Client story Asset management
Ebix Solution implemented — MoneyWare Asset Management
Investment operations across currencies and time zones
An insurer moved investment accounting and controls into a remotely accessible platform, with a documented infrastructure cost comparison.
Anonymized historical MoneyWare implementation documented in 2015. The reported cost comparison concerns data management and IT infrastructure, not total business expense.
Investment controls depended on manual work
An insurer needed to manage investments across currencies while applying Sharia requirements and internal controls. Its published case describes manual investment accounting, limited reporting and rising infrastructure costs. MoneyWare Asset Management supplied a cloud-based operating environment with remote access.
What the implementation covered
The system supported investment controls, reporting, trade and custodian reconciliation, cash management and fund accounting. It also provided investment-ledger output for the core accounting system. Net assets could be calculated using two approaches to support reconciliation.
The historical source reports data management and IT infrastructure cost at one quarter of the comparison with an on-premise setup and maintenance. That is a scoped cost claim, not a 75% reduction in all operating expenses. The case also describes access across locations and time zones.
Why the accounting boundary matters
Investment teams rarely operate in isolation from the organization’s main accounts. A platform can improve portfolio processing while still leaving manual work at the boundary with the general ledger. That boundary deserves attention during an evaluation.
The same applies to control rules. A calculation being automated does not establish that its configuration reflects the institution’s requirements. The people responsible for investment oversight need a clear process for reviewing changes and investigating exceptions.
How to assess a comparable business case
Compare like-for-like infrastructure and support scope before using any historical cost result as a benchmark. Include migration, interfaces, access controls and ongoing operational responsibilities. Different hosting arrangements can move costs rather than remove them.
For daily operations, examine reconciliation breaks, reporting effort and the handoff to accounting. The broader lesson from this deployment is that remote access and automation were part of the same investment operating model, while the cost comparison remained tied to a specific category of expenditure.
Keep the cost comparison precise and the accounting controls connected.