PwC stellt fest: Margen von Vermögensverwaltern geraten durch steigende Infrastrukturkosten unter Druck.

PwC says asset managers’ profit per dollar of assets under management has fallen 19% since 2018 and is expected to decline a further 9.1% by 2030 as infrastructure costs and fee pressure squeeze margins. In its survey of 150 asset managers and 50 infrastructure providers, 67% said fee pressure limits investment, while 29% spend more than 70% of technology budgets maintaining legacy systems. About 24% cited fragmented data and 17% legacy systems as major barriers to scaling AI; 44% favor hybrid infrastructure sourcing.

Analysis

The investable signal is a potential redistribution of industry economics, not proof of near-term cost savings. AI adoption can initially raise spending on data cleaning, integration and governance; firms with fragmented systems may therefore absorb costs before realizing productivity gains. Over time, standard interfaces and modular infrastructure could lower the scale advantage of owning every layer, while increasing vendor dependence and switching costs. The likely pressure point is pricing power: market-data providers may face tougher procurement scrutiny, but essential data and regulatory workflows should be more resilient than discretionary tools. Larger asset managers may be better positioned to amortize fixed technology costs, accelerating consolidation if smaller firms cannot keep pace.

In the next few weeks, this survey alone is unlikely to justify a sector trade. Over 1–3 months, watch asset-manager earnings commentary for technology expense, operating-margin guidance and evidence that AI is reducing headcount or processing costs rather than adding to them. Over 6–18 months, the winners should be firms that demonstrate interoperable infrastructure and measurable unit-cost reductions; the risk is that migration costs and vendor lock-in delay those benefits. The survey is directional, not company-level evidence. A thesis of broad vendor upside is falsified if buyers continue to defer modernization or if reported savings fail to offset rising technology costs.

Key Decisions for Investors

• Do not trade the broad asset-management or technology complex on this survey alone. Treat it as a diligence prompt; it does not establish which firms have the worst legacy burden or which vendors will capture spending.
• Set a relative-value watchlist: scrutinize data-vendor pricing exposure at FactSet, MSCI, S&P Global and LSEG, while tracking cloud-platform exposure at Amazon Web Services, Microsoft and Google. Do not assume the latter capture net new profit: procurement savings may be competed away, and asset managers may multi-source.
• For asset-manager positions, favor evidence over AI claims: verify technology expense as a share of revenue, operating-margin direction, client retention and disclosed implementation costs. Consider reducing exposure only where margins weaken alongside persistent systems-modernization spending.
• Reassess after the next 1–3 months of company guidance. A credible catalyst is quantified, recurring cost reduction; a falsifier is rising infrastructure expense without improving margins, or continued deferral of modernization. No clean single-name trade is supported without company-level spending and revenue-mix data.