On June 11th, Tier1's Doug Christensen, VP, Head of Capital Markets Solutions, joined Mike Carrodus and fellow industry leaders at Unbundling Uncovered New York 2026 for a candid discussion on the current state of research valuation, commission sharing agreements (CSAs), and the evolving economics of investment research.
While the industry continues to make progress, the conversation highlighted several challenges that remain unresolved, and the opportunities ahead for firms willing to adapt.
Progress Is Happening, but Momentum Remains Limited
One of the clearest themes from the discussion was that the infrastructure required to support a global CSA framework largely exists today. Technology, operational processes, and market participants have made significant strides toward enabling more efficient research payment and valuation models.
However, progress has been slower than many anticipated.
Two factors continue to hold the industry back: a lack of regulatory harmonization across jurisdictions and an ongoing reluctance among market participants to standardize research evaluation methodologies. While movement is occurring, true momentum will require broader industry alignment around how research value is measured and rewarded.
Industry Leadership Matters More Than Regulation
The panel also explored the role regulators should play in shaping the future of research valuation.
A key takeaway was that lasting change is more likely to come from industry leadership than regulatory mandates. Large global asset managers are uniquely positioned to establish voluntary best-practice frameworks that encourage consistency across the market and help bring mid-sized firms along.
Experience in Europe serves as an important reminder that imposing structures before the market is ready can create unintended consequences. Rather than prescribing methodologies, regulators can play a more effective role by providing safe harbor frameworks that support innovation while allowing market participants to determine what works best.
Research Valuation Is Facing a Value Versus Volume Challenge
As research evaluation frameworks continue to evolve, many firms are confronting a growing tension between volume and value.
Historically, research budgets were intended to reward differentiated insights and investment impact. Today, however, evaluation processes often place greater emphasis on factors such as availability, activity levels, and breadth of coverage.
The rise of AI is accelerating this trend. As technology makes it easier and less expensive to produce large volumes of content, firms must be increasingly deliberate about distinguishing between research that is abundant and research that is genuinely valuable.
The challenge is not technological, it's economic. Without careful evaluation frameworks, the industry risks rewarding quantity over quality.
Budget Pressure Is Reshaping Research Consumption
The discussion also underscored the reality facing buy-side firms: budgets remain under pressure, and spending decisions are becoming increasingly outcome-driven.
Asset managers are directing resources toward research providers who can demonstrate measurable value and tangible impact on investment decision-making. In this environment, differentiation matters more than ever.
Research providers that clearly communicate their expertise, judgment, and contribution to client outcomes will continue to earn budget allocation. Those unable to demonstrate value are more likely to find themselves competing on price alone.
Looking Ahead
The future of research valuation will not be determined by regulation or technology alone. It will be shaped by how effectively the industry aligns incentives, measures value, and adapts to changing client expectations.
While AI, evolving payment models, and budget pressures continue to transform the landscape, one principle remains unchanged: firms that deliver differentiated insights and measurable impact will be best positioned to succeed.