Top 20 managers lift share of global market

The largest 20 funds managers in the world lifted their combined market share last year as the industry recovered from two years of funds under management outflows.

According to the annual survey of the largest 500 managers in the world by TowersWatson and Pensions & Investments magazine, total FUM increased 16.1 per cent to $62 trillion as at December 2009, after a fall of nearly 20 per cent in 2008.

The largest 20 managers continued to grow faster than the rest of the pack, increasing their share of the top 500’s assets from 38.3 per cent to 40.2 per cent. Over the past 10 years, the average growth rate of the top 20 was 7.2 per cent, compared with 5.7 per cent for the whole 500.

However, the top 20 also tend to be the most acquisitive, with the figures including many mergers and acquisitions in that time. Last year, BlackRock merged with Barclays Global Investors to form the largest funds management firm by a wide margin, with $3,346 billion in FUM. State Street Global Investors jumped over Allianz Group during the year to take second spot with $1,911 billion. There were 12 US-based managers in the top 20. Overall, North American managers had $30.6 trillion in FUM – almost half of the world’s assets held by the largest 500 firms. The ones in the top 20 managed 62.7 per cent of the assets in that group.

Apart from the continuation of the US domination of the marketplace, other trends included a sharp decline for Japanese managers, a further rise for managers in emerging markets and a rise for managers in Continental Europe versus the UK.

But the survey results mask the true picture in individual countries. In Australia, for instance, total FUM by the 15 managers in the top 500 has declined as a proportion of the universe. But in that market, a plethora of specialist and boutique managers have sprung up in the past 10 years. These managers have attracted the bulk of the institutional investment from Australia’s pension funds.

Sponsored Content

Bank-owned firms make up half of the world’s top 20, while three are owned by insurance companies and seven are independent.

Assets managed by passive managers shot ahead by 62 per cent last year, partly due to the BlackRock/BGI merger muddying the waters.

The top 20 managers as at December 31, 2009, were:

  1. BlackRock ($3,346b)
  2. State Street ($1,911b)
  3. Allianz Group ($1,859b)
  4. Fidelity Investments ($1,699b)
  5. Vanguard Group ($1,509b)
  6. AXA Group ($1,453b)
  7. BNP Paribas ($1,326b)
  8. Deutsche Bank ($1,261b)
  9. JP Morgan Chase ($1,252b)
  10. Capital Group ($1,179b)
  11. Bank of New York Mellon ($1,114b)
  12. Credit Agricole ($918b)
  13. UBS ($876b)
  14. Goldman Sachs ($871b)
  15. HSBC ($857b)
  16. Bank of America ($750b)
  17. Natixis ($724b)
  18. Legg Mason ($682b)
  19. Prudential, US ($667b)
  20. Northern Trust ($627b)

Download the PDF version here

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

Breaking bad habits: why investors aren’t good at asset allocation

Institutional investors act like momentum investors, chasing returns, even over longer time horizons according to Asset Allocation and Bad Habits, a new research paper that looks at the impact of past returns on asset allocation. The paper commissioned by Rotman-ICPM and authored by Amit Goyal professor at Univeriste de Lausanne, Andrew Ang professor at Columbia Business

Is in-house management the future for large asset owners?

The allure of potentially higher net returns from portfolios precisely tailored to values, beliefs and risk appetite is hard for any asset owner to ignore, yet needs to be balanced against the many challenges associated with managing assets in-house. To this end, it is worth outlining the key benefits that in-house asset management can offer.

Addressing shortcomings in current corporate reporting

Investors don’t have access to all the information they need today. Raj Thamotheram, Mark Van Clieaf and Alan Willis ask: why aren’t investors (and their clients) demanding it? Without relevant, timely and reliable information, investors are unable to make informed long-term investment decisions. The efficiency of capital markets in allocating invested funds – the only real value of

To invest in China today you must be at the head of the kewfie

Regulatory proposals announced in April mean that in October foreign investors will be able to buy the top shares listed on the Chinese mainland stock exchange within annual quota limits. The momentum of market liberalisation is such that MSCI is considering using such A shares in its emerging market indices, a move that will take Chinese

Chinese SWFs need co-investors

China’s biggest sovereign wealth funds need, and want, co-investment opportunities in real assets and private equity and are open to new partnerships with international investors of the right credentials, and the longer term the partnership the better. This is the feedback of Michael Wadley, a specialist lawyer of Australian origin based in Shanghai, who runs

Foundations and endowments flock to long duration

The risk of a US equity market decline and concerns over the future direction of interest rates has been driving US foundations and endowments’ asset allocation decisions in the past year, with a distinct move away from US equity to global allocations and away from US-focused core to longer duration and high yield. The latest

Previous