One month on from the Trump Tantrum – our outlook for 2017

Six veteran investors explain how they cut through the clutter of sensationalism and pseudo-analysis that litter the landscape of today's financial journalism. The webinar is accompanied by a 30-page slide deck with embedded links. The content is based on an article published by the CFA Institute in July of 2016, and the authors will discuss and debate their approaches.

Since the financial markets collapse of 2008, the financial services sector has been engulfed in new rules and regulations. Compliance teams must track regulatory data, and assess the impact of every regulatory requirement, to avoid breaches and punitive enforcement fines.

With 45 new regulatory documents to deal with every week, and more than 53,000 regulatory updates issued every year, manual approaches to monitoring regulatory intelligence and managing regulatory change are putting financial services businesses at risk.

Artificial intelligence (AI) allows you to marry human expertise with the almost limitless ability of technology to consume and analyze huge amounts of data, automate manual processes and reduce complexity. In doing so, financial institutions can leverage AI to respond to regulatory change more efficiently and effectively.


Join regulatory change expert, and Head of Product Management at CUBE Elliot Burgess to learn

Why AI is the only answer to addressing big data compliance challenges, at scale
What elements of AI are driving value for Risk and Compliance teams (e.g. Machine Learning, Natural Language Processing, Robotic Process Automation)
How regulated financial institutions are utilizing AI today to ease and accelerate regulatory change processes

The regulator wants asset managers to define more clearly the value they provide to their investors. In this session, Square Mile explores what they need to consider.

The concept of a value assessment emerged from the FCA Asset Management Market study in 2018: this proposed certain changes to the structure of open-ended funds, including the appointment of a minimum of two independent directors (making up at least 25% of the board). It also stated that fund managers should start to provide an annual assessment on ‘value’ to this newly independent board.

Since that point, there has been considerable debate on how ‘value’ should be defined. In January/ February 2019 Square Mile and Boring Money conducted market research with the aim to provide asset managers with an independent third-party view on how to assess and measure value. We asked consumers, advisers, investment trust directors, the regulator, service providers and academics for their version of value.

The FCA already has its version. It defined seven elements in its non-exhaustive list: quality of service, performance, general fund manager costs, economies of scale, comparable market rates, comparable services and classes of units. In our discussions with the FCA, we found that there were also a number of key questions that the FCA wanted asset managers to think about from the clients’ perspective:

· What do I get charged?

· Can I see what I pay for?

· What simple indicator do I have that will tell me what this fund is trying to do and what it will achieve?

· What are the upsides and downsides?

· Am I paying more for a choice that I’ve made and when I’ve made that choice can I understand it?