Tech focus: How Canada’s BCI created a centralized trading framework

As British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (BCI), the $211.1 billion asset manager for around 30 Canadian pension funds and insurers, has transitioned to being an active in-house global investor requiring robust systems, processes and specialised expertise, it has also built a value-added, modern centralized trading framework.

In an industry first white paper, the investor explores the benefits and drawbacks of centralized trading for institutional investors, sharing its experiences. BCI argues that an innovative, centralized trading framework provides clients with greater portfolio returns, lower fees, and allows for improved risk management.

“Our framework was designed with a cross-asset mindset to enhance portfolio returns, lower costs and better manage risk,” said Daniel Garant, executive vice president and global head of public markets at BCI where he oversees a $124.7 billion allocation to fixed income and public equity (around 60 per cent of the net assets under management) the bulk of which is managed internally.

“It was imperative that our platform deliver best trade execution, as well as have strong governance to help influence ESG practices with our global financial partners, in addition to streamlining processes, efficiencies, and scalability for our continued growth,” said Garant.

Better decision making

BCI’s centralized, end-to-end trading approach ensures connectivity at the highest levels and enables one cross-asset desk to execute for the entire corporation. Having a complete picture of trading activities, fees, and data allows for better aggregated pricing on total transactions with partners, and further allows for better decision making grounded in centralized data sources.

Promoting collaboration in what is typically a siloed function at many large institutional asset managers, BCI’s centralized trading framework also shifts the role of the trader from operations to advisor, allowing trading professionals to add significant value to the investment process.

Sponsored Content

Samir Dhrolia, senior managing director, global derivatives, trading and indexing portfolio management explains more. “Joining BCI at a time when the corporation transitioned to active management allowed me to lead a trading team implementing processes and frameworks from scratch. There has long been an established, back, middle and front office approach to trading, coming in to create something new without legacy frameworks to constrain us was very exciting.”

key benefits

As outlined in the White Paper, the key benefits of a centralized trading framework include:

Cross-asset view that enhances portfolio returns, reduces costs and allows for better risk management.

A central voice facilitated via BCI’s One Wallet platform, a relationship management tool that manages a total view of payments across BCI, negotiating with external parties for the best possible results for clients on commissions, deal flows and third-party services. This is increasingly important as BCI’s operations spans the globe with teams in Victoria, Vancouver, New York, and this year, London, UK

Fosters a performance-focused team, and offers an environment where employees collaborate across the portfolio management, cross asset risk and liquidity functions

Streamlines processes, effectiveness, and scalability for continued growth

Optimizes management oversight, and strengthens legal, compliance and operational controls thus reducing a variety of operational and investment risks

Best practice

The paper details how best practices to implement centralized dealings comprises governance, regulatory requirements, defining order types and cross-asset best execution. The analysis draws on the existing body of research for trading desk structures, industry trends and scenario analysis to estimate the benefits net of costs. It also draws on case studies from global asset management firms.

BCI says continuing to invest in its internal capabilities is the most significant lever it has for reducing total cost for clients of value-added active management.

Costs

BCI’s total costs, consisting of internal, external direct, and external indirect costs, were $2.2 billion or 1 dollar and 8.1 cents per $100 of assets under management for fiscal 2022, all of which are netted against investment returns. This compares to total costs of $1.6 billion or 88.5 cents per $100 in fiscal 2021.

The increase in costs was driven primarily by strong performance and value-add in private equity and real estate, which resulted in higher external costs on the proportion of assets managed externally. While strong performance results in higher fees paid to external managers through profit-sharing agreements, our clients retain most of the value added by these managers.

BCI’s $78.0-billion fixed income program accounts for 37.0 per cent of net assets under management. The $64.3-billion public equities program represents 30.5 per cent of net assets under management. Private equity represents $24.8 billion and 11.8 per cent of net assets under management.

Leave a Comment

Returns, resilience and reinvention: What private markets’ top brass are worried about

Returns, resilience and reinvention: What private markets’ top brass are worried about

Senior executives from some of the world's largest private market managers gathered in Berlin this month with a collective understanding: managers who move slowly on AI face not just weaker returns but the risk of owning businesses that have been competitively displaced before they can exit.

Sort content by

‘Decay’ and renewal: Stephen Kotkin on the two sides of today’s geopolitics

While war weighs heavily on the world’s mind and its portfolio impacts are acutely felt by investors, celebrated geopolitical expert Stephen Kotkin said there is another thing that troubles him even more in today’s society: the "decay" of government performance.

AI will revolutionise investing, but machines won’t carry the can

Tokenisation of traditional assets will lead to a boom in on-chain trading, and that in turn opens the door to AI-agentic trading. But there are risks that AI agents may behave in unpredictable ways and, despite the hype surrounding the technology, still produce unexpected investment losses. In these cases, it will typically still be the CIO who bears responsibility – so they’d better understand what their AI agents are up to.

GIC: Geopolitical risks rewire asset allocation ‘operating system’

Some investors are “missing the point” of geopolitical risks by equating them to the disruptions from conflicts and wars, according to GIC chief economist Prakash Kannan, but in reality, geopolitical risk is no longer episodic or peripheral. This means investors need to think harder about inflation and country composition in their portfolio.

GIC, OPTrust on how TPA reshapes allocation process, accountability

Long-time practitioners of the total portfolio approach said one of its greatest advantages is that the investment team can make significant asset allocation at its discretion, as interest towards adopting the framework picks up among asset owners to handle more complex decision-making. At FIS Singapore, GIC and OPTrust unpack the governance and risk culture to enable it.

Why game theory falls short in AI-driven trading market

The rise of artificial intelligence-driven trading has raised questions about the possibility of algorithmic investors crowding into many of the same ideas and amplifying stress during times of volatility. Nanyang Technological University computer science professor Bo An explores the question at FIS Singapore.

Why active management matters in emerging markets

The emerging markets are a great way to access the AI thematic without buying into expensive US large caps, but their nuances demand local active management if investors want to unlock their rewards.

Previous