Category: Custom Reporting


Earlier this year, Advent sent an alert to Axys users about Windows 8 issues and how to deal with them, as an interim solution to problems that Windows 8 users can face.  It is good that Advent is proactively alerting users, but I am not recommending that any of my clients move to Windows 8 just yet. Upgrading your office to Windows 8 is premature, unless you are willing to pay the premium and deal with the frustrations typically associated with being an early adopter of the latest Windows operating system.

iStock_000014515167XSmall

If your firm uses Axys, you may be wondering whether a new release is in the works. Though Advent hasn’t publicly set a release date for the next version yet, I expect they soon will. Based on what Advent has done in the past, users should expect a 3.9 release in the near future. That release will likely support Office 2013, and Adobe Acrobat 11, and may also feature improved Windows 8 compatibility.

Though these types of updates seem minimal, they have more substance than you might think. Axys remains a very functional and cost-efficient option for advisors. Compound reports generated in Axys 3.8.5 using Excel 2010 graphs rival output from APX at a fraction of the cost. If your compound reports look dated, find out what version of Excel you are using. Using the latest version of Excel in conjunction with a version of Axys that supports it can give your reports a newer look and feel.

Axys 4?

I would like to think that Axys 4 is in the works, but a major revision would probably mean a name change – perhaps “Cloud Axys?” Longer-term, expect Axys to undergo a technology transformation if Advent wants to keep the platform alive and decides to commit greater resources to future updates that keep pace with technology trends. While the number of APX, Geneva and Black Diamond users have continued to grow, Axys users still account for a considerable number of Advent’s clients.

Historically, Axys was the lynchpin of Advent Software’s success and center of their hub of solutions for their customers. Replacing the PMS of an investment advisor is more complicated than it seems.  It impacts many of the systems at an advisor’s office, as well as the people you need to support your business, the skills they need, and what third-party solutions are available.

It would be ideal for Advent if Axys customers moved to another Advent product in the future. Those conversions and newer software licensing agreements would generate more income, while eventually allowing Advent to phase out Axys without major renovations.  However, Axys users looking at APX, Black Diamond and Geneva don’t always see a clear path.

In the past two years, Tamarac/Envestnet and other competitors have won over some Axys customers. My firsthand knowledge of a couple of advisors who made the move to Tamarac leads me to believe that Advent didn’t need to lose these customers. Through better communication, negotiation or product positioning, they could have kept the business.  On that note, I spoke with an Axys user last week that requested an APX quote after seeing a demo in Q2 and never got one.

Perception is Reality

sun-tzo5

“Be where your enemy is not.” -Sun Tzu

Current Axys users represent a ground of contention that will not be ignored by Advent’s competitors and should not be ignored by Advent. At stake is the perception of who provides the very best PMS platforms for investment advisors.  Advent may be willing to let some of their Axys clients go quietly, but in doing so they risk losing those relationships long-term, if not permanently, as well as other advisors in their sphere of influence.  Axys users represent a critical mass that could fuel the growth of  Advent’s competition in the near future.  Left unchecked, Advent competitors garnering Axys users now could ultimately vie for current APX, Geneva, and Black Diamond users down the road.

Obviously, Advent cannot be all things to all customers, but they can make a better effort to keep existing Axys clients in the fold.  In order to do so, Advent must improve communications with Axys users, affirm their commitment to Axys, and continue to add technology enhancements to Axys on a regular basis.

About the Author: Kevin Shea is President of InfoSystems Integrated, Inc. (ISI); ISI provides a wide variety of outsourced IT solutions to investment advisors nationwide.

For details, please visit isitc.com, contact Kevin Shea via phone at 617-720-3400 x202 or e-mail at kshea@isitc.com.

black coffee,glasses and newspaper on business fileI have been talking about the evolution of investment reporting for years and telling anyone who would listen that their clients will soon have other investment reporting options.  My dream or vision of the future includes me (of course) providing the interface to facilitate getting data from financial services firms to a secure data warehouse via xPort where their clients could download the data for analysis on an open reporting platform.

As I discussed this with one of my clients at a recent Schwab conference, they shared their concerns with me.   I was told, “It’s basically a problem of apples and oranges.”

My long-time client and friend explained to me that they would have concerns that data they reviewed and corrected (“apples”) might be reported as uncorrected data (“oranges”).

Though data aggregators exist and have much of the data required, they won’t have it all unless advisors participate and cooperate in the process.  Reconciliation needs to be performed and maintained on an ongoing basis with respect to assets under management, inception-to-date performance, and tax cost.  No one is more motivated and qualified to maintain that data integrity than the advisors whose decisions, service, and bottom line are impacted by the quality of that data.

Big Brother will have access to this data too – that’s not part of my plan, but just a given eventuality and perhaps already a reality.  Regulatory powers will employ predictive analytics to proactively search for potential fraud.  For example, an advisor reporting the same exact composite return two years in a row is possible, but highly unlikely and worth investigating.  When more scrutiny is applied to this data, one can only hope that the benefits of additional regulation will outweigh the compliance headaches.

Enter SigFig

SigFigAccording to their web site, SigFig was born out of the noble desire to serve the millions of investors that don’t meet typical portfolio minimums and cannot afford quality investment advice.  Your clients may be using SigFig already.  If you haven’t seen it, SigFig is to investment reporting what Mint is to personal financial reporting.  Unfortunately for investment advisors, SigFig has a similar business model, meaning that investors do not pay for the service, but instead get solicited with offers that appear relevant to their investments; for example, “this fund is outperforming your fund “or “your investment advisor is overcharging you.”

Using SigFig, investors can view a dashboard summary of investment reporting information that looks better than what many investment advisors currently provide to their clients.  However, as one familiar the details of performance calculations, client billing, and reconciliation, I am naturally concerned about possible data quality issues.  The idea of replacing the sound advice of an investment professional with algorithms designed to place ads – even though those ads are intended to be unbiased – seems inherently flawed.

To learn more, you can check out SigFig here:

www.sigfig.com

In my preferred vision, advisors would pay an interface fee and their participating clients would purchase SAAS reporting or a Droid/iOS app.  Idyllic as it might seem, this version of the future would allow investment advisors and their clients to share views of reports created by impartial third-party reporting sources.

SigFig is a step in the right direction, and should serve as warning to investment advisors that more robust investment reporting information will be delivered to their clients whether they participate in the process themselves or allow their clients to find it on their own.

The Best Investment Reports

It makes perfect sense that your firm should want to provide the best reports possible to your clients, without incurring an unreasonable expense or maintaining an unmanageable reporting process.  Unfortunately, what’s best for your firm and what’s best your client may be two different things. You want to validate your investment methodology and highlight the value continued use of your firm offers, but you also need to keep your client’s best interests in mind.  More than one advisor I have worked with in the past has chosen to shy away from slick, eye-popping reports, instead favoring black-and-white reports where simple numbers alone underscore performance.  In the opinion of these advisors, the relationship with a client is more important than fancy reporting and such reports can distract investors.

Call modern reports a prudent best practice or self-serving marketing effort designed to ensure your firm’s survival.  The truth is that they are a little of both.  Clients expect decent reporting, so substandard reports are now passé.  Quarterly report packages like those I have helped clients create for twenty years are also known as presentations, and perhaps that is a better name for them.  It describes what investors are really trying to do at quarter end.

Sample Client Reporting Presentation

Sample Client Reporting Presentation

Every quarter, advisors have an obligation and opportunity to make a presentation of how their clients’ investments are doing.  Most advisors also write a quarterly letter in which they address the near-term market conditions and reasonable expectations for the future while trying to impart some relevant wisdom to their investors.  Advisors are, in fact, presenting and remarketing to their clients on a quarterly basis.  Good presentations typically illustrate an advisor’s general knowledge of the markets, educate clients, and show how the advisor adds value.  The reports included in these presentations also present holdings analyses that provide clients with additional insight into their investments, but, most importantly, these reports provide the client with performance figures and comparative benchmarks for various time periods.

Report Development or Adoption

For some firms, proprietary custom report writing is required to meet the needs outlined above.  With this requirement comes the necessity to employ staff or contract with vendors to produce and maintain the reports.  The effort to produce high-quality reports can be daunting whether the project is handled internally or outsourced.  Many custom reports, by definition, are in flux.  In a typical quarter, custom reports may undergo additional feature enhancements and require maintenance modifications or bug fixes.  In order to maintain custom reporting systems, an ongoing commitment of time and money is necessary.

Advisors may want to create distinct custom reports that are part of their brand, but given the potential complexity and cost of creating those reports – the best investment reports for those with limited funds are the ones that already exist.

About the Author: Kevin Shea is President of InfoSystems Integrated, Inc. (ISI); ISI provides a wide variety of outsourced IT solutions to investment advisors nationwide.

For details, please visit isitc.com, contact Kevin Shea via phone at 617-720-3400 x202 or e-mail at kshea@isitc.com.

iStock_000011903357XSmallAs quarter end approaches once more, investment advisors gather their resolve and strive to implement new system enhancements to client statements before Q2 arrives. We all wish it could be different, but it is simply the nature of the business. Even firms with good-looking statements may rush to enhance them by incorporating new features such as blended indexes or minor report edits prior to quarter end.

Most of the systems implemented at investment advisories are run on a daily basis, but client statements are typically generated on a quarterly basis. Some investment managers produce monthly statements, but they are in the minority. In the near future, these types of periodic statements will become less relevant than an investor’s ability to generate meaningful client statements on demand.

Amending the quarterly reporting process and report packages requires a disciplined process of setting manageable goals, gaining approval, implementing changes, testing systems and resolving potential problems. Those responsible for creating the reports require approval from management, and until they get that final approval, the time necessary to comfortably implement the changes continues to slip away.

“THE ONLY CONSTANT IS CHANGE” -Heraclitus

As quarter end gets closer, it is not unusual for those involved in the project to get mixed messages about what needs to be done for this quarter. Operations staff juggle various responsibilities. Ad hoc requests, changing priorities and management decision delays inevitably create the need to do last-minute work or postpone the project until the next month, quarter, or even year. With these types of delays, it is a wonder that any progress towards creating better client statements is ever made.

At most larger firms, management is comprised of a number of voices that have a say in whether a firm adapts new systems and reports. The decision to change quarterly reports isn’t made in a vacuum. It is a decision that may depend on a firm’s dedication to their current portfolio management system or a need to allocate limited budget resources to other high-priority issues. Good quarterly reports also underscore a firm’s philosophy, so deep thought and considerable discourse can play a part in determining the content and appearance of client statements.

SOME AXYS USERS DO NOTHING WHILE OTHERS THINK ABOUT MAKING A DECISION.

Before you summarily dismiss all Axys users as being hopelessly outdated and technically inept because they haven’t upgraded to APX or moved to another more recently released Portfolio Management System (PMS), you should understand that there are many decent-sized firms out there that are still using Axys to manage hundreds of millions or billions in assets.  Though a small group of firms really do fit the preceding description, most firms do not. The majority are firms that understand the current shortcomings of Axys and the potential benefits of APX, but also value the simplicity, efficiency, and reliability of Axys.  These firms may have considered Advent’s other offerings: Black Diamond and Geneva, but haven’t managed to find a solution that works for their firm.

As a growing number of these Axys users may be questioning their commitment to Advent, it is only natural that they vacillate to some degree between putting more money into their existing platform or changing the platform altogether. I suspect that many of Advent’s Axys clients now fit into two categories: those who are indifferent and those facing decision paralysis.

Those who are indifferent use Axys like a calculator and will continue to do so until it becomes apparent that they cannot use it any more. Those facing decision paralysis will also continue to use Axys – albeit with some reservations – until another vendor steals them away or Advent makes a bold announcement to continue to support these lost souls with renewed vigor.

In the end, a firm’s need to keep pace with client expectations and technology by providing innovative reporting should win out whether that is achieved by spending money on their existing platform or embracing another. For now, like many in the industry, I continue to hurry up and wait for investment advisors and Advent Software to do something.

About the Author: Kevin Shea is President of InfoSystems Integrated, Inc. (ISI); ISI provides a wide variety of outsourced IT solutions to investment advisors nationwide.

For details, please visit isitc.com, contact Kevin Shea via phone at 617-720-3400 x202 or e-mail at kshea@isitc.com.

Account vs InflationReporting a portfolio’s comparative performance against representative benchmarks over various periods of time has been an widely implemented technique of investment advisors for decades.  Firms do this in a variety of different ways, and some methods are more meaningful than others.

Advisors may show the CPI as a baseline index against the portfolio and other indexes in an effort to illustrate how their investments have performed against inflation and hopefully point out the most basic benefit of investing with their firm versus keeping it under the mattress.

If a firm manages equity they may show the the Dow Jones or the S&P 500 indexes.  If they manage international equities, or have a bond component they will likely show other representative indexes.  They may further isolate performance by asset class and show it with the corresponding indexes to facilitate a client’s ability to draw a direct comparison between the performance of like asset classes and underscore the value they add to the investing process of specific asset classes.

PROBLEMS WITH TOTAL PERFORMANCE BLENDS

Firms typically show total performance too, but many run afoul when trying to show a representative index to match total portfolio performance.  Portfolio management systems like Advent Axys and APX have long supported the ability to create blended indexes, but the actual implementation of the feature falls short of real-world requirements.  In the past, many advisors were content to create a blended index with static weights, but firms soon recognized that these ballpark blends weren’t good enough for their requirements because they didn’t accurately reflect the asset mix of their portfolios over time.

Advent Software initially supported the creation of blended indexes in their portfolio management systems (Proport and Axys) through a report that was engineered to create simple index blends.  This method of creating indexes was somewhat limited because index weights couldn’t be changed over time, but it allowed advisors to manage many indexes centrally through the use of scripts and macros, and it also created separate index (DEX) files.  Having separate files allowed clients to track and show a number of blends if they chose to.

Advent improved the feature to some degree by creating the synthetic index, which allows users to change index weights over time on an individual portfolio basis.  The synthetic index feature works best when used to create ad hoc indexes for selected portfolios, but when users try to scale the feature to be used for a large number of portfolios its usefulness tested.  The ability to change the index weights over time is a plus, but updating the info in an automated fashion is not a feature of the system.

AUTOMATED BLENDING SOLUTIONS

In the early 90s, we started working with advisors to create custom blends with dynamic index weights in order to match the ever changing asset mix of portfolios.  This was done by categorizing assets as fundamental asset types, and assigning those asset types to like indexes.  Once the infrastructure was created we created an extract containing the historic month end asset type weights for all portfolios and used those weights along their corresponding index returns over time to create a true blended index.  The process was automated with a combination of Axys reports, macros, scripts and Visual Basic.

Years ago, we  helped firms address the some of the short-comings of the synthetic index feature by creating a product dedicated to creating blended indexes and managing them.  This allowed users to manage the indexes centrally rather than at the portfolio level.

Last year, we revisited the problem of effectively managing custom index blends for Axys and APX users again.  This time we automated the process of refreshing the index weights stored in each portfolio’s corresponding performance file through a process that updates the synthetic weights by stripping the performance files of their synthetic weight values and rewriting them based on each portfolio’s asset mix and correspondingly assigned indexes.  The process builds monthly synthetic index weights for the inception-to-date period.

This most recent update to our index blending automation tool leverages Advent’s synthetic index capability, and adds the much needed automation that users require to implement the existing synthetic index feature in a way that makes more sense.  Unfortunately, there are still limits to the built-in blending functions of Axys and APX.  For example, synthetic indexes create a blend called simply “Blend”, and users trying to show multiple blends need to create those other blends somewhere else and then generate index files, so that they can be shown alongside synthetic blended indexes.

Thankfully, Advent’s import/export functions, scripting and macros allow savvy users to workaround these limitations as long as they are willing to roll up their sleeves and do a little work or know someone who can help.

About the Author: Kevin Shea is President of InfoSystems Integrated, Inc. (ISI); ISI provides a wide variety of outsourced IT solutions to investment advisors nationwide.

For details, please visit isitc.com, contact Kevin Shea via phone at 617-720-3400 x202 or e-mail at kshea@isitc.com.