Asset Management Awards for Excellence 2017

Awards Luncheon

Asian Private Banker’s Asset Management Awards for Excellence (AMA) ran for its fourth year since its inauguration in 2013. We collected the opinions of leading gatekeepers of private banks in Asia regarding who they believe to be the best 3rd party asset management product and service providers.

Date: Friday March 17, 2017
Venue: The Pool House, Grand Hyatt, Hong Kong

Luncheon Photos

2017 Categories & Winners

Over the past several months, Asian Private Banker conducted an independent poll with 32 key decision makers of fund selection and distribution across 25 private banks in Hong Kong and Singapore to determine the best product and service providers in the asset management industry.

Congratulations to the winners of the Asian Private Banker Asset Management Awards for Excellence 2017.

AMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2017 BadgesAMA 2016 BadgesAMA 2016 BadgesAMA 2016 BadgesAMA 2016 BadgesAMA 2016 BadgesAMA 2016 BadgesAMA 2016 Badges

Methodology

Asian Private Banker’s Asset Management Awards for Excellence (AMA) is running for its fourth year since its inauguration in 2013. Every year, we collect the opinions of leading gatekeepers of private banks in Asia regarding who they believe to be the best 3rd party asset management product and service providers. This year, Asian Private Banker will seek the opinions of private banks about 26 different award categories.

For product providers, this is not an award based merely on fund performance and the efforts of their respective managers, though it is undoubtedly a prerequisite. Private banks’ needs extend beyond just product demand, spanning across various facets of the distribution process including content, client services, training and more.

To that end, gatekeepers will be asked to determine their top nominations based on four key criteria: product performance; business performance; service competency and; branding and marketing.
 

Product Performance
Product performance is an absolute prerequisite and the single most objective metric for a fund to be selected and distributed. This criterion should be assessed by, not but not limited to:

  • long-term risk-adjusted performance
  • successful achievement of objectives (i.e. alpha, income target, volatility target, etc.)
  • performance consistency

Business Performance
Business performance refers to how an asset manager and its offering are able to add value to a private bank’s long and short-term profitability. Assessment for this criterion should not be limited to just initial sales of products but also the asset manager’s ability to help generate long-term recurring income. This criterion should be assessed by, but not limited to:

  • absolute and relative growth of funds raised
  • value added by asset manager to limit client-directed outflows, where applicable
  • ability to retain assets over multiple market cycles

Service Competency
This criterion refers to an asset manager’s ability to service distributors’ needs prior to and after the point-of-sales. This refers not just to product-related needs but also to other value-added services such as general investment content or training sessions. This criterion should be assessed by, but not limited to:

  • familiarity with distributors and relevant parties such as product specialists and relationship managers
  • ability to service existing fund holders, especially through timely updates during key market events
  • other value-added services (i.e. general investment or thought leadership content, relevant training sessions or education seminars, access to fund manager)

Branding And Marketing
The branding and marketing criterion assesses the brand recall or visibility of an asset manager to its relevant distributors and investors. Assessments should not be made merely by scale but also by the granularity of efforts directed to specific segments of the wealth management market. This criterion should be assessed by, but not limited to:

  • general brand visibility to the mass market
  • industry visibility to the general wealth management market
  • segment visibility to specific wealth management markets (i.e. family offices, independent asset managers or sub-segments of private banking like advisory or discretionary staff)