In association with
Sarah Ackland Head of UK Funds, Architas
Where and how to add additional investment expertise within the business is always such a hot topic for advisers. But what is not in dispute is that the number of advisers using a centralised investment proposition with some kind of outsourced investment option is on the rise. This includes a mix of in-house and external model portfolios, bespoke discretionary managers, as well as multi-manager or multi-asset and risk rated funds. There is certainly no right or wrong approach for advisers but the regulator is increasingly focused on the process advisers use to ensure the investment outcome is suitable, and remains suitable, for the client. Within this guide, you will find some surprising survey results from FE, a selection of adviser opinions and some Architas views too. There are many reasons why as an adviser you might consider outsourcing part of your investment proposition, not least the increased burden of regulation and the focus on suitability for the client. We hope this guide will provide you with some food for thought on this burning issue.
How greater regulatory scrutiny has embedded the use of centralised investment propositions
retirement challenge
Next >>
Spotlight on adviser
outsourcing
According to research by data and software provider FE, many advisers do not employ sophisticated risk-mapping tools. Can clients' risk profiles be met without these tools?
Risk targeting needs to improve
<< Previous
ore than half (54%) of advisers have not adapted their investment processes over the course of the last two years, despite continued regulatory scrutiny, research from FE has found. Nine in 10 (91%) advisers told the data provider they now used an ‘attitude to risk’ questionnaire at the outset of discussions with clients about their risk appetite – up from three-quarters (76%) in the 2016 study. Just a quarter (25%), however, used a third-party risk-mapping tool designed to ensure the risk in portfolios matches the ‘attitude to risk’ assessment. FE suggested this might be because half of advisers (50%) believed third-party risk-mapping tools had limitations, describing them as ‘simplistic’ and ‘too generic’. Of those using risk-mapping tools, around half (52%) had not reviewed the underlying mapping methodology, despite suggestions from regulatory experts this is best practice. Former Financial Conduct Authority technical specialist Rory Percival published a paper in September in which he emphasised the importance of risk-mapping. Interviews with advisers, carried out by FE, also showed they were often manually mapping ‘attitude to risk’ questionnaire scores to investment solutions. Many advisers said they matched on asset allocation alone. FE head of research Rob Gleeson said too few advisers were being inquisitive enough when it came to the components that make up their investment proposition.
“Those choosing not to use third-party risk-mapping tools need to make sure they have the competence to lift the bonnet on their investment risk tools and ensure they seamlessly match up,” he continued. “Where advisers are using third-party risk-mapping tools, many are assuming both the risk profile outputs of ‘attitude to risk’ questionnaires and of portfolios speak the same language – and all they then need to do is simply connect the two together.”
Blending and Bundling The research also found the practice of blending together multi-asset funds, multi-manager funds or pre-constructed model portfolios, under the assumption this reduces risk, was not only widespread but on the rise. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of advisers were either blending or combining their clients’ assets in a single portfolio across more than one model portfolio or multi-asset fund. This was slightly up on the 71% of respondents doing so in 2017 and compared with 64% in 2016. The desire to increase diversification was given as the primary reason (59%) for doing so. “It is concerning the proportion of advisers taking this approach is growing given the potential for incurring increased charges for clients as well as the possibility of complex and unexpected risk patterns emerging,” said Gleeson. FE’s interviews with advisers found many were also bundling clients together. Many suggested they merged couples into a single risk-profiling assessment, or merged risk appetites for different savings goals, when different approaches for different buckets of assets might be more suitable. While the regulator had not been explicitly prescriptive as to how to deal with different risk profiles within couples, FE pointed out experts said the safest way to proceed was to assess both parties individually.
M
Too few advisers [are] being inquisitive enough when it comes to the components that make up their investment proposition
Looking at these survey results from FE highlights that providing advisers with a range of funds that target risk, using risk profiles, and providing relevant tools could all help an adviser who is planning to outsource. I think that this is important. One of the most significant pieces of regulation in the marketplace has been the FCA assessing suitability paper; where the adviser needs to establish the risk that a customer is willing and able to take, and then making a suitable investment selection, and ensuring that the investment remains appropriate to the client need. At Architas we believe that we are ready to meet the challenges faced by today's adviser, and their clients, through our range of multi-asset, multi-manager risk-profiled funds. Our core range of active, passive and blended risk-profiled funds have been built with the aim of delivering risk-adjusted returns while simultaneously remaining within a particular risk profile. The funds are regularly monitored and rebalanced to ensure they remain within their risk bands – so the adviser can reassure their clients that their level of risk will continue to be within their comfort zone, without needing to monitor each underlying fund. We also provide a monthly statement to help them meet due diligence requirements, confirming the funds have stayed within their client’s risk profile. We like to work closely with advisers so we can understand their needs and support them in their challenges and providing tools to assist the adviser in that conversation is critical. Ultimately this means that the client, the adviser and the product manufacturer or fund manager in our case, are all on the same page.
RISK TARGETING AND THE FUTURE
James Bampton, Head of Intermediary Distribution, Architas
Past performance is not a guide to future performance. The value of investments and any income provided by them can go down as well as up and is not guaranteed. Clients may get back less than they invest as a result. Architas Multi-Manager Limited (AMML) in the UK works with strategic partners and AXA Group internal fund managers, to find out more information about this please visit architas.com/inhousestratpartners/ AMML is a company limited by shares and authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (Firm Reference Number 477328). It is registered in England: No. 06458717. Registered Office: 5 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1AD.
Architas’ Frank Potaczek and James Bamptonexplain why financial advisers have increasingly been outsourcing to discretionary fund managers since the arrival of the Retail Distribution Review (RDR)
Why are advisers outsourcing?
The next step for outsourced providers is to support the adviser in their client engagement
New regulation has been one of the drivers of investment outsourcing and today’s adviser needs to work out where the real value is for them and their business
W
Are there any ‘negatives’ associated with the outsourcing process? James Bampton: Advisers recognise the need to maintain due diligence on their outsourced partner. Simply picking your provider and then forgetting about it is not sufficient from a regulatory point of view. From a regulatory perspective the onus remains on the adviser to ensure that whomever they select – whether a DFM or a multi-manager or even their own in house proposition – the provider is appropriate for their client’s needs. It's not a question of coming back in five years’ time to review the process; it really has to be considered on an annual basis. Frank Potaczek: If an adviser outsources to a discretionary manager, then there may be a fear of losing the client to the discretionary manager because more and more DFMs have got advisers in their business. So that may be a concern. I think if you look at the value assessment that the regulator is bringing in in 18 months’ time, it's a very welcome addition because a multi-manager can actually say ‘this is what we provide’, and ‘this is how much we charge’ and ‘this is what you get’. How can outsourcing help the client? Frank Potaczek: If an adviser outsources to, say, a multi-manager, they do not directly take on any risk on behalf of their client. The investment partner can take care of that by creating suitable risk models for the client’s portfolio. And by outsourcing the risk modelling process, the adviser can let the multi-manager worry about fulfilling the volatility boundaries and the multi-manager can then report back to the adviser. I also think clients tend to think in terms of ‘money lost’ so obviously when it comes to assessing suitability, you have to account for the volatility of the asset going up and down. Is it a bumpy journey or a smooth journey over time? We, for example, produce a document that details how our funds are mapped to the various popular risk profiling methodologies that advisers may use. This is how we enhance our offering: by speaking the language of advisers and their clients when it comes to these risk profiling methodologies.
hat is driving the uptake of outsourced investment solutions? Frank Potaczek: I think the market has fundamentally changed in the advice space. If we look at how things were done in the last century, you used to get fund groups saying “buy this fund, it's great for your ISA”. But I think as we've become more sophisticated, we've moved away from saying “what's the best fund to buy for this ISA season” to instead asking: “what outcome does the client actually want?” What this has meant for the asset manager is they have had to become more sophisticated to produce these client outcomes. By using a multi-asset strategy, for example, fund groups added sophistication to their offering and therefore advisers have to spend more time doing their due diligence, which is what RDR and MiFiD II asked them to do. James Bampton: Yes, the new regulation has been one of the drivers of investment outsourcing and today’s adviser needs to work out where the real value is for them and their business. Is it in providing the investment piece in-house with the associated hours spent on fund selection, or are they better off focusing their time on financial advice and engaging with their clients? How would a multi-asset manager get the most out of an adviser-client relationship? Frank Potaczek: The adviser needs to trust the products they're using so that relationship has become more important. For those investors wanting to use us as an outsourcer, we can give them the time, commitment and access to our fund managers that they probably wouldn't get if they were building their own portfolios. This allows them to spend more face-to-face time with their clients. As a multi-manager we have the ability to explain a lot of complicated investment strategies to the adviser, who can then relay this to their client using day-to-day language, thereby enhancing the value proposition to their clients.
According to insights and research provider Platforum, the share of advisers’ client assets managed by DFMs is estimated to have grown by a third between 2013 and 2015. In July 2015, 24% of adviser assets were managed by an external party. By April 2017 this figure has grown to 27%, with 19% in third-party model portfolios and the remainder in bespoke mandates.
OUTSOURCING GROWTH TO CONTINUE, SAYS PLATFORUM
James Bampton: I think the other way that we can help is by assisting the adviser in their due diligence of our firm. It comes back to making sure that they are able to confirm both to the client and to the regulator that their investment selection is appropriate. From Architas’ point of view that is about staying within the ‘risk bands’ that we and the client have decided are suitable for them, along with the adviser. We have something called a ‘volatility proof statement’ which means we can prove each month whether we are in or out of those risk bands. It helps reassure both the adviser and their client.
Frank Potaczek, Head of UK Proposition, Architas
James Bampton, Head of UK Intermediary Distribution, Architas
Frank Potaczek: Another benefit of outsourcing is that the client is not tied to one particular style if they partner with a multi-manager. Different advisers have different philosophies in terms of investment management. We allow advisers to be flexible in their approach. If they want to go active, we have a range of active funds. If they prefer passive: ‘here's a range of passive funds’. But more importantly, we can deliver the best of both worlds and give people a blended version between active and passive. What next for outsourcing? James Bampton: The next step for outsourced providers is to support the adviser in their client engagement. We are investing in some online tools that will enable advisers to engage with their clients regarding their attitude to risk and to look at the suitability of those investments for those clients. The tools will help the adviser work with the client to set the level of risk they are willing to take. And also communicate to the client how a particular portfolio is invested and how it’s performing, on an ongoing basis – not just in terms of capital but also in terms of the level of risk that it's taken.lended version between active and passive.
Over half of advisers (52%) say ‘associated costs’ are one of their biggest concerns if they outsource their investment management, according to a Twitter poll of Professional Adviser followers. This is no surprise, says Kerry Nelson, Managing Director of independent financial advisers, Nexus. Nelson believes advisers should put costs “high on the list” of things to consider before outsourcing. She says: “Costs should be a driving force in the adviser’s decision to outsource; because it is all well and good outsourcing, but if there is an implication that drives the cost up, that negates the value it provides to the client, as an end result of their returns, then you are doing your client a disservice, because if the fees are too high, then there will be an impact upon that total return.” Nelson believes that advisers should reach a compromise between trying to secure the most competitive deal on the “outsourced investment side of things.” Advisers should not only be looking at what the investment charges are on an ongoing basis, but they need to look at their own charges.”
ASSOCIATED COSTS ‘MAIN CONCERN’ FOR ADVISERS WHEN OUTSOURCING
Nelson says: “The suitability and track record of the investment manager is very much the adviser’s responsibility. Not only picking them at the start, but their responsibility with the ongoing appropriateness of that manager. However, it is such a competitive environment it is easy to see how well one is performing against another.” Nelson offers a piece of general advice: “People need to ask more questions when they are engaging in a relationship with an outsourced investment manager in relation to their terms of engagement, who owns the client and setting up a review on an ongoing basis.” She doesn’t believe that ‘red tape’ – the fourth concern expressed by advisers (13%) in the Twitter poll was a big issue.
Improving client outcomes
Source: (1) 30 June 2018, (2) ONS 30 May 2018, (3) ONSQ1 2018, (4) 30 May 2018 OECD
3.8%
global growth rate 2018 forecast(4)
1.2%
UK annual economic growth rate(3)
2.5%
UK consumer price inflation rate(2)
0.5%
Current UK interest rate(1)
1
Interest rate rise predicted for UK in H2 2018
Outsourcing... gives a layer of protection to the adviser
For many advisers, outsourcing to a multi-manager or discretionary fund manager makes sense, allowing them to focus on the adviser-client relationship
t is no surprise that the process of outsourcing investment management services has been on the rise, especially since the regulatory changes brought about by the RDR in 2012 and by MiFiD II in January this year. Andrew Bennett, a financial adviser and director of Hartcliff Financial Planning, is a keen supporter of outsourcing to an investment partner.
I
He says: “I think there's a really strong business case for it from a number of angles. One is that you get a consistent approach and consistent outcomes for clients. If I outsource to a multi-manager, for example, my clients get the benefit of having an extremely diverse portfolio. "It's unconstrained, so we know we are getting the best of the breed, and every fund in the portfolio is there on merit. “But then because of the way the multi-manager manages the risk and rebalances the portfolio to keep it within the client's risk band, we know that the outcomes for the client are based on what they want and on the amount of risk they want to take.” Admin burden Bennett goes on to say the biggest benefit from outsourcing is the time saved, which instead of being used to research, construct or rebalance a client’s portfolio, can be used elsewhere. He says: “[By outsourcing investment management] I can now spend time with clients doing the things that they actually value, which is the face-to-face time and having a proper dialogue. It is all about making sure their investment is ‘on plan’ and their goals and aspirations are being met.”
Outsourcing also gives a “layer of protection” to the adviser, Bennett says. “This is particularly true if the investment house is transparent and you can see what their process is, how they build their funds, how they make their portfolios within the funds, and how they keep within the risk parameters. “It means I've got the confidence to be able to sit down with the client and say ‘yes, you've come out as a cautious to moderate investor, which means your portfolio will always match that risk tolerance.’” Seeking expertise Serena Van der Meulen, director at Van der Meulen Associates, also fully outsources investment management. She says: “The value of doing this is time. I don’t have time to research individual funds. I use two research fund houses and cross-reference the research there on holdings, but then I rely on the managers to pick stocks. The other advantage, of course, is their level of expertise in the field. I am not a fund manager; I’m a financial planner. I wouldn’t risk picking stocks.” Bennett believes that the trend of outsourcing will continue due to the recent regulatory changes brought about by MiFID II which has aimed to encourage a different method of engagement between advisers and outsourced investment managers, known as a ‘reliance on others’.
If I outsource to a multi-manager, my clients benefit [from] an extremely diverse portfolio
An upwards trend Bennett says: “I think outsourcing is going to become more popular. You've only got to look at the biggest players in the market like Hargreaves Lansdown. Okay, they are in a completely different section of the marketplace, being direct to client, but Hargreaves are now starting to do their own model portfolios and adopting a multi-manager approach.” He adds: “MiFID II has had an impact on this because we are now distributors so we need to know our ‘manufacturer's’ process. I not only need to know how a portfolio is constructed, I also need to be able to explain how each one of those individual funds works. ”It would be fair to say that some advisers will continue to promote portfolio construction and fund selection as a core part of their offering. However, the continual need post-RDR and post-MiFID II to improve outcomes for their clients is apparent. Advisers will need to maximise efficiency and manage regulatory risks while also enhancing their client care and the relationship aspect of advice.
The increased professionalism of the advice sector since the introduction of the Retail Distribution Review has coincided with the rise in advisers outsourcing their investment responsibilities in financial planning, and I am not surprised by this. Outsourcing to a multi-manager can help to alleviate some of the burdens of administration as well as potentially reduce the risks in the advice process. It’s not to say you can’t do it in-house as an adviser and capture as much of the value chain as possible. You can use model portfolios, bring in a strategic asset allocation, buy a fund list and then put them together in a portfolio that gets rebalanced on a regular basis. However, what you could gain with outsourcing is a robust, balanced portfolio with a repeatable investment process, access to undiscovered niche funds accompanied with the buying power of a large multi-manager to drive down the cost of underlying funds. All of which you might not get as an adviser, and it goes a lot deeper than that. Part of the Architas investment process is the investment due diligence and operational due diligence. We go into fund houses and eyeball the fund manager, kick the tires on the operations side and check if they are doing what they say they are doing. That is part of the professionalism of going for an outsourced solution. With outsourcing, you also access the discipline of the professional investment manager who has the confidence to not necessarily follow the crowd, who invests for the longer term and not just for the right now and is always preparing for the future. This can help the adviser maintain high standards. Outsourcing to a professional allows you the time to put your client at the heart of everything you do.
THE PROFESSIONALISM OF GOING FOR AN OUTSOURCED SOLUTION
AMML is a company limited by shares and authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (Firm Reference Number 477328). It is registered in England: No. 06458717. Registered Office: 5 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1AD.
In light of increased regulatory guidance there is a continued need for advisers to assess which options are most suitable for their clients. And the range of investment products available continues to grow - from model portfolio services and discretionary fund managers to the more traditional multi-asset offerings. We caught up with several advisers at a recent Architas event to discuss investment options and client outcomes
Architas’ autumn roadshow: Meeting advisers
AMR Financial Management was established in 1992 as a result of a merger of four smaller firms of financial advisers. They have two offices – in Harpenden, Hertfordshire and in Newbury, Berkshire. For more information visit www.amrinvest.co.uk
Most financial advisers want to deliver a great service to their clients – that is also the opinion of the financial regulator. As an adviser, you might ask yourself and your clients, ‘what do you do well?’, ‘what is it that my client values most about what I do’. When it comes to building and maintaining the investment portfolio of a client you may want to consider if you have the capability, expertise, tools and most importantly the time to cater for your clients’ needs?’ If not, you might want to consider the benefits to both your clients and your business of outsourcing to a specialist. Done correctly, this can help to reduce risk within the business, increase efficiency and offer more time to sit down and help clients’ plan their financial future. Indeed clients now expect more from advisers. One example is cash flow / lifestyle planning which has increased in popularity over recent years and done properly provides real value to clients but it takes time. We often work with firms who do have an investment proposition in place but it isn’t documented. Just like a client review, if something isn’t documented it’s hard to justify that it exists. Going through the process of documenting a Centralised Investment Proposition also helps to identify any potential risks to the business or the client outcome. A key area where we have seen firms have a potential risk is portfolio drift and this has also been area of concern for the regulator for a number of years. ‘Portfolio drift’ can occur as markets change and if not reviewed or rebalanced regularly a client could find their portfolio is taking more risk than they originally agreed/accepted with their adviser. The more clients you have, the more difficult it can be to ensure that each individual client has the level of risk they agreed at the last review. So, as a financial adviser it is worth asking yourself – ‘Do you have an investment proposition which is documented and you understand and also you can explain to your clients?
Nick Davison, Investment Development Manager, Architas
Jonathan Bailey, Director, AMR Financial Management
What sort of investment options do you offer your clients? We offer financial planning and investment management services. The central investment proposition of the company is to differentiate our financial planning side from the investment side, and delegate that to the investment department which is located at our offices in Newbury. So our company is set up to suit the client in that respect. The investment department reviews our clients all the time and makes necessary changes. This is an important aspect to what we do. Does the CIP change with the client’s risk tolerance? A client completes their risk profile assessment with us, we take them on, we then have an annual review process. We reassess risk on that basis. That risk is then delegated to our investment services department. We offer various risk-related portfolios for that purpose.
What sort of investment options do you offer your clients? In terms of products and timescale? Generally, our time-scale is long-term with a range of products across the market. How has the recent guidance from the regulator affected the relationship you have with clients? We haven’t really noticed a panic or a change from clients in this respect. They are not asking us to do more checks or balances – we do all of this anyway. So clients are kept up-to-date with their portfolio on a regular basis. Do you regularly assess your client’s needs? Well a client’s personal circumstances can change from time to time, so we do have to change our investments and the investment approach to suit the client’s change of circumstance. But that is a normal part of our annual review.
A D Shah Financial Ltd is based in Kenton, Harrow and has been established since 1975. They are a family run business providing financial advice. For further information please go to www.linkedin.com/ company/a-d-shah-financial-limited
Mital Shah, Financial Adviser, AD Shah Financial
What sort of investment options do you offer your clients? We have an investment committee that is chaired by an external person. We also use a number of DFMs and we have been doing that for a number of years. It gives a choice to our clients depending on what their requirements are. How has the recent guidance from the regulator affected the relationship you have with clients? The changes were introduced at the start of the year when the onus was put on the adviser to provide clients with more information in advance. It’s been a change we’ve had to deal with. It’s also meant been a change in the way we process our clients, as well as how we process the information. Does your Centralised Investment Proposition change with the client’s tolerance? We use a risk questionnaire to assess the client’s risk tolerance, and we have been doing that on a more regular basis. A big requirement is to advise on the capacity of loss. So, for example, six months might pass between client visits. At each meeting I will need to check whether their risk tolerance is appropriate for the money invested, and also check the capacity for loss.
Lonsdale Wealth Management are an advisory firm with offices in the Home Counties and the north of England. For more information visit www.lonsdaleservices.co.uk
Raymond McHugh, Financial Adviser, Lonsdale Wealth Management
Avni Thakrar, Product Specialist, Architas
Delegates at an Architas World Market Review event in Watford
While some advisers are confident enough to pick their own diversified portfolios, many prefer a one-stop-shop fund, outsourcing their investment and asset allocation decisions to the experts
What are multi-manager funds and are they right for you?
multi-manager fund of funds is a convenient way to invest with a wide range of different investment managers through one simple portfolio. This approach brings together investment managers that are each specialists in their own fields in a competitively priced single investment. Managing risk One of the principle benefits of multi-manager investing is the availability of risk management. By investing in a number of funds, risk is spread across the portfolio without too much exposure to any one asset class or area of the world. The risk criteria is met in three ways. 1. By making sure that each fund the DFM or Multi-Manager invests in has been thoroughly researched and analysed. 2. By choosing different managers within the portfolios who have different styles. No manager or asset class will perform consistently well all of the time so diversification is necessary. 3. By regularly monitoring and rebalancing the underlying investments to make sure that each fund is invested in a range of assets that, in the Multi-Manager’s view, suits its risk profile. Risk-rated versus risk-targeted The main difference between risk-rated and risk-targeted funds is how and when the risk taken by managers of these funds is assessed. Risk-rated funds are those that have been assigned a number by a ratings agency according to the risk level they are currently exposed to. Risk-targeted funds actively target a certain level of risk, which the fund manager will stick to for the life of the fund. What’s more, a risk-rated fund has been given a risk profile at a point in time, usually by a third party, based on how the fund has performed historically. But it provides no indication of the fund’s future expected performance. Whereas risk-targeted funds have a specific objective to maximise returns to investors within a given risk profile. Typically this is measured in terms of volatility bands and provides an indication of how the fund will be managed in the future. A risk-rated fund has return as its primary objective, with the level of risk a secondary consideration, whereas a risk-targeted fund aims for the maximum possible return within a specified risk parameter.
A
AN ILLUSTRATION OF A FUND OF FUNDS PORTFOLIO
Introducing the Architas risk profiled range
Once you have decided on your investment process you might then want to think about investment style. Overleaf we look at the three options available in the Architas risk profiled range which uses active, passive and blended styles, each tailored to different client requirements. These risk-targeted requirements range from cautious to adventurous and are designed to stay within their given risk profile throughout the life of the fund. For the group’s full range, which includes income generating funds and specialist funds, visit www.architas.com.
How is the Architas Active fund range governed? The manager is free to select underlying funds based on thorough analysis and a meticulous investment process. Starting with the EValue strategic asset allocation model, the manager can make tactical asset allocation decisions to take advantage of investment opportunities and capitalise on the potential to outperform the market. This allows the manager to react to changing market conditions, while avoiding fads or underperforming sectors or countries. IN SUMMARY: • The strategy aims to outperform the fund’s target or benchmark – which is useful for clients who want to achieve a potential higher rate of return and are happy with the potential risks. • The strategy is based on the EValue asset allocation model, but the manager can make tactical asset allocation decisions to take advantage of market opportunities, while avoiding under-performing areas. • The strategy provides access to the whole of the market.
ACTIVE
Passive funds can be an attractively low-cost way to invest. So how is the Architas Passive fund range governed? Instead of matching one market benchmark, the group’s multi-manager funds are diversified across a variety of passively managed underlying funds, including different sectors, asset classes and regions. Strategic asset allocation is provided by EValue and the investment team build the portfolios using a range of passive investments, such as trackers and exchange-traded funds. IN SUMMARY: • This strategy is a cost-effective way to invest. • Clients find tracker funds easy to understand. • Passive investing can be useful in some well-developed markets where active management may be hard to justify. • This strategy is less likely to be affected by a manager’s response to market conditions, as funds are selected in line with the EValue model.
PASSIVE
Blended funds are an attractive combination for clients, bringing together the potential higher returns from active funds with the lower costs of passive funds. Architas’ managers begin with the strategic asset allocation model from EValue, and use their experience to identify active funds that offer potential for outperformance and alpha generation, combined with passive funds to provide lower cost access to more developed, efficient markets. IN SUMMARY: • A blended strategy is for clients who want a value-for-money investment, but are interested in the potential for further growth from actively-managed funds. • The strategy is based on the EValue strategic asset allocation model, combined with manager access to the best active funds. • Investment managers have no set allocation between active and passive – they can add active and passive underlying funds as and when the opportunities appear.
BLENDED
