________________________________ 50

Figure 108. Administration & Support – Compensation by AUM _______________________________ 51

Figure 109. Administration & Support – Summary compensation statistics _______________________ 51

Figure 110. Administration & Support – Change in compensation ______________________________ 51


ABOUT

The Exchange The Exchange was founded in 1998 by a group of like-minded users that wanted a way to collaborate and

exchange ideas. Since then it has grown and adapted to include a multitude of products and has a rich

history of helping members find answers. The Exchange is a premiere industry group that holds meetings

all over the country to help members come together. Additionally, you gain access to virtual events and

groups to further your experience while allowing members to remain in the office.

Who better to discuss your software issues or industry challenges with than someone in the same position

as you?

Access experienced users

Communicate openly about products

Attend informative events

Access to industry related vendors and speak to members that use them

Improve yourself both personally and professionally

For more information about The Exchange visit our website at AUGTheExchange.org

SS&C Advent Advent, a business unit of SS&C Technologies, is helping over 4,300 investment firms in more than 50

countries—from established global institutions to small start-up practices—to grow their business and

thrive. Delivering unparalleled precision and ahead-of-the-curve solutions for more than 30 years, SS&C

Advent helps firms minimize risk, work together seamlessly with their clients, and help shape the future of

investment management. For more information on SS&C Advent products visit www.advent.com.

Investment Adviser Association The Investment Adviser Association is the leading nonprofit organization that exclusively focuses on the

interests of SEC-registered investment advisers. The IAA’s more than 550 member firms collectively

manage assets of $16 trillion for a wide variety of individual and institutional clients. The IAA adds value

to members through its comprehensive range of advocacy, compliance, and educational services and

resources. For more information, visit www.investmentadviser.org.

The Author Steven Unzicker is the founder of ANZU, a research and consulting company specializing in the asset

management industry. ANZU provides industry executives with strategic advice as well as tactical

guidance on product development, marketing plans, and thought leadership initiatives. Over the past two

decades, Steve has designed and conducted numerous surveys of money managers and investors on

topics including compensation, operations, technology, compliance, and research management. Prior to

launching ANZU, Steve was the Director of Research for the Business Strategy Group at CRA RogersCasey.

Previously, he managed the strategy consulting group at Investment Counseling, a boutique consultancy.

He earned an MBA from London Business School and a BA from the University of Chicago.


CONTACTS

Contact any of the following to learn more about the survey:

Jennifer Litchfield Executive Director

AUG, The Exchange

[email protected]

888.241.6881

For media inquiries:

Lee Jine Manager, Solutions Marketing

SS&C Advent

[email protected]

415.645.1879

Herb Perone Vice President of Communications & Marketing

Investment Adviser Association

[email protected]

202.507.7215

Steven Unzicker Managing Director

ANZU Research & Consulting

[email protected]

415.259.807

2018 SURVEY OF THE ASSET MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY€¦ · CRM Portfolio accounting / reconciliation...

Documents

Transcript of 2018 SURVEY OF THE ASSET MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY€¦ · CRM Portfolio accounting / reconciliation...