TAKING THE REINS

Both models led to the identification of a number of areas in which asset managers were meeting investors’ expectations and a number of others in which they were falling short. From our analysis, we identified four KPIs in which asset managers were meeting investors’ expectations: • Operational strength; • Expertise; • Quality of advice; and • Independent verifications of controls and procedures.

Whereas our analysis revealed that investors ranked their levels of satisfaction for the following KPIs as below expectations: • Performance; • Fees;

• Risk Transparency; and • Quality of Reporting.

In the two following sections, we will assess each of the above as to why asset managers are, or are not, meeting ex- pectation and what must be done to maintain or increase the satisfaction of institutional investors.

Figure 8

Satisfaction and Importance Mapping

Above expectations

Satisfaction and importance mapping (figure 8) Within this analysis, we mapped the identified KPIs across importance and satisfaction level as institutional investors were asked to evaluate both according to the same rating scale (0-9). The shaded area indicates the level of institutional investors’ expectations (i.e. where the level of satisfaction is commensurate with the level of importance for a given criterion).

Independent veri cation

Expertise

Quality of advice

Risk transparency

Operational strength

Quality of reporting

Performance

Fees

Satisfaction

Meet expectations

Below expectations

Importance

Source: PwC-CACEIS survey 2012

21