Are larger third party ManCos steering clear of real assets?
Daniela Klasén-Martin, Managing Director, Country Head of Crestbridge Luxembourg speaks on ManCo developments at ALFI Roadshow in London.
Upon first inspection of the new list of AIFMs and the types of asset strategies for which they may provide management services, there is a noticeable trend that the larger Third-Party ManCos such as UBS and RBS have not included Real Estate and Private Equity. This raises the question concerning which factors have driven the various ManCos in selecting their license types.
Few ManCos either applied or were awarded a license for all asset types (PE/RE/HF/INF/FoHF) in their initial application. Reasons for this might include:
- Their existing clients did not have these assets within their alternative funds
- The internal human resource of the firm was not sufficient
- Internal systems and processes including risk management were focused on a specific asset class or complexity of fund.
The larger ManCos have specific challenges concerning the impact of the bundling of their other services and how this has impacted their ManCo strategy. If the bank is also providing custody, risk management and administration, their decision to avoid Real Estate may have been driven by these other fund services as much as the ManCo.
We spoke to Daniela Klasén-Martin the MD and Country Head of Crestbridge Luxembourg, in the context of it being one ManCo that did apply for all asset classes in the initial application. Daniela states,
“Our background as a group was multi-asset and that diversity is reflected within the skillsets of our senior management team, while our experience with UCITS funds was arguably more useful for new funds with liquid strategies. We were also well prepared for PE and RE work and are truly independent thus allowing us to implement and enforce checks and controls on other service providers to the fund.”
At this time Crestbridge has €1.47BN AuM.
'Source: The Point. Nov 2014'