The TRADE 61 - Q3 2019 | Page 19

[ N E W S to access prospective clients.” Overall, the FCA stated that the introduction of research unbun- dling in the UK had “steered the market towards the intended outcomes” but recognised that research pricing and valuation was still evolving. “Firms are continuing to develop their arrangements and a market for separately priced research is still emerging. Therefore, we intend to undertake further work in 12 to 24 months’ time,” the FCA concluded. research budgets on the buy- side have shrunk since MiFID II came into force. The FCA’s survey found that research budgets had decreased between 20-30% for external research acquisition, with buy-side firms now paying less for research as a result of a tighter, more accurate focus on what they require, using acquired research in a more efficient manner and increased competition from pro- viders. The FCA also surveyed a number of independent research providers (IRPs), that had been tipped to prosper under the new regime as bulge-bracket banks and brokers would be forced to re-evaluate their pervious “waterfall” research provision strategies. IRPs told the FCA that they have concerns over the competitive na- ture of the research market, high- lighting low levels of pricing on the sell-side for research as “large multi-service banks are internally cross-subsidising their research” and “over-cautious approaches to the inducement rules by the buy- side and limited take up of trial periods have reduced their ability Cultural change While the changes to research unbundling are only formally regulated in Europe under MiFID II, a recent report from consul- tancy TABB Group found that the US asset management community is increasingly taking a similar approach, despite US regulators making no formal ruling on the matter as yet. In its latest research as part of a broader study titled “US Institu- tional Equity Trading 2019 Unbun- dling: How Charging for Content Is Reshaping Asset Management”, TABB highlighted the trend and how buy-side firms are turning to unbundling for cost savings and transparency. TABB Group interviewed 92 head traders at US-based institutional buy-side firms and found that only 33% of large firms are still bundling research and execution payments. In comparison, 45% of mid-sized and 67% of smaller funds have retained a bundled approach, and 43% of those interviewed stated that research unbundling has had a positive impact on their business. “While we don’t believe that the ability to acquire investment research will be an existential threat to the fund management business,” said report co-author R E V I E W ] and founder of TABB Group, Larry Tabb, “unbundling will dramatical- ly change how investment research is procured, funded and serviced as it reshapes the character and capabilities of not only the US asset management industry, but its bro- kers and service providers as well.” Under the MiFID II regime implemented across the Europe- an capital markets at the start of last year, payments for execution and research from third-parties must be separated, or unbundled, although no such ruling has been formally implemented in other global regions. Despite this, US asset managers have been increasingly adopting the European model over the last 18 months, with 90% of those on the buy-side that were inter- viewed saying that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should extend its no-action letter on paying for research with hard dollars, or enable “more leeway in paying hard dollars to brokers for their research”. Those surveyed by TABB Group also highlighted benefits such as greater clarity around research requirements and the ability for traders to focus on best execution instead of allocating trades to research brokers based on their ideas. Larger asset managers are also seeking to implement a more globally-consistent approach when it comes to paying for research. “While unbundling helps larger funds, not all have embraced it,” commented report co-author, Campbell Peters, equities research analyst at TABB Group. “Mid- and smaller-size firms with fewer AuM and less substantial commission wallets now have to pick their pro- viders, negotiate a value for their chosen research provider and hope they have a large enough budget to fund their investment strategies.” Issue 61 // TheTradeNews.com // 19