A Quantitative Approach for Evaluating the Impact of Side-by-Side Management

Case Study

In this case study we explore how traditional transaction cost analysis (TCA) models using alternative benchmarks can accurately identify trades that appear to benefit one account or fund over another. We’ll also demonstrate how Sentry – our post-trade compliance solution – enables global investment management firms to establish a systematic, quantifiable, and repeatable process for evaluating side-by-side management conflicts.

Regulatory Background

Advisers are required to adopt policies and procedures designed to ensure that all funds are treated fairly and equitably over time, regardless of investment strategy, legal or fee structure. This is enforced in The United States under Rule 206(4)-7 of the Advisers Act and in the United Kingdom under Principle 3 and Principle 8 of the FCA’s Principles of Businesses, which require an investment adviser to manage conflicts of interest fairly between itself and its customers, and between customers and other clients.

Results

Using Sentry, the Adviser has conducted account impact analysis for four consecutive years. Their monthly review validates that all accounts are trading on average within 20 basis points of their peer account, regardless of strategy or legal structure. Using data filters, the Adviser is also able to more closely monitor affiliated and proprietary accounts to ensure that no preferential treatment of these accounts exists. Each time trade impacts are identified that contribute substantially to account impact ratios, the Adviser validates that orders were handled in accordance with aggregation and sequencing policies and that no conflicts of interest influenced the execution or allocation decision.

Want to read more?

Fill in the form below to download the full case study.

Latest Content

Don’t Forget the Disclosure Obligation

Recently, the SEC announced the settlement of an enforcement case against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (MSSB) involving charges that MSSB provided misleading information to its clients in connection with trading costs in its retail wrap fee programs. MSSB agreed to pay a $5 million penalty that will be distributed to harmed investors. The case is … Continued

Time to Hit the Form CRS Panic Button?

Don’t panic, CSS’s “Time to Hit the Form CRS Panic Button” ComplianceCast webinar, recorded on May 28 at 2:00 pm EDT will help you meet the deadline quickly and efficiently and answer any last minute questions you have. The Form CRS Automator will create a Form CRS that meets regulatory requirements without having to complete … Continued

CME Group to Wind Down European and Australian Repositories

Following an evaluation made by the CME Group, they have come to the decision to wind down the Abide Financial, NEX Regulatory Reporting businesses and their European and Australian Trade Repositories (TR). As CME/NEX Abide is shutting down their TR business, all CME/NEX Abide clients must now select and perform portability to a new Trade … Continued