Key Takeaways
- • Institutional investors are adopting a "waiting game" strategy with brokers over research pricing ahead of the January 2018 MiFID II implementation deadline, betting that research costs will decline as regulatory pressure mounts.
- • MiFID II, a European Union legislative framework, mandates the separation of research costs from trading execution commissions—fundamentally restructuring the approximately $15 billion investment research business.
- • The SEC is preparing regulatory relief measures to "blunt the fallout" from MiFID II's cross-border impact on U.S. investment managers and broker-dealers who currently use client commissions to pay for research.
- • The regulation introduces significant compliance complexity for U.S. investment advisers, as separated research payments may trigger broker-dealer classification under U.S. regulatory regimes previously unavailable under bundled commission structures.
- • Brokers remain uncertain about how large institutional investors will adjust research consumption patterns and payment practices once unbundling requirements take effect, creating negotiating leverage for asset managers.
Summary
As MiFID II regulations approach their January 2018 implementation date, institutional investors are positioning themselves strategically in negotiations with brokers over research pricing. According to a Greenwich Associates survey cited in the analysis, investors are demonstrating patience in these discussions, effectively waiting for research prices to decline rather than committing to current pricing structures. This dynamic reflects a calculated "high-stakes game of chicken" in which asset managers recognize that brokers face mounting pressure to adjust their business models.
MiFID II, the European Union's legislative framework for financial market regulation and investor protection, fundamentally restructures how investment research is bought and sold. The regulation requires the unbundling of research costs from trading execution commissions, forcing brokers and asset managers to separately invoice and price research services. This shift directly impacts the $15 billion investment research industry, compelling market participants to establish transparent, standalone research payment mechanisms.
The regulatory change carries significant implications for U.S. market participants. The SEC is actively developing relief measures to mitigate MiFID II's cross-border effects on American investment managers and broker-dealers. Historically, U.S. investment advisers have leveraged client commissions to pay for research under bundled commission structures. MiFID II's unbundling requirement threatens to reclassify these arrangements, potentially subjecting brokers to investment adviser regulations they previously avoided. This regulatory ambiguity has incentivized the SEC to clarify the framework before implementation.
Brokers remain in a position of uncertainty regarding how institutional investors will ultimately alter their research consumption and payment practices under the new regime. This information asymmetry favors large asset managers in negotiations, as brokers cannot confidently forecast demand or pricing power. Institutional investors, leveraging this uncertainty alongside the imminent regulatory deadline, are maintaining disciplined negotiating positions and deferring commitments until pricing stabilizes—a strategy that reflects the sophisticated risk management typical of professional investors navigating regulatory transitions.
MiFID II, the European Union's legislative framework for financial market regulation and investor protection, fundamentally restructures how investment research is bought and sold. The regulation requires the unbundling of research costs from trading execution commissions, forcing brokers and asset managers to separately invoice and price research services. This shift directly impacts the $15 billion investment research industry, compelling market participants to establish transparent, standalone research payment mechanisms.
The regulatory change carries significant implications for U.S. market participants. The SEC is actively developing relief measures to mitigate MiFID II's cross-border effects on American investment managers and broker-dealers. Historically, U.S. investment advisers have leveraged client commissions to pay for research under bundled commission structures. MiFID II's unbundling requirement threatens to reclassify these arrangements, potentially subjecting brokers to investment adviser regulations they previously avoided. This regulatory ambiguity has incentivized the SEC to clarify the framework before implementation.
Brokers remain in a position of uncertainty regarding how institutional investors will ultimately alter their research consumption and payment practices under the new regime. This information asymmetry favors large asset managers in negotiations, as brokers cannot confidently forecast demand or pricing power. Institutional investors, leveraging this uncertainty alongside the imminent regulatory deadline, are maintaining disciplined negotiating positions and deferring commitments until pricing stabilizes—a strategy that reflects the sophisticated risk management typical of professional investors navigating regulatory transitions.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.