MiFID survey: One third of alternative investment managers yet to decide on how to pay for research
Published: 21 June 2017
Six months ahead of the MiFID II (Markets in Financial Instruments Directive) implementation deadline, alternative asset managers still face uncertainty, with 34% of firms undecided for example on how to pay for research, according to a survey by the Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA).
Fund managers globally cited as their biggest MiFID challenges uncertainty around what the MiFID II rules mean – both their scope and substance - as well as what they perceived to be a lack of clarity relating to the cost and nature of services provided by brokers.
The AIMA survey showed that, among the two-thirds of alternative asset managers that have made decisions around how to pay for research, 80% plan to charge investors and the remaining 20% intend to absorb the costs themselves.
With MiFID II rules requiring firms to decide how they will report trades to the regulator and the market, the survey found that 75% of firms plan to self-report to their regulator. Meanwhile, 50% intend to delegate some of the responsibility to one or more brokers. The findings indicate that some investment management groups will not necessarily limit themselves to a single reporting mechanism.
When publishing details of executed trades to the market - which helps set market prices - 33% of alternative asset managers plan to self-report, while the remainder plan to have brokers report their trades.
Additionally, half of alternative asset managers with offices outside the EU said they intend to apply MiFID II best execution policies globally. This figure jumps to 90% for alternative asset management firms that delegate portfolio management from the EU to a third country.
AIMA’s CEO Jack Inglis said: “Complying with MiFID II is a significant undertaking and understandably many members are needing to rely on the broker community to provide solutions. This survey shows not only that a substantial amount of uncertainty remains but also that the industry is working hard to meet the January 2018 deadline. Alternative asset managers face further increases in compliance costs and we will be working hard with members and regulators to ensure concerns are addressed, and avoid any fallout in six months’ time.”
Notes to Editors
- The full survey is available to AIMA members. More than 50 alternative asset managers were surveyed.
- In February 2017, AIMA published a MiFID Guide for Investment Managers for members. An executive summary is here.
For media enquiries, please contact:
Kaveri Niththyananthan, AIMA
T: +44 (0)20 7822 8380
Dominic Tonner, AIMA
T: +44 20 7822 8380
AIMA, the Alternative Investment Management Association, is the global representative of the alternative investment industry, with more than 1,800 corporate members in over 50 countries. AIMA’s fund manager members collectively manage more than $1.8 trillion in assets. AIMA draws upon the expertise and diversity of its membership to provide leadership in industry initiatives such as advocacy, policy and regulatory engagement, educational programmes and sound practice guides. AIMA works to raise media and public awareness of the value of the industry. AIMA set up the Alternative Credit Council (ACC) to help firms focused in the private credit and direct lending space. The ACC currently represents over 80 members that manage $300 billion of private credit assets globally. AIMA is committed to developing skills and education standards and is a co-founder of the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst designation (CAIA) – the first and only specialised educational standard for alternative investment specialists. AIMA is governed by its Council (Board of Directors). For further information, please visit AIMA’s website, www.aima.org.