BUY SIDE RISK MANAGEMENT OILING THE SWAPS MACHINERY

Cubillas Ding May 2014

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1

Structural Drivers Continue to Shape the Buy Side Business Agenda ............................... 2

Trend 1: Changing Investor Priorities and Multiasset Class Investing Require Increased Sophistication .................................................................................... 2

Trend 2: Alternative Assets as a Path to Diversification and Resilience ......................... 4

Trend 3: Risk Factor-Based Approaches Continue to Rise ............................................ 5

Trend 4: Regulations Are Creating Uncertainty and Raising Barriers to Entry ............... 5

Trend 5: Imperative to Drive Efficiency, Manage Costs, and Increase Efficacies........... 7

Seeing the Full Picture of Operational Alpha ...................................................................... 8

Oiling the Swaps Machinery ............................................................................................ 8

Evolve Towards a Dynamic, Risk-Aligned Investment Lifecycle ..................................... 8

Raise the Bar Towards a Total Risk Governance Model ............................................ 10

Optimize Collateral Value Chains for Efficiency ............................................................ 11

Sharpen Analytical Capability to Navigate Evolving Swaps Product, Trading, and Capital Economics .................................................................................................. 12

Looking Forward ............................................................................................................... 14

Leveraging Celents Expertise .......................................................................................... 15

Support for Financial Institutions ................................................................................... 15

Support for Vendors ...................................................................................................... 15

Related Celent Research .................................................................................................. 16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The industry has come of age, and it needs to evolve and show the next level of maturity in line with the degree of weight, influence, and risk that it poses to the financial stability within the broader economy as a whole. Regulators are presently starting to perceive investment managers as potentially a source of systemic risk and may therefore demand higher levels of capital from the largest systematically important asset managers. This is not yet reality but regulators may not be sitting on their laurels for long.

In the midst of growing regulator scrutiny and heightened investor expectations, buyside firms will need to develop new capabilities in line with investment strategies that are more diversified, defensive, and risk-transparent. Where relevant, firms will be required to optimize their participation in the embryonic swaps trading and clearing ecosystem to mitigate the potential drag on portfolios.

From an investors standpoint, in line with delivering to sophisticated mandates and implementing clever investment ideas, firms will need to demonstrate sound operational consistency to execute on those ideas. In this sense, in order to achieve financial alpha, buyside firms will need to establish operational alpha. Celent recommends the pursuit of the following levers:

Evolve towards a dynamic, risk-aligned investment lifecycle. The trend towards industrialization of investment risk operations and technology enablement is no longer a nice to have. Investors have become increasingly focused on ensuring managers implement a strategy appropriate infrastructure. There is clear evidence that investors are becoming intolerant of firms and products where there is poor risk transparency, where investment processes are not easily explained, and where sources of performance are not obvious.

Raise the bar towards a total risk governance model. In leading investment firms, there are already concerted efforts driven top-down to achieve a total governance of risk across portfolios and firmwide levels, and across financial and nonfinancial risk. This is based on consistent, aligned, and coordinated activities and information flows between internal front and middle office risk functions and governance/oversight committees, as well as external investor and regulatory stakeholders.

Optimize collateral value chains for efficiency. Firms must pursue collateral management strategies that enable operational efficiency around margining operations and enable collateral efficiency/optimization simultaneously in the front line, with the aim of sourcing, placing, and managing the flow of appropriate collateral across the firm.

Sharpen analytical capability to navigate evolving swaps product, trading, and capital economics. In the near-term to midterm horizon, with new market infrastructures for derivatives such as SEFs and CCPs changing the economics of trading and imposing stringent margining requirements, the imperative to systematically embed decision support measures to enable the front line portfolio managers and traders to navigate strategic portfolio composition and rebalancing decisions, and to incorporate considerations around collateral to decide on the most capital-efficient routes to market for derivatives will be key.

Chapte

r: S

tructu

ral D

rivers

Continu

e to S

hape

the

Buy S

ide B

usin

ess A

gend

a

2

STRUCTURAL DRIVERS CONTINUE TO SHAPE THE BUY SIDE BUSINESS AGENDA

TREND 1: CHANGING INVESTOR PRIORITIES AND MULTIASSET CLASS INVESTING REQUIRE INCREASED SOPHISTICATION Following the fallout from the financial crisis, the continued search for yield in a low interest rate, capital-constrained environment has pushed investors to demand not only a level of capital protection but also predictable risk-aligned returns.

Requirements from different investor segments from defined benefit and defined contribution pension funds, to insurers, high net worth individuals, endowments, sovereign wealth funds, and retail investors continue to diverge in terms of allocating assets and buying behaviors, based on a mix of different priorities, such as capital preservation, absolute return objectives, tailored product/risk characteristics, and risk factor diversification requirements, as well as criteria around liquidity, fees, transparency, and risk governance.

Figure 1: Evolving Investor Priorities and Sophistication Differ Across Client Segments

Source: Principal Global Investors / CREATE-Research Survey 2013, Celent

In order to meet some these requirements for certainty and acceptable returns, asset managers have moved towards broader asset classes, beyond equities and fixed income, to provide higher levels of diversification while employing more sophisticated investment strategies to limit downside risks and enhance returns. These multiasset investment approaches aim to allow investors to achieve a targeted level of returns while spreading the risk across asset classes such as real estate, commodities, hedge funds, emerging markets, private equity, or cash. Here, the idea of investing across asset classes in the face of financial uncertainty is also predicated on an ability to be able to respond to near-term volatility and move investments to better-performing asset classes, avoiding the risk of overexposure to a single asset class.

Investors are demanding more transparency and alignment between performance and risk characteristics of the funds they are investing in. This also means that astute investors are demanding risk-adjusted performance measures with increasing granularity to show managers/funds that beat the market consistently over the longer run.

Chapte

r: S

tructu

ral D

rivers

Con

tinu

e to S

hape

the

Buy S

ide B

usin

ess A

gend

a

3

Figure 2: Evolving Investor Priorities, Structural Market Impact, and Complex Investment Strategies

Source: Celent

There are strong arguments for using both active and passive elements for different parts of the portfolio. For instance, passive funds can be the best way to access large companies on relatively efficient and liquid markets like the US stock market, where it is particularly difficult to add value (i.e., it is hard to get an information advantage on a particular company when there is a high concentration of analysts covering a single stock). On the flip side, the argument runs that active funds add greater value in less established, less liquid, or esoteric markets, such as those in emerging markets or smaller companies. Even with ongoing deliberations around the merits and drawbacks of alpha versus beta approaches, the majority of firms still look to blend both active and passive investing within an overall portfolio. Over the last few years, asset owner relationships with investment managers are becoming more outcome-focused, based on absolute returns management rather than on benchmark investing (like in the past). This reflects the long-term desire of asset owners to design structurally oriented policy allocations around specific objectives, and this will differ from investor to investor. Investor segments with more sophisticated requirements and long-dated risks will demand multiasset composite products and/or balanced funds across equities and fixed income, with a focus on alternatives supplemented by a spectrum of investment and overlay strategies.

Chapte

r: S

tructu

ral D

rivers

Continu

e to S

hape

the

Buy S

ide B

usin

ess A

gend

a

4

TREND 2: ALTERNATIVE ASSETS AS A PATH TO DIVERSIFICATION AND RESILIENCE From a market and business perspective, recent years have seen significant capital poured into the alternatives segment of the market

1, as well as alternatives-like portfolios

that have elements of structured investing, quantitative strategies, or bespoke investment mandates.

As shown in Figure 3, some of the drivers of this rapid rise are the result of a buoyant market environment. There has been an uptrend in both traditional funds and alternatives in general, but we expect the share of alternative assets and strategies to continue to grow faster, from its current 23% levels to hit around 10% in the next five years.

Figure 3: Alternative Assets Are a Focus in the Thrust Towards Diversification

Source: eVestment Alternative Fund Survey 2014, Morningstar, Strategic Insight, Cerulli, Celent analysis

There is also a broader dynamic at play: Institutional investors especially are switching to a polarized strategy. On one end of the spectrum, they are investing in passive vehicles (ETFs/indexed products) for low-cost and beta returns; on the other end, they are investing in less liquid assets and alternatives to generate value-added alpha. In many cases, alternatives have attracted a larger share of new money over the years, as investors look to diversify from mainstream long-only bonds and equity investments.

The key takeaway here is that alternatives are already going mainstream, and could be structurally embedded into asset owner portfolios to become a permanent fixture in terms of allocation of assets.

1We are employing the term alternatives in a loose way, to mean non-conventional portfolios or assets, which

have elements of structured investing, quantitative strategies, and/or bespoke characteristics, including hedge funds and illiquid assets such as real estate, infrastructure, private equity, asset-backed investments, loan funds, and so on.

Chapte

r: S

tructu

ral D

rivers

Continu

e to S

hape

the

Buy S

ide B

usin

ess A

gend

a

5

TREND 3: RISK FACTOR-BASED APPROACHES CONTINUE TO RISE The financial crisis uncovered fundamental weaknesses in conventional business models and exposed a fragile paradigm in the investment management process where strategic asset allocation is based on asset class diversification (rather than true risk diversification). As the financial crisis events unfolded, many investors suffered significantly larger losses than their measures of portfolio risk had told them they should. Many actively managed portfolios failed to deliver the diversified alpha returns that they had promised would partly offset market falls. To varying degrees, traditional asset allocation techniques optimize portfolio exposure based on loose assumptions about the risk, return, and correlation between asset classes (i.e., diversification across assets is sought).

In many instances observed, what looked to be highly diversified portfolios had correlated asset classes with high concentrations of underlying risk factors resulting in the losses observed in investment vehicles which were previously considered safe.

Since the global financial crisis, investors insist on greater clarity and understanding into the underlying risk factors that characterize asset class returns and the correlation between assets. In response, the investment management industry is at an early stage of moving from conventional strategic asset allocation based on asset class approaches to encompassing risk factor-based frameworks.

Risk factor approaches are not new, but they have primarily been employed in equity research. Progressively, emerging applications include the use of risk factors for multiasset investing, enhanced performance transparency for governance and control, and for setting a strategic benchmark.

In particular, pension funds, insurers, and endowment firms2 are expanding their use of

risk factor-based frameworks for strategic portfolio allocation and construction, mandate definition, and portfolio monitoring and control. In essence, this will enable a greater transparency into the drivers of return rather than focusing on asset class (i.e., factor allocation vs. asset allocation). This is especially pertinent in the context of longer-term asset/liability risk management.

The idea of balancing risk factors, essentially diversifying across sources of risk, rather than via asset classes per se, enables asset managers to build (and optimize) a more diversified portfolio that performs more consistently in different environments according to where each risk factor is active and prevalent. Done correctly, it also enables investors to discern between rewarded and unrewarded risks, and therefore make decisions to take on risks for which they can realistically be rewarded according to investment appetite in an optimized manner.

TREND 4: REGULATIONS ARE CREATING UNCERTAINTY AND RAISING BARRIERS TO ENTRY

Beyond changes in markets and investment paradigms, the impact of regulation and structural trends on the financial services sector is creating operational challenges, but also business opportunities for buy side firms. Regulatory themes around derivatives market reforms, liquidity requirements, investor protection, conduct of business standards, transparency reporting, and risk management are already adding to overheads, and therefore requiring firms to develop sustainable operating models.

2 We are already seeing some leading global institutional investors, like CalPERS, CalSTRS, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the Danish pension fund ATP, Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, Norwegian Government Pension Fund, and sovereign wealth funds of New Zealand be the most visible proponents of risk factor-based approaches, although implementation is still in early stages. These are typically based on factors such as real interest rate, realized inflation rate, expected inflation rate, volatility, and growth.

Chapte

r: S

tructu

ral D

rivers

Continu

e to S

hape

the

Buy S

ide B

usin

ess A

gend

a

6

For example, Dodd-Frank and EMIR clearing mandates for OTC derivatives, Basel III and Solvency II capital provisions, and UCITS, AiFMD, and MiFID II will change fee models, increase operating overheads, increase standards for risk management practices, and enlarge collateralization requirements for investment firms and the ecosystem of firms that service the buy side, such as clearing brokers, clearing venues, asset servicing agents, and collateral managers. European post-trade regulations like T2S and CSD will also impact the entire value chain of their custodians and CSDs.

Figure 4: Market Changes Will Alter Derivatives Usage, Trade Dynamics, and Cost of Hedging

Source: Oliver Wyman, Morgan Stanley, Celent Buy Side Clearing and Collateralization Survey 2013

At the ground level, portfolio managers and traders face increased complexity and tradeoffs in implementing derivatives and overlay strategies. Specifically, in the interim, Dodd-Frank, EMIR, MiFID II, and Basel III regulations will alter dealer-client relationships and how markets operate in a few ways.

First, the buy side will require access into more industrialized infrastructure with greater electronification through SEFs and central clearing (not merely for derivatives but also for areas such as cash fixed income trading).

Second, what it also means is that outside the largest investment firms, midtiers and smaller boutiques will face a squeeze in terms of the cost and complexity of accessing new products because of the need to implement collateralization infrastructures, as well as having to open up channels to access liquidity facilities that are required to operate in the new CCP and capital-heavy regimes.

Third, these structural changes will impact trading behavior and in some cases, constrain investment strategies and asset allocation approaches. On this front, in our recent surveys, buy side firms are re-evaluating relationships with dealer banks and the type of products they are employing. Figure 4 (on the right-bottom) shows the directional changes in the various products with interest rate swaps expected to exhibit the biggest drop in trading volume, while swap futures and US Treasuries (and Treasury futures) gain ground.

Chapte

r: S

tructu

ral D

rivers

Continu

e to S

hape

the

Buy S

ide B

usin

ess A

gend

a

7

In essence, every piece of regulation carrying risk and transparency dimensions has already raised the bar in terms of the breadth and granularity of risk reporting not only to internal stakeholders but also to external constituents across the value chain of clients, consultants, and regulators. Firms will no longer be able to neglect the imperative to create efficiencies in how managers make investment decisions, manage risk, and deliver to regulatory commitments. If left unmitigated, these changes could reduce returns and eat into investment performance.

TREND 5: IMPERATIVE TO DRIVE EFFICIENCY, MANAGE COSTS, AND INCREASE EFFICACIES

It remains critical for asset managers to adopt efficient business and operating models in order to generate alpha and, at the same time, be operationally lean to sufficiently counter downward pressures on risk-adjusted returns and management fees. Furthermore, the change in investment approaches and how portfolios are constructed will require upgrades to portfolio construction, risk management, and attribution systems and will require firms to address operational limitations to handle multiple strategies active, passive, quantitative, and blended.

Chapte

r: S

ee

ing t

he F

ull

Pic

ture

of O

pera

tiona

l A

lpha

8

1

SEEING THE FULL PICTURE OF OPERATIONAL ALPHA

OILING THE SWAPS MACHINERY In the coming years, structural changes in client types, investment preferences, and the shift in the industrys derivatives ecosystem will require firms to look at issues from a systemic perspective, rather than in parts or in purely functional terms.

Figure 5 lays out an example of the spectrum of areas which investment firms must contend with in order to be successful. These operational enablers are highlighted in more detail in the following sections.

Figure 5: Achieving Change and Efficiency in the Swaps Processing Ecosystem (Buy Side View)

Source: Celent

EVOLVE TOWARDS A DYNAMIC, RISK-ALIGNED INVESTMENT LIFECYCLE

In most cases, the robustness and operational resiliency of investment and risk operations should be tied to the level of risk associated with trading strategies, risk velocity, liquidity, and other risk characteristics of a firm's investment and derivative overlay strategies.

In recent years, investors have also become increasingly focused on ensuring managers implement a strategy appropriate infrastructure. There is already clear evidence that investors are becoming intolerant of products where there is poor transparency, where risk is not clear, where investment processes are not easily explained, and where sources of performance are not obvious. A robust and scalable operational infrastructure is critical to appeal to quality investors. Not only do teams need to prove their ability to

Chapte

r: S

ee

ing t

he F

ull

Pic

ture

of O

pera

tiona

l A

lpha

9

generate stable alpha for their investors, they must also demonstrate strong operational experience and tested business management skills.

3

From a portfolio and investment risk standpoint, demands from institutional investors will require stronger operational, IT, and data alignment between investment workflows (portfolio management, asset selection), and risk measurement and control. This requires consistency in the investment process, with full participation (or at least a sufficient degree of involvement) of the risk function in core investment decisions in effect, embedding risk management in the investment workflows.

Figure 6: Risk-Aligned Investment Lifecycle

Source: Celent

From an operations and technology standpoint, broad requirements and implications for portfolio and risk management activities include the following:

Centralization of investment book of records (IBOR) to create one version of the truth.

Portfolio and risk systems having the full capabilities around risk factor analysis across multiasset classes within an integrated framework.

Consistent multifactor models deployed across front and middle offices.

Flexible modeling platform, which can also support proprietary and third party model development and governance for portfolio construction and optimization activities.

Fundamental changes to risk budgeting, mandate structuring, and performance measurement away from an overriding focus on asset allocation to include risk factor allocation.

Ability to simulate a variety of scenarios across business as usual macroeconomic scenarios, extreme scenarios, or scenarios around selected risk factors in isolation.

3 From Deutsche Banks 2013 and 2014 Alternatives Survey: The most frequently cited factor for an operational due diligence teams decision to veto an investment (i.e., to disqualify investment in a fund) is due to insufficient operational/technology infrastructure (45%), followed by poor segregation of duties (42%), and insufficient compliance policies and procedures (42%).

Chapte

r: S

ee

ing t

he F

ull

Pic

ture

of O

pera

tiona

l A

lpha

10

2

Attribution of risk between active and beta market risk.

Ability to use and manage cost-effective products to manage exposure to specific risk factors (e.g., alternative beta/smart ETFs that follow FX carry trade strategies, momentum-based asset allocation strategies, or value-based stock-picking techniques).

Enhanced performance attribution framework functionality to incorporate and support risk factor benchmarks (e.g., systems that can track performance of alternative index investments against equivalent market cap-weighted index).

Shift toward more real time security/portfolio analytics and risk budgeting procedures to inform buy/sell decisions.

Recent years have seen high profile fines by regulators on asset and wealth management firms over issues of conduct, controls and operational failures, which are symptomatic of a lack of operational integration

4. What this implies is that the trend

towards industrialization of investment risk operations and technology enablement is no longer a nice to have. Firms without internal resources will need to gain access to industrialized infrastructures and be effective in coordinating services from external service providers.

RAISE THE BAR TOWARDS A TOTAL RISK GOVERNANCE MODEL

There are usually large disparities in the way firms manage firmwide and fund-level portfolio risk. To a large extent, these are driven by the underlying investment style of the firm. Even with the progress in changing investment risk management practices, the majority of investment management organizations still have fragmented views of risk and divergent requirements between various groups throughout the firm especially between the front and middle offices.

5

Recent indications show firms focusing on a number of areas in relation to managing risk appetite and upgrading technical risk measures. Beyond that, however, what we also observe is that more sophisticated firms are taking steps to make changes to ensure consistent investment / risk management considerations, workflows, and advanced risk-adjusted performance measures and forward-looking risk forecasts are delivered across various end user groups, as opposed to technical metrics delivered to each group or by asset class separately.

Specifically, improvement efforts we typically observe in this area include:

Designing organization structures, processes, and investment platforms to ensure that risk appetite limits are effectively observed.

Implementing a full risk framework to incorporate more advanced hard and soft indicators across various risk and performance dimensions (e.g., operational, liquidity, reputation, earnings, etc.).

4 In the UK for instance, over 2013/2014 period, investment firms like Aberdeen Asset Management, AXA

Wealth Services, Invesco Perpetual, JP Morgan, SEI Investments and UBS were significantly fined by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for deficiencies in process and systems controls, inappropriate investment advice to its customers, and inadequate client protection/operational arrangements. As part of their efforts to stamp out what is seen as a reliance on "pen and paper record keeping", the FCA expects asset management firms to invest in technology to meet regulatory standards and it is not afraid to fine them if it thinks their systems are not up to scratch. 5As an example, investment planning committees, boards, and firmwide risk management functions may have

their own view of total portfolio active risk and high-level attribution; individual groups that cover publicly traded securities (equities, fixed income groups, and derivatives), real estate, and direct private investments are focused on views of risk embedded in individual investment deals. Each group traditionally holds their own underlying datasets, employing individual investment frameworks, risk measures and processes, and multiple systems.

Chapte

r: S

ee

ing t

he F

ull

Pic

ture

of O

pera

tiona

l A

lpha

11

3

Employing advanced, more extensive view of risk management practices which better recognizes the impact of marketwide shocks, tail risk, counterparty, and liquidity risks through the expanded use of scenario analysis and stress-testing.

Implementation and active use of factor-based frameworks.

Delivering a single, consistent view across portfolios at desk and firmwide levels.

Strengthening derivatives management practices, especially when instruments are leveraged and display hybrid/nonlinear characteristics.

Figure 7: Total Alignment of Risk across Portfolios and Firmwide Levels

Source: Celent

In leading investment firms, there are already concerted efforts driven top-down to achieve a total governance of risk across portfolios and firmwide levels, and across financial and nonfinancial risk.

OPTIMIZE COLLATERAL VALUE CHAINS FOR EFFICIENCY

Firms must pursue collateral management strategies that enable operational efficiency around margining operations and enable collateral efficiency/optimization simultaneously in the front line, with the aim of sourcing, placing and managing the flow of appropriate collateral across the firm.

From an infrastructure and operational standpoint, we see the following best practices occurring:

Unified view of collateral. Collateral management platforms adopted by firms should have the capability to consolidate, yet at the same time, enable users/stakeholders to collaborate, manage, and administer collateral assets de-centrally.

Chapte

r: S

ee

ing t

he F

ull

Pic

ture

of O

pera

tion

al A

lpha

12

4

Figure 8: Optimizing collateral value chains for efficiency

Source: Celent

Shared and consistent collateral workflows. With the broader aim of achieving common workflows, collateral management applications should (as much as possible) shield end users from divergences in CCP and broker-specific workflows. Rather than utilize multiple systems with different user interfaces, firms could look to standardize on a common platform (e.g., across various product collateralization activities, across listed, cleared OTC, and bilateral derivatives markets).

Efficient access to liquidity and collateral transformation facilities. For buyside firms that face challenges in sourcing for the right collateral, especially around initial margins (IM), some cite the need to build or to engage in securities financing activities more actively in order to access eligible collateral in a timely manner, or to quickly substitute specific securities wherever they may be located, for example through the repo market and/or securities lending mechanisms.

SHARPEN ANALYTICAL CAPABILITY TO NAVIGATE EVOLVING SWAPS PRODUCT, TRADING, AND CAPITAL ECONOMICS

In the near-term to midterm horizon, with new market infrastructures for derivatives such as SEFs and CCPs changing the economics of trading and imposing stringent margining requirements, it will become imperative for firms to systematically embed decision support measures to enable the front line portfolio managers and traders to navigate strategic portfolio composition and rebalancing decisions considerations around liquidity, funding, collateral, and regulatory constraints in order to decide on the most capital-efficient routes to market for derivatives.

Chapte

r: S

ee

ing t

he F

ull

Pic

ture

of O

pera

tiona

l A

lpha

13

Figure 9: Sharpen Analytical Capabilities to Navigate Product, Trading, and Capital Economics

Source: Celent analysis

The impact on end user behavior and usage of derivatives, as well as trading, risk, and operational workflows will be considerable. For instance, in Celent's study of the buy side, around 55% of institutional investors we surveyed said they thought the reforms would materially change their trading behavior and asset allocation activities. This is understandably driven by the changing economics of trading from added layers of infrastructure and capital costs, which in turn impact the types of swaps and other derivative instruments that firms would employ.

On the whole, while changes are being felt, the full force of the impact is not fully clear especially specific implications on buy side trading economics and longer-term hedging costs. However, in our conversations with the buy side, forward-looking firms are planning to upgrade front office analytical capabilities to be able to achieve, for example:

Live aggregation of swap quotes to facilitate effective pre-trade decisions.

Margin replication and calculations of IM on various types of swaps.

Transparency into trading cost models between SEF/cleared and bilateral swaps (to facilitate comparisons breakdown of price components, different collateral T&Cs, etc.).

In the interim, a mixed clearing environment will mean that firms have to navigate complexities associated with both cleared and noncleared portfolios simultaneously. For firms with heavy derivatives usage, it will become imperative to embed decision support measures to consider liquidity, funding, collateral and regulatory constraints.

Chapte

r: L

ookin

g F

orw

ard

14

LOOKING FORWARD

The asset management industry, in many ways, could become a victim of its own success: The industry has come of age, and it needs to evolve and show the next level of maturity in line with the degree of weight, influence, and risk that it poses to the financial stability within the broader economy as a whole. In a sense, the old tenet holds: For everyone to whom much is given, from them much will be required.

Regulators are starting to perceive investment managers as potentially a source of systemic risk and may therefore demand higher levels of capital from the largest, systematically important asset managers. This is not yet reality, but regulators may not be sitting on their laurels for long before they begin to act with more vigor.

In the near term, however, Celent expects structural market changes to result in a degree of fragmentation and create multiple routes in buy side firms implementing derivatives strategies. Investment firms will need to drive a higher level of integration and automation in the investment processes, and employ the right combination of pricing, capital, and risk analytics in the front office to triangulate and optimize the full economics of a deal. From an investors perspective, in order to deliver to sophisticated investment objectives and implement clever investment ideas, winners and losers will be separated by those that demonstrate sound operational infrastructure to execute on those ideas. In this sense, in order to achieve financial alpha, buy side firms will need to establish operational alpha.

Conversely, firms that are unprepared to manage these effects will not only negatively impact their ability to manage risk and erode portfolio returns in the longer run, but the industry could collectively invite further regulatory scrutiny in the same manner the banking industry has experienced. This is perhaps a sober warning to behold, with ever higher stakes: start managing your own risk responsibly before more is imposed on you.

Was this report useful to you? Please send any comments, questions, or suggestions for upcoming research topics to info@celent.com.

Chapte

r: L

evera

gin

g C

ele

nts E

xpert

ise

15

LEVERAGING CELENTS EXPERTISE

If you found this report valuable, you might consider engaging with Celent for custom analysis and research. Our collective experience and the knowledge we gained while working on this report can help you streamline the creation, refinement, or execution of your strategies.

SUPPORT FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS Typical projects we support related to capital markets, finance and risk include:

Vendor short listing and selection. We perform discovery specific to you and your business to better understand your unique needs. We then create and administer a custom RFI to selected vendors to assist you in making rapid and accurate vendor choices.

Business practice evaluations. We spend time evaluating your business processes. Based on our knowledge of the market, we identify potential process or technology constraints and provide clear insights that will help you implement industry best practices.

IT and business strategy creation. We collect perspectives from your executive team, your front line business and IT staff, and your customers. We then analyze your current position, institutional capabilities, and technology against your goals. If necessary, we help you reformulate your technology and business plans to address short-term and long-term needs.

SUPPORT FOR VENDORS We provide services that help you refine your product and service offerings. Examples include:

Product and service strategy evaluation. We help you assess your market position in terms of functionality, technology, and services. Our strategy workshops will help you target the right customers and map your offerings to their needs.

Market messaging and collateral review. Based on our extensive experience with your potential clients, we assess your marketing and sales materialsincluding your website and any collateral.

Chapte

r: R

ela

ted C

ele

nt R

esearc

h

16

RELATED CELENT RESEARCH

Less Stressful Stress-Testing: Challenges, Best Practices, and Innovation April 2014

Portfolio Analytics and Risk Management Solutions for the Buy Side: Storm-Proofing for Growth and Resilience March 2014

Risk Management Outlook 2014: Trends, Tensions, and Transformations in the Value Chain February 2014

Buy Side Portfolio and Risk Management: Keeping a Sharp Eye on Risk, Returns, and Perfect Storms November 2013

Strategic Innovations in Risk Management (Part 3): Sniffing Out the Trail to Game Changers October 2013

Strategic Innovations in Risk Management (Part 2): Architectural Strategies for Growth September 2013

Strategic Innovations in Risk Management (Part 1): Compliance 1, Innovation 0 August 2013

The Age of Trade Lifecycle Optimization in Securities Trading: Moving from Theory to Practice August 2013

The Risk Data Agenda: A New Priority July 2013

Liquidity Management: Balancing Regulation with Business June 2013

Maximizing Collateral Advantage: A Survey of Buy Side Business and Operational Strategies May 2013

Defining Your Risk Appetite: The Importance of Taking a Quantitative and Qualitative Approach March 2013

Derivatives Pricing and Risk Analytics: Industrializing Derivatives Markets February 2013

A Money and Information Business: The State of the Financial Services Industry 2013 January 2013

Copyright Notice

Prepared by

Celent, a division of Oliver Wyman, Inc.

Copyright 2014 Celent, a division of Oliver Wyman, Inc. All rights reserved. This report may not be reproduced, copied or redistributed, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, without the written permission of Celent, a division of Oliver Wyman (Celent) and Celent accepts no liability whatsoever for the actions of third parties in this respect. Celent is the sole copyright owner of this report, and any use of this report by any third party is strictly prohibited without a license expressly granted by Celent. This report is not intended for general circulation, nor is it to be used, reproduced, copied, quoted or distributed by third parties for any purpose other than those that may be set forth herein without the prior written permission of Celent. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, or any opinions expressed herein, shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations, news media, sales media, mail, direct transmittal, or any other public means of communications, without the prior written consent of Celent. Any violation of Celents rights in this report will be enforced to the fullest extent of the law, including the pursuit of monetary damages and injunctive relief in the event of any breach of the foregoing restrictions.

This report is not a substitute for tailored professional advice on how a specific financial institution should execute its strategy. This report is not investment advice and should not be relied on for such advice or as a substitute for consultation with professional accountants, tax, legal or financial advisers. Celent has made every effort to use reliable, up-to-date and comprehensive information and analysis, but all information is provided without warranty of any kind, express or implied. Information furnished by others, upon which all or portions of this report are based, is believed to be reliable but has not been verified, and no warranty is given as to the accuracy of such information. Public information and industry and statistical data, are from sources we deem to be reliable; however, we make no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information and have accepted the information without further verification.

Celent disclaims any responsibility to update the information or conclusions in this report. Celent accepts no liability for any loss arising from any action taken or refrained from as a result of information contained in this report or any reports or sources of information referred to herein, or for any consequential, special or similar damages even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

There are no third party beneficiaries with respect to this report, and we accept no liability to any third party. The opinions expressed herein are valid only for the purpose stated herein and as of the date of this report.

No responsibility is taken for changes in market conditions or laws or regulations and no obligation is assumed to revise this report to reflect changes, events or conditions, which occur subsequent to the date hereof.

For more information please contact info@celent.com or:

Cubillas Ding cding@celent.com

NORTH AMERICA EUROPE ASIA

USA

200 Clarendon Street, 12th Floor Boston, MA 02116

Tel.: +1.617.262.3120 Fax: +1.617.262.3121

France

28, avenue Victor Hugo 75783 Paris Cedex 16

Tel.: +33.1.73.04.46.19 Fax: +33.1.45.02.30.01

Japan

The Imperial Hotel Tower, 13th Floor 1-1-1 Uchisaiwai-cho Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011

Tel: +81.3.3500.3023 Fax: +81.3.3500.3059

USA

1166 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036

Tel.: +1.212.541.8100 Fax: +1.212.541.8957

Germany

Marstallstrasse 11 80539 Munich

Tel: +49.89.242.68.581 Fax: +49 89.939.495.21

China

Beijing Kerry Centre South Tower, 15th Floor 1 Guanghua Road Chaoyang, Beijing 100022

Tel: +86.10.8520.0350 Fax: +86.10.8520.0349

USA

Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel.: +1.415.743.7900 Fax: +1.415.743.7950

United Kingdom

55 Baker Street London W1U 8EW

Tel.: +44.20.7333.8333 Fax: +44.20.7333.8334