Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Growth in a time of uncertainty asset management 2015 wp for disperal


Published on

McKinsey whitepaper

Published in: Business, Economy & Finance
  • Be the first to comment

Growth in a time of uncertainty asset management 2015 wp for disperal

  1. 1. Financial Services PracticeGrowth in a Time of UncertaintyThe Asset ManagementIndustry in 2015
  2. 2. Growth in a Time of UncertaintyThe Asset ManagementIndustry in 2015Introduction 1Improved Profitability Masks Medium-Term Challenges 4Sustainable Growth Elusive for Most Firms 11The Asset Management Industry in 2015 18Weathering 2012 and Winning by 2015: Five Imperatives 27For Management
  3. 3. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 1 Introduction By late 2010 and early 2011, the U.S. asset management industry had demonstrated its resilience and returned to form in the wake of the financial crisis. Assets under management (AUM) had rebounded to their pre-crisis peaks, overall profit margins were up by 5 percentage points from crisis lows – and back to their long-term average in the high 20s – and the double-digit cost and compensation increases of 2010 were on track to repeat themselves. At the start of 2011, even pessimists seemed to believe that the good old days were making a comeback. Market volatility and the renewed risk of financial earthquakes in the second half of 2011 not only put a damper on this optimism, but also called into question some of the industry’s beliefs about the inevitability of profitable growth. Today, leaders of asset management firms are ex- pressing deep uncertainty about the future direction of markets and turning their focus to the next quarter’s margin rather than thinking strategically about longer-term growth. To gain insight into how asset management firms can generate growth in a time of uncertainty, McKinsey undertook a multifaceted research effort, reviewing the past decade of results from its annual benchmarking of U.S.-based asset managers, conducting a com- prehensive analysis of thousands of metrics from hundreds of asset
  4. 4. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 2 management firms, and interviewing dozens of industry leaders. The major findings from this research include: • While overall profitability has been strong for most firms through the cycle (averaging 28 percent), deeper structural issues remain. Even when assets peaked in early 2011, overall profit levels remained more than 20 percent below pre-crisis levels, due to increased costs, re- duced productivity and lower pricing. • Growth has proven far more elusive than profitability, with only one in five asset managers sustaining above-average growth rates over the past decade. Moreover, the sources of growth were surprising. Invest- ment performance explained only one-third of growth; generalist busi- ness models seemed to underperform; and scale was not much of a factor. Finally, while M&A had a modest impact on growth industry- wide, for the top firms, it was a significant factor. • The market appears to place a higher premium on sustained above- average growth than on top-quartile profitability. However, most asset managers lack the conviction to make significant and contin- ued investments in growth. There is also a broad consensus around the trends that are driving growth, but that consensus has not translated into proportionate business investments. While caution is understandable in times of market volatility, the reluctance to invest in growth was evident even in 2010, which saw double-digit cost increases, but only 2 to 3 percent of those increases directed to- ward growth. • McKinsey developed seven quantitative predictions regarding how the industry might evolve in 2015, from growth in retirement solutions, re- tail alternatives and ETFs, to the pace of international expansion, the need for greater cost discipline, and the role of M&A and winning busi- ness models. While management teams may disagree about the pace and magnitude of these changes, the intent of these forecasts is to stimulate debate and greater conviction around a path forward for asset management firms. • This report also presents a five-part management agenda with critical questions that every asset management executive team should con- sider as they position their firm for the years ahead.
  5. 5. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 3 Over the past decade, management teams that made deliberate and in- formed choices about where and how to compete and invested in and executed on those convictions were much more likely to generate sus- tained growth and profitability. Volatility and uncertainty in the global capital markets, the regulatory landscape and the global economy will likely continue for some time. While asset managers will need to recog- nize and respond to these uncertainties, they will also need to be more deliberate about where and how they pursue growth.
  6. 6. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 4 Improved Profitability Masks Medium-Term Challenges The U.S. asset management industry continues to be the most consistently profitable business in financial services. In 2010, after the massive market swings of the prior two years, the industry’s pre-tax operating margins rebounded by 5 points to 27 percent, just shy of the 10-year average of 28 percent (Exhibit 1, page 5). This margin recovery was supported by double-digit growth in AUM in all long-term asset classes, led by higher fee alternatives and international equities. The return to “normal” levels of profitability, however, masked increasing variability among individual firms’ profitability. The top quartile of asset managers earned an average margin of 46 percent in 2010, approximately 40 percentage points higher than the bottom-quartile of the industry. Im- portantly, this variance in margin was not explained by a firm’s overall scale (Exhibit 2, page 6), but by choices firms have made about their business model, product scale and operating discipline and by their degree of frag- mentation around growth opportunities. And while AUM in the second quarter of 2011 surpassed pre-crisis peaks, overall industry profit pools remained 15 percent lower than pre- crisis highs due to escalating costs and continuing pressure on revenue yields. Moreover, with sharp market declines in the third quarter of 2011 erasing most of the year’s gains in average AUM and revenue, profit pools are likely to fall even further (Exhibit 3, page 6). With the market
  7. 7. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 5 Exhibit 1 The market recovery helped firms improve average operating profit margins to 27% in 2010 Pre-tax profit margin for asset managers in the survey Top third Percent average 51 Overall 49 49 average 48 48 47 46 43 42 40 33 31 31 30 28 27 27 26 25 22 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: 2011 McKinsey/U.S. Institute Asset Management Benchmarking Survey proving unreliable in 2011 and 2012, asset managers will need to tackle the business model issues at the center of rising costs, lower prices and high variability of margins, or risk structurally lower profitability in the years ahead. Costs outpace growth For the past two years, costs in the asset management industry have out- paced revenue growth, reaching new record-high levels by the middle of 2011. In 2010, asset managers’ costs grew by an average of 11 percent, surpassing previous highs reached in 2007 and outpacing annual growth in AUM and revenues. Cost escalation was an industry-wide phenomenon, as a whopping 87 percent of firms upped spending during the year (Exhibit 4, page 7). And until the market volatility of the third quarter of 2011, this pattern continued – with most asset managers increasing their costs by a 10 percent run rate in the first half of 2011. The root causes of higher costs in 2010 were increases in headcount, aver- age compensation and non-compensation-related expenses in all functional
  8. 8. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 6 Exhibit 2 Variance in profitability among firms is not explained by overall scale Pre-tax operating margins versus AUM for U.S. asset managers Profit margin Percent 70 60 Correlation = 0.15 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 0 50 150 300 1,000 AUM $ billion Source: 2011 McKinsey/U.S. Institute Asset Management Benchmarking Survey Exhibit 3 Operating profits improved in 2010 but will likely be flat or fall in 2011 due to market declines and cost growth 100 = 2007 results indexed Average AUM Revenues Expenses Profit 107 100 100 100 101 100 96 94 92 94 96 90 90 90 90 86 78 76 75 55 2007 08 09 10 11F1 2007 08 09 10 11F 2007 08 09 10 11F 2007 08 09 10 11F 1 McKinsey forecasts, based on 3Q 2011 reported results Source: 2011 McKinsey/U.S. Institute Asset Management Benchmarking Survey; Merrill Lynch
  9. 9. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 7 Exhibit 4 Almost all asset managers saw costs increase in 2010, within all functions Percent change, 2009-2010 Percent of cost Change in $ costs Change in costs by function base, 2010 70 13% 87% Investment 12 38 management 60 Sales and marketing 7 19 50 40 Management/ 11 12 administration 30 Technology 9 12 20 10 Operations 8 7 0 Other1 2 12 -10 1 Includes occupancy, legal, non-sales-related T&E, and other general expenses (e.g., insurance, temp, etc.) Source: 2011 McKinsey/U.S. Institute Asset Management Benchmarking Survey areas. Investment management and management/administration costs rose the most (12 percent and 11 percent), fueled primarily by higher compen- sation linked to rising AUM and profit levels. Operations and technology costs increased 8 percent and 9 percent, respectively, driven by higher headcount and compensation costs as well as a jump in non-compensa- tion costs due to higher direct technology expenses and outsourcing costs. Expressed relative to assets, operations and technology costs have risen every year since 2005 – from 3.5 basis points (bps) to 5.1 bps in 2010, seemingly defying theories about economies of scale. Finally, sales and marketing costs rose 7 percent, despite a slower sales environment and firms reining in direct marketing spending. Although costs were higher across the industry, it is important to distin- guish between the motives and performance of individual firms. Those that used the crisis to restructure their models (referred to in our 2010 report as “Decisive Operators” 1 ) performed best by a wide margin. Hav- 1 See “The Asset Management Industry: Now It’s About Picking Your Spots,” McKinsey & Company, September, 2010.
  10. 10. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 8 Exhibit 5 Net revenue yields held steady in institutional in 2010, but improved in retail Retail net revenues/AUM Institutional net revenues/AUM Bps Bps 59 53 54 51 48 47 45 46 45 43 42 41 39 36 35 37 34 35 35 33 2001 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 2010 2001 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 2010 Source: 2011 McKinsey/U.S. Institute Asset Management Benchmarking Survey ing made tough decisions early in the crisis to restructure their operating model (reducing costs by a third from 2007 to 2009 and cutting back on or exiting lower-margin businesses), these firms were in the best position to make selective investments for growth in 2010. Thus, while their costs relative to assets increased slightly by 0.3 bps in 2010, pre-tax operating margins for this group grew to 33 percent. In contrast, the “Depressed and in Denial” firms that failed to act through the crisis belatedly cut costs in 2010 by 0.7 bps (around 3 percent of costs). The market gains in 2010 helped them improve their profit margins in 2010, but this group contin- ued to lag the industry (18 percent operating margin overall) and lacked the resources to invest in growth. Revenue yields hold steady in 2010, but long-term prices continue downward trend Revenue yields (net revenues over AUM) held roughly steady in 2010, but this was due to shifts in mix rather than improved pricing power (Exhibit 5). Viewed over a full business cycle, net revenue yields for the industry have proven to be rather cyclical, but with an overall long-term downward trend
  11. 11. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 9 Exhibit 6 Net revenue yields on many institutional products improved in 2010 but remain below 2006 levels 2006-2009, Net revenues in bps Percent change 2006 2009 2010 2006-10 Higher Hedge funds 213 100 202 -5 alpha strategies FoFs (HF, PE) n/a 81 87 n/a Real estate 102 70 88 -14 International equity 53 49 50 -6 Traditional/ Large-cap 41 40 41 0 core Taxable FI 18 18 21 +12 Money market 12 8 7 -40 Beta-driven Quant active 32 32 31 -3 strategies Pure index 7 5 6 -14 Overall change: -6%1 1 For 2006 mix, not all asset classes listed Source: 2011 McKinsey/U.S. Institute Asset Management Benchmarking Survey due to pricing pressure. Holding mix constant at 2006 levels, net revenues on third-party AUM (i.e., excluding general account assets) have declined by close to 10 percent over the last five years. In retail asset management, net revenue yields continued to improve in 2010 from crisis lows, increasing to 47 bps from 45 bps in 2009, driven by shifts into equities. This is still far below the 59 bps earned early on in the last market cycle and masks declining prices on core asset classes such as large-cap, international equity, money market and index over the past five years. Retail pricing will likely remain under pressure due to increased com- petition from lower-fee ETFs and passive products and greater consolidation on the distribution front. With the top five advisory firms controlling 55 per- cent of U.S. household assets and earning margins that are half those of asset managers, long-anticipated demands for higher revenue-sharing are starting to materialize. Most asset managers are unprepared for this shift in their retail models.
  12. 12. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 10 On the institutional side, net revenue yields remained steady at 35 bps in 2010. While there was a slight shift in the mix of asset towards equity and al- ternative products, prices in core asset classes remained flat overall in 2010. However, over the past five years, institutional prices have declined in all core or traditional asset classes except taxable fixed-income (Exhibit 6, page 9). Holding mix constant at 2006 levels, overall institutional revenues have declined by 6 percent – a trend that is not likely to reverse for core or tradi- tional asset classes. The return to long-term average profitability in 2010 and early 2011 therefore masks some structural issues that asset managers will continue to face, namely increased variability of profit margins, negative operating leverage (even in an upturn) and continued price declines. While average profit mar- gins may not return to pre-crisis levels in the mid-30-percent range and may well decline from the high 20s if these issues are not addressed, they will likely remain healthy relative to those of other financial services businesses. The larger challenge for the industry is growth, especially in a period of in- creased uncertainty.
  13. 13. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 11 Sustainable Growth Elusive For Most Firms While average profit margins have remained resilient through the cycle (varying between the mid-20s and mid-30s), sustained growth has proven more elusive. Few firms have been able to grow consistently over the past decade. Underlying this fact is a shift in the drivers of growth away from market appreciation (which accounted for a third of growth since 2002) and toward net new flows (which accounted for the majority of growth). Furthermore, sustained growth was about more than investment performance (which explained about a third of growth); picking the right spots for growth and focusing resources accordingly was of equal or greater impact for individual firms. Net new flows have been the strongest driver of growth The market rebound in 2010 was reminiscent of the 1990s, when market appreciation delivered the majority of AUM growth. However, over the past cycle (2002-2010), net new flows have been the primary driver. In retail, for example, net new flows accounted for 68 percent of growth, twice the con- tribution of market appreciation (Exhibit 7, page 12). M&A, meanwhile, ac- counted for less than 10 percent of AUM growth during the period. Shareholders also appear to place a high value on net new flows, as evidenced by their strong correlation with manager multiples (Exhibit 8, page 13). Given
  14. 14. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 12 Exhibit 7 Net new flows account for more than two-thirds of growth in retail asset management since 2002 Retail AUM indexed at 100 in 2002 181 15 -18 178 42 38 100 AUM end Net inflow Market AUM end Net inflow Market AUM end of 2002 effect impact of 2007 effect impact of 2010 Source: Strategic Insight; McKinsey analysis the importance of net new flows to growth and the consistency of profit mar- gins, this is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how few asset managers achieve sustainable net new flows over a cycle and how much fac- tors beyond investment performance matter. One in five asset managers sustains above-average growth While almost all asset managers can have good and bad years in terms of net new flows, only about 20 percent have sustained above-average net new flows and growth for a decade. For example, in the period prior to the crisis (2002 to 2007) less than 50 percent of firms were able to sustain growth that was above the five-year weighted CAGR of 14 per- cent. From 2008 to 2010, one third of firms surpassed the weighted av- erage AUM annual growth rate of 2 percent. In all, about 10 firms sustained above-average growth over the decade, and only half of those achieved this growth organically (Exhibit 9, page 14).
  15. 15. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 13 Exhibit 8 Net flows are a key driver of earnings multiples in asset management Price-earning ratio 12-month forward in 2011 Price/earnings 21.0 x Correlation = 0.82 20.0 x 19.0 x 18.0 x 17.0 x 16.0 x 15.0 x 14.0 x 13.0 x 12.0 x 11.0 x 10.0 x 9.0 x 0 2 4 6 8 10 Average 2000-2010 net inflows on beginning-of-year AUM Percent Source: Strategic Insight; company financials; Standard & Poor’s; McKinsey analysis Growth is about more than just investment performance Investment performance clearly matters to overall growth, but explains just over a third (correlation of 0.38) of net new flows over the past decade. While none of the growth leaders had poor investment performance, none had the best either. Rather, firms that delivered superior net flows com- bined solid, sustained investment performance, business model advan- tages (often aided by M&A or strategic shifts) and explicit resourcing decisions about where and how to compete. While individual firms have unique growth stories, certain business models appear to have a growth advantage that is not tied to size. Over the past decade, at-scale global specialist firms, retirement specialists and multi- boutiques outperformed on growth, the latter often aided by M&A. Gener- alist firms (both large and small) and focused niche players delivered below-market levels of growth (but in the case of the latter, above-average
  16. 16. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 14 Exhibit 9 One in five asset managers achieved above-average growth over the past market cycle Growth 2002-2007 versus 2008-2010 in AUM for leading U.S. asset managers1 Firms that CAGR 2008-10 made Percent CAGR = 14% acquisitions of >25% 70 of assets 60 Firms that 50 made divestitures 40 of >25% of assets 30 Firms that 20 made no 10 significant acquisitions 0 or divestitures -10 CAGR = 2% -20 -30 -70 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 36 38 40 66 68 70 CAGR 2002-07 Percent 1 54 firms shown on chart, all within top 100 in both 2002 and 2010 2 CAGR calculated on all assets in Top 300 firms (excluding pension funds) Source: Institutional Investor; McKinsey analysis profits) over the cycle. Finally, independent asset managers have outper- formed bank- and insurance-owned firms on growth, due to M&A and a greater ability to recruit and compensate talent through the crisis. While they do not ensure growth, certain models appear to enhance growth prospects (Exhibit 10, page 15). • At-scale global specialists (firms with AUM greater than $300 billion in 2002 and more than 65 percent of AUM in one asset class such as equities, fixed-income or alternatives) were able to grow before, during and after the crisis, and as a result have captured significant AUM share. These firms outpaced peers through a combination of organic and inorganic growth over the decade. They tend to have the most global focus and have been more profitable than other models. Some firms have brought together specialist firms through M&A to create a new category of global solutions provider (see page 28 for more).
  17. 17. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 15 Exhibit 10 Ability to capture growth opportunities driven by business model Organic growth Inorganic growth CAGR of AUM Percentage Percent point change Percent in AUM share, of firms, 2010 2002-10 2002-07 2008-09 2010 Global 28 12 6 2 +9 specialists1,2 Multi-boutiques 64 -7 24 3 +3 Retirement 17 1 15 2 +1 specialists Focused, 13 -6 12 67 -3 niche players2 Sub-scale 17 -9 12 23 -4 generalists3 At-scale 13 -7 9 3 -6 generalists1 1 Firms that had more than $300 bn in AUM in 2002 2 Specialists and focused players had more than 65% of AUM in a single asset class (equities, fixed-income or alternatives) in 2002 3 Firms that are not specialists, at-scale, retirement or multi-boutiques Source: Institutional Investor Top 300 asset managers; McKinsey analysis • Multi-boutiques (firms owned as a multi-boutique holding structure) sig- nificantly increased their share of AUM over the past decade, fueled in large part by M&A and their ability to grow in emerging products and regions ahead of competition. These firms also continued to deliver su- perior profitability. The challenge for multi-boutiques is to deliver or- ganic growth and manage the increasing complexity of their governance model. • Retirement specialists (firms focused on retirement, including record- keeping platforms), like at-scale specialists, grew during all three peri- ods of the last decade. These firms have clearly benefited from consistency and scale of flows into the DC and IRA market, default tar- get-date options (which benefited proprietary flow) and a steady focus on a client need. • Focused, niche players (firms with AUM less than $300 billion – typi- cally $50 billion or less – and more than 65 percent of AUM in a single
  18. 18. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 16 asset class) have shown less impressive growth than their larger peers, but this is highly variable depending on an individual firm and its prod- ucts. For example, specialists in international equity have boomed over the last five years, while those offering traditional large-cap products have fallen out of favor. Focused niche specialists are also more de- pendent on investment performance than other players, as superior in- vestment performance at the strategy level for a specialist boutique is a clear driver of flows and, ultimately, profitability. • At-scale generalists (firms with AUM greater than $300 billion but not fo- cused on any particular asset class) rebounded in 2010 after underper- forming their size peers earlier in the decade, but still lost 6 points of AUM share over the last full cycle, more than any other model. • Sub-scale generalists (firms with AUM less than $300 billion but no par- ticular asset class focus) recovered somewhat in 2010, but have been one of the slowest growing models, losing 4 percentage points in share of AUM over the last market cycle. Roughly 40 percent of the firms in the Since 2002, independent players industry belong to this group, which has relied almost entirely on organic have significantly outgrown their rather than inorganic growth. competitors through both Finally, since 2002, independent players – organic and inorganic means, regardless of business model – have sig- due to fewer capital constraints nificantly outgrown their competitors through both organic and inorganic and a greater ability to attract means, due to fewer capital constraints and retain talent. and a greater ability to attract and retain talent (they have 35 percent higher average compensation over the past three years). As a result, independents’ share of the top 50 asset managers has grown from 28 percent of AUM in 2002 to 54 percent in 2011. Sustainable growth requires resolve and investment Our report on the industry last year identified five major sources of market growth: retirement solutions; international investing; sovereign wealth; ETFs and passive investments; and alternatives. Over two-thirds of industry lead- ers surveyed agreed that growth through 2015 would be highly concen- trated in these areas. Surprisingly, this certainty was not reflected in firms’ strategic focus. Despite double-digit cost increases in 2010, most asset
  19. 19. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 17 managers’ investments in growth were insufficient to tap the opportunities (e.g., 2 to 3 points of the 12-percentage-point cost increases were slated for growth). Moreover, most firms are still investing proportionately in their cur- rent mix, rather than shifting resources toward growth opportunities. To underscore the necessity for change and stimulate the right set of man- agement discussions, in the next section we paint a picture of what the in- dustry could look like in 2015.
  20. 20. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 18 The Asset Management Industry in 2015 Forecasting in volatile and uncertain markets can be foolhardy given the complex nature of the forces that impact change. But the past decade has shown that management teams that made deliberate and informed choices about where and how to compete and invested behind those choices had a much greater chance of sustained growth and profitability. While senior management teams of asset managers may disagree with the pace and magnitude of the changes we expect for 2015, these projections should provide the basis for debate and ultimately conviction concerning where to invest and how to prepare for alternative scenarios. 1. Retail alternatives go mainstream, accounting for one quarter of retail revenues Historically reserved for institutions and high-net-worth investors, alternatives have experienced strong growth in the retail channel over the past five years and now account for 8 percent of total U.S. retail fund assets. Over the next four to five years, alternative products will go mainstream as retail investors, confronted with volatile markets and the underfunding of their own retire- ments, follow the path blazed by institutional investors. Asset classes are also converging (again mimicking the institutional side), as investors integrate alternatives with traditional asset classes (with products that incorporate
  21. 21. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 19 leverage, hedging or volatility management). This “mainstreaming” of alterna- tives should unlock the next wave of growth for retail asset managers, espe- cially in the face of pricing pressure on traditional products and competition from ETFs. We estimate that by 2015, retail alternatives will account for roughly 13 percent of U.S. retail fund assets and 25 percent of corresponding revenues (due to higher revenue yields) – up from 7 percent of AUM and 14 percent of revenues in 2010 (Exhibit 11). Most asset managers – even those that agree with robust growth projections for alternatives – have not yet made the shifts required to capture these op- portunities. For example, changes in sales process (e.g., focusing on a few advisors who can sell alternatives), incentives (away from gross flows to rev- enues) and sales capabilities (e.g., positioning relative return and alternatives) are just getting underway, opening the field for entrepreneurial firms that can out focus and out execute incumbent players. Exhibit 11 In 2015, retail alternatives will account for 13% of U.S. retail fund assets and 25% of revenues Year-end AUM, long-term Total revenue1, long-term Retail ’40 Act Funds ’40 Act Funds alternatives Percent Percent Solutions 100% = $6.6T $9.4T $13.3T 100% = $53B $70B $106B 4 7 6 ETFs/passive 8 13 14 6 10 3 25 11 7 Active 11 15 5 8 16 6 85 78 73 68 59 60 2005 2010 2015F 2005 2010 2015F 1 Defined as expense ratio times average annual assets. Expense ratio includes management fees, distribution and marketing/12b-1 fees and administrative and group operating fees; excludes commissions Source: Strategic Insight; McKinsey estimates
  22. 22. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 20 2. Retirement solutions deliver $2 billion in new revenues Retirement and retirement-oriented solutions are already a major busi- ness for many asset managers. Target-driven solutions (largely target- date funds) have grown more than eight-fold in the past decade and, at $545 billion, are now one of the largest single asset classes in the indus- try. And retirement businesses (largely DC and IRA) have contributed 40 to 45 percent of net new flows over the past three years. Two things will change fundamentally by 2015: First, the industry will need better solutions to address what happens when investors reach their “target date” (especially if the current low-rate environment per- sists); and second, the industry must orient its sales and marketing to target While virtually every asset IRA rollovers, which at $400 billion of manager has a retirement offering net flows in the next five years will be of some kind, most are not the largest net flow opportunity in asset management. 2 poised to capture the While virtually every asset manager opportunity. Many are solving last has a retirement offering of some kind, decade’s problems. most are not poised to capture the op- portunity. Many are solving last decade’s problems (e.g., open architec- ture target-date funds) rather than developing a suite of target-income, target-return, target-inflation or target-risk solutions geared to those who have passed their target date. Some have developed complex re- tirement investment solutions but have underinvested in marketing them to financial advisors and retail investors (where 70 to 80 percent of the rollover money is flowing). 3. The second act begins for ETFs, with more than $1.6 trillion in new assets up for grabs ETFs have already made their mark on the asset management industry, with assets growing by over 30 percent per year between 2000 and 2010 and now accounting for just under 10 percent of all U.S. mutual fund assets and $1.5 trillion globally. 3 By 2015, we estimate that more 2 See “Capturing IRA Rollovers: The Net New Money Opportunity for Wealth Managers,” McKinsey & Company, July 2011. 3 See “The Second Act Begins for ETFs: A Disruptive Investment Vehicle Vies for Center Stage in Asset Management,” McKinsey & Company, August 2011.
  23. 23. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 21 than $1.6 trillion of new money will enter into ETFs with a global market in excess of $3.1 trillion. Much of this growth will come from passive ETFs and, given the impor- tance of scale and liquidity, will benefit existing ETF leaders. However, con- sidering the multiple advantages ETFs offer investors (e.g., cost, tax-efficiency, lower cash drag, transparency and liquidity), all mutual fund companies need to consider the magnitude of the threat to their existing franchise. Beyond playing defense, there are also several opportunities for growth, including active ETFs (still a nascent category, but one that we project could reach $600 billion in AUM by 2015, especially in fixed-income and money funds), ETF-based solutions and other new forms of ETFs. Most asset managers (other than the existing leaders) have dabbled in ETFs with little success, but we expect to see more leaders by 2015. Exhibit 12 Asset management in emerging markets will set the pace for growth and profitability AUM size United Other developed Emerging Pre-tax profits 2015 in 2015 States markets1 markets2 Basis points 60 50 Latin America 40 Middle East 30 Emerging Asia 20 Western Europe Canada U.S. Africa Eastern Europe 10 Australia Japan 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Forecasted CAGR AUM 2010-2015 Percent 1 Includes Western Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia 2 All other markets (i.e., not U.S. and not other developed markets) Source: McKinsey Global Banking Profit Pool
  24. 24. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 22 4. Emerging markets increase AUM share and surpass the U.S. in overall profits The U.S. and other developed markets’ share of global AUM will continue to shrink as capital markets in emerging economies deepen, savings rates continue to outpace those of developed countries, and U.S. investors in- creasingly look to global products for higher returns and diversification. Mir- roring the changes in underlying economic growth, asset management in most emerging markets is expected to grow significantly faster and enjoy higher profitability than in mature markets (Exhibit 12, page 21). By 2015, emerging markets will increase their share of global AUM and, for the first time, will account for the largest share of global profits (35 percent), surpassing the U.S. (31 percent) and other developed markets (33 percent) (Exhibit 13). Exhibit 13 The U.S. asset management industrys share of global AUM and profits will continue to decrease as emerging markets grow United States Share of global AUM Share of global profit pool Percent Percent Other developed 100 100 Variation 100 100 Variation markets1 Emerging markets2 31 -6 39 -4 37 43 33 -3 36 46 +0 46 +8 35 27 15 +4 11 2009 2015 2009 2015 1 Includes Western Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia 2 All other markets (i.e., not U.S. and not other developed markets) Source: McKinsey Global Banking Profit Pool
  25. 25. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 23 Few asset managers dispute the importance of emerging markets and most will have a presence in the main asset classes (emerging market products) or regions. However, few are investing in proportion to the size of the opportunity (e.g., aiming for more than half of their growth to come from emerging markets over the next five to 10 years) or developing differ- entiated strategies by market (partnerships, joint ventures, acquisitions or organic growth) to distribute or manufacture local products. 5. Retail sales productivity increases through a “sales alpha” approach In 2010, a typical investment firm spent 11 bps and 6 bps on its retail and institutional sales and marketing efforts, respectively, but often had an imperfect sense of the true return on that spending. Many institu- tional sales forces monitor net new revenues but have only an intuitive sense of how much of the increase is tied to product performance ver- sus sales efforts. Most retail sales forces still cling to gross flows as a primary measure despite the metric’s lack of correlation to revenues or profits or to how financial advisors themselves are paid. This intuitive sense of what drives flows might be expected to survive through 2015 were it not for the external pressures on pricing and revenue share and major shifts in where product revenues will be generated. The “sales alpha” approach By 2015, we expect that firms will bring can determine what investment-like discipline to their sales percentage of flows and and marketing efforts. A few years ago, McKinsey developed a series of propri- revenues are truly generated etary tools on the concept of sales by a sales team. alpha, to determine what percentage of flows and revenues are truly generated by a sales team for a given product set with given performance, and given channels and territories. As firms have implemented and refined the sales alpha approach to pri- oritization and performance management, they have found that it has significant implications for how they run their sales force, including compensation, channel and territory coverage, resource allocation, and redemption versus sales priorities. Whether through sales alpha or other approaches, taking a sharper investment lens to sales and re- structuring sales force operations to optimize returns should be a prior- ity for sales leaders (especially in retail).
  26. 26. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 24 6. Winning firms take decisive action to restructure rather than reduce costs in mature businesses Despite increases in assets and scale over the past decade, the produc- tivity of asset managers has at best stagnated and, in categories like op- erations and technology, deteriorated. Specifically, in 2002 the cost to generate a dollar of revenue was 73 cents, a number that remained largely unchanged in 2010. In addition, as highlighted earlier, recent market Cost discipline and investments gains and product shifts have masked underlying issues on cost discipline, cost in growth are complementary, not variability and the profitability of certain competing, priorities for leading lines of business. firms. Asset managers that strive By 2015, we expect that at least twice to be growth leaders in 2015 will as many asset managers will need to be- come Decisive Operators than the 20 need to take a hard look at their percent today that merit the title, partic- maturing lines of business to ularly those firms that took minimal ac- determine where they can tion to restructure during and after the financial crisis. This will be necessary not restructure rather than just just to ensure that costs (especially tech- reduce costs to invest in new nology and operations) are variable with areas of growth. revenues amid market volatility, but also to free up resources from mature businesses to invest in new ones. Cost discipline and investments in growth are complementary, not competing, priorities for the leading firms. Asset managers that strive to be Decisive Operators and growth leaders in 2015 will need to take a hard look at their maturing lines of business (e.g., traditional mutual funds, developed- market footprints) to determine where they can restructure (e.g., cut by 30 percent) rather than just reduce (e.g., cut by 10 percent) costs to invest in new areas of growth. 7. Independents dominate and new winning models emerge, but M&A is muted Over the past five years, independent asset managers have taken signifi- cant share from their bank- and insurance-owned peers and now account for over half of industry assets (up from less than a third in 2002). By 2015 we expect independents to increase their share to two-thirds of industry AUM, due to three structural trends: First, we expect the more troubled
  27. 27. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 25 banks and insurance companies to continue divesting asset management businesses in a bid to raise capital to meet Solvency II and Basel III require- ments (despite the higher ROEs these businesses command). Second, bank compensation regulations and practices will make it increasingly diffi- cult for these firms to compete for talent (as evidenced by existing pay gaps). Finally, the growing differential between bank and insurer valuations and asset manager valuations will make competing for accretive deals ever more difficult for the former. While there will continue to be a role for bank- and insurance-owned asset managers, it will be played by institutions who can create value between asset manage- ment and related businesses (e.g., retire- A new class of global multi- ment solutions, private banking) as asset class solutions provider opposed to those who see asset manage- ment merely as a high ROE portfolio diver- will emerge, either from mergers sification play. of at-scale specialists or from Beyond ownership structure, the winning generalists that successfully growth models we described earlier (at- make the leap. To be among scale specialists, retirement specialists, multi-boutiques and niche firms) will con- this select group, firms will need tinue to thrive, with three important scale, a global orientation and changes: an increasing focus on solutions • A new class of global multi-asset class rather than just products. solutions provider will emerge, either from mergers of at-scale specialists or from generalists that successfully make the leap. While many firms will aspire to this model, fewer than five will make it by 2015. To be among this select group, firms will need scale ($500 billion in AUM), a global orientation (at least 50 percent of assets outside their home market) and an increasing focus on solutions (e.g., more than 33 percent of revenues) rather than just products. • At-scale generalist firms will either make the transition into global multi- asset class solutions providers or risk falling into the ranks of “Stuck in the Middle” generalist firms, with sub-par growth and profitability. To avoid this fate, a firm’s ambitions must be proportional to its investment and execution capabilities; firms that attempt to do too much with too little, rather than make focused, realistic strategic choices, inevitably fal- ter. Generalist firms (large and mid-sized) will have some of the biggest strategic questions to address about their models and focus.
  28. 28. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 26 • Multi-boutique firms have proven resilient in delivering growth and profits over the past decade, but continued success will depend on their ability to grow through small and mid-cap M&A, while managing the organiza- tional complexity inherent in larger global operations. Finally, while there will be opportunities for M&A over the next five years, we expect that the pace will continue to be moderate, accounting for less than 10 percent of industry growth through 2015.
  29. 29. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 27 Weathering 2012 and Winning By 2015: Five Imperatives for Management We have drawn a partial portrait of the U.S. asset management industry as it will look in four to five years. Pulling back to the present, it is clear that the period leading up to 2015 will be decisive for most asset managers. Firms with business model advantages – and those that restructured their operating model during the crisis – will have the wind at their back in their efforts to claim or extend industry-leader status. Their less- advantaged peers must make strategic decisions today about how they will compete. As they prepare for the uncertainties and opportunities the next few years will present, management teams should consider the five imperatives listed below and forcefully debate the related questions. The answers will vary by firm, but making definitive choices will be crucial to success in 2015. 1. Ensure profitability can withstand continued pricing and cost pressure and volatility • What steps should we take in 2012 beyond standard cost reduction (e.g., 10 percent reductions, hiring freezes) to address the industry’s structural profitability issues? How do we prepare for another major market decline? Continued price erosion?
  30. 30. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 28 • Have we improved our true productivity (especially in fast growth areas like ops and IT) and taken steps to ensure annual productivity gains? • Do we capture the benefits of scale or “spend them” on complexity? How can we reduce duplication, complexity and waste (especially outside the in- vestment platform)? 2. Develop conviction about the growth opportunities that will ac- count for a third of new profits by 2015 • Does a point of growth matter more (in terms of our overall multiple or valua- tion) than a point of margin? What are we optimizing to? • What is our view of the growth landscape for 2015? Which of McKinsey’s seven predictions do we agree or disagree with? Why? What are we doing about it? • Which two or three mega-growth areas will drive more than half of our growth (and a third of profits) over the next three to four years, and how will this change the business mix? • How much of our budget (and leadership) is dedicated to growth in general and in particular to the mega-growth areas? Is this number proportionate to the opportunity and our firm’s ambition? • What initiatives will we cut to create financial capacity and leadership band- width to fuel our targeted growth ambitions? 3. Shift investment emphasis toward solutions and outcomes • What outcomes will be most important to our clients in 2015 (e.g., LDI, inflation solutions, target-income solutions, target risk) and where should we be leaders? If we are leaders, how big a business do we think solutions will be in 2015? • How do we transition from a product-driven firm to a client- and solutions-dri- ven firm? For example, is our investment platform organized and incented to deliver client outcomes (e.g., income) or product-focused investment alpha? 4. Bring investment-like discipline to sales and marketing • Does our return on investment from sales and marketing account for rev- enues, asset persistency and true cost to originate sales? How can we im- prove returns, which have been roughly stagnant for the past decade? • How much “sales alpha” does our sales force deliver compared to what it should be delivering? Is our sales force focused on the largest opportunities for “sales alpha”?
  31. 31. Growth in a Time of Uncertainty 29 • How can we tie our sales incentives more closely to our firm’s economics and true sales value-add? By 2015, what portion of retail sales incentives should be tied to gross sales? 5. Make decisions about a winning 2015 business model • Which of the winning growth models for 2015 will we emulate? How do we avoid falling short of becoming a global multi-asset class firm and get- ting stuck in the middle? • For generalist firms, how do we avoid spreading ourselves too thin, playing in too many products, clients segments and geographies but winning in none? • Is our ownership structure optimal? Are we deriving enough value from our financial institution parent (e.g., distribution, protection products)? What are the risks (e.g., compensation) from parent company regulation? *** The surface resilience of the U.S. asset management industry in 2010 masks continuing core challenges in costs, productivity and growth. In fact, a look back over the market cycle to 2002 reveals that few firms, even among the industry leaders, have been able to grow consistently. This research also shows that strategic decisions about where and how to compete are just as important as investment performance when it comes to winning in asset management. These insights are especially important today, as the industry is on the cusp of changes that will lead to a markedly different environment in just a few years. To be among the leaders in 2015, individual firms must make explicit choices on how to take advantage of a narrow set of large growth opportunities and invest decisively behind them. Pooneh Baghai Geraldine Buckingham Kurt MacAlpine Salim Ramji Nancy Szmolyan The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Jeremy Borot, Céline Dufétel, Onur Erzan, Matthieu Grosclaude, Ogden Hammond, Owen Jones, Ju-Hon Kwek and Raksha Pant to this report.
  32. 32. 30About McKinsey & CompanyMcKinsey & Company is a management consulting firm that helps many ofthe world’s leading corporations and organizations address their strategicchallenges, from reorganizing for long-term growth to improving businessperformance and maximizing profitability. For more than 80 years, the firm’sprimary objective has been to serve as an organization’s most trusted exter-nal advisor on critical issues facing senior management. With consultants inmore than 40 countries around the globe, McKinsey advises clients on strate-gic, operational, organizational and technological issues.McKinsey’s Wealth Management, Asset Management & Retirement Practiceserves asset managers, wealth management companies and retirement play-ers globally on issues of strategy, organization, operations and business per-formance. Our partners and consultants in the Americas have deep expertisein all facets of asset management. Our proprietary research spans all institu-tional and retail segments, asset classes (e.g., alternatives) and products(e.g., ETFs, outcome-oriented funds). Our proprietary tools provide deep in-sights into the flows, assets and economics of each of the sub-segments ofthese markets and into the preferences and behaviors of consumers, in-vestors and intermediaries.To learn more about McKinsey & Company’s specialized expertise and capa-bilities related to the asset management industry, or for additional informationabout this report, please contact:Pooneh Baghai Kweilin EllingrudDirector Principal(416) 313-3939 (612) kweilin_ellingrud@mckinsey.comSalim Ramji Onur ErzanDirector Principal(212) 446-7393 (212) onur_erzan@mckinsey.comCéline Dufétel Nancy SzmolyanPrincipal Senior Knowledge Expert(212) 446-8081 (212)
  33. 33. 31Further insightsMcKinsey’s Wealth Management, Asset Management & Retirement Practicepublishes frequently on issues of interest to industry executives. Among ourrecent reports:The Second Act Begins for ETFs: A Disruptive Investment Vehicle Vies forCenter Stage in Asset ManagementAugust 2011Capturing IRA Rollovers: The Net New Money Opportunity for Wealth ManagersJuly 2011The Asset Management Industry: Now It’s About Picking Your SpotsSeptember 2010Winning in the Defined Contribution Market: New Realities Reshape theCompetitive LandscapeSeptember 2010Restoring Americans’ Retirement Security: A Shared ResponsibilityOctober 2009About McKinsey’s annual asset management benchmarking studyThis report is based in part on McKinsey’s 10th annual benchmarking survey ofU.S. asset managers. McKinsey has worked with Institutional Investor’s U.S. In-stitute since 2001 to benchmark the financial performance of the U.S. assetmanagement industry. In 2010, more than 100 firms with over $12 trillion in AUM– representing over 60 percent of the U.S. asset management industry – partici-pated in the benchmarking survey, which encompasses over 2,000 business per-formance metrics. This survey is a core component of McKinsey’s globalbenchmarking of over 300 asset management firms from North America, Europe,Asia, South America and the Middle East, with roughly $23 trillion in AUM(around 60 percent of the global industry).Financial Services PracticeNovember 2011Designed by Hudspith DesignCopyright © McKinsey &