Best Investors
Sign in
Best Investors
Sign in
Form ADV Part 1A Item 5K(4) · Answer type: yn · Item 5 - Separately Managed Accounts
Item 5K(4) asks whether, after subtracting the amounts in Item 5.D.(3)(d)-(f) above from your total regulatory assets under management, does any custodian hold ten percent or more of this remaining amount of regulatory assets under management. This identifies concentration of separately managed account assets at individual custodial institutions.
The calculation starts with 5F(2)(c) total regulatory AUM and subtracts assets from Item 5.D.(3)(d)-(f) categories: investment companies (mutual funds), business development companies, and other pooled investment vehicles. The remaining amount represents separately managed account regulatory AUM.
If any single custodian holds 10% or more of that remaining SMA-related regulatory AUM, the firm answers Yes. This threshold captures significant custodial relationships that could affect operational risk, client service, or business continuity if problems arise with major custodial institutions.
5K(4) helps regulators understand custodial concentration risks in the separately managed account business, which operates differently from pooled vehicle custody arrangements. SMA custody involves individual client accounts with separate legal ownership, different operational requirements, and distinct regulatory protections.
Custodians in this context typically include banks, trust companies, broker-dealers, and other qualified institutions that hold client securities and cash, execute trades, provide account statements, and handle other operational functions for separately managed accounts.
High custodial concentration can create operational dependencies where problems at a single custodian could significantly disrupt client service, account access, or trading capabilities for a large portion of the firm's SMA business. This concentration also creates negotiating dynamics between the advisory firm and custodial institutions.
Some advisory firms concentrate assets at one or few custodians to achieve operational efficiency, better fee negotiations, integrated technology systems, and streamlined client service. Others diversify across multiple custodians to reduce concentration risk and provide client choice in custodial arrangements.
The 10% threshold represents a regulatory focus point for identifying material custodial relationships that warrant additional disclosure and potentially enhanced oversight given their importance to the firm's SMA operations and client service capabilities.
Different custodial arrangements offer different service levels, fee structures, technology capabilities, and operational strengths that can significantly affect the client experience and adviser efficiency in managing separately managed accounts.
5K(4) - After subtracting the amounts in Item 5.D.(3)(d)-(f) above from your total regulatory assets under management, does any custodian hold ten percent or more of this remaining amount of regulatory assets under management (Yes / No).
This is one question in Item 5K, "Separately Managed Account Clients." It applies only to firms that answered Yes to 5K(1) indicating they manage separately managed accounts.
5K(4) reveals whether the firm has concentrated custodial relationships that could affect operational resilience, client service quality, or business continuity. High custodial concentration might indicate operational efficiency but also creates dependency risks if problems arise with major custodial partners.
If you value diversified custodial arrangements that reduce single-point-of-failure risks, firms with No answers here demonstrate more distributed custodial relationships. However, concentration is not necessarily negative if it results from working with high-quality custodial institutions.
A Yes does not tell you which specific custodians hold large asset concentrations, their service quality, fee structures, or operational capabilities. These details appear in Schedule D filings and client agreements that specify custodial arrangements for individual accounts.
The answer also does not indicate whether clients can choose their preferred custodians or whether the firm mandates specific custodial relationships. Some advisers offer custodial choice while others standardize on preferred partners for operational efficiency.
Custodial concentration does not predict client protection levels, since qualified custodians must meet regulatory standards regardless of the asset amounts they hold. However, concentration can affect service disruption risks if custodial problems occur.
The 10% threshold provides regulatory insight into material relationships but may not capture the practical importance of custodial arrangements for client service quality, operational efficiency, or cost management in separately managed account operations.
Yes
The firm reports that at least one custodian holds 10% or more of separately managed account regulatory AUM. On Best Investors, find Item 5K on the firm's ADV panel and confirm 5K(4) is Yes.
This indicates material custodial relationships that create operational dependencies but may also reflect efficient operations, strong custodial partnerships, or client preferences for specific institutions.
Review Item 9 custody disclosures for additional information about the firm's custodial arrangements, client asset protection measures, and any custody-related conflicts of interest that might affect your account.
Ask the firm about their custodial selection criteria, client choice in custodial arrangements, backup plans for custodial disruptions, and how custodial relationships affect account fees, service levels, and operational capabilities.
No
The firm does not report any custodian holding 10% or more of separately managed account regulatory AUM. This indicates more distributed custodial relationships that may reduce concentration risk but could also reflect smaller scale operations or diverse client custodial preferences.
Distributed custody arrangements can provide operational resilience and client choice but may also create complexity in operations, reporting, and client service coordination across multiple custodial platforms.
The absence of custodial concentration does not guarantee better service or lower risks, as operational quality depends more on custodial partner selection and service capabilities than asset distribution patterns.