EDHEC-Risk Concept Industry Analysis Featured Analysis Latest EDHEC-Risk Surveys Research News Research Papers Books Features Interviews Indexes and Benchmarking EDHEC-Risk Efficient Equity Indices Equity Index Research EDHEC-Risk Alternative Indexes EDHEC-Risk IEIF Commercial Property Indices Hedge Fund Indices Literature EDHEC-Risk's Position on the Eligibility of Hedge Fund Indices for UCITS Assessing the Quality of Stock Market Indices EDHEC-Risk European ETF Survey Core-Satellite Investing Amundi ETF "Core-Satellite and ETF Investment" Research Chair Style and Performance Analysis Hedge Fund Performance EuroPerformance/EDHEC-Risk Institute Style Ratings Alpha League Table IPE/EDHEC-Risk Institute Institutional Asset Management Awards (IAMA) Rating the Ratings Performance Measurement for Traditional Investment Asset Allocation and Alternative Diversification EDHEC-Risk European Alternative Diversification Practices Survey Hedge Fund Style Allocation EDHEC-Risk Funds of Hedge Funds Reporting Survey The Amaranth Case The Hedge Fund Debate Core-Satellite Investing Newedge "Advanced Modelling for Alternative Investments" Research Chair Asset Allocation and Derivative Instruments Structured Forms of Investment Strategies Use of Derivatives in Asset Management FBF "Structured Products and Derivatives" Research Chair ALM and Asset Management Solvency II Impact of IFRS & Solvency II on ALM & AM in Insurance Companies Managing Pension Assets Benefits of Hedge Funds in ALM ALM Decisions in Private Banking AXA Investment Managers "Regulation and Institutional Investment" Research Chair BNP Paribas Investment Partners "ALM and Institutional Investment Management" Research Chair ORTEC Finance "Private Asset-Liability Management" Research Chair Deutsche Bank "Asset-Liability Management Techniques for Sovereign Wealth Fund Management" Research Chair UFG "Dynamic Allocation Models and New Forms of Target-Date Funds for Private and Institutional Clients" Research Chair Rothschild & Cie "The Case for Inflation-Linked Bonds: Issuers' and Investors' Perspectives" Research Chair Operational Risks and Performance MiFID TCA in Europe: Current & Best Practices Mitigating Hedge Funds Operational Risks CACEIS "Risk and Regulation in the European Fund Management Industry" Research Chair EDHEC-Risk Publications Reports, Studies, Surveys and Position Papers Academic Publications All EDHEC-Risk Publications Investment Management Review Editorial Policy Subscriptions Events Events organised by EDHEC-Risk Institute CFA Institute/EDHEC-Risk Institute Alternative Asset Allocation Seminar, New York, 30 March-1 April 2010 CFA Institute/EDHEC-Risk Institute Advances in Asset Allocation Seminar, Singapore, 18-20 May 2010 Conférence de la Gestion Institutionnelle Française 2010, Paris, 8-9 juin 2010 CFA Institute/EDHEC-Risk Institute Advances in Asset Allocation Seminar, New York, 13-15 July 2010 EDHEC-Risk Institutional Days 2010, Monaco, 8-9 December, 2010 Events involving EDHEC-Risk Institute's participation EDHEC-Risk Institute Presentation Research Programmes Research Chairs International Advisory Board Partners Team EDHEC-Risk News Press Releases EDHEC-Risk in the Press Careers EDHEC Business School EDHEC-Risk Executive Education EDHEC-Risk Institute PhD in Finance EDHEC-Risk Institute Executive MSc in Risk and Investment Management Investment Management Seminars Contact Us Contact Us
Best Execution and Operational Performance

CACEIS "Risk and Regulation in the European Fund Management Industry" Research Chair

The purpose of the CACEIS "Risk and Regulation in the European Fund Management Industry" research chair is to analyse the major risks faced by the main actors in the European fund management industry due to their practices and the regulations; measure the importance of these risks and their impact on the actors’ solvency and business models; and propose rules and solutions that will enable the risk of the actors in the fund management industry to be limited.

The chair is under the scientific responsbility of Noël Amenc, director of EDHEC-Risk Institute.

[Consult the press release announcing the launch of the research chair (English version): 07/09/09]

[Consult the press release announcing the launch of the research chair (French version): 07/09/09]


Background:

The financial crisis that we have been experiencing for the last two years has had some unprecedented consequences for the fund management industry.

Up until now, financial crises only had negative consequences on the revenues of industry players by affecting the volume of assets managed on behalf of investors, with the latter being alone in bearing the risks of their investment. The most recent crisis has impacted not only the revenues, but also the operating expenses of third-party asset managers.

The fund management firms and their service providers have had to take on some of the costs relating to the risks of the investments that they manage, keep under custody, price or audit. More specifically, this crisis is synonymous with a transfer of a portion of investor risk towards the providers of investment and related services.

This transfer is the result of two phenomena.

The first is related to the reputation risk that has led a significant number of fund management companies, either alone or with the support of their major shareholder, to assume some of the cost of liquidity risk for open-end funds invested in assets that soon became impossible to trade or were traded at valuations that were unacceptable for funds that are sometimes presented as treasury management instruments.

Even though the legislative texts and the regulators were not forcing fund management firms to take on this risk, one is obliged to observe that the desire of the latter to preserve their reputation and protect both the assets managed and the associated revenues led them to take on considerable costs for this risk. This same reputation risk, and sometimes a legal threat calling into question the quality of their work in the area of selecting hedge funds, has also led companies that manage funds of hedge funds to compensate victims of the Madoff fraud.

The second phenomenon is the application of texts and regulations whose consequences for service providers had not been truly taken into account until now. This is notably the case of texts that bring a large number of responsibilities to bear on the custodian, including the obligation to return assets, which was emblematic during the Lehman and Madoff collapses of the risk that it represents for service providers. The custodian’s business model is based more on volume than on margins, and as a result they have to hold a considerable amount of assets to be returned. They consequently face potentially significant risk. This second phenomenon is all the more important in that market regulators have tended to consider that good risk control for third party fund management was based on separation/segregation of the activities and, often, the actors, and on the existence of a solvent actor as a last resort. This solid actor was seen as being the custodian, who is covered by the extensive regulation of bank status, and as such seems more solid than the fund management firms, notably when the latter are not part of a banking or insurance group that is governed by demanding prudential regulations.

In the end, both the domestic European regulators and the European Commission, who wish to avoid increasing the cost of investment management and reducing the amount of competition by requiring significant capital of fund management firms, have continually transferred risk towards service providers who were not directly involved in the act of management which is, paradoxically, the source of the risk. The calendar of European reforms relating to the crisis, and notably the difficulties that third-party fund management has experienced in the areas of asset security, pricing and compliance with regulation, leads one to believe that this shift in the responsibilities of all the actors in the fund management industry is a durable one that will have a significant impact on the profit and loss accounts of not only the fund management firms, but also of all the service providers who are associated with them.

For EDHEC, it is clear that the reasoning that involved saying that the main economic risk facing the fund management industry was the fall in revenues and that led the regulator to require fund management companies to hold an amount of capital that was intended for operating expenses, will give way to the integration of risk based on volumes, the complexity of the assets and operations, and the legal and contractual obligations of each of the participants in the industry’s value chain.


Research Output:

The research output from the CACEIS "Risk and Regulation in the European Fund Management Industry" research chair will be published in this section in due course.


About CACEIS

CACEIS is a banking group dedicated to institutional and corporate clients. Through offices across Europe, North America and Asia, CACEIS delivers a comprehensive set of high quality services covering:

  • Depositary/Trustee-Custody
  • Fund Administration and Transfer Agency
  • Issuer Services
CACEIS is one of the world’s leading asset servicing providers and is the premier player in the European domiciled fund market. In recent years, CACEIS has posted impressive growth figures driven by strong sales and targeted acquisitions in the North American, German and Swiss markets. Our services combine powerful IT systems, an innovative product range and expert staff to assist clients in achieving their international business development goals.

Key Figures:

  • Assets under Custody: €2,120bn / Assets under Administration: €975bn (As at June 30, 2009)
  • Standard & Poor's: AA-/A-1+ (As at June 25, 2009)
  • 3,730 employees
  • 11 countries
For more information visit www.caceis.com.