2017年-FCA英国金融行为监管局_ms15_2_3_annex_3_8页_1mb

Summary of MS15/2.3: Annex 3 - Segregated Mandate Pricing Analysis

Core Content

This report provides an analysis of the pricing trends and relationships between the size of segregated mandates and their management charges, as well as a comparison with retail funds. The data spans from 2006 to 2015 and was sourced from a sample of 27 asset managers.

Key Findings

1. Background and Data Overview

• The interim report identified that the headline AMC for actively managed funds remained stable from 2005-15, while index tracker funds saw a general decline.
• Segregated mandates typically have lower management charges than retail funds, especially when considering discounts.
• Data on segregated mandates was collected from 27 asset managers, focusing on the actual annual average management charge (AMC) rather than headline figures.
• AUM data was provided in GBP for approximately 75% of mandates, with the rest converted using historical exchange rates from the Bank of England.
• Data collection was challenging for some firms due to the difficulty of extracting historical data, leading to a dataset skewed toward more recent years.

2. Price and Size Relationship

• Figure 1 shows that the actual annual average management charge for segregated mandates tends to decrease as the size of the mandate increases.
• This could be due to:
  • Asset managers passing on economies of scale.
  • Institutional investors (who represent segregated mandates) being able to negotiate larger discounts.
• The dataset only includes mandates that were active for the entire 2006-15 period, ensuring consistency in the analysis.

3. Pricing Trends Over Time

• Figure 2 indicates that the actual annual average management charge for mandates remained broadly constant over the 2006-15 period.
• When analyzing all clients (including those not active for the entire period), the average AMC for retail funds was higher than for mandates, and prices were relatively stable from 2011-14, with a slight decline in 2015.
• The analysis notes that price movements may be influenced by asset class mix rather than genuine changes in pricing, but the dataset lacked information on asset classes.

4. Comparison with Retail Funds

• Figure 3 compares the AMC for segregated mandates with that of allocation funds in 2015.
• For a given AUM, segregated mandates were found to be cheaper than retail funds:
  • Actively managed allocation funds: 0.69% of AUM
  • Passive funds: 0.67% of AUM
  • Segregated mandates: 0.23% of AUM
• The profitability data suggests that higher costs in the retail segment do not fully explain the higher prices compared to segregated mandates.
• Figure 5 shows that even after including discounts, segregated mandates remained significantly cheaper than retail funds.
• Only 22% of clean share classes in retail funds received discounts in 2015, with the majority being less than 25bps.

5. Sensitivity Analysis

• Re-analyzing the data with all asset classes (Figure 4) did not change the conclusion that segregated mandates are cheaper than retail funds.
• A further sensitivity analysis using discount data from a direct-to-consumer (D2C) platform confirmed that the price difference between mandates and funds persists even after accounting for discounts.

Conclusion

• The analysis confirms that segregated mandates tend to have lower management charges than retail funds, even when controlling for size and asset class.
• Institutional investors, who typically manage segregated mandates, benefit from more favorable pricing due to their ability to negotiate.
• Retail funds face higher prices, which may be partly due to higher service costs, but the profitability data suggests that this does not fully account for the price difference.
• The report acknowledges the limitations of the dataset, particularly the lack of asset class information and the skew toward recent years, but the findings remain robust.