At Unbundling Uncovered New York, Douglas Christensen, VP, SS&C Tier1 and Head of Capital Markets Solutions, was asked three questions that cut directly to the forces reshaping investment research today: AI, regulation, and intellectual property. While these topics are often discussed independently, they're deeply interconnected and together point to a broader shift in how research will be created, valued, and monetized in the years ahead.
AI Is Changing More Than Workflows
The conversation around AI has moved beyond simple automation. What we're seeing now is a transition away from rigid, predefined workflows toward environments where end users can design, develop, and prompt dynamic outcomes themselves.
One of the most talked-about developments today is Model Context Protocol (MCP), and for good reason. As firms begin to connect AI systems more effectively across data, research, and CRM platforms, the landscape could look materially different within the next 12 to 18 months.
The broader implication is that AI is democratizing capabilities across the sell side. Functions that once required significant resources can increasingly be performed at scale, allowing firms of all sizes to create, distribute, and analyze content more efficiently. That shift will inevitably change how research is produced, how it's consumed, and ultimately how it's valued.
The CSA Debate Is Really About Incentives
When it comes to Commission Sharing Agreements (CSAs) and research payment structures, the framework itself is fundamentally sound. The challenge is that the market faces a classic chicken-and-egg problem.
Large asset managers have become comfortable paying for research directly from their P&L. That comfort creates a structural advantage that many are understandably reluctant to give up. As a result, momentum for broader adoption of alternative payment mechanisms remains limited.
Having observed the impact of extensive regulatory intervention in Europe, there’s some concern about calls for additional regulation. The European experience has coincided with shrinking sell-side research teams and declining service consumption across parts of the market. Rather than introducing more frameworks and mandates, the industry may benefit from allowing commercial relationships to evolve more organically.
Research Value Has Always Extended Beyond Content
The discussion around intellectual property protection often focuses on technology and attribution. While technology can certainly play a role in tracking usage and protecting content, the core issue is ultimately a commercial one.
The most valuable aspect of investment research has never been the mass-produced content firms publish to satisfy regulatory obligations. The real value lies in the conversations, meetings, expertise, and differentiated insights that help investors make better decisions.
That doesn't mean written research lacks value. High-quality thematic work, thought-provoking analysis, and deeply researched perspectives remain incredibly important. But firms need to articulate and demonstrate that value directly to their clients rather than relying on assumptions about what research should be worth.
The Bottom Line
The sell side can no longer rely on regulation, CSAs, or vote frameworks as proxies for value.
The firms that succeed will be the ones that embrace new technologies, build stronger client relationships, and clearly demonstrate the impact of their research and services. When you consistently deliver measurable value, budget discussions become far simpler.
In a market increasingly shaped by AI, changing payment models, and evolving client expectations, the winning strategy remains remarkably consistent: service clients commercially, prove your impact, and let value speak for itself.
Watch the full video of Doug's conversation with Mike Carrodus for additional insights on AI's impact on investment research, the future of research monetization, and the trends shaping capital markets.
