Over the past few years, a number of asset owners (pensions, non-profits, state agencies) have moved to decrease their reliance on external investment managers, and increase their in-house capabilities. Countless others are currently evaluating the possibility of bringing asset management in house.
The reasons for this trend are numerous – lower cost, increased transparency, more tightly controlled risk management, and the all-important, higher net-of-fee returns.
Much of the analysis driving this trend (to date) has focused on the investment decision process, and a strategic review of the potential benefits of the transition to increased internal management capabilities (i.e. anticipated higher net-of-fee returns).
The combination of the analysis listed above, and the gut reaction of non-investment professional decision makers ("We're paying the external manager what? Can't we just do it ourselves?"), often leads to the conclusion to develop or enhance internal asset management capabilities.
Many times the decision is a good one, but these asset owners/aspiring asset managers should not underestimate the scope and potential implications of this decision. They are not only taking on the investment decision process from the external manager, they also must now account for the numerous enabling functions that support the investment management process including trading, middle office, back office, and business control and oversight.
When the initial evaluation points toward increasing internal investment management capabilities, asset owners should take a deep breath, and also carefully consider the organizational, operational and technological impact of the transition to internally managing assets.
Numerous questions need to be considered, including:
Organization: What will our investment management organizational model look like? How will an asset management team fit within our broader organization?
Operations: Will we outsource, or develop our own investment data management, compliance, and middle office operations?
Technology: What will our investment application architecture look like? Will it fit within our existing IT infrastructure?
There are many potential benefits for asset owners to gain from increasing their in-house asset management capabilities but they must look before they leap, and fully understand the challenging journey of designing and implementing the operations and technology infrastructure required to deliver on the promise of these benefits.
Because if the Board of Directors is not happy with the results, they may look to terminate the asset manager!
David has over 25 years of experience in the investment management industry as an operations director, solution architect, program manager, and process consultant. David has worked with some of the world’s largest asset owners, investment managers and service providers. He has driven numerous large-scale initiatives including strategic assessments, operating model transformations, process improvements, evaluation and selections, outsourcing transitions, and software implementations.
Comments