Category: Axys


For me, scheduling a lab of my choice at an Advent Conference has been an elusive goal.  I have gone to a number of Advent conferences since 1993, five years after I started using Advent products.  Though I have been interested in attending one, I had never managed to go to a lab at an Advent conference.

I signed up for the conference the week before, and immediately started reviewing the sessions and labs I might attend. There were a wide variety of general sessions that I was interested in, so I wasn’t terribly disappointed – or surprised – to see that the labs I wanted to go to were full.

Determined that I would finally attend a lab – any lab – this year, I settled on one that I didn’t exactly have high hopes for.  The name sounded dull.  Other labs went by the name of “Taking Command of Axys/APX Macros” or “Building Custom SSRS Reports”, and my lab was “Pathways to Proficiency: Security-Level Performance in APX.”  The lab was hosted by Advent’s Trent Berry, whose enduring eloquence could no doubt make a blow-by-blow description of paint drying interesting. 

With twenty plus years of experience using, implementing, integrating, enhancing, and consulting on Advent products, I was probably not a typical lab attendee, but I was determined to learn what there is to learn in a lab session. 

I was impressed by Advent’s level of preparation, which included four classrooms with 48 PCs each and two more classrooms with 24 PCs each.  Every one of the systems was running Windows Server 2008 Standard and VMWare with 8GB RAM to host an insulated, fully functional copy of Advent’s primary applications.  Advent provided booklets for all of the labs that detailed the lessons, and appeared to have at least three Advent employees in attendance at each lab: one to speak, one to navigate the primary lab PC, and another to assist those in the lab with any individual issues they ran into.

You never know until you try. 

I also learned that attending a lab really isn’t that difficult after all. Though the hallways near thelab rooms were packed on Monday and Tuesday, it was very quiet when I headed for my 7:45am lab Wednesday.  Because of this, that morning I could go to any lab I wanted to.  Many extra PCs were available in each of the labs I attended.  In addition, there were a couple rows of chairs in the back where you could sit and watch without following the exercises on the PCs provided.  With that encouraging experience, I hopped into “Report Writer Pro in Axys and APX II: Building Upon a Foundation”, “Taking Command of Axys/APX Macros”, and “Building Custom SSRS Reports”, but what I really wanted to learn was what can they possibly teach users in an hour?

What can you learn in an hour?

The labs are so short that substantial learning is severely limited.  They are focused on empowering users by acquainting them with conceptual building blocks, but users will likely need to take the next steps on their own.  In my opinion, any attendant who applies him – or herself during the lab should gain a surface understanding of the fundamentals involved.

This type of basic training is a necessary starting point for many novice users, but intermediate and advanced users can see greater benefits from attending interactive sessions with panelists that share specific detailed experiences.  After sitting in on a few labs, I wished the names of the labs had been preceded by the phrase “Intro to.”

I saw more value in the “Building Custom SSRS Reports” lab, because using Visual Studio to build custom SSRS reports for APX is a non-intuitive process for most.  The labs on automation via macros/scripts and use of Report Writer Pro seemed less useful, because these are relatively intuitive processes that also happen to have sufficient documentation from Advent detailing how they work.

In the end, I walked away with a better understanding of Advent’s labs – they simply and effectively introduce concepts to users as they apply them firsthand.  Those interested in attending these labs should register for the conference as early as possible and show up even if the lab appears to be full.

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 or contact Kevin Shea via phone at 617-720-3400 x202 or e-mail at kshea@isitc.com.

If you saw $500 on the ground, would you pick it up?

In late 2008, most investment firms were focused on getting lean and surviving a heretofore unprecedented economic downturn. Because we specialize in working with these firms, we wanted to use our core expertise to help create efficiencies and save them money. We ran an ad in the Advent User Group (AUG) newsletter offering two free hours of consulting. It wasn’t a completely altruistic idea; we figured we would gain some long-term clients for the effort.

The ad was run, and I honestly thought we’d get some calls. Surely there were investment firms that would want FREE consulting, right?  We typically receive calls from investment professionals across the nation inquiring about our products and services, but not one person called to inquire about the two hours of free consulting.

It is possible that users were so busy that they weren’t reading the newsletter.  Perhaps the ad, which was kind of ugly, didn’t inspire firms to call us.  In all likelihood, this ad failed to generate interest because of its target market: investment advisors and their trusted professionals.

I have worked with these folks for over twenty years and understand who they are, so perhaps I should have known better. The typical investment advisor is a conservative skeptic who believes you get what you pay for. In their view, our offer of free consulting must have appeared hollow or even insincere. Investment firms are stereotypically risk-averse regarding their back office operations. For these reasons, many investment advisors are victims of a negative feedback loop. 

Software companies are able to continually increase fees without making dramatic technology improvements because, by and large, investment advisors are resistant to change and afraid to try anything else. This inertia obstructs new firms from competing with the established firms since the market share they need to capture is engaged in agreements that investment advisors may not think entirely reasonable, but acceptable for now.

Advent Software, for example, consistently raises the cost of Axys support and focuses on compatibility and bug fixes without implementing large-scale feature additions to further merit such sustained cost increases. Advent could change this with a little effort, but historically it hasn’t been part of their agenda. Nevertheless, I still believe that Axys is the most cost-efficient and feature-rich portfolio management system available to investment advisors today.

Axys users need to remember that the name of the company is Advent Software, not Axys Software. They are a for-profit business, and that is a good thing for their customers in the long-term. From my limited knowledge and perspective, it does seem like a grossly disproportionate amount of Advent’s research and development efforts go into things that are not related to Axys. For an Axys user paying annual maintenance fees which hypothetically go to support, research and development of their product, this is problematic – especially if they rarely call Advent for support.

Advent has invested significant resources in APX, an enterprise product offering which is a possible upgrade for Axys users. In reality, APX currently doesn’t make sense for the vast majority of non-enterprise Axys users. In May, Advent finalized a deal to buy Black Diamond for $73M. Three months later, just how or whether Black Diamond will be integrated into Advent’s other product offerings remains to be seen.

Advent is not alone. Earlier this year I had a call from a prospective customer that was frustrated by Satuit’s pricing plan. After paying roughly $2K per year to use Packman to package their reports and host statements on their portal, they were told that pricing would increase 300% over the next three years. If I made that announcement, I know what would happen to my clients.

To be fair to Satuit, they gave their client a year’s notice of the increase – enough time for them to find and implement a suitable alternative. We have experience selling competing products, and we feel that Satuit’s product, originally from Lync Consulting, had been underpriced at $2K per year.  Unfortunately, their client got used to paying $2K a year and didn’t feel like they could stomach more than $6K per year, even though the cost was scheduled to increase gradually.  Regardless, my advice to this prospective client was to stick with Satuit for now, because the cost of switching from their solution to our solution would outweigh any benefit in terms of cost over three years.

Rational product pricing takes competition, expectations, value, ongoing support and profitability into account, but don’t expect to make any sense of pricing in the industry where “greed is good.” Investment advisors that really want to change the status quo should follow Gandhi’s advice: “Be the change you want to see in the world.” In order to make it happen, they need to be willing to take on a certain level of risk. If the last twenty years is any indication of what we can expect, don’t hold your breath on this one.

Most investment advisors will continue to get what they pay for in the foreseeable future.

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 or contact Kevin Shea via phone at 617-720-3400 x202 or e-mail atkshea@isitc.com.

In this article, we will take a look at the Axys versions in use today.  Later this month, I will summarize Advent’s other portfolio management products and offer some insight into their value and target market.  Advent offers at least three different portfolio management software products; however, the vast majority of Advent’s portfolio management clients still use Axys.  With Advent’s recent release of Axys version 3.8.5 in mind, it’s time once again to revisit the version of Axys in use at your firm and evaluate the benefits of upgrading to the latest version.

In our day-to-day work with Advent’s Axys clients, we frequently see versions 3.5.1 – 3.8 in use at sites.  Advent historically supports current and previous releases of each of their products, and will likely make an announcement this fall regarding the sunset of Axys 3.5.1 and 3.6.  Though some sources indicate support for these products ended December 31, 2010, Advent’s website does not confirm this.

Below is a summary of the various Axys versions we see in use, as well as our recommendations regarding these releases:

 

Axys v3.5.1 (released June 2004) and Axys v3.6 (released August 2005)

If you are still using either of these versions today, you may have reviewed the list of updates in later versions and failed to find sufficient reason to switch.  Maybe you simply haven’t made the time to upgrade.  Perhaps you are worried about the potential headaches of upgrading, or about compatibility with reporting enhancements.  No matter how your system has been customized, moving to Axys v3.7 shouldn’t be that big a deal, so don’t put it off any longer.

 

Axys v3.7 (released November 2008)

Axys users should be using v3.7 at a minimum.  Axys v3.7 adds compatibility for Acrobat 8, Office 2007 and Vista.  Nearly all versions of Axys, including v3.7, contain a significant number of report updates that are important to many Axys users.  Report updates made after an Axys release are individually downloadable from the Advent Connection website.  A large number of reports were updated after the 3.7 release.  Firms that choose not to upgrade to v3.8 or higher at this time should download these reports.

 

Axys v3.8 (released January 2010)

For many users, the benefits of Axys v3.8 versus Axys v3.7 are relatively small.  Axys version 3.8 is a compatibility update that primarily addresses the Options Symbology Initiative (OSI).  Axys 3.8 also includes support for Acrobat 9 and Internet Explorer 8.

Axys v3.8 is the first release in years that actually requires data conversion, but in our experience, the process of converting is simple, fast and problem-free.  Unfortunately, changing the underlying data format can affect automation and data integration with other products.  If your firm makes use of custom enhancements to Axys or third-party products, you will want to test these items after upgrading and update as necessary.  For firms without these concerns, upgrading should be seamless.  Similarly to v3.7, a considerable number of reports were updated after the release of v3.8.  Firms that decide not to upgrade to v3.8.5 should download the updated reports from the Advent Connection.

 

Axys v3.8.5 (released July – August 2011)

Axys v3.8.5 provides long-awaited support for the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 r2.  It also offers support for Microsoft Office 2010 and Adobe Acrobat 10.  Advent’s Axys v3.8.5 installation package includes all the catalog reports and standard reports that were updated after v3.8 was released.  Though many have already started using Axys on the latest operating systems, we have strongly discouraged users from doing this prior to the compatibility release.  We do our best to support those users that have upgraded their operating systems without waiting for compatibility releases, but believe that waiting for the appropriate Advent software release is a best practice.

Once again, firms with almost no customization or third-party programs are unlikely to experience issues as a result of upgrading to v3.8.5, but firms with custom enhancements and third-party programs that make program calls to Axys should be realistic, anticipate some initial difficulties, and allocate resources to test and refit integration if necessary.  At this point, many of our clients will likely hold off on this upgrade until November 2011 or later.  Please note that, according to Advent, no releases of Qube and OpenGL are compatible with Axys 3.8.5.

The most compelling reason to upgrade your version of Axys is to be sure that you have the most current reports and error-free systems available from Advent.  Sooner or later you will want or need to upgrade to Axys 3.8 or Axys 3.8.5, but you may want to put it off until a need for OSI or system infrastructure at your firm demands it.  Axys v3.7 is still widely used by Advent Software clients.  Most firms should plan on moving to Axys 3.8 or later by the end of 2011.

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 or contact Kevin Shea via phone at 617-720-3400 x202 or e-mail at kshea@isitc.com.

Yesterday, I fielded a call from one of our clients that generates reports for several thousand accounts using our reporting engine.  As part of their reporting process, they extract data from Axys and import it into a database that facilitates data quality reviews and enhanced PDF reporting via Crystal Reports.

My primary contact at the site phoned me to let me know that part of our process, which took 20 minutes last quarter, was still running after two hours.  We immediately established a remote session to review the issue.   In the past, we have experienced some issues with individual PCs processing at slower speeds due to poor network infrastructure, but more recently this firm invested in better network hardware to support their rapidly growing business.

We play a limited role for this client and focus on their quarterly reporting and billing systems.  Though we are IT experts, it is not our responsibility to oversee and manage their IT infrastructure; however, at quarter end, a processing issue where systems are operating at a fraction of their normal speed rapidly becomes our problem.

I am very familiar with the bottlenecks that can slow Axys performance.   The most critical of these is network speed.  100MB Ethernet (full-duplex) is an older standard, and we still find it in limited use at many offices.  Gigabit Ethernet (full-duplex) is the current standard that should be in use by nearly all investment firms.  Theoretically, gigabit is ten times faster, but you won’t see that in practice.  You actually get six to seven times the performance of 100MB Ethernet with gigabit Ethernet over decent cabling.

Our system is normally connected to the file server that hosts Axys via gigabit network connections.  A quick check of the system revealed that it was connected to a gigabit switch.  We reviewed a few other things to make sure that there wasn’t a performance issue specific to our system.  Everything we looked at pointed to a problem with their environment.  I was fairly certain that, somewhere between our system and the file server hosting Axys, we were not connected at gigabit speed.  We still needed to identify where the breakdown was occurring.

My technical contact at the firm first assured me that all of the systems were connected to gigabit switches, and nothing had changed since last quarter.  We discussed the wiring of the network in detail and I was eventually able to find out that they had added a new Dell switch in the server room, but assured again that it was a gigabit switch.  I asked them to double-check the switch and let me know the model.

Though most of our own experiences purchasing equipment from Dell are good, Dell isn’t perfect.  Perhaps the Dell sales rep didn’t know one gigabit switch from another.  Our client thought they had purchased a managed gigabit switch where all ports were gigabit.  They had, in fact, bought and installed a 100MB managed switch with two gigabit uplink ports.   Further discussion revealed that the gigabit uplink ports were not being used either.

For those not familiar with network nomenclature, the primary switch to which all of your other switches, routers and servers are connected is considered your network backbone.  It is a best practice to implement a backbone that has throughput greater than or equal to that of the devices connected to it. 

When two network devices auto-negotiate to communicate with each other the maximum speed is usually the highest speed commonly supported by both devices.  Other environment specific issues, such as the quality of cabling between two devices, can further degrade the speed at which two network devices communicate.

In this particular case, our client had unknowingly installed a switch that was forcing all of their servers with gigabit Ethernet to communicate with the rest of the network using 100MB Ethernet instead of gigabit.  Users that were not connected directly to the backbone had a gigabit connection though another switch, and assumed that everything was fine.

The short-term fix for this client was to connect their file server hosting Axys to one gigabit uplink switch and use the other uplink to connect to their larger gigabit switches.  They also called Dell and had them send the right switch overnight, which they installed today.

Having an up-to-date network diagram is a best practice.  If you don’t have one, have your technical staff or IT provider create and maintain a network diagram documenting your systems, so you can proactively manage problems with network performance and reliability.

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 or contact Kevin Shea via phone at 617-720-3400 x202 or e-mail at kshea@isitc.com.