Home > Back to Publisher > Report Information

Benchmarking Asset Managers 2007

Datamonitor
March 9, 2007
61 Pages - SKU: DFMN1469179

Abstract Table of Contents Search inside this report Related Reports

Introduction

Compares large specialist asset managers and the asset management department of major banks and insurance groups, benchmarking the top 50 against 10 significant financial benchmarks.

Scope

Covers the top 50 asset managers worldwide Measures 10 financial benchmarks between 2004 and 2005

Highlights

In total 18 asset managers' AuM grew above the benchmark of 21.8% between 2004 and 2005. Julius Baer recorded the greatest proportional growth among the top 50 asset managers by AuM in 2005, increasing its assets under management by 124.8% over the year. Even below the benchmark proportional growth, the vast majority of asset managers were able to increase their operating income between 2004 and 2005. Of the five that saw their operating income decline over this period, none fell more than 10%, indicating a significant drop in overall income.

Reasons to Purchase

Provides a clear analysis of the financial strengths and weaknesses of the leading asset managers around the world.
Indicates which strategies have been financially successful and where competitors have fallen behind.
Provides the opportunity to self-benchmark and compare with the leaders in the field of asset management.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Introduction; The results
INTRODUCTION: What is this report about?; Who is the target reader?; How to use this report
CHAPTER 1 FINANCIAL BENCHMARKING: Introduction; UBS has a clear lead among asset managers in terms of assets under management (AuM) at the end of 2005; 34 of the top 50 asset managers by AuM were below the benchmark at the end of 2005; Allianz recorded the highest assets under management growth between 2004 and 2005; The majority of asset managers fell below the benchmark in terms of AuM growth between 2004 and 2005; Factors affecting the growth of AuM are unlikely to be related to the size of asset managers; Insurance groups beat bankson generating income per staff member, but the banks and asset managers generated most fees per AuM; Among the top asset managers operating income per staff member averaged USD440,964 in 2005, with the insurance groups dominating; Many of the large banking networks were below the benchmark at the end of 2005; Banks came top of the pile on fee/commission income per million dollars of assets under management at the end of 2005, significantly beating the USD20,421 benchmark; Factors such as significant AuM growth led to negative growth in fees per million AuM for over half of the top asset managers; For the vast majority of top asset managers, operating income grew between 2004 and 2005; There was a drive for efficiency in 2005: most asset managers decreased their expenses per AuM; The majority of top asset managers were able to reduce their operating expenses per million dollars of assets under management between 2004 and 2005; Only a few asset managers were able to reduce operating expenses between 2004 and 2005; Intermediated business models have the lowest staff costs per AuM; A few asset managers have ramped up expenses to grow income while others managed impressive income gains with restrained costs; Overall in 2005 results were positive for the top asset managers; Cost/income ratios declined across the industry in 2005; The majority of asset managers saw signficant improvement in their results between 2004 and 2005
CHAPTER 2 THE RESULTS: Introduction; Key findings; Methodology; Amvescap came out top in the final results
CHAPTER 3 APPENDIX: Supplementary data; Definitions; Operating income; Operating expenses; Cost/income ratio; Results; Notes to the data for each of the top 50 asset managers benchmarked
List of Tables: Table 1: UBS leads asset managers in terms of AuM at the end of 2005, with a total of 17 asset managers above the benchmark; Table 2: BBVA was just below the benchmark in terms of AuM at the end of 2005; Table 3: Julius Baer saw assets under management more than double between the end of 2004 and the end of 2005; Table 4: 32 asset managers fell below the benchmark for AuM growth between the end of 2004 and the end of 2005; Table 5: Only 14 asset managers managed an income/staff ratio above the benchmark at the end of 2005; Table 6: Below the benchmark, staff productivity as of the end of 2005 varied widely; Table 7: Citigroup saw the greatest proportional increase in fees per assets under management; Table 8: Half of the top asset managers only achieved negative growth in fees per million AuM between 2004 and 2005; Table 9: Several asset managers above the proportional operating income growth benchmark did not beat the absolute growth benchmark; Table 10: Very few asset managers below the proportional operating income growth benchmark actually saw income decrease between the end of 2004 and the end of 2005; Table 11: The benchmark for reduction of operating expenses per million dollars of AuM between 2004 and 2005 stood at 7.3%; Table 12: Below the benchmark for expenses per millions of AuM growth, most asset managers were able to keep growth low; Table 13: Few asset managers achieved absolute decline in their operating expenses between 2004 and 2005; Table 14: Several asset managers fell far below the benchmark as their expenditure increased significantly between 2004 and 2005; Table 15: The benchmark for staff costs per million dollars of AuM was beaten by 27 asset managers at the end of 2005; Table 16: Citigroup saw the highest ratio of staff costs per million dollars of AuM at the end of 2005; Table 17: Amvescap's huge improvement in profits in 2005 skewed the results benchmark for other top asset managers; Table 18: 38 asset managers fell below the results benchmark; Table 19: Amvescap led the way in the overall benchmark score; Table 20: A wide variety of asset managers performed less well on the overall benchmark
List of Figures: Figure 1: UBS is far ahead of its top 25 rivals, and the benchmark, in terms of AuM in 2005; Figure 2: There was no correlation between absolute AuM increase and percentage growth among the top asset managers; Figure 3: Sal Oppenheim clearly outperformed the field in operating income growth between the end of 2004 and the end of 2005; Figure 4: In many cases, operating costs grew at a similar rate to operating expenses between 2004 and 2005; Figure 5: All of the top asset managers for whom data was available lowered their cost/income ratio between 2004 and 2005

Benchmarking Asset Managers 2007

Share this report

Other tasks

Research Assistance

Related Markets

Personal Finance Reports

Free Alert Me service