Janus

Digital Fracture: Implications for the Web Site

Posted by Mike McLaughlin on Mar 21, 2013, in Thoughts , tagged with , , , , , , ,

In a post last week we introduced the concept of Digital Fracture, our term describing the proliferation of technology-driven marketing efforts that are increasingly specialized and disposable. Whereas the proprietary .com was once the overwhelming focus of digital efforts, firms now look at the Web, mobile, and social media as flexible platforms that require multiple, targeted presences.

Putnam provides a simple illustration of this trend. Digitally, Putnam not only has Putnam.com but distinct Web sites for thought leadership and advisor technology, numerous social media initiatives, and several distinct mobile applications.

For Putnam, digital means multiplying presences across multiplying platforms.

For Putnam, digital means multiplying presences across multiplying platforms.

This extension of traditional digital platforms into more targeted marketing is a shift that continues to gain acceptance.

What is driving this trend? Let’s start with the Web site. A central problem with firms’ Web sites is a lack of visibility, meaning that:

  • Not enough prospects and clients visit, and
  • Valuable content is often lost in the shuffle or hard for find for the people who do visit

So what can firms do? Three options stand out to us as particularly important:

  1. Broaden Content Distribution: many Web sites rely on their ability to attract an audience and promote content. Some accept material for free (M*, Advisor Perspectives), some are pay-to-play, and some require a PR and relationship-building effort to gain access. Purposefully moving beyond the proprietary site is an important opportunity.
    Via Google, third-party sites provide higher visibility to Janus's content than Janus.com

    Via Google, third-party sites provide higher visibility to Janus’s content than Janus.com

  2. Embrace Tactical Microsites: differentiated product stories typically do not function within the confines of a banner or online fund profile. As a result, we’re starting to see a renewed uptick in the tried-and-true microsite as a way to give timely visibility and depth to firms’ most compelling product/concept marketing. Two good examples: RidgeWorth on midcap equities, Pioneer on its strategic income fund.
  3. Improve Search: the vast majority of our clients remain dissatisfied with their sites’ search capabilities. Meanwhile, outside the industry there is continued innovation with tools like Facebook Graph Search and Google Knowledge Search. As these natural language and logical search tools continue to improve, there will be more reason than ever for firms to their own search offerings to make it easier for people to find what they want.

The common thread across these opportunities is that they go beyond “let’s just improve our content, functionality, and design” and reflect the diversity of leveraging the Web beyond the proprietary .com. This combination of breadth and focus is a reflection of Digital Fracture.

Next up: Digital Fracture for mobile and social.

How Did Asset Managers Respond to QE3?

Posted by Mike McLaughlin on Sep 14, 2012, in Thoughts , tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

It’s almost old news by now. Yesterday, the Fed announced QE3 and ongoing purchases of mortgage-backed securities at the rate of $40B per month. So, how did asset managers respond?

Using Twitter as an (incomplete) proxy for firms’ responses, here’s the short, chronological list of activity as of 5pm on the day of the news:

That is six responses within about six hours. As a sidebar, it’s interesting that none of the content referenced any of trending conversations on Twitter (#QE3, #Fed, etc.). Per the screen capture below, a search showed Oppenheimer and Russell taking advantage of Twitter’s social features. But these were from before the Fed’s announcement.

I don’t know exactly what I expected when I started to look, but overall I’d characterize the volume as a bit disappointing. The biggest financial news of the week warranted a bigger, faster response. Firms know that; it’s still a matter of getting the process ironed out.

What Do You Say About Risk?

Posted by Anu Heda on May 25, 2011, in Thoughts , tagged with , , , , , , , ,

In our consulting work, we meet marketing executives wanting to extol their firm’s risk management practices.  Risk management poses a specific problem.  Stay to high-level and it sounds like you don’t manage risk.  Discuss procedures and controls and risk losing your audience.

Below is copy taken directly from three industry leading firms: Western Asset, Janus, and Dodge & Cox.  Great firms struggle to convey a straightforward process.  Many firms – BlackRock, MFS, PIMCO, Pyramis, & Vanguard – don’t emphasize the topic on their public Web sites.  Any of the below copy strike a chord with you?

We’re curious what you think should be conveyed when discussing risk management.  Send us an e-mail or message via Twitter.  I pasted all that copy into a word cloud software to see what words are most common: risk management is often described with the words “investment” and “team” (note: I excluded “risk” and “management.”)

Western Asset

Western Asset has a dedicated risk management team that oversees risk management and incorporates it into the investment process. While this team is integrated into the portfolio management unit, it has a separate and independent reporting structure. Western’s risk management team combines the best of the Firm’s technology and experience to develop useful risk management tools and procedures. These tools and procedures provide daily analysis for both the Investment Team and the Analytics/Risk Management Department, ensuring the integration of professional risk management practices into the investment process.

Janus

The Janus Risk Management team, headed by Dan Scherman, serves as a resource for portfolio management to assure that every portfolio maintains the appropriate level of risk given its performance objective. Additionally, the team helps to assure that risks taken are associated with intended bets.

Tools used to monitor risk include:

  • Tracking error decomposition, characteristics, concentration, Janus ratings, under-weights/over-weights
  • SPAR returns-based style analysis
  • Performance attribution (Factset, BARRA, Wilshire)
  • Index and competitor analysis, as necessary

Dodge & Cox

From the earliest days, Dodge & Cox’s investment approach has stressed evaluation of risk relative to opportunity. A strict price discipline — steering clear of popular choices that come at a price premium we would rather not pay — is critical to achieving our investment objectives. Low valuation investments, for example, typically reflect low investor expectations that may serve as a buffer against the risk of significant price decline; these low expectations may also create greater potential for capital appreciation should investor pessimism turn out to be unwarranted or short-lived. At all times, our ongoing search for superior relative value is guided by a rigorous research process that seeks to differentiate the short-term concerns that may be temporarily depressing an investment from the intractable, long-term problems that could doom it.