Translation: Original published in Finnish on 9/18/2026 at 8:50 am EEST.

Assets under management (AUM) form the core of the business of asset management companies. AUM refers to the capital that clients have entrusted to a company's care. The most common forms are capital held in funds and assets within the scope of discretionary asset management. AUM may also include, for example, an equity portfolio within the scope of advisory asset management. However, AUM is interpreted quite differently by companies, so it is difficult to compare them without deeper research. In this text, we take a closer look at assets under management by asset managers on Nasdaq Helsinki.

There is no single, official formula that all companies use to calculate AUM. Instead, significant differences exist in how companies calculate AUM, which is why absolute AUM alone is a weak indicator of comparability between companies. For instance, some companies include only the funds’ equity (AUM) in their AUM calculations, while others also include the funds’ debt (GAV). In practice, therefore, a real estate fund with 100 MEUR of equity and 100 MEUR of debt may be reported as having 200 MEUR in assets under management by one asset manager, and 100 MEUR by another. Additionally, some operators previously reported the same assets multiple times if the same assets were covered by multiple products or services. However, this bad habit has largely disappeared among the listed companies we cover. Therefore, we recommend that investors focus not only on absolute AUM but also on the relative returns it generates and the quality of the AUM, as these factors generally provide more insight than absolute AUM alone.

AUM in Q2'26

Fee levels, predictability, and scalability determine the quality of AUM

Although there is no single "right" way to measure the quality of assets under management, we believe it ultimately comes down to three factors: the level of fees charged, fee predictability, and scalability. Regarding fee levels, it's clear that higher AUM fees are more valuable. Capital invested in a fund with a 2% fee is more valuable than the same amount invested in a fund with a 1% fee. In addition to the continuous fee (known as the management fee), potential performance fees can also affect the fee level, and these fees can be significant, especially in alternative funds.

Regarding fee predictability, clearly, the more permanent and predictable the assets under management are, the more valuable they are. The first distinction can be drawn between capital that generates recurring revenue and capital that produces occasional transaction fees. Almost without exception, AUM that generates continuous cash flow is considered significantly more valuable by asset managers.

In our view, the strongest guarantee of continuity is high-quality products and services. Satisfied customers rarely have a reason to transfer their assets elsewhere. Naturally, AUM stability is also affected by the structures and history of the underlying products. For private individuals, taxation plays a significant role, and, as a rule of thumb, the higher the returns, the greater private customers' reluctance to transfer these assets elsewhere due to tax consequences. Of course, the construction of the underlying products also affects retention. Money can be withdrawn from open-ended equity funds at any time, whereas capital in closed-end private equity funds, for example, is usually committed to management for over a decade. Fundamentally, capital in alternative products is structurally more permanent than in open-ended products. The quality of the customer relationship also significantly impacts AUM retention. A private customer's discretionary management portfolio is generally much more stable than an investment in individual products.

The industry has naturally also been moving in this direction for quite some time, and nowadays, practically all asset managers focus on recurring fees and may not even want to sell advisory asset management, for example.

Scalability refers to the amount of capital that can be invested using a given strategy. Asset management is a highly scalable industry, and growth and scalability of product sizes are among the most important drivers of profitability across the industry. A company’s profitability potential is naturally determined largely by its own efficiency, but the scalability of AUM also plays a major role. For instance, a fund designed for a very specific asset class may reach its maximum size in the tens of millions of euros. Conversely, a fund that invests in global stock or fixed-income markets, for instance, can scale indefinitely in practice. On average, the listed market also scales significantly better than the unlisted market because managing investment targets in the unlisted segment requires a larger team. Of course, the fees are also better on the alternative side, on average. Generally, the more scalable the products, the more valuable they are to asset managers. Examples of highly scalable assets on Nasdaq Helsinki include the spearhead fixed-income funds from Mandatum, Evli, and Aktia or, on the alternative funds side, Taaleri's Energy and the real estate funds from several different players, which have received significant media coverage recently.

In summary, the most valuable assets under management tend to be wealth tied up in high-quality, scalable products that generate good fees.

Significant differences in AUM returns among various companies

The relative fees earned by listed operators on their AUM vary significantly, and the range between different operators is very wide.

Asset Management revenue/AUM-% (2025)

At eQ, the return on AUM is the lowest in the entire peer group, but this is partly due to the fact that the company includes nearly 4 BEUR of reporting services in its AUM, which generate virtually no return. Adjusted for this, the average earnings on AUM would be approximately 0.6%. This level is a result of the company's customer base being practically entirely focused on institutions. Evli and Aktia also have a low absolute fee level of 0.5%, explained by their focus on traditional asset management and the significant presence of institutions in their business.

For other operators, the level hovers around one percent, except for Alexandria, which is completely in a league of its own in this comparison with revenue per AUM at 2.4%. This exceptionally high level can be attributed to the company’s focus on structured products, which generate relatively high prices compared to AUM that produces recurring fee income.

Looking at the corresponding data as an average for 2021–2025, we see that the changes are very marginal, and 2025 provides a solid representation of the companies' normal return potential on AUM. Titanium's fees have decreased slightly from previous years due to the discontinuation of performance fees from the Hoivarahasto fund, which were previously very abundant. For Taaleri as well, the slight decrease in the fee level is explained by the absence of performance fees in the 2025 figures.

We note that a low or high fee level does not directly indicate the quality of AUM, as we consider, for example, Evli's discretionary traditional wealth management AUM to be more valuable than Alexandria's structured products AUM, which generates significantly higher fees. Our view is based purely on business continuity.

Asset management business revenue/AUM-% (2021-2025 average)

No direct correlation between profitability and AUM

A high fee level on AUM is not in itself a direct guarantee of good profitability. eQ and Evli are among the most profitable companies in the group when measured by 2025 figures, even though their relative earnings on AUM are the lowest. If we look at the absolute scale of AUM, we see a fairly good correlation with profitability. eQ and Evli are among the largest companies in the group measured by AUM, and although Mandatum's asset management reporting is not directly comparable with other listed peers, its profitability is among the absolute best in the sector.

Profitability of asset management businesses (2025)

The profitability figures for Aktia's or Mandatum's wealth management are not directly comparable to other companies.