The model provides a data standard for the sharing of model portfolio data, including file format, model components, security code definition and model movement, said chair of the Institute of Managed Account Professionals Toby Potter.
Over 20 participants from platforms, licensees, research houses, asset consultants and fund managers formed the Data Standards Group, participating in workshop meetings and supplied content and documentation on their own processes.
Participants in the Data Standards Group included AMP, APIR Systems Limited, Bennelong Funds, BT, Colonial First State, Copia, Elston Asset Management, Financial Express, Franklin Templeton, HUB24, IMAP, IOOF, IRESS, Macquarie, Morningstar, NAB Asset Management, Netwealth, Praemium, Schroders and Zenith Investment Partners.
The group has been meeting for more than 12 months in order to deliver efficiencies.
Mr Potter said the cost and efficiency savings promised by managed accounts were at risk of being eroded by back office system incompatibilities, and investigations revealed that all parts of the industry reported similar difficulties meeting these proprietary data requirements.
He added that, while not binding, the standard provides an incentive to prevent further proliferation in proprietary specifications.
“This working group has been tremendously effective at working together to bring greater efficiency to the market we work within,” Mr Potter said.
IMAP has plans to extend their work to define a series of standards for reporting on shadow weights, FUM reports and naming conventions.
I saw AMP listed as a contributor and lost interest.
Do naming conventions include what growth and defensive assets are and how much is the standard for , say a Balanced portfolio? We already see many portfolios including property as a defensive asset and some a funds with up to 90% of growth assets inside them when others are 50%. It would be good to compare apples with apples, as there are a few watermelons out there masquerading as Apples.