Em 2014, o valor global dos ativos gerenciados profissionalmente cresceu para US $ 74 trilhões - o terceiro registro anual consecutivo - e os lucros da indústria aumentam para o pico histórico da indústria. As margens de operação permaneceram constantes, sentadas logo abaixo do nível recorde alcançado antes da crise financeira. Rumo à Ásia
Read More On This Topic
- Sparking Growth with Go-to-Market Excellence
- The Asset Manager’s Go-to-Market Survival Guide
- Catching Asset Management’s Tilt Toward Asia
GOLCE DESETS GERENCIAMENTO
Esses pontos de dados, entre outros, oferecem um instantâneo encorajador da indústria global de gerenciamento de ativos. Um retrato mais complexo surge nos detalhes completos deste relatório-Gestão de ativos da Global 2015: Scarking Growth com excelência no mercado, o décimo terceiro estudo anual do grupo de ativos do Boston Consulting Group sobre o gerenciamento de ativos em todo o mundo.
This report begins by profiling the industry’s overall evolution in 2014. In the article “ O guia de sobrevivência do mercado do gerente de ativos= , “Discutimos como os principais gerentes estão melhorando sua abordagem de entrada no mercado, em particular por meio de tomada de decisão mais orientada a dados. Essas descobertas foram apoiadas por uma medição aprofundada dos recursos dos gerentes com base na estrutura do BCG para excelência em excelência em funções de vendas. Captura de Tilt da gestão de ativos para a Ásia , ”Oferecemos um mergulho profundo nas oportunidades em expansão na Ásia-Pacífico e em como os gerentes podem acessá-las. Um ambiente desafiador. Os níveis de pré -crise. Os investidores institucionais estão monitorando as taxas mais de perto, desafiando e renegociando -os. No segmento de varejo, a consolidação do canal e o aumento da transparência acionada pela regulamentação estão gerando taxas mais baixas. ampliado entre os gerentes no mercado de varejo e os do mercado institucional. Pelo segundo ano consecutivo, os gerentes focados no varejo superaram os focados nos mercados institucionais por margens relativamente amplas em AUM, receita, fluxo líquido e crescimento da lucratividade. O desempenho superior do investimento não garante maior participação de mercado. A dinâmica da vantagem competitiva mudou. Em particular, eles precisarão gerar mais valor por meio de ponta a ponta,
Professional asset management continues to rank among the world’s most profitable businesses, and it’s a growing one for managers that get it right.
The past year’s performance shows that the industry has moved beyond the dynamics of the postcrisis period. At the same time, a new competitive environment is coming into sharper focus. It is a challenging environment.
Although the industry’s profit pool rose 7 percent to $102 billion, matching its historic peak, those profits, once again, were largely driven by rising asset values on global markets. Growth driven by net new assets remained unchanged from the year before, at 1.7 percent of assets under management (AuM). Net flows, the lifeblood of growth, are likely to remain in the low single digits—well below precrisis levels. At the same time, net revenue growth fell short of the growth of average AuM as pressure on fees squeezed price realization.
This isn’t the first year that fee pressure has contributed to declining revenue margins. Institutional investors are monitoring fees more closely, challenging and renegotiating them. In the retail segment, channel consolidation and increasing transparency driven by regulation are driving fees lower.
The product shift of recent years—from traditional actively managed products to passives, solutions, and specialties—held true in 2014. This structural shift will continue in the medium term, we believe, squeezing the share of active core products and managers.
The gap in business performance by segment widened between managers in the retail market and those in the institutional market. For the second year in a row, retail-focused managers outperformed those focused on institutional markets by relatively wide margins in AuM, revenue, net flow, and profitability growth.
Whatever their segment or product focus, asset managers today face a future in which growth isn’t a given. Superior investment performance does not guarantee greater market share. The dynamics of competitive advantage have changed.
Achieving growth will require managers to ramp up their execution game in order to differentiate themselves. In particular, they will need to generate more value through end-to-end, O guia de sobrevivência do mercado do gerente de ativos= -do design da execução-alavancando seus recursos de marketing, vendas e preços. Em muitos casos, os gerentes vencedores obtêm vantagem desenvolvendo e implantando recursos avançados na tomada de decisão orientada a dados. reequilíbrio em relação a essa região. Essa mudança já está atrasada, e há muito espaço para mais crescimento, como discutimos no artigo “
Although the traditional framework for maximizing go-to-market performance remains intact, the competencies needed to achieve excellence are shifting. In many cases, the winning managers gain advantage by developing and deploying advanced capabilities in data-driven decision making.
Many of today’s most effective managers focus their efforts on three capabilities: marketing effectiveness, sales force productivity, and enhanced customer experience.
In addition to sparking growth through their go-to-market capabilities, asset managers should look for growth potential in Asia-Pacific as the industry rebalances toward that region. That shift is already overdue, and there is plenty of room for more growth, as we discuss in the article “ Captura de Tilt da gestão de ativos para a Ásia . ”
Como os gerentes devem acessar esta oportunidade? Asia-Pacífico devem ser abordadas como um conjunto de diversos mercados. Diferenças na maturidade do mercado, escala, regulação, demanda e economia de canal tornam a Ásia um ambiente complexo, se o acesso a cada oportunidade é que a oportunidade é de um mercado que é um dos próprios desafios e os próprios fatores de sucesso. Complexo. Construa caminhos prósperos para o futuro. Métricas. Os lucros foram impulsionados pelo crescente valor de mercado dos ativos gerenciados profissionalmente, que atingem um recorde alto pelo terceiro ano consecutivo e por novos fluxos inalterados em relação ao nível do ano passado. Anos, incluindo o aumento de 13 % em 2013. Embora o impacto no mercado tenha sido a principal fonte de crescimento da AUM, novos fluxos líquidos forneceram suporte, permanecendo constante em 1,7 % do AUM de 2013, em comparação com 1,6 % da AUM de 2012 em 2013. Ainda assim, os fluxos líquidos permaneceram bem abaixo dos anos de pico antes da crise financeira de 2007. (Consulte Anexo 1.)
If global managers get only one market right, it must be China. Still, gaining access to China’s domestic investors can be complex.
This report, like its predecessors, is the product of market-sizing research and an extensive benchmarking survey. The benchmarking involved 135 leading asset managers—representing $39 trillion, or 53 percent, of global AuM—and covered more than 4,000 data points per player. The aim of our annual research is to gain insights into the state of the industry and its underlying sources of profitability to help managers build prosperous paths to the future.
The additional assessment of go-to-market functions conducted this year, noted above, covered managers’ organization setups across those functions, product innovation metrics, sales and marketing efficiency ratios, incentive policies and drivers, performance-monitoring metrics, use of advanced data analytics including big data, and digital and social-media metrics.
A Snapshot of the Industry
The profit pool of the global asset-management industry rose 7 percent to $102 billion in 2014, matching its historic peak reached in 2007 before the financial crisis. Profits were buoyed by the increasing market value of professionally managed assets, which hit a record high for the third consecutive year, and by new flows unchanged from last year’s level.
Assets Under Management Rise to a Record $74 Trillion
Globally, assets under management (AuM) increased 8 percent in 2014 to a record $74 trillion—a healthy advance but slower than the pace in recent years, including the 13 percent increase in 2013. While market impact was the main source of AuM growth, net new flows provided support by remaining steady at 1.7 percent of 2013 AuM, compared with 1.6 percent of 2012 AuM in 2013. Still, net flows remained well below their peak years before the 2007 financial crisis. (See Exhibit 1.)
The return of industry profits, in absolute terms, to their precrisis peak of $102 billion was mostly driven by the rise in AuM. Operating margins—or profits as a percentage of net revenues—remained at 39 percent of net revenues as in 2013, compared with the precrisis high of 41 percent.
However, net revenue growth of 7 percent fell short of the greater than 9 percent growth of average AuM in 2013 as pressure on fees squeezed price realization. (See Exhibit 2.) Indeed, net revenues measured in basis points—or on an asset-adjusted basis—continued to decline. (See Exhibit 3.) This occurred despite the slightly faster growth of the higher-price retail business over institutional business discussed in detail below.
Europe’s Net Flows Rebound, Catching Up to Those in the U.S.
O crescimento impulsionado pelos fluxos líquidos recuperados na Europa em 2014, alcançando isso nas Américas e tornando a Europa uma das regiões que mais crescem para os fluxos líquidos após serem os mais fracos após a crise. Os fluxos líquidos europeus em 2014 atingiram 1,7 % da AUM do ano anterior, em comparação com 1,3 % em 2013. O crescimento foi impulsionado em particular por entradas líquidas muito altas na Espanha e na Itália e contínuos fluxos saudáveis em países escandinavos e na Alemanha-o desempenho fraco na França e no Reino Unido. Nos anos iniciais após a crise, os bancos se concentraram nas vendas de contas de depósito, a fim de cumprir mandatos regulatórios para melhorar seus balanços. respectivamente. Excluindo esses dois mercados, os fluxos no restante da Ásia-Pacífico cresceram mais fortemente, a 4 %-uma taxa mais alta do que o esperado nos mercados desenvolvidos.
The rise of net flows in Europe reflected, in part, the progressive resumption of mutual fund sales by European banks. In the initial years following the crisis, the banks focused instead on deposit account sales in order to fulfill regulatory mandates to improve their balance sheets.
In the Americas, net flows inched up to 1.7 percent of prior-year AuM, compared with 1.6 percent in 2013—with a repeat performance of 1.6 percent in the U.S. and even stronger performance in both Canada and Latin America at 2 percent and 3 percent, respectively.
In Asia-Pacific, growth of net flows slowed to 3 percent—following robust growth of 4 percent in 2013—owing largely to lower risk appetite in Japan and Australia. Excluding those two markets, flows in the rest of Asia-Pacific grew more strongly, at 4 percent—a higher rate than was expected in developed markets.
Visto por segmento, os ativos no segmento de varejo cresceram mais rapidamente do que os ativos institucionais, graças a novos fluxos líquidos muito sólidos de 3,7 % do AUM de 2013, enquanto novos fluxos de ativos institucionais foram apenas 0,1 % do AUM de 2013. No entanto, os fluxos líquidos de varejo mais altos tiveram pouco impacto na participação dos ativos de varejo no total de AUM da indústria, que permaneceu em 39 %. (Ver
Growing Pressure on Fees Impacts Net Revenues
This is not the first year that fee pressure has contributed to a continuing decline in revenue margins for both retail and institutional managers. (See Global Asset Management 2014: Dirigindo o curso para o crescimento , Relatório do BCG, julho de 2014.) Os investidores institucionais continuam monitorando as taxas mais de perto, desafiando e renegoculando -os. taxas, mas apenas marginalmente. O crescimento contínuo mais forte do que a média de categorias de baixo preço, como produtos passivos e investimentos orientados a responsabilidade (LDIS), foi compensado pelo crescimento de produtos de preço superior, como soluções de varejo e fundos imobiliários e o valor decrescente dos ativos do mercado monetário. (Consulte Anexo 4.)
In the retail segment, channel consolidation resulting in a more aggressive posture by intermediaries—particularly in the U.S.—and regulatory measures that bring increased transparency are both driving fees lower.
Product mix also continues to put pressure on fees, but only marginally. The continued stronger-than-average growth of low-price categories, such as passive products and liability-driven investments (LDIs), was offset by growth of higher-price products, such as retail solutions and real estate funds, and the decreasing value of money market assets. (See Exhibit 4.)
Esta tendência é visível na evolução e na base da evolução e dos pontos de 28 anos. de 18,0 pontos base para 17,4 pontos base. Como resultado das pressões de preços, muitas empresas permaneceram vigilantes sobre seus custos e mantiveram o crescimento dos custos em 6 % em termos absolutos - mais baixo do que o crescimento do setor médio AUM em 9 %. De maneira mais ampla, a mudança regulatória continua sendo um elemento substancial do ambiente desafiador e incerto que os gerentes de ativos enfrentam globalmente. (See the sidebar “Surviving Regulatory Change and Vanishing Liquidity.”)
Regulation, as noted earlier, is contributing to the pressure on fees in the retail segment. More broadly, regulatory change continues to be a substantial element of the challenging and uncertain environment that asset managers face globally. (See the sidebar “Surviving Regulatory Change and Vanishing Liquidity.”)
SURVIVING REGULATORY CHANGE AND VANISHING LIQUIDITY
Despite sustained record-level asset growth and profits, asset managers continue to face a challenging and uncertain environment, particularly regarding regulation—whether it addresses them directly or is part of a broader regulatory initiative Como o relacionado à liquidez do mercado. Em maio de 2015, a Comissão de Valores Mobiliários dos EUA anunciou uma série de novas iniciativas de relatórios que aumentarão sua supervisão do setor. Como primeiro passo, a agência está aumentando significativamente o volume de dados que coleta, exigindo que as empresas de fundos mútuos forneçam informações mais detalhadas - e relatem com maior frequência - sobre os ativos do fundo. As iniciativas exigem fundos para dar uma conta do uso de produtos de derivativos complexos e potencialmente arriscados. Atualmente, esses dados são capturados nem com frequência nem de forma consistente. Na Europa, a Diretiva de Mercados em Instrumentos Financeiros agora afeta os gerentes em toda a cadeia de valor-de ofertas de produtos e distribuição a investimentos e operações. A liquidez, ou a falta disso, é um problema real para instrumentos específicos de renda fixa. Na dívida corporativa, por exemplo, o lado da compra hoje possui muito mais do que vender bancos laterais. Essa reversão significativa da norma histórica é amplamente impulsionada pela inablete dos bancos ou pela falta de vontade de manter esses ativos e receber o balanço atingido, diminuindo assim seu papel histórico no mercado. Enquanto isso, as instituições secundárias de compra continuam a procurar produtos de maior interesse. Essa nova dinâmica pode estar bem - isto é, até que o lado da compra fique motivado a sair de suas posições e os bancos não estejam lá para intervir como antes. Alguns jogadores pediram a reforma da emissão de dívida corporativa, tornando o processo muito mais comoditizado e, portanto, muito mais líquido. No entanto, pouco mudou.
In the U.S. market, regulation is driving profound change. In May 2015, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced a series of new reporting initiatives that will boost its industry oversight. As a first step, the agency is significantly increasing the volume of data it collects, requiring mutual fund firms to provide more detailed information—and to report with greater frequency—about fund assets. The initiatives require funds to give an account of their use of complex and potentially risky derivatives products. Currently, that data is captured neither frequently nor consistently.
Compliance with the new measures will increase costs and require additional screens and challenges for managers weighing new products in the U.S. market, as it will for managers based outside the U.S. that are considering whether or not to enter the U.S. market.
There is increased regulatory pressure and uncertainty in other regions as well. In Europe, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive now impacts managers across the value chain—from product offerings and distribution to investment and operations.
At the investment level, too, there is increased uncertainty in major product areas, such as fixed-income, as well as in money market funds. Liquidity, or the lack of it, is a real issue for specific fixed-income instruments. In corporate debt, for example, the buy side today holds much more than sell side banks. This significant reversal of the historic norm is largely driven by banks’ inablility or unwillingness to hold those assets and take the balance sheet hit, thereby diminishing their historical market-making role. Meanwhile, buy side institutions continue to seek out higher-interest-bearing products. This new dynamic may be fine—that is, until the buy side becomes motivated to get out of its positions and banks are not there to step in as they once did. Some players have called for reforming corporate-debt issuance, making the process much more commoditized and therefore much more liquid. Yet little has changed.
Como resultado, os gerentes de ativos devem desenvolver maiores capacidades nos ativos de preços, levando em consideração análises de risco aprimoradas. Além disso, apesar do crescimento recente, eles precisam continuar a gerenciar de perto os custos. Isso contrasta com os anos anteriores, quando, em geral, os gerentes dos EUA se saíram melhor que outros. Este ano, os gerentes baseados na Ásia-Pacífico aumentaram seu AUM médio um pouco mais rápido, em média, do que os das Américas e da Europa-12 % para a Ásia-Pacífico, em comparação com 10 % para as Américas e 9 % para a Europa. De fato, cerca de 20 % dos gerentes tiveram lucro em declínio em termos absolutos. A receita dos jogadores dos EUA aumentou 6 %, mas seus custos aumentaram 7 %, resultando em um crescimento de lucro operacional de apenas 4 %. Em comparação, as receitas e lucros dos jogadores da Ásia-Pacífico avançaram 9 % e 13 %, respectivamente, enquanto os dos gerentes de ativos europeus avançaram 6 % e 10 %. No entanto, eles também devem reconhecer que resultados positivos em uma região ou segmento não são necessariamente transferíveis, porque os fatores de sucesso geralmente são bem diferentes de uma região e segmento para o próximo. Nos quatro anos que terminaram em 2014, os gerentes independentes, em média, tiveram um desempenho melhor do que os gerentes afiliados.
Positive Results Across All Regions and Segments
Results by managers were positive in all regions of the world in 2014, with relatively narrow differences in growth of AuM, revenues, and profits. This contrasts with previous years when, overall, U.S.-based managers fared better than others. This year, managers based in Asia-Pacific increased their average AuM slightly faster on average than those in the Americas and Europe—12 percent for Asia-Pacific, compared with 10 percent for the Americas and 9 percent for Europe.
While positive results were recorded across all regions on an averaged basis, not all managers benefited or did consistently well. Indeed, about 20 percent of managers experienced declining profit in absolute terms.
Measured by profit growth, Asia-Pacific and European managers fared slightly better than U.S. managers by boosting revenues faster than costs. U.S. players’ revenues increased 6 percent, but their costs rose 7 percent, resulting in operating-profit growth of just 4 percent. By comparison, Asia-Pacific players’ revenues and profits advanced 9 percent and 13 percent, respectively, while those of European asset managers advanced 6 percent and 10 percent.
Overall, this means that global asset managers should push for strong performance in every region and segment. Yet they must also recognize that positive results in one region or segment are not necessarily transferable, because success factors are often quite different from one region and segment to the next.
Unlike prior years, independent managers and managers affiliated with banking or insurance groups achieved, on average, very similar asset- and profit-growth rates. In the four years that ended in 2014, independent managers, on average, performed better than affiliated managers.
Some managers with affiliated distribution networks benefited from the recovery of retail distribution networks, especially in Europe. Still, their results continued to suffer in comparison with those of unaffiliated clients. Indeed, mostly captive players—those with more than 75 percent affiliated AuM—suffered net outflows from their unaffiliated business, registering –0.4 percent of their 2013 AuM in external retail channels and –3.8 percent with third-party institutional investors.
Success in unaffiliated channels for managers with mostly captive assets is challenging—because of their generally simpler, less diversified offerings—but it is not impossible. Some managers have succeeded by leveraging their captive business to fund innovation efforts against unaffiliated channels. Still, few of these players have managed to build the internal culture needed to promote this type of innovation and third-party focus in parallel with a captive focus.
The most significant difference across managers was the higher growth in AuM and profits of those focusing on the retail segment. Retail-oriented managers’ assets grew 12 percent in 2014, and their revenues and profits rose 9 percent and 11 percent, respectively. In contrast, managers focused on institutional markets increased their assets by just 8 percent and revenues by only 3 percent, while their profits shrank 1 percent.
The Product Shift Continues to Passives, Solutions, and Specialties
The product shift of recent years—from traditional actively managed products to passives, solutions, and specialties—held true in 2014, although the move toward specialties slowed.
The AuM of traditional active products represented 39 percent of AuM at the end of 2014 compared with 59 percent in 2003, while alternatives grew from 6 percent to 11 percent, passive products from 8 percent to 14 percent, solutions from 6 percent to 13 percent, and specialties from 21 percent to 24 percent.
Esta mudança contínua reflete a busca persistente dos investidores por produtos mais orientados a resultados, maior diversificação de portfólio e produtos menos caros nas categorias principais. Os esforços dos gerentes de ativos para atender a essas necessidades ajudaram a gerar 16 % de crescimento em ativos mantidos em soluções, incluindo LDIs e soluções de varejo. Nos EUA e Europa, por exemplo, os fundos de data-alvo e os fundos flexíveis contribuíram para esse crescimento. Em 2014, o crescimento de classes de ativos especiais diminuiu, enquanto o crescimento ativo do produto central foi impulsionado pelo aumento dos mercados de ações e retornos contínuos de ligação sólidos na Europa, à medida que as taxas continuavam diminuindo. (Veja o Anexo 5.) Alguns produtos principais ativos realizaram um retorno. Os títulos europeus na Europa e nos fundos do mercado monetário na Ásia - tanto os principais produtos principais - subiram as melhores posições no ranking, revertendo seu desempenho comparativamente fraco nos últimos anos. Especiais como equidade estranha, títulos globais e fundos de títulos não tradicionais ainda geraram uma parcela pesada dos fluxos líquidos. Especialidades continuarão. Em particular, é provável que soluções e passivos obtenham uma parcela desproporcional dos fluxos líquidos, em relação ao tamanho atual. Portanto, eles continuarão sendo as categorias que mais crescem, espremendo a parcela de produtos e gerentes ativos, à medida que esses produtos sofrem saídas de rede. (Consulte o Anexo 6.)
In parallel, the ever-changing macroeconomic environment continues to drive the rotation of successful products. In 2014, the growth of specialty asset classes slowed, while active core product growth was boosted by rising equity markets and continued solid bond returns in Europe as rates continued to decline.
These trends were evident in the net flows ranking of mutual-fund product strategies across all regions. (See Exhibit 5.) Some active core products staged a comeback. European bonds in Europe and money market funds in Asia—both typical core products—took top positions in the rankings, reversing their comparatively weak performance in recent years. Specialties such as foreign equity, global bonds, and nontraditional bond funds still generated a hefty share of the net flows.
We continue to believe that the structural shift from active core products to solutions, alternatives, passive products, and specialties will continue. In particular, solutions and passives are likely to get a disproportionate share of the net flows, relative to their current size. They therefore will remain the fastest-growing categories, squeezing the share of active core products and managers as those products suffer net outflows. (See Exhibit 6.)
“Winner-Take-All” Accelerates in the U.S., Flattens in Europe
The winner-take-all trend of recent years—in which the top managers in mutual fund flows also capture a large share of net new asset flows—accelerated in the U.S. in 2014. The top ten U.S. managers, based on mutual fund flows in 2014, captured 68 percent of all flows from players with positive flows, compared with 53 percent in 2013. (See Exhibit 7.)
Na Europa, o fenômeno vencedor-take-all permaneceu inalterado e menos pronunciado. A tabela de dez melhores compreende apenas 31 % dos jogadores com fluxos positivos, a mesma participação que em 2013. Isso não é uma surpresa nos mercados mais fragmentados da Europa, onde os gerentes locais ainda são os principais players em cada país. Produtos, em comparação com categorias de produtos menores ou mais lentas. Os ETFs representaram 50 % dos fluxos de fundos mútuos nos EUA, 12 % na Europa e 20 % na Ásia-Pacífico. O aumento da penetração de produtos passivos nos EUA em 2014 explica a crescente força da tendência do vencedor da tomada lá. O posicionamento superior, como sempre, foi alcançado pelos gerentes que dominavam nas categorias de produtos certas. Os recursos de distribuição também desempenham um papel forte. Ambos enfatizam a importância, entendidos pelos principais gerentes, de adotar uma abordagem sistemática para as alavancas críticas da excelência no mercado. Relatório. Além disso, este relatório não teria sido possível sem a dedicação de muitos outros membros das instituições financeiras e práticas de seguro da BCG.
The higher concentration in the U.S. market relative to Europe is driven largely by the shift in investor preferences, particularly toward passive products such as exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and the high concentration of leaders in those products, compared with smaller or slower-growing product categories. ETFs represented 50 percent of mutual fund flows in the U.S., 12 percent in Europe, and 20 percent in Asia-Pacific. The increased penetration of passive products in the U.S. in 2014 explains the rising strength of the winner-take-all trend there.
Once again, the composition of the top-ten asset-manager lists for each market remained relatively consistent with the year before, with six holdovers in the U.S. and seven in Europe. Top positioning, as always, was achieved by managers that dominated in the right product categories. Distribution capabilities also play a strong role. Both underscore the importance, understood by leading managers, of taking a systematic approach to the critical levers of go-to-market excellence.
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, the authors would like to thank the asset management institutions that participated in our current and previous research and bench-marking efforts, as well as the other organizations that contributed to the insights contained in this report.
The authors offer sincere thanks to their BCG colleagues Humberto Aboud, Eric Bajeux, Federico Burgoni, Pierre Catuli, Manish Saxena, Nishant Tripathi, and Andrea Walbaum, as well as to Fadwa El Khalil for external support. In addition, this report would not have been possible without the dedication of many other members of BCG’s Financial Institutions and Insurance practices.
