Table of Contents
- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- 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
- Sociéte 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
|
Related Report
|
View Cart
