Although still having four-fifths of European AUM in active funds, the Top 50 (per the 32 of the Top 50 that provided figures) has a higher proportion of AUM in passive funds (average 80% active versus 20% passive) than Challengers (96% active versus 4% passive) and Emerging (100% active versus 0% passive) groups.

This speaks to the possibility of managers characterised as Emerging in the Top 50+ being focused on specialist strategies to access alpha. (Table 1a)

Looking only at the Top 50, US-based firms have a higher proportion of AUM in passive funds (30%), followed by European non-EU-based firms (23%) and then EU firms (15%). (Table 1b)

ETFs

When looking at the breakdown of European AUM in active and passive ETFs, of the 11 firms that responded in the Top 50, passive ETFs made up three-quarters of the AUM, 74% versus 26% for active. (Table 2a)

The use of passive was greater for firms based in non-EU Europe (79%) than EU-based (60%) firms for those that did provide data. (Table 2b)

Asset allocation

Of the 32 of the Top 50 who provided asset allocation figures for European AUM, firms are 37% in equity and 32% in fixed income, a different and more conservative approach to Challengers (48% equity, 29% FI) and Emerging (77% equities and 10% FI). (Table 3a)

EU-based firms are more likely to be in fixed income (39%) than equities (30%). By contrast, European non-EU-based firms are 42% in equities and 24% in FI on average, similar to US-based firms (46% in equities and 24% in FI).

Interestingly, the US-based firms that provided figures were, on average, 10% in private assets, much higher than European firms (2%). Although European firms were much higher in ‘other’ (18% versus 6% for US-based). (Table 3b)

When broken down to country level, the USA and UK have similar approaches to equity (46% and 45% respectively) and FI (24% and 22% respectively).

Swiss-based firms had a lower exposure to equities (30%), and a similar exposure to FI (24%), but were much more likely to be invested in real estate (13%) than firms based in any other country (next highest is the UK and Netherlands with 4%).

France and Italy were much more focused on FI (59% and 53% respectively) than equities (16% and 10% respectively).

Note: all firms in the Top 50 from Italy and France except Natixis provided asset allocation figures.

(Table 3c)

Fund administration

Some 23 different fund administrators were used by the 33 Top 50 firms that provided data. Of these, 33% listed two fund administrators.

CACEIS (15%) was cited most, narrowly ahead of BNY, BBH and J.P. Morgan (all on 12%). (Table 4)

Domiciles

Some nine different domiciles were listed by the 29 of the Top 50 firms that provided data. Forty-five per cent of these respondents listed at least two domiciles, while 10% listed three or more.

Luxembourg was the clear leader on 72%, followed by Ireland (52%). No other domicile scored higher than France’s 10%. (Table 5)

ManCos

The Top 50 are more likely to have an internal ManCo (89%) than Challengers (59%) or Emerging (17%) from the broader Top 50+.

This makes it hard to draw any conclusions for the Top 50 alone. But looking at the Top 50+, FundRock was the most mentioned ManCo, followed by Waystone and Carne. (Table 6c)

Fund range

Seventy-nine per cent of the Top 50 offer a non-UCITS fund range, versus 54% for Challengers in the broader Top 50+.

Nearly every firm that does offer a non-UCITS fund range lists its own company as the AIFM. (Table 7)