The term Investment Book of Record (IBOR) was coined in the late 1990s and has recently gained new life as the latest “must-have” for investment managers. Most would agree about the core function of an IBOR—to provide up to date positions and projections to the front office throughout the day. In contrast to an IBOR, an Accounting Book of Record (ABOR) often provides positions and projections at close of business or period. An IBOR requires immediate updating, while an ABOR can be updated periodically, and an IBOR requires fewer accounting details than an ABOR. The consumers are also different—end of period and official reports require ABOR data; they cannot be based on IBOR data.
During our current CutterResearch study of IBOR, our analysts found that, beyond the core function, definitions tend to be subjective, with fluid boundaries and content. Further confusing the issue, different software vendors use the term to describe solutions based on a range of applications.
"Having an IBOR is not the goal. The goal is the delivery of accurate information to business users throughout the day, such that they can make the best possible decisions based on that data."
Managing Director, CutterConsulting
Some investment management firms see IBOR simply as a way of providing the core functionality—delivery of accurate intraday position data to portfolio managers—in a more reliable, controlled, and efficient way than common custom solutions, often maintained in Microsoft Excel. These firms focus on the decision-makers’ need for timely positions data across the portfolios they manage. For them, the scope of an IBOR must include all the positions, transactions, reference data, and market data required to support functions such as portfolio analysis and construction, including unconfirmed transactions and projected movements of cash and investments.
To other firms, an IBOR must also serve as a common resource, a consolidated store of information on which to base enterprise-level reports, such as exposure, performance, and management reports. This type of IBOR solution appeals to firms where firm-wide data aggregation is complicated by the existence of multiple accounting platforms, whether in-house or from third party administrators.
There has been an effort by some buy-side firms to establish a standard for IBOR – the IBOR Standards Working Group was set up by a group of IT and data management practitioners. In May 2014, the group submitted a paper to the Investment Management Association in the UK, currently under discussion, outlining among other things, proposed standards for IBOR core capabilities that focus on managing data, including the quality of data for positions and events, as well as the quality of supporting reference data.
At Cutter Associates, we have carried out a number of studies and assignments on IBOR and we will soon send out a survey to our CutterBenchmarking community. Based on our ongoing experience, our definition of an IBOR is as follows:
Each investment management firm has unique business pressures and drivers moving them toward an IBOR solution. In a CutterResearch survey of member firms conducted in summer 2014, respondents named these top four challenges driving the need for an IBOR (listed in order of importance):
IBOR challenges and requirements fall into two broad categories: the front office need for data to inform investment decisions, and similar information aggregated across the firm to provide reports at the enterprise level. In the words of Andrew Meisel who is credited with inventing the term during his time at Barclays Global Investors, these are known as the “desk IBOR” and “central IBOR” respectively.
Behind these business problems are often complex operating environments and fragmented data architectures that make it difficult or impossible for users to get the information they need, when they need it. Contributors to these underlying issues can include the following:
"There are many more IBOR systems running off portfolio analytics platforms out there than people realize. They're often user-owned systems…that tend to be local to desks, and strategy-specific."
In the past, data management initiatives commonly focused on data hubs for managing reference and market data. But there were really no equivalent data hubs for intraday cleansing and distribution of positions and transactions, even though data warehouses were used for periodic, end of day, and historic data. The requirement for timely position data is not new, but firms are now ready to invest in better automation to replace the informal and ad hoc solutions they’ve been using.
With the promise of timely, accurate information, an IBOR can seem like the solution to all of the problems mentioned. But what is the best way for a firm to implement an IBOR? Much depends on the types of assets managed, the existing systems and architecture, and how the front office is organized. The solution also depends on your definition of an IBOR, including which business areas and downstream applications will use the data. The IBOR could be designed to provide a timely set of traded and forecast positions for a team of portfolio managers, or for all front office users in a division or region. It could be further extended to serve as a comprehensive position-keeping facility across asset classes, covering the full transaction lifecycle for the entire firm. However you decide to implement your IBOR, the operations and data management functions will play a critical role.
Solution vendors define IBOR in different ways; not surprisingly; many have applied the term to existing solutions. Most of these products already provide the core functionality of intraday position keeping, although some products need to be extended to include this. The vendor solutions are variously based on:
An IBOR is not necessarily a single software application, and in fact is often the result of several applications working together to provide timely data to the front office. In this situation, data architecture and integration are critical, as they are to all the vendor solutions outlined above. Even integrated front-to-back options require robust integration with a variety of internal and external data sources, and they are frequently supplemented with third party portfolio modeling and analytics tools.
A solution must also be a proportionate response to the business problem being addressed and must offer a reasonable return on investment. If portfolio managers are spending their valuable time extracting and cleansing data and constructing views to suit their processes, an automated solution could bring substantial cost savings. A more robust solution can also give intangible benefits including improved quality of data for decision-making and the resulting reduction of operational risk.
IBOR has more than one definition and the way that buy-side firms approach an IBOR solution depends on the problems they are trying to solve, the complexity of their organization structure, and their existing technology environment. Solution vendors see IBOR as an opportunity, and most of their products are based on existing applications, some with major extensions. But there are many possible means of arriving at the goal of clean, timely, and complete position data, and an IBOR does not have to be a single application, nor a vendor product.
Some would say that portfolio managers already have an IBOR—after all, they are making investment decisions daily. But is the process to create the IBOR efficient? Is it complete, accurate, and timely, or is it dependent on the use of local, often spreadsheet-based, workarounds? Ad hoc approaches may be acceptable in some cases, but many investment managers now operate in a complex, risk-aware, fast-moving environment where a properly automated and managed IBOR solution is becoming essential.
About the Author
Judy Blackwell has more than 30 years of information technology experience within the investment management industry. She joined Cutter Associates in 2006 and has worked as part of CutterResearch since 2007. Recent research assignments have included Managing Alternative Investments, Preparing for Central Clearing of OTC Derivatives, Research Management Systems, and Front Office Data.
Prior to joining Cutter Associates, Judy worked for a number of investment management firms as a consultant and in project management roles. Her experience includes IT strategy, technology outsourcing, and business process outsourcing programs. She has experience in institutional asset management, as well as retail and private client business, and has managed large-scale projects developing and implementing front and back office systems.
For firms struggling with any aspect of how to effectively implement an IBOR, Cutter Associates can help. With expertise in OMS, data management, and operational best practices, Cutter has the resources and insights you need to succeed. For more information, contact us at 1 339 469 0600 or by email email@example.com.
CutterResearch content is the proprietary property of Cutter Associates and our members who have entered into confidentiality agreements. It contains information that is proprietary and confidential to Cutter as well as to the vendors discussed within the reports (the "Vendors"). Disclosure of the information contained in the reports could cause irreparable harm to Cutter and/or the Vendors.
By selecting "I Agree" below, you agree to safeguard this information with the same care as your firm affords its own confidential information. You will not provide access to this information to anyone who is not an employee of your firm and will not distribute this information outside your firm. Furthermore, you will not provide access to this information to any employee of any subsidiary, unit, department or division of your firm that is engaged in any aspect of the software business involving third parties, including, without limitation, selling or otherwise providing software to third parties, assisting third parties in the selection or implementation of software, or providing investment related software information to third parties (collectively, the "Prohibited Recipients").