Benchmarking Asset Managers 2007

Published by: Datamonitor

Published: Mar. 9, 2007 - 61 Pages

Table of Contents

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

ABN AMRO Group

Allianz Group

Amvescap Group

Aviva Group

AXA Group

Banco Popular Group

Barclays Group

BBVA Group

Black Rock

BNP Paribas Group

Caisse d'Epargne Group

Caja Madrid Group

Citigroup

Commerzbank Group

Credit Agricole Group

Credit Mutual Group

Credit Suisse Group

DEKA Group

Deutsche Bank Group

Dexia Group

DnB Nor Group

Fortis Group

Franklin Templeton

Goldman Sachs Group

GroupAMA

Grupo Santander

HBOS Group

Henderson Global Investors

HSBC Group

ING Group

JP Morgan Chase Group

Julius Baer Group

KBC Group

La Caixa Group

Mellon

Merrill Lynch Group

Natexis Group

Nordea Group

Old Mutual Group

Prudential Group

Rabobank Group

Sal Oppenheim

SanPaolo Group

Schroder

SEB Group

Société Générale Group

State Street

Swiss Life Group

UBS Group

Unicredit Group

Further Reading

Savings and Investments SPP

Interactive Databases

Reports

Global Wealth Management SPP

Interactive Databases

Market Reports

Strategic Insight Reports

Wealth Management Competitor Tracker

Datamonitor Asia Pacific Wealth Management SPP

SPP writing team

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

Abstract

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

• 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.

About MarketResearch.com
MarketResearch.com is an online aggregator selling over 160,000 market research reports, company profiles and country profiles from over 600 research firms. Our reports will provide you with the critical business and competitive intelligence you need for strategic planning and marketing research. Coverage includes the US, UK, Europe, Asia and global markets.