HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014320.jpg
1.21 MB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Financial conference presentation slide / report page, with a bates stamp indicating it is evidence in a government investigation.
File Size:
1.21 MB
Summary
This document is a slide from a Bank of America Merrill Lynch presentation at the '2016 Future of Financials Conference' dated November 17, 2016. It presents survey data on investor expectations for 2017 M&A activity and opinions on new pricing models in the asset management sector. Although bearing a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting its inclusion in an investigation's evidence file, the document's content is purely financial analysis and contains no explicit mention of Jeffrey Epstein or any related individuals or activities.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| investors | Survey Respondents |
A group of unnamed investors were surveyed by BofA Merrill Lynch Global Research about their outlook on asset managem...
|
| respondents | Survey Respondents |
Unnamed individuals who responded to a survey about asset management pricing. 67% thought changing the pricing struct...
|
| active managers | Financial Professionals |
Mentioned in the context of their underperformance and the scrutiny around their fees, which is driving discussions a...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bank of America Merrill Lynch |
The organization that hosted the conference and produced the research report, as indicated by the logo and source att...
|
|
| BofA Merrill Lynch Global Research |
The specific division within Bank of America Merrill Lynch that conducted the research and created the charts.
|
|
| HOUSE_OVERSIGHT |
The Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014320' indicates this document was produced as evidence for a U.S. House of Represe...
|
Timeline (1 events)
2016-11-17
The '2016 Future of Financials Conference' was held, where this information was likely presented.
Not specified
Key Quotes (2)
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,672 characters)
that the number of deals in the asset management sector will increase modestly in 2017 vs 2016 (56%), 32% see M&A picking up significantly, and 12% see flat activity in 2017. Nobody sees lower M&A activity in 2017 vs 2016.
Chart 8: How will 2017 asset management M&A activity (# of deals) be versus 2016?
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
56%
32%
12%
0%
0%
32%
12%
0%
0%
Increase modestly
Increase significantly
Be stagnant
Decrease modestly
Decrease significantly
Increase significantly
Be stagnant
Decrease modestly
Decrease significantly
Source: BofA Merrill Lynch Global Research
Pricing/fee structure in retail seems to have more of a following
Given some underperformance of active managers, some scrutiny around fees, as well as fee pressure from passive, we asked investors if they thought a change in active pricing could make sense, i.e. charge a lower base fee with a variable performance fee that would be earned when alpha is generated. We found a majority of respondents thought it would make sense to change the pricing structure and it could make active more competitive vs passive (67%). The rest of respondents felt it didn't make sense either because it would be too challenging for the active industry or it would not slow the flows into passive.
Given some underperformance of active managers, some scrutiny around fees, as well as fee pressure from passive, we asked investors if they thought a change in active pricing could make sense, i.e. charge a lower base fee with a variable performance fee that would be earned when alpha is generated. We found a majority of respondents thought it would make sense to change the pricing structure and it could make active more competitive vs passive (67%). The rest of respondents felt it didn't make sense either because it would be too challenging for the active industry or it would not slow the flows into passive.
Chart 9: Do you think a change in industry active pricing (lower base + perf fee) could make sense?
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
67%
25%
8%
25%
8%
Yes, it could make the product more competitive vs. passive products
No, it would be too challenging for the active industry
No, it would not change the flow trend toward passive products
No, it would be too challenging for the active industry
No, it would not change the flow trend toward passive products
Source: BofA Merrill Lynch Global Research
6
2016 Future of Financials Conference | 17 November 2016
Bank of America
Merrill Lynch
Merrill Lynch
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014320
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document