Do Institutional Investors Have More Clout Now?
This week has been an eye opener in terms of customer service. As I've been signing off on more than a few big purchases related to the opening of a new office, I've noticed that some companies are definitely better than others when it comes to the care and feeding of those who fund their paycheck.
Take Company A for example. Since certain of their models are forced into obsolescence by top management (though still functional), they no longer sell spare parts so one has no choice but to toss otherwise viable products in the trashbin. It seems wasteful to this budget-focused gal but the vendor leaves me little room to maneuver.
Then there is Company B. A purveyor of premium communication accessories, their service representative took down copious details about shipping location and what products we wanted to order. However, to pay for the merchandise, we were directed to a separate billing clerk who had us repeat all the gory details because the two departments had systems that did not talk to one another.
Company C has limited customer service hours and no "Contact Us" email address posted on their website. Hence, we were forced to take precious time during the next work day to call the vendor after we missed reaching them during a limited client care window. It would have been so much nicer to be able to call during extended hours or send a quick email.
The list goes on. I'm sure readers have their own tales to tell.
Anyhow, this repeated angst got me to thinking about client service in buyside land, fiduciary asymmetries and balance of power when it comes to large-scale purchasing. We've conducted enough market research studies to know that things are definitely changing in favor of institutional investors for a bunch of reasons.
Yet, and somewhat puzzling to some (though not to us), there still seems to be a disconnect between how certain products and services are sold to buy side executives. Some transactions that should make immediate sense are not necessarily causing the cash register to kaching for vendors.
Take risk management information technology or due diligence audits for example. Arguably a no-brainer to buy a product or service that helps one better identify, measure and manage risk, whether monies are being managed internally or not, some areas of IT and consulting spending have dipped according to recently published industry reports. While this may change (risk control is the new cool and budgets are being relaxed a bit), a reasonable person logically asks about barriers that currently inhibit sales. VERY importantly, part of the conundrum is the proper identification as to who makes for a logical buyer - Asset Manager? Consultant? Institutional Investor? All of the Above? None of the Above? Other?
When we've dug deep with organizations on both sides of the fence, we've heard variations of the following (with a gigantic caveat that there are some terrific companies in the vanguard when it comes to infrastructure that explicitly embraces their sensitivity to the fiduciary duties for which their institutional investor clients are responsible to discharge):
- From a hypothetical service provider - "We aren't going to implement best practices X, Y and Z until the institutional investor requires us to do so. Otherwise, we're spending money we don't have to spend."
- From a hypothetical consulting firm - "We couldn't possibly engage in all of the best practices you recommend because of the costs to implement. We can't charge our clients enough to recoup our outlays."
- From a hypothetical institutional investment executive - "We just assumed that our vendors are doing what they need to do in order to vet qualitative and quantitative risks appropriately.
No doubt lasting changes are underway with respect to industry participants, pricing structure and investment governance policies and procedures. With turmoil, there is tremendous opportunity to do well by doing good. We are excited about what the future holds in terms of investment best practices.
