Apologise for the late posting of my reviews. Over the past few months, I have been tied down with customer engagements and I had a major surgery. Finally, I have some breather to continue my article.
Like the 1997 financial crisis that happened in Asia, clients experienced sharp declines in AUM (Asset under Management).
Consequently, many clients were either asked to top-up their account to meet the minimum AUM size or risk getting downgraded to a lower-tier service within the Bank. We are seeing the same happening in this crisis.
How should private banks manage clients who fall below the minimum AUM criteria as a result of depreciated market values of their clients' assets without permanently damaging relationship?
This crisis has created an opportunity need for Bank's to review their relationship with their clients. However, should private banks conveniently downgrade the relationship whenever AUMs fall below the minimum threshold? Are there other options available?
On one hand, clients are complaining that they were ill-advised by their relationship managers. On the other hand, Banks are defending vigorously that the clients understood the risk of the products and "choose" to invest in these products.
The underlying argument is whether private banks owe a fiduciary duty to their clients when they offer an advise to them. Of course, ultimately the Client "chooses and decides" whether to invest in the product. However, if the Bank can offer a quality advice, would the AUMs be reduced significantly?
Despite the number of benefits presented by many private banks, the present model of offering an open-architecture product platform does not seems to bring about benefits in terms of wealth preservation and portfolio diversification.
Secondly, the client-driven advise model are not catching up fast in Asia. In this case, asian clients are partly responsible. Most asian clients are very hands-on in their investments. Most discretionary-driven models do not cater well with asian investors. It is not surprising that discretionary business contributes less than 30% to the bottom-line of most private banks.
How should private banks manage clients who fall below the minimum AUM criteria as a result of depreciated market values of their clients' assets without permanently damaging relationship?
This crisis has created an opportunity need for Bank's to review their relationship with their clients. However, should private banks conveniently downgrade the relationship whenever AUMs fall below the minimum threshold? Are there other options available?
On one hand, clients are complaining that they were ill-advised by their relationship managers. On the other hand, Banks are defending vigorously that the clients understood the risk of the products and "choose" to invest in these products.
The underlying argument is whether private banks owe a fiduciary duty to their clients when they offer an advise to them. Of course, ultimately the Client "chooses and decides" whether to invest in the product. However, if the Bank can offer a quality advice, would the AUMs be reduced significantly?
Despite the number of benefits presented by many private banks, the present model of offering an open-architecture product platform does not seems to bring about benefits in terms of wealth preservation and portfolio diversification.
Secondly, the client-driven advise model are not catching up fast in Asia. In this case, asian clients are partly responsible. Most asian clients are very hands-on in their investments. Most discretionary-driven models do not cater well with asian investors. It is not surprising that discretionary business contributes less than 30% to the bottom-line of most private banks.
No comments:
Post a Comment