Increase operational efficiency
Every Investment Manager has different needs, so it’s vital to find asset management software that works for you! We are often appreciated for our transparency and our Investment Management Solution (IMS) may not be the right fit for everyone.
In this article, we shine the light on the specific functionalities of Limina IMS and when Limina IMS might not be the best match for you.
Limina develops, delivers, and services an Investment Management System (Limina IMS) which spans the following functional areas:
- Order Management Capabilities
- Portfolio Management Capabilities
- Data Management & data quality controls
- Investment Book of Record
- Risk & Performance Attribution
- Pre- and post-trade Compliance
- Managed Integration Services
As former investment managers ourselves, we know that the choice of a (partner) vendor for these areas is an important and sometimes even daunting decision.
Furthermore, choosing an IMS vendor is not always a one-way street. In other words, just as you are looking for the right vendor to partner with, we as a vendor, are looking for the best-fit clients that will get the most value from our solutions and our partnership approach to client engagement.
In order to help you ascertain whether or not Limina is right for your business, let’s take a look at some of the most common reasons why managers might choose another investment management platform than Limina's.
1. Prefer the benefits of a large vendor
Limina is an emerging vendor that has been around for less than a decade. There are both pros and cons for asset managers working with emerging (small in relative terms) vendors and established (large) vendors. As with everything in life, it’s a tradeoff and you can’t have just the benefits of either choice. In the below table, we summarise the pros and cons our clients tell us they consider when making the decision between an emerging vs established vendor:
| Benefits | Drawbacks | |
| Modern vendor |
|
|
| Legacy vendor |
|
|
Other suggested considerations, irrespective of the size and tenure of the vendor you’re considering include:
- Source of capital – Is the vendor using debt to build their business or do they have investors that fund the growth?
- Ownership structure – Does the ownership structure of the vendor create any inherent conflicts of interest or affiliations with market participants that could create a challenging situation? For example; is the vendor part of an asset manager who might prioritise their needs first? Or might the vendor have owners with a short-term agenda?
In the below video, our colleagues Ulf Svensson and Tove Edman discuss the topic of benefits and drawbacks of new and old vendors in greater depth:
2. Not a fit functionally
As an emerging vendor, Limina has had less time to develop the breadth and depth of functional coverage compared to some established vendors. That being said, our microservices architecture enables us to develop and deploy new functionality quickly.
Although it becomes less and less likely that we have functional gaps compared with your requirements, as each day goes by.
We always recommend that you check your current functional requirements against a vendor’s capabilities. This is true for any vendor that you may be evaluating, new or old. If a vendor can’t satisfy a key requirement, then ask if they can commit to delivering on your needs and timeline. If it's not feasible for the requirement to be met, then it may be best for you to consider other investment management solutions.
An important note to mention on this topic is that you can’t check for future requirements today. Your requirements next year might be known, but beyond that, you are less likely to know what strategies you might launch, what regulations may be introduced or how the markets will evolve. Hence, as a general recommendation, consider vendors that:
- Invest heavily and effectively (i.e. have low technical debt) in R&D, and
- Have a technological foundation that enables them to deliver fast and stable functionality
In relation to both of the above bullets, Limina is a great choice.
3. Cost cutting is the highest priority
For some firms, cost-cutting is a higher priority than other considerations such as:
- Lowering operational risk,
- Overcoming fragmented workflows,
- Increasing confidence in data, or
- Increasing oversight.
If that’s the case, it’s ok! There are times to focus on business development and there are times to focus on cost-cutting.
Limina is not always the best option if short-term cost-cutting is your primary goal. We usually enable a lower system-related cost. At the same time, the Limina Investment Management Platform and our support model have been designed with the primary objectives to help you lower operational risk and grow. This means we have functionality such as:
- Data quality controls
- Dashboards & data drilldown
- Data import/export application
- Approval workflows for trades & changes
- Ability to capture data through its lifecycle (for example preliminary deposits/redemptions, or an allocation that is not matching)
To get the most out of the Limina IMS, proper implementation of these functional areas is recommended. The points above require initial up-front investment to get the maximum value out of the platform.
Depending on what solutions you’re comparing us with, the subscription or license fee might be higher or lower. In the name of transparency, we've published our subscriptions fees on our website.
4. Not looking for Software-as-a-Service or a cloud-native system
Limina is a cloud-native Institutional Portfolio Management Software. We have never deployed our Investment Management System and our operating model doesn’t allow us to. Hence, we’re not a great fit if you would like a deployed solution.
While asset managers increasingly prefer a cloud-native solution (and there is a shortage of them), there are sometimes good reasons for not choosing a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) or cloud-native solution!
Three of the primary reasons are:
4A. Upgrade cycles can’t be fully controlled by you
Limina offers two schedules for releases: every 3 weeks and every 3 months. If neither of these fits your governance processes, we might not be a great fit. If you think you can’t make quarterly releases work, please contact us and we’d be happy to explore if this is truly the case – or founded on a misconception of the upgrade risks you face in legacy systems but not in a modern microservices system.
4B. You can’t have access to Limina IMS’s database
In our view, one of the biggest mistakes a cloud vendor can make is allowing clients to access the system’s database. This is because it severely limits the vendor's ability to deliver:
- A cost-effective solution,
- New and updated functionality quickly, and
- Manage upgrades in a low-risk fashion.
There is however, other ways for a vendor to enable critical customisation for the truly unique workflows, illustrated here:
It's not recommended to engineer processes off the back of the vendor’s database as such processes might cease to work when the vendor software is upgraded (due to changes in the vendor database schema). Such database-dependent processes can also create severe challenges for you if you want to change investment management solutions because critical processes are dependent upon access to a vendor’s database.
If you’re not as convinced as we are, we’d be more than happy to hear your thoughts on why we might be wrong in our stance on database access – please do contact us.
4C. You're not allowed to put your investment data in the cloud
For example, if you’re a sovereign wealth fund you might not be permitted (yet) to have your data in the cloud. Or there might be restrictions on where in the world your data could be hosted if you choose a cloud vendor.
Limina IMS can run in almost any cloud environment in any geographical region, but we’re unable to deploy the Investment Management Software on your premises.
In the video below, our CTO Andreas Fürst goes into further depth of aspects to keep in mind when considering an Enterprise SaaS solution:
5. You require a single front-to-back solution from one vendor
Our industry is in a paradigm shift from closed front-to-back Office platforms to next-generation investment management solutions that are cloud-native, highly interoperable, and extensible. Any such platform will at the core be an Investment Book of Record.
As we saw in the beginning, Limina is a Front-to-Middle office system with an IBOR, pre- & post-trade compliance capabilities and performance attribution & risk (through Axioma). Furthermore, we cover shadow NAV.
However, we don’t cover every potential functional area. At the same time, we don’t believe it’s necessary to do so. That is because our cloud-native, API foundation allows for real-time, managed integration amongst systems with the client ecosystem.
For example, Limina doesn't calculate VaR. However, Limina can consume VaR from Qontigo and surface the statistic within portfolio monitoring, compliance and other workflows.
In summary, we focus on being the industry leader within our core competencies (holistic front-to-middle office workflows) and operate within a framework that permits us to deliver complete solutions to clients via integration with client-selected technology & service providers.
When Limina might be a great fit
Hopefully, this article has been helpful in order you help you figure out if Limina might not be the best choice for you. If you would like to explore when we might be a great fit, you can read about that here or check out the video below:
Our founder Kristoffer Fürst talking about when Limina Investment Management System might be a great fit for asset managers
Do you want to explore if Limina might be a good fit for your business after all? If you’d like to learn more about the Limina platform, please contact our team today. As former asset managers ourselves, we know how difficult system procurement processes are and that vendors might not always be fully transparent. Hence, we've created a guide to help you in any buy-side system procurement.
Get the latest research, insights and comparisons
Kristoffer Fürst
3 days ago
100+ mid-sized investment managers answered questions on their spreadsheet usage. 48% of our clients transitioned from Excel, so I can confidently disagree with the findings:
FINDING 1
Finding: Firms that rely heavily on spreadsheets, are less likely to rate it as a problem. They’re less likely to identify the time lost in spreadsheet maintenence. The study cites this as a revelation.
My take: Of course! That’s the reason someone pushes spreadsheet usage too far. Otherwise, the spreadsheets would've been replaced already. Not a revelation :-)
FINDING 2
Finding: 73% say their firm/department wastes time on spreadsheets.
My take: I wouldn’t have asked the question like this. If the survey respondent is the CEO, then it would work. But for all other roles, the question is asked in a way that it’s possible to answer “yes” and consider someone else to be the “time waster”. If the question would’ve been “do YOU waste time on spreadsheets” the answer wouldn’t have been 73%. This is why the problem doesn’t get adressed.
FINDING 3
Finding: The firms that rely on spreadsheets are more likely concerned with flexibility.
My take: This surprised me. No system is more flexible than Excel by definition - because in Excel you can build anything. Systems are limited in what they support, even “almost everything” is less than Excel. Not sure what else to say, I’d love to be able to ask followup questions here - too bad I don’t have insights into who the respondents are (please DM me if you're one of them!)
Do you agree with the survey findings or my take? See you in the comments 👇
----- ----- ----- -----
48% of Limina’s clients transitioned from spreadsheets to our investment management platform. Most would cite “outgrown Excel” as the reason, and less so the detailed level of reasons covered in this survey.
Link to article in the comments. It's biased towards hedge funds. My guess would be it translates reasonably well to asset managers, but less so for asset owners. What's your take?
FINDING 1
Finding: Firms that rely heavily on spreadsheets, are less likely to rate it as a problem. They’re less likely to identify the time lost in spreadsheet maintenence. The study cites this as a revelation.
My take: Of course! That’s the reason someone pushes spreadsheet usage too far. Otherwise, the spreadsheets would've been replaced already. Not a revelation :-)
FINDING 2
Finding: 73% say their firm/department wastes time on spreadsheets.
My take: I wouldn’t have asked the question like this. If the survey respondent is the CEO, then it would work. But for all other roles, the question is asked in a way that it’s possible to answer “yes” and consider someone else to be the “time waster”. If the question would’ve been “do YOU waste time on spreadsheets” the answer wouldn’t have been 73%. This is why the problem doesn’t get adressed.
FINDING 3
Finding: The firms that rely on spreadsheets are more likely concerned with flexibility.
My take: This surprised me. No system is more flexible than Excel by definition - because in Excel you can build anything. Systems are limited in what they support, even “almost everything” is less than Excel. Not sure what else to say, I’d love to be able to ask followup questions here - too bad I don’t have insights into who the respondents are (please DM me if you're one of them!)
Do you agree with the survey findings or my take? See you in the comments 👇
----- ----- ----- -----
48% of Limina’s clients transitioned from spreadsheets to our investment management platform. Most would cite “outgrown Excel” as the reason, and less so the detailed level of reasons covered in this survey.
Link to article in the comments. It's biased towards hedge funds. My guess would be it translates reasonably well to asset managers, but less so for asset owners. What's your take?
Read more
Share
Kristoffer Fürst
4 days ago
The most common approach to investment book of record (IBOR), explained in 62 seconds below. I also cover the top 2 problems in the text:
Quick recap for those unfamiliar with IBOR: it's how a system approaches positions & cash (i.e. portfolio views). Which type of IBOR is a fundamental consideration of any front, middle or back office system - that is often overlooked in a selection process, until it's too late.
Those of you who followed my posts on IBOR lately are familiar with this 3-bucket categorisation:
Gen-➀ Flush & Fill ("not a real IBOR"-IBOR). Video on IBOR generation 1: https://lnkd.in/gAdWEZjS
Gen-➁ Rolling Balance (what this post is about)
Gen-➂ Live-extract (generate any portfolio view past, present, projected - with confidence in preliminary cash, etc). Limina takes this approach, to overcome the problems of Gen-1 & 2 🙂
⚠️ Top 2 problems with the Rolling Balance IBOR:
➀ Too slow for Front Office ("eventually complete"). For example, cash movements can arrive T-1
➁ Based on 1 time-series (NAV/accounting view), so all Front Office views are still adjustments. Makes it very clunky or impossible to plan future transactions. Examples:
- usually an incomplete cash ladder (e.g. missing preliminary deposits)
- can't match exposure day-by-day effectively (e.g. vs benchmark today, T+1, T+2)
- weak support for asset re-allocations that have a time component (e.g. external managers / PE-funds / private investments)
Do you agree or disagree? Comment below
PS. Limina's investment management platform is a Gen-3 IBOR
PS2. Tap the double-bell 🔔🔔 located top right of my profile (under the banner), and you'll be notified when I post
Quick recap for those unfamiliar with IBOR: it's how a system approaches positions & cash (i.e. portfolio views). Which type of IBOR is a fundamental consideration of any front, middle or back office system - that is often overlooked in a selection process, until it's too late.
Those of you who followed my posts on IBOR lately are familiar with this 3-bucket categorisation:
Gen-➀ Flush & Fill ("not a real IBOR"-IBOR). Video on IBOR generation 1: https://lnkd.in/gAdWEZjS
Gen-➁ Rolling Balance (what this post is about)
Gen-➂ Live-extract (generate any portfolio view past, present, projected - with confidence in preliminary cash, etc). Limina takes this approach, to overcome the problems of Gen-1 & 2 🙂
⚠️ Top 2 problems with the Rolling Balance IBOR:
➀ Too slow for Front Office ("eventually complete"). For example, cash movements can arrive T-1
➁ Based on 1 time-series (NAV/accounting view), so all Front Office views are still adjustments. Makes it very clunky or impossible to plan future transactions. Examples:
- usually an incomplete cash ladder (e.g. missing preliminary deposits)
- can't match exposure day-by-day effectively (e.g. vs benchmark today, T+1, T+2)
- weak support for asset re-allocations that have a time component (e.g. external managers / PE-funds / private investments)
Do you agree or disagree? Comment below
PS. Limina's investment management platform is a Gen-3 IBOR
PS2. Tap the double-bell 🔔🔔 located top right of my profile (under the banner), and you'll be notified when I post
Read more
Share
Kristoffer Fürst
6 days ago
We're not using a pitch deck (PowerPoint) in the 1st meeting with potential clients anymore. Why? Read more 👇
BACKGROUND
I buy a lot of software and am taken through sales processes. Most of the time, the first/second meeting is a PowerPoint presentation. If I'm lucky, it's just a few slides and then a demo. But often, it's a massive slide deck, without the information I want (use cases, pricing, etc).
If I see a slide with a map of the provider's office, I just want to close down teams/meet/zoom.
Limina is guilty of this approach as well. In the past, we've had slides including "about us".
But we've learnt and adapted. Now, we're using our website and a demo environment.
REASON 1 - OUT OF RESPECT
We make the first meeting/demo interactive. We listen to what software the potential client is looking for, and why. We might end up advising, for example discussing operating models (and not talk about Limina's investment management software at all).
When we "present", we use a demo environment. We go back-and-forth between the demo and our website.
For example, we might point to a section on the website about how we help investment managers spend less time on daily workflows in the front and middle office. Then we show the examples listed in the demo (likely tailored by the role of who's in the meeting).
This is because in a first meeting, you most likely want to figure out if we're a provider you'd like to evaluate further. Where our offices are located is unlikely relevant for that decision.
REASON 2 - BECAUSE WE'RE TRANSPARENT
We don't hide things from clients, potential clients or anyone else for that matter.
If we have information in a slide deck that is relevant for a potential client, that information should go on the website so anyone can see it without having to contact us first. Examples include functional coverage and pricing.
It's how we want to buy software in 2025. So it's how businesses should sell in 2025.
PS. Image from yesterday in Ischgl, Austria & Switzerland
PS2. Tap the double-bell 🔔🔔 located top right of my profile (under the banner), and you'll be notified when I post
BACKGROUND
I buy a lot of software and am taken through sales processes. Most of the time, the first/second meeting is a PowerPoint presentation. If I'm lucky, it's just a few slides and then a demo. But often, it's a massive slide deck, without the information I want (use cases, pricing, etc).
If I see a slide with a map of the provider's office, I just want to close down teams/meet/zoom.
Limina is guilty of this approach as well. In the past, we've had slides including "about us".
But we've learnt and adapted. Now, we're using our website and a demo environment.
REASON 1 - OUT OF RESPECT
We make the first meeting/demo interactive. We listen to what software the potential client is looking for, and why. We might end up advising, for example discussing operating models (and not talk about Limina's investment management software at all).
When we "present", we use a demo environment. We go back-and-forth between the demo and our website.
For example, we might point to a section on the website about how we help investment managers spend less time on daily workflows in the front and middle office. Then we show the examples listed in the demo (likely tailored by the role of who's in the meeting).
This is because in a first meeting, you most likely want to figure out if we're a provider you'd like to evaluate further. Where our offices are located is unlikely relevant for that decision.
REASON 2 - BECAUSE WE'RE TRANSPARENT
We don't hide things from clients, potential clients or anyone else for that matter.
If we have information in a slide deck that is relevant for a potential client, that information should go on the website so anyone can see it without having to contact us first. Examples include functional coverage and pricing.
It's how we want to buy software in 2025. So it's how businesses should sell in 2025.
PS. Image from yesterday in Ischgl, Austria & Switzerland
PS2. Tap the double-bell 🔔🔔 located top right of my profile (under the banner), and you'll be notified when I post
Read more
Share
Kristoffer Fürst
7 February
Have you ever been asked by a provider to sign an NDA? I have. It’s a good filter for exclusion from your list
Signing an NDA to get access to information like pricing or detailed feature capabilities is an outdated approach, mainly by vendors of the last millennium. There is no good reason in 2025 for a provider to hide their product from potential clients. Just writing that sentence feels ridiculous.
Anyway, this is an outdated practice. A provider that wants an NDA, will very likely have outdated practices in other places as well, including product development. So it’s a good signal that it’s not a “provider of the future”.
In summary:
YOU can ask the vendor for an NDA.
But the vendor shouldn't ask YOU for an NDA.
If they do, just move on to the next provider :-)
Signing an NDA to get access to information like pricing or detailed feature capabilities is an outdated approach, mainly by vendors of the last millennium. There is no good reason in 2025 for a provider to hide their product from potential clients. Just writing that sentence feels ridiculous.
Anyway, this is an outdated practice. A provider that wants an NDA, will very likely have outdated practices in other places as well, including product development. So it’s a good signal that it’s not a “provider of the future”.
In summary:
YOU can ask the vendor for an NDA.
But the vendor shouldn't ask YOU for an NDA.
If they do, just move on to the next provider :-)
Read more
Share
Kristoffer Fürst
6 February
Use me as your free consultant! What topics do you want me to cover?
I share free advice, tactics, research, opinions, etc - here on LinkedIn. I want it to be as valuable as possible for you. Which is why I ask: what do you want me to talk about?
* What do you want me to talk more about? topics? tactical or strategic? opinions?
* What do you want less of?
* Do you have a preference on format (text, illustrations, talking video)?
* Is there any type of research or stats you think I (or our team) might be in a good position to produce and share?
Comment of DM
Do you feel I’m already doing the best work possible? Just like this post please 😆 and turn on notifications (go to my profile and tab double-bell under the banner)
I share free advice, tactics, research, opinions, etc - here on LinkedIn. I want it to be as valuable as possible for you. Which is why I ask: what do you want me to talk about?
* What do you want me to talk more about? topics? tactical or strategic? opinions?
* What do you want less of?
* Do you have a preference on format (text, illustrations, talking video)?
* Is there any type of research or stats you think I (or our team) might be in a good position to produce and share?
Comment of DM
Do you feel I’m already doing the best work possible? Just like this post please 😆 and turn on notifications (go to my profile and tab double-bell under the banner)
Read more
Share
Kristoffer Fürst
5 February
“It’s already fully automated” was the opening line of a call with an investment manager. Well... it wasn’t. But they didn’t know and I don't blame them for one second.
Candidates for automation via exception-based workflows:
* perform any type of recurring data transformation in a spreadsheet, i.e. same transformation more than once
* have reminders on the calendar
* perform any tasks that can be described as “check that X”
I get that it’s always been done this way. So it’s ingrained in our thinking. Your team just opens up Excel and don’t even think about it as a manual process.
But it often is. And it’s sad. Because significant efficiency improvements (2x+) are left on the table.
Candidates for automation via exception-based workflows:
* perform any type of recurring data transformation in a spreadsheet, i.e. same transformation more than once
* have reminders on the calendar
* perform any tasks that can be described as “check that X”
I get that it’s always been done this way. So it’s ingrained in our thinking. Your team just opens up Excel and don’t even think about it as a manual process.
But it often is. And it’s sad. Because significant efficiency improvements (2x+) are left on the table.
Read more
Share
Kristoffer Fürst
4 February
An investment manager saved more than 50% of their operations cost, when switching system. That's more than the cost of the investment system! They didn't stare at a feature list when evaluating providers.
I strongly believe that workflow efficiency should be given a larger emphasis in system selections. Most RFI/RFPs focus on features (yes/no).
A client of Limina saved 50% on their entire operational cost when changing from another system to us. And it's not a one-off case study, we have more cases that are in the same ballpark. The saving is due to a unique approach to workflow automation (exception-based workflows) which isn't a dream. Exception-based workflows really do provide massive efficiency improvements, in the real world, here and now.
These benefits aren't uncovered with a simple yes/no answer checklist.
Tactical advice:
* Use an RFI checklist to shortlist vendors (functional coverage, security questions, etc)
* Then use proof-of-value, demos, business cases to pick the best providers among the shortlisted
The difference between providers might look like <5% on paper. But in reality, it can be more than 2x! As the referenced case study highlights
I'd love to hear your perspective - why isn't this approach taken most of the time?
And what do you think about the car analogy (see image)?
Join the conversation in the comments below.
PS. Tap the double-bell 🔔🔔 located top right of my profile (under the banner), and you'll be notified when I post
I strongly believe that workflow efficiency should be given a larger emphasis in system selections. Most RFI/RFPs focus on features (yes/no).
A client of Limina saved 50% on their entire operational cost when changing from another system to us. And it's not a one-off case study, we have more cases that are in the same ballpark. The saving is due to a unique approach to workflow automation (exception-based workflows) which isn't a dream. Exception-based workflows really do provide massive efficiency improvements, in the real world, here and now.
These benefits aren't uncovered with a simple yes/no answer checklist.
Tactical advice:
* Use an RFI checklist to shortlist vendors (functional coverage, security questions, etc)
* Then use proof-of-value, demos, business cases to pick the best providers among the shortlisted
The difference between providers might look like <5% on paper. But in reality, it can be more than 2x! As the referenced case study highlights
I'd love to hear your perspective - why isn't this approach taken most of the time?
And what do you think about the car analogy (see image)?
Join the conversation in the comments below.
PS. Tap the double-bell 🔔🔔 located top right of my profile (under the banner), and you'll be notified when I post
Read more
Share
Kristoffer Fürst
30 January
You select a consultant, who helps you select a system. So you need to do 2 selections instead of 1. It’s still often a good choice - but beware
If you’re buying complex software, such as investment technology, a system selection consultant/advisor can be invaluable:
1. They can advise on operating models, i.e. what types of software kits to select (all-in-one vs best-of-breed, etc) depending on what you're aiming to achieve. They know what others have selected, and why.
2. They know the provider landscape already, so you get that knowledge “for free” without having to do the research yourself. Often a shortlist is assembled quickly and in a cost-effective way
3. They’re skilled at getting to the truth, cutting through providers trying to hide product shortcomings for example (sadly, it happens)
⚠️ BUT.... And it’s a big BUT: ensure your incentives are aligned!
Most system selections consultants are formally independent today. I.e there aren't kickback agreements with vendors.
That doesn’t mean they’re unbiased.
Consider, do they also have a professional services arm that does implementation work? If so, there >could< be a bias (unconscious or not) towards suggesting systems that are complicated to implement.
In all honesty, I know many system selection firms and consultant. Only on 2 occasions has the above been an issue. All others go over and beyond to keep their advise clean and truly unbiased 🌟
What's your experience?
PS. Tap the double-bell 🔔🔔 located top right of my profile (under the banner), and you'll be notified when I post
If you’re buying complex software, such as investment technology, a system selection consultant/advisor can be invaluable:
1. They can advise on operating models, i.e. what types of software kits to select (all-in-one vs best-of-breed, etc) depending on what you're aiming to achieve. They know what others have selected, and why.
2. They know the provider landscape already, so you get that knowledge “for free” without having to do the research yourself. Often a shortlist is assembled quickly and in a cost-effective way
3. They’re skilled at getting to the truth, cutting through providers trying to hide product shortcomings for example (sadly, it happens)
⚠️ BUT.... And it’s a big BUT: ensure your incentives are aligned!
Most system selections consultants are formally independent today. I.e there aren't kickback agreements with vendors.
That doesn’t mean they’re unbiased.
Consider, do they also have a professional services arm that does implementation work? If so, there >could< be a bias (unconscious or not) towards suggesting systems that are complicated to implement.
In all honesty, I know many system selection firms and consultant. Only on 2 occasions has the above been an issue. All others go over and beyond to keep their advise clean and truly unbiased 🌟
What's your experience?
PS. Tap the double-bell 🔔🔔 located top right of my profile (under the banner), and you'll be notified when I post
Read more
Share
Kristoffer Fürst
28 January
Everything you need to know about Investment Book Of Record (IBOR): what it is/isn't, use cases, the 3 types, IBOR vs ABOR and how an IBOR fits into your operating model - you already have at least one, probably multiple.
Regardless of your role, I really think this is worth watching.
Admittedly, I'm biased when I say that. However, this is a decade of knowledge and more than 200 hours of active work to simplify concepts, understand systems and use cases - distilled into just 19 minutes and 38 seconds.
You'll watch it once, and understand a vast amount more about any system you - or your team - use in the investment lifecycle, from Front, through Middle, to Back Office.
In the video, I go into depth on:
* What an IBOR is, and why (unfortunately) almost any investment management system can be considered an IBOR nowadays
* Each of the 3 types of Investment Book Of Record (generation 1-3), how you can tell them apart and the pros/cons with each
* The use cases of IBORs, from Front Office decision-making investment operations (reconciliation for example)
* How an IBOR generation 3 works and why it doesn’t require more maintenance than a flush & fill system
* IBOR vs ABOR (Accounting Book Of Record) and other Books Of Record, including PBOR and CBOR
* And finally, how an IBOR platform can fit (or not) into your operating model
https://lnkd.in/djepeUGu
And please do me a tiny favour: subscribe on youtube. I've got 4 subscribers (who knows how that happened) so your subscribe will make a difference :-)
PS. No, I'm >not< aiming for a career as a youtuber, thankfully...
Regardless of your role, I really think this is worth watching.
Admittedly, I'm biased when I say that. However, this is a decade of knowledge and more than 200 hours of active work to simplify concepts, understand systems and use cases - distilled into just 19 minutes and 38 seconds.
You'll watch it once, and understand a vast amount more about any system you - or your team - use in the investment lifecycle, from Front, through Middle, to Back Office.
In the video, I go into depth on:
* What an IBOR is, and why (unfortunately) almost any investment management system can be considered an IBOR nowadays
* Each of the 3 types of Investment Book Of Record (generation 1-3), how you can tell them apart and the pros/cons with each
* The use cases of IBORs, from Front Office decision-making investment operations (reconciliation for example)
* How an IBOR generation 3 works and why it doesn’t require more maintenance than a flush & fill system
* IBOR vs ABOR (Accounting Book Of Record) and other Books Of Record, including PBOR and CBOR
* And finally, how an IBOR platform can fit (or not) into your operating model
https://lnkd.in/djepeUGu
And please do me a tiny favour: subscribe on youtube. I've got 4 subscribers (who knows how that happened) so your subscribe will make a difference :-)
PS. No, I'm >not< aiming for a career as a youtuber, thankfully...
Read more
Share
Kristoffer Fürst
28 January
The only thing that’s not transparent on our website is supported asset classes. That's despite competitors trying to convince managers that Limina “isn’t cross asset” (we are). Full story:
BACKGROUND
Competitors are trying to box us as “not cross asset”. We know at least two providers that are actively telling consultants and investment managers that Limina is an “equity system”.
Well, equities represent less than a third of the assets on the platform (see image below). And the first asset ever on the platform was a derivative (10 years ago).
We support fixed-income, alternatives, funds, OTC, etc. However, our competitors are strong and loud voices in the industry. So what they say can become the perceived truth.
WHY WE’RE NOT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT
Those of you who follow Limina know that we’re all for transparency. We publish pricing online, detailed product capabilities, etc.
And a lot of content isn't about us or our product - we write guides, share insightful data, and much more. But, we’ve yet to publish an exact list of which asset classes we support.
I prefer that you learn the truth from us rather than receive incorrect information from a 3rd party. So why don’t we just post the asset-class list on our website?
Well, in all honesty, it's because we have 2 gaps (specific instrument types) that I’m a bit embarrassed about. We’re working on both right now and will publish the list once in production.
Want to know the 2 gaps?
If you guess which the 2 gaps are, I’ll tell you.
Put your guess in the comments below and I’ll DM you which the 2 are
(and if you’re a competitor, you'll have to show me your list first, hehe 😆)
BACKGROUND
Competitors are trying to box us as “not cross asset”. We know at least two providers that are actively telling consultants and investment managers that Limina is an “equity system”.
Well, equities represent less than a third of the assets on the platform (see image below). And the first asset ever on the platform was a derivative (10 years ago).
We support fixed-income, alternatives, funds, OTC, etc. However, our competitors are strong and loud voices in the industry. So what they say can become the perceived truth.
WHY WE’RE NOT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT
Those of you who follow Limina know that we’re all for transparency. We publish pricing online, detailed product capabilities, etc.
And a lot of content isn't about us or our product - we write guides, share insightful data, and much more. But, we’ve yet to publish an exact list of which asset classes we support.
I prefer that you learn the truth from us rather than receive incorrect information from a 3rd party. So why don’t we just post the asset-class list on our website?
Well, in all honesty, it's because we have 2 gaps (specific instrument types) that I’m a bit embarrassed about. We’re working on both right now and will publish the list once in production.
Want to know the 2 gaps?
If you guess which the 2 gaps are, I’ll tell you.
Put your guess in the comments below and I’ll DM you which the 2 are
(and if you’re a competitor, you'll have to show me your list first, hehe 😆)
Read more
Share
