Azimut Holding: Italy's Rebel Asset Manager Goes Global

I. Introduction & Episode Roadmap

The Milan financial district hums with an energy shaped by centuries of commerce—from medieval merchant banking to modern-day high finance. Yet within this landscape dominated by massive institutions, one company has spent over three decades proving that independence is not merely possible but strategically powerful. Azimut Holding, founded in 1990 by Pietro Giuliani in Milan, has grown into a global player with operations across 20 countries in Europe, the Americas, the Middle East, Asia, and emerging markets.

At first glance, the numbers tell a compelling story. As of September 2025, the group manages assets under management (AUM) totaling €123 billion and serves over 1.6 million clients worldwide through a network of more than 2,200 financial advisors. But numbers alone don't capture what makes Azimut genuinely distinctive. This is a company that staged a management buyout to escape bank ownership, pioneered ESG investing in Italy before it was fashionable, and is now attempting to spin off half its Italian distribution network into a digitally-native fintech bank.

Azimut is committed to its independence—an independence won and defended with determination. They are independent of banking, insurance and industrial groups and proud to be the largest independent asset manager in Italy. That phrase—"won and defended"—reveals something essential about the company's DNA. In the Italian financial services market, independence from banking groups isn't merely a competitive strategy; it's a cultural statement that touches on trust, alignment, and the very purpose of financial advice.

Their business model aligns the interests of portfolio managers, financial partners, employees and management personnel who together drive the company in their capacity as shareholders. "Because this is our strength—we are our own shareholders." A shareholders' agreement (covering around 22% of the share capital) binds over 2,000 shareholders in a voting bloc, including employees, financial partners, portfolio managers and management.

The central question for investors is profound: How did an Italian financial advisor build a global independent asset manager by staging a management buyout and then expanding across 20 countries—all while maintaining an ownership structure that aligns advisors, managers, and shareholders? The answer involves strategic vision, regulatory arbitrage, and an almost religious commitment to independence that has defined Azimut's identity for over three decades.

This deep dive will trace the full arc—from founding in the late 1980s through the transformational MBO, the 2004 IPO, the audacious global expansion into emerging markets, the pivot toward private markets, and finally to the current TNB bank spin-off transaction with FSI that could reshape the company's future. Along the way, we'll analyze the competitive dynamics, the unique ownership model, and the key questions facing long-term investors.

---

↑ Back to Top

II. The Italian Financial Services Context & Founding Era (Late 1980s–1990)

To understand what Pietro Giuliani built, you must first understand what he was building against. Italy in the 1980s possessed one of Europe's most tightly controlled financial systems—a market where retail savings flowed almost exclusively through banks, insurance companies, or state-connected institutions. Independent financial advice was rare; independent asset management rarer still.

The Italian banking landscape of this era was defined by what economists call "financial repression"—regulations that channeled household savings toward specific institutions and instruments. Mutual funds were just beginning to emerge. Financial advisors, to the extent they existed independently, operated in regulatory gray zones. The concept of a wealth manager truly independent of banking, insurance, or industrial groups was practically alien.

Then came deregulation. At the end of the 1980s, the first management company was founded under the name Azimut as part of Akros Finanziaria. In 1990, a few months after the arrival of Pietro Giuliani, the Group's current chairman, the project from which the current Group was born came to life.

The name itself—Azimut—carries navigational significance. In Arabic-derived astronomical terminology, "azimuth" refers to the horizontal angle from a fixed reference direction, used for celestial navigation. For a financial firm, the metaphor was clear: providing direction, orientation, helping clients chart their course through the complexity of markets.

But who was this Pietro Giuliani, and what made him willing to bet his career on an untested model?

Pietro Giuliani was born in Tivoli, near Rome, with a degree in mechanical engineering and a master's in industrial management. He started his career outside finance entirely—in the first six years of work, he changed nine cities of residence (predominantly abroad). In the early 1980s, he served as Service manager at Iveco for Europe but soon renounced important but slow career opportunities at a large company operating in a traditional sector.

The shift from industrial engineering to financial services in 1985 was courageous—arguably reckless by conventional standards. In 1985, with courage, he changed sectors and entered Banca Fideuram as head of distribution network and financial/insurance services for businesses. Two years later, he moved to Finanza & Futuro during its start-up phase as Sales Director until 1990 when he joined Azimut.

Giuliani joined Azimut in 1990, leading the Company through a Management Buy-Out in 2001, the stock market listing in 2004, and initiating its development and international strategy over the last decade.

The engineering background proved more relevant than it might appear. Engineers think in systems—processes, feedback loops, optimization under constraints. Giuliani approached financial advisory not as a sales operation but as an engineered system where incentive alignment, product quality, and distribution efficiency could create sustainable competitive advantage.

By 2000, the network had expanded to 100 advisors, strengthening its domestic footprint in Italy. That number seems modest by today's standards, but building any independent network in bank-dominated Italy represented genuine entrepreneurial achievement.

The early strategic emphasis fell on proprietary products. The firm faced early challenges from intense competition with established banks, which held significant market share in retail financial services, necessitating a strategic emphasis on developing proprietary products such as mutual funds to differentiate its offerings.

One initiative from this period deserves special attention: In the field of sustainability, the Azimut Group launched the first fund with an SRI approach in 1993. This was fully thirty years before ESG became a mandatory disclosure item, a quarter-century before sustainable investing entered mainstream financial discourse. Whether this reflected genuine environmental conviction or prescient market positioning, it established a pattern of innovation that would characterize Azimut's trajectory.

The late 1990s brought international infrastructure development. At the end of the 1990s, the Luxembourg management of AzFund (now Azimut Investments) starts. Luxembourg, with its favorable UCITS regulations and EU passporting rights, would become the manufacturing center for Azimut's fund products distributed across Europe. This early investment in cross-border capabilities planted seeds for the global expansion that would come a decade later.

For investors, this founding era established three enduring principles: independence as strategic identity rather than mere business structure; proprietary products to avoid commoditization; and international architecture enabling future growth. The tension with bank ownership, however, would soon reach breaking point.

---

↑ Back to Top

III. Building the Foundation: Growth Under Bank Ownership (1990–2001)

In 1998, Bipop-Carire acquires Azimut. In the consolidating Italian financial landscape of the late 1990s, this acquisition might have seemed natural—a growing distribution network finding its logical home within a larger banking structure. Bipop-Carire acquired Azimut but allowed it to maintain operational independence, enabling continued focus on advisory and asset management activities.

The arrangement worked for several years. Azimut continued building its advisor network, developing products, establishing operational systems. The bank ownership provided capital access and institutional credibility. But the inherent tension in this structure never fully resolved.

Consider the fundamental conflict: banks have their own products to sell—loans, deposits, proprietary funds, structured products. An advisory network embedded within a bank faces constant pressure to distribute the parent's products, regardless of whether those products serve client interests optimally. The "independent advice" value proposition becomes difficult to maintain credibly when the advisors' employer profits from specific product selections.

Giuliani and his team apparently chafed under these constraints. They had built something distinctive—a network of professionals advising clients on their financial futures—and the banking structure limited both the strategic flexibility and the authentic independence that defined the original vision.

In 2001, the regional distribution companies merge into Azimut Consulenza SIM (now Azimut Capital Management SGR). This consolidation of the distribution footprint positioned the company for what would prove the transformational transaction.

The late 1990s and early 2000s also saw continued product innovation. The main foreign companies are Azimut Investments SA (founded in Luxembourg in 1999), which manages the multi strategy funds AZ Fund 1 and AZ Multi Asset, and the Irish Azimut Life DAC, which offers life insurance products. This dual-jurisdiction structure—Luxembourg for UCITS funds, Ireland for insurance wrappers—created manufacturing flexibility that would prove essential for international distribution.

The AzLife establishment in Ireland created another strategic pillar. Insurance wrappers offered tax advantages in certain jurisdictions, longer investment horizons, and different regulatory treatment than pure mutual funds. Building this capability early gave Azimut's distributors a broader toolkit for client solutions.

Yet the Bipop-Carire acquisition, whatever operational autonomy it preserved, represented something fundamentally contrary to the independence vision. Azimut remained owned by a bank. Giuliani remained an employee of a bank. The destiny of the firm remained subject to banking sector dynamics rather than the intrinsic value being created.

The banking sector dynamics would soon deliver the opportunity for liberation.

---

↑ Back to Top

IV. Inflection Point #1: The Management Buyout Revolution (2001–2002)

The early 2000s brought turmoil to European banking. The dot-com crash, accounting scandals, and competitive pressures forced restructuring across the sector. In 2001, as a result of the restructuring of Bipop Carire, Azimut buys the company supported by Apax Partners. About 700 people invest in the MBO completed in June 2002.

That number—700 people—deserves particular attention. This wasn't a typical leveraged buyout where a handful of executives acquire a company using borrowed money. This was a genuine employee ownership transaction where hundreds of financial advisors, portfolio managers, and staff put their own capital at risk alongside the management team.

In 2002, the company evolved into Azimut Holding S.p.A. through a management buyout (MBO) backed by Apax Partners, led by key executives including Gabriele Blei and Paolo Martini, which freed it from prior banking affiliations and involved investments from approximately 700 employees and advisors.

Apax Partners, one of Europe's premier private equity firms, provided the institutional capital and transaction expertise. But the distinctive feature was the broad-based employee participation. Financial advisors who had built client relationships, portfolio managers who had generated returns, operations staff who had maintained systems—all became shareholders in the newly independent entity.

In 2002, Giuliani led the management buyout that made Azimut independent, totally autonomous from banking, insurance, or industrial groups. In 2004, Azimut Holding SpA was listed and in 2010 the stock entered the FTSE Mib index.

Why does this ownership structure matter so profoundly? Consider the incentive alignment it creates:

For Financial Advisors: Every recommendation to a client now affects their own wealth, not merely their commission. The advisor who sells an inappropriate product harms the company they partially own. The advisor who builds lasting client relationships increases the value of their shares. Independence becomes economically rational, not merely rhetorically claimed.

For Portfolio Managers: Performance matters not just for bonuses but for ownership value. A portfolio manager whose fund underperforms reduces the value of the franchise that employs them—and the shares they hold. The alignment between investment returns and personal wealth becomes direct.

For Clients: They can trust that advice flows from analysis of their situation rather than product quotas from a parent company. The advisors' economic interests align with client outcomes in a way that captive networks struggle to replicate.

The Management Buyout that makes Azimut independent of banking, insurance or industrial groups marked the launch of the innovative service model dedicated to Wealth Management and set the foundation for international growth.

The revolutionary aspect wasn't merely independence—plenty of boutique asset managers operate independently. It was the structural embedding of employee ownership into the company's DNA. The shareholder structure includes approximately 2,000 managers, employees, and financial advisors bound by a shareholders' agreement that controls around 21% of the company, while the remaining shares are in free float.

That shareholders' agreement remains a defining feature of Azimut's governance today, over two decades later. It creates a voting bloc that can influence major corporate decisions, protecting against hostile takeovers or strategic shifts that might compromise the independence model.

For investors evaluating Azimut today, this MBO represents the original "founder moment"—the transaction that established the company's essential character. Everything that followed—the IPO, the international expansion, the private markets push, the TNB spin-off—flows from this structural foundation of aligned ownership.

---

↑ Back to Top

V. Inflection Point #2: IPO & FTSE MIB Entry (2004–2010)

With independence secured through the MBO, the next challenge was growth capital. Private equity backing provided the initial financing, but Apax Partners would eventually need an exit, and Azimut's ambitions required access to public market capital.

Azimut Holding S.p.A. is listed on the Milan Stock Exchange (AZM.IM) since July 7, 2004 and is a member of the FTSE MIB index. The IPO represented several simultaneous achievements: providing liquidity for early investors including Apax; establishing a currency for potential acquisitions; raising capital for expansion; and conferring institutional credibility that facilitated business development.

In 2004, the holding company, Azimut Holding SpA, is listed on the Milan stock exchange. AzLife (now Azimut Life) insurance company is established in Ireland and hedge management in Italy begins. The simultaneous launch of hedge fund capabilities alongside the IPO signaled strategic ambition beyond traditional mutual fund asset management.

The IPO structure carefully preserved the employee ownership model. While the public listing created a free float, the shareholders' agreement binding employees and advisors remained intact. Public shareholders purchased stock alongside the aligned insider group rather than acquiring shares from departing insiders.

The 2004-2010 period saw the integrated model mature. The Group's business model is unique and is based on a full integration between portfolio management and distribution. In fact, Azimut Group currently has more than 150 investment professionals based around the world and a proprietary network of over 2,000 Financial Advisors working exclusively for Azimut.

This integration—asset management and distribution under one roof—creates operational synergies but also potential conflicts. The same company that manufactures products also distributes them. Critics might argue this incentivizes distributors to recommend proprietary products over potentially superior alternatives.

Azimut's defense relies on the ownership alignment. Unlike captive distribution networks at banks, Azimut's advisors are shareholders. If proprietary products underperform, advisor credibility suffers, client relationships deteriorate, and share value declines. The economic incentive runs toward recommending whatever truly serves clients rather than toward product quotas.

In 2010, Azimut Holding's stock entered the FTSE Mib index, and in the same year the Group began international expansion. Inclusion in Italy's benchmark large-cap index represented institutional validation. Index inclusion brings automatic buying from passive funds tracking the benchmark, analyst coverage from major brokerages, and visibility among global institutional investors.

The 2010 FTSE MIB entry coincided with the launch of international expansion—not coincidentally. The public market credibility and capital access facilitated ambitious moves into markets far from Milan.

The capital structure post-IPO maintained the delicate balance between public market participation and insider alignment. The shareholder structure includes over 1,900 managers, financial advisors and employees bound by a shareholders' agreement that controls ca. 22% of the company. The remaining is free float.

For investors, the 2004-2010 period established Azimut as a genuine public company while preserving the ownership characteristics that distinguished it from competitors. The stage was set for global expansion.

---

↑ Back to Top

VI. Inflection Point #3: International Expansion (2010–2019)

In 2010, Azimut Holding's stock entered the FTSE Mib index, and in the same year the Group began international expansion. Between late 2010 and 2011, Azimut launches offices in Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Turkey and strengthens its position in Europe with a presence in Munich and Switzerland.

The geographic sequence is revealing. Rather than targeting obvious European markets—France, Germany, Spain—Azimut leapt immediately into Asia and emerging markets. Shanghai, Hong Kong, Turkey. This wasn't cautious incremental internationalization; it was strategic positioning for where wealth creation would occur over the coming decades.

In 2013 it expands to Taiwan, Brazil, and Singapore. In 2014 it signs its first acquisition in Mexico and enters the Australian market. It also launches a project in the area of alternative investments in private markets, later establishing a dedicated company, Azimut Libera Impresa SGR.

The expansion playbook varied by market. Some entries were greenfield—establishing new offices, recruiting local teams, building from scratch. Others involved acquisitions of existing asset managers or distribution networks. AZ International Holdings ('AIH') enters the Turkish market to expand distribution channels and continue its global expansion. November 2011 - Azimut acquires 60% of Global Portföy. March 2014 Azimut announces that it will acquire Notus Portfolio. October 2014 Azimut completes the acquisition of 70% of Notus Portföy. January 2015 Azimut enters into an agreement to acquire 70% of Bosphorus. September 2015 Azimut consolidates 100% of Bosphorus. November 2015 Azimut acquires 100% of Notus. After completing all company acquisitions, the integrated investment platform takes shape as Azimut Portföy Yönetimi A.Ş.

Turkey illustrates the acquisition-driven approach. Multiple transactions over several years consolidated local asset managers into a unified Turkish platform. This "roll-up" strategy—acquiring subscale competitors and integrating them into a larger platform—leverages Azimut's operational capabilities and brand while accessing local client relationships.

In 2015 it enters Chile and in 2016 the United States, in Miami. Two years later it starts a presence in the United Arab Emirates. In 2019 it enters Egypt and starts Azimut Alternative Capital Partners in the United States with the aim of creating partnerships with management companies specializing in alternative investments.

The U.S. entry merits particular attention. The American market is notoriously difficult for foreign asset managers—dominated by domestic giants with massive scale advantages, fragmented distribution, and regulatory complexity. Rather than competing directly in traditional mutual funds, Azimut's U.S. strategy focused on private markets and specialized strategies where European heritage and global capabilities provide differentiation.

With professional portfolio managers strategically positioned on every continent, we have successfully established Management Hubs in Europe, Latin America, the United States, the Middle East, and Asia. Our commitment to offering effective solutions is centered on emerging and new frontier markets, as well as Private Market funds.

The emerging markets focus reflects a specific thesis about global wealth dynamics. Developed markets—Europe, North America, Japan—have mature financial services sectors where gaining market share requires displacing entrenched competitors. Emerging markets—Latin America, Middle East, Asia excluding Japan—are experiencing rapid wealth creation with financial services infrastructure still developing. An early entrant can establish positions before markets mature.

Listed on the Milan Stock Exchange, the Group is a leading player in Italy and operates in 20 countries worldwide, with a focus on emerging markets.

By the end of this expansion phase, Azimut had transformed from an Italian independent into a genuinely global platform. The Group has various companies active in the sale, management and distribution of financial and insurance products, with registered offices mainly in Italy, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China (Hong Kong and Shanghai), Egypt, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, Monaco, Portugal, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, UAE and USA.

For investors, international expansion created both opportunity and complexity. The opportunity: accessing global growth markets, diversifying revenue geographically, building capabilities beyond any single economy. The complexity: managing operations across multiple regulatory regimes, currencies, and business cultures. Each international subsidiary requires local management, compliance infrastructure, and capital allocation.

The question for today's investors is whether these international operations generate returns justifying the complexity. We anticipate a return on invested capital of 13-15% this year, which is above our cost of capital. By 2027, we expect this to reach around 20%, reflecting the strong earnings trajectory of our foreign operations.

---

↑ Back to Top

VII. Inflection Point #4: Private Markets & Alternative Investments Push (2014–Present)

In 2014 it signs its first acquisition in Mexico and enters the Australian market. It also launches a project in the area of alternative investments in private markets, later establishing a dedicated company, Azimut Libera Impresa SGR.

The private markets push represented strategic evolution from traditional asset management. Mutual funds invest primarily in publicly traded securities—stocks and bonds accessible to any investor. Private markets encompass investments not traded on public exchanges: private equity, private credit, venture capital, real estate, infrastructure.

For an asset manager, private markets offer several attractions. Fees are substantially higher than public market funds—typically 1.5-2% management fees plus 20% performance fees versus 0.5-1% for active public market funds. Competition from passive investing (ETFs, index funds) has compressed fees relentlessly in public markets; private markets remain largely immune to passive disruption. Client relationships strengthen because private market investments typically have multi-year lockups, reducing the asset flight that plagues public market managers during downturns.

Azimut Libera Impresa SGR is composed of a team of professionals with a solid background in asset management and investment banking, specializing in the study and execution of extraordinary finance operations, including M&A advisory, private equity, capital markets, IPOs, and corporate valuations. Azimut Libera Impresa is an integrated platform of products and services dedicated to entrepreneurs/SMEs on one side and investors/savers on the other, with the objective of facilitating the injection of liquidity into the real economy to stimulate its growth and make it sustainable over time, while offering returns and value creation opportunities to savers/investors.

The Italian SME focus reflects domestic market opportunity. Italy's economy is famously characterized by small and medium enterprises—family businesses, regional manufacturers, specialized exporters. These companies historically relied almost exclusively on bank financing. Disintermediation—providing capital directly to SMEs through private credit and private equity—creates value for investors seeking yield while filling genuine financing gaps in the economy.

Azimut Libera Impresa is an investment company for both retail and institutional investors. Founded 2009. The 2009 founding predates the 2014 formal launch mentioned elsewhere, suggesting evolutionary development over several years.

The New York-based GP Stakes business represents another dimension of the private markets strategy. Founded in 2019, Azimut Alternative Capital Partners, LLC ("AACP") is the New York-based GP Stakes Business of Azimut Group. AACP acquires minority equity stakes in private markets firms (e.g. private equity, private credit and real assets).

GP Stakes is a sophisticated strategy where Azimut acquires minority ownership positions in the general partners that manage private equity and private credit funds. Rather than directly investing in private companies, AACP invests in the firms that invest in private companies—essentially a private markets version of investing in the asset management industry itself.

AACP focuses on private market firms with $500MM to $3B AUM at the time our investment is made. This lower-middle-market focus targets emerging managers with growth potential—firms large enough to have established track records but small enough that Azimut's capital and distribution can meaningfully accelerate their development.

AACP was established in November 2019 to acquire ownership interests in private markets asset managers, including private equity, private credit, infrastructure and real estate. AACP has completed five minority stake investments (each an "affiliate"); the total AUM of these affiliates is over $20 billion.

The Kennedy Lewis investment demonstrated the strategy's potential. The Azimut Group, through its subsidiary Azimut Alternative Capital Partners, LLC, and Petershill at Goldman Sachs Asset Management entered into binding agreements to buy Azimut's entire stake in Kennedy Lewis Investment Management for an all-cash total consideration of $225 million. Azimut's initial investment in KLIM was $60 million. KLIM was AACP's first investment in July 2020, when the firm had ca. $2 billion in AUM, growing to $14 billion today.

A $60 million investment generating $225 million exit after approximately four years represents nearly 4x return—exceptional even by private equity standards. The Kennedy Lewis success validated the GP Stakes thesis and demonstrated Azimut's ability to identify and support high-quality emerging managers.

The European Investment Fund (EIF), backed by the InvestEU programme, announced its €30 million commitment as a cornerstone investor at the first closing of Azimut Diversified Corporate Credit ESG-8 SCSp RAIF. The fund will be managed by a dedicated team within Azimut Investments SA.

The EIF partnership signals institutional validation of Azimut's private credit capabilities. Having the EU's development finance institution invest as cornerstone investor confirms product quality and operational standards meeting institutional due diligence requirements.

For investors, the private markets push transforms Azimut's business mix toward higher-margin, stickier assets. The tradeoff: private market investments are illiquid by nature, creating potential liability mismatches if retail clients seek redemptions during stress periods.

---

↑ Back to Top

VIII. Inflection Point #5: TNB—The Fintech Bank Spin-Off (2024–2025)

The most dramatic transformation in Azimut's history is currently underway—and it's also the most uncertain. Azimut Holding S.p.A. has signed a binding framework agreement with FSI SGR S.p.A., acting on behalf of "FSI II" investment fund, for the creation of TNB, a new-generation, digitally-native bank dedicated to wealth advisory services. The transaction builds on the strategic initiative to create TNB, announced at the end of March 2024 and launched operationally in May of last year, followed by the exclusivity granted to FSI on 18 December 2024. This initiative will lead to the creation of TNB, an independent digital player focused on advanced wealth management services, with the ambition to become a point of reference for retail, affluent, and private clients.

TNB—"The Next Bank"—represents a fundamental restructuring of Azimut's Italian business. The transaction involves spinning off approximately half of Azimut's Italian financial advisor network into a new, separately capitalized entity.

TNB will leverage a network of over 900 professionals and more than €25.6 billion in total client assets. This positions TNB immediately among Italy's top ten wealth advisory networks by size—a significant player from day one rather than a startup gradually building scale.

The deal structure is complex: Once rebranded, Azimut will transfer its Italian distribution activities and select assets to TNB through a partial demerger, before selling an 80.01% stake in the bank to FSI and co-investors, retaining a 19.99% share. The demerger is set to earn Azimut a total potential consideration of around €1.2 billion. This figure comprises €240 million in upfront cash, €210 million in long-term dividends, and up to €764 million in performance-based payments.

The agreement also entails a long-term industrial partnership between Azimut and TNB, covering asset management, financial advisory and banking services. This partnership ensures that TNB advisors continue distributing Azimut products—the relationship doesn't end with the spin-off but transforms into a commercial arrangement.

Guarantee agreement in favour of Azimut, under which TNB is required to generate for Azimut a minimum of €2.4 billion in fees over a period of at least 12 years. Industrial partnership with a duration of 20 years: TNB will become the main third-party distributor of Azimut's products and the new reference banking partner for the Group.

The fee guarantee provides Azimut recurring revenue certainty from the TNB relationship regardless of the spin-off's success. The 20-year partnership duration creates strategic lock-in that preserves distribution economics.

Paolo Martini, former CEO of Azimut Holding, will take on the role of CEO of TNB, bringing over twenty-five years of industry experience and a well-established vision of the financial advisory model. The leadership transition—Azimut's CEO departing to run the spun-off entity—signals genuine commitment to TNB's success rather than a disposition of unwanted assets.

The strategic rationale has multiple dimensions:

Value Unlocking: Azimut management believes the Italian distribution business is undervalued within the group structure. By separating it and selling to FSI at what they describe as premium multiples, shareholders benefit from value recognition.

Capital Deployment: The €1.2 billion potential consideration provides resources for further international expansion, private markets growth, and shareholder returns.

Replicating Success: The new bank broadens the value proposition for all clients of the Azimut Group in Italy through a model based on partnership and participation of Financial Advisors in the shareholding that has characterized Azimut over its 34-year history. TNB's structure mirrors the employee ownership model that drove Azimut's own success—advisors will hold equity stakes, creating alignment similar to Azimut's original MBO.

However, regulatory challenges have emerged. Bank of Italy's review found "significant governance and organizational shortcomings" at Azimut Capital Management SGR, asking the company to come up with a plan to fix them.

On October 24, 2025, ACM received the final report following the ordinary inspection conducted by the Bank of Italy. ACM has already initiated the definition of an action plan to implement the corrective and strengthening measures requested by the authorities, which will be submitted by 30 November 2025 and fully implemented no later than 30 April 2026. The implementation of these actions will position ACM to meet all regulatory requirements ahead of the demerger leading to the TNB transaction and ensure that all business units transferred to TNB are fully compliant.

Bankitalia specified that overcoming the criticalities will not automatically guarantee authorization for the project, which will be evaluated "within the times and methods provided by current regulations." The news triggered a chain sale on Azimut stock, with a drop of up to -16% during the session.

Deutsche Bank now expects approval for the TNB project in the third or fourth quarter of 2026, about six months later than its previous forecast and a full year beyond Azimut's July indication that approval could come by the end of 2025.

The regulatory uncertainty is material. TNB cannot operate without Bank of Italy authorization. If authorization is substantially delayed—or denied—the entire transaction structure requires renegotiation or potentially unwinds.

Management remains confident: "The findings are fully manageable and consistent with the culture of continuous improvement that has always characterized our group. As we have reiterated several times, the inspection is not related to the TNB transaction. TNB is a transformative project for Azimut that we will pursue with determination, as we see no alternative to what we have committed to achieving since the project was announced in March 2024."

For investors, TNB represents the highest-impact near-term uncertainty. Success could unlock substantial value and position Azimut for continued growth. Failure—or significant delay—could damage credibility and disrupt strategic planning.

---

↑ Back to Top

IX. Business Model Deep Dive

Understanding Azimut's value proposition requires examining the integrated model in detail.

Revenue Streams: A majority of its revenue is derived from recurring fees from assets under management. This revenue model—management fees calculated as a percentage of AUM—creates predictable cash flows that scale with asset growth. Performance fees supplement management fees when funds exceed benchmarks, though these are inherently volatile and unpredictable.

Total revenues equal to €1,470 million (+12% vs. €1,312 million in FY 2023). The Azimut Group continued its strong growth trajectory in 2024, delivering the highest revenues in its history, with total revenues increasing by 12% year-over-year to €1.5 billion. Recurring fees grew by a solid 11% year-over-year, reaching €1.2 billion in FY 2024, up from €1.1 billion in FY 2023.

The 82% ratio of recurring fees to total revenue (€1.2B / €1.47B) indicates a stable, predictable business less dependent on performance fee volatility than some competitors.

Distribution Economics: The financial advisor network is not merely a sales force—it's a client acquisition and retention engine. The average assets under management per advisor stand at approximately €51 million, reflecting the scale of client portfolios managed under this model.

This €51 million per advisor figure indicates relatively high-value client relationships. More assets per advisor means greater productivity and typically higher-quality client service (fewer clients per advisor enables deeper engagement).

Product Manufacturing: In Italy, Azimut Capital Management SGR sells and manages Italian mutual funds, Italian alternative investment funds, as well as being active in the discretionary management of individual investment portfolios. Furthermore, Azimut Capital Management SGR distributes Group and third-party products in Italy via a network of financial advisors while Azimut Libera Impresa focuses on the alternatives business. The main foreign companies are Azimut Investments SA (founded in Luxembourg in 1999), which manages the multi strategy funds AZ Fund 1 and AZ Multi Asset, and the Irish Azimut Life DAC, which offers life insurance products.

The multi-jurisdictional product manufacturing capability—Luxembourg UCITS, Irish insurance, Italian alternatives—provides flexibility for optimizing tax treatment, regulatory status, and investor eligibility across different client types and geographies.

Ownership Alignment: The shareholder structure includes over 1,900 managers, financial advisors and employees bound by a shareholders' agreement that controls ca. 22% of the company. The remaining is free float.

This ownership structure creates a governance dynamic where aligned insiders exercise significant influence without majority control. The 22% bloc cannot pass ordinary resolutions alone (requiring >50%) but can block extraordinary transactions (typically requiring supermajority approval) and influence board composition.

ESG Integration: As of June 2024, assets in products that promote ESG characteristics amounted to EUR 19.2 billion. This represents approximately 18-19% of total AUM in ESG-classified products—meaningful but not dominant.

Recent Financial Performance: In 2024, our clients achieved an average net return of about 9% after costs, once again outperforming the industry. Another extraordinary year comes to a close, with net inflows of €18.3 billion and an adjusted net profit of €588 million. After fully repaying the €500 million bond, Azimut proposes a dividend of €1.75 per share. Adjusted Net Profit reached €588 million in FY 2024, up 29% year-over-year, marking the second-highest in Azimut's history. The Net Financial Position as of 31 December 2024 more than doubled year-over-year and reached €722 million.

The €18.3 billion net inflows in 2024 represent extraordinary organic growth—inflows exceeding expectations by over 30%. This demonstrates the distribution network's continued effectiveness despite competitive pressures.

Current Guidance: Azimut Holding SpA reported record managed net inflows of €13 billion for the first nine months of 2025, showcasing the strength of its diversified business model. The company achieved a 17% growth in recurring net profits, reflecting the quality and resilience of its revenue base. Azimut raised its core group net profit guidance for 2025 to exceed €500 million, with expectations for 2026 net profit to surpass €1 billion.

The €1 billion 2026 profit target depends significantly on TNB transaction completion and associated gains. Core operating profits trending above €500 million provides underlying business strength independent of the transaction.

---

↑ Back to Top

X. Porter's Five Forces Analysis

1. Threat of New Entrants: MODERATE

The asset management industry has historically featured high barriers—regulatory requirements, distribution network development, brand trust establishment, operational infrastructure investment. However, fintech disruption has lowered barriers in certain segments. Robo-advisors can launch with minimal capital; ETF sponsors can achieve scale through targeted strategies without building distribution networks.

Azimut's response involves building proprietary technology platforms and digital capabilities. The TNB initiative itself represents an offensive response to potential digital disruption—building a digitally-native bank rather than waiting for digital natives to attack.

2. Bargaining Power of Buyers (Clients): MODERATE-HIGH

Wealthy individuals have numerous options for financial advice and asset management. Fee pressure from ETFs and passive investing has compressed margins across the industry. Transparency regulations (like MiFID II in Europe) increase clients' ability to compare costs and switch providers.

The company's wealth management model is built on a fee-based advisory approach delivered through a network of independent financial advisors, who provide personalized solutions for high-net-worth individuals and institutional clients. This model emphasizes autonomy for advisors, enabling them to select optimal products from global partners while prioritizing client interests in areas such as retirement planning, tax efficiency, and succession strategies. Advisors, who often hold shares in the group, collaborate closely with asset management teams to ensure integrated advisory services.

Azimut's moat against client power relies on relationship depth—advisors providing holistic financial planning beyond mere product selection. The advisor-shareholder alignment theoretically ensures advice quality that justifies fees.

3. Bargaining Power of Suppliers: LOW

Key "suppliers" in asset management are primarily investment talent (portfolio managers, analysts) and financial advisors. Both are abundant in developed markets, limiting supplier power under normal conditions.

Azimut's ownership model transforms this dynamic. Rather than employees who might depart for better offers, the shareholders' agreement creates a stable, aligned workforce. Advisors who own shares have economic incentive to remain and contribute to share value growth. "We are our own shareholders."

4. Threat of Substitutes: HIGH

Substitutes for active asset management abound: ETFs, index funds, robo-advisors, direct indexing, do-it-yourself investing. The passive investing revolution has captured trillions of dollars from active managers, compressing fees and forcing differentiation.

Azimut's response emphasizes categories where passive substitutes struggle: alternative investments, private markets, customized advisory relationships. Their commitment to offering effective solutions is centered on emerging and new frontier markets, as well as Private Market funds. Passive strategies cannot easily replicate private equity or private credit exposure.

5. Industry Rivalry: HIGH

The Italian market features intense competition from both banks operating distribution networks (Intesa Sanpaolo's Fideuram-ISPB, Banca Mediolanum, FinecoBank) and other independent players. Among the Business Lab participants whose collaboration has been instrumental to set up the FAST project were household names such as: Allfunds, Azimut, Banca Generali, Banca Mediolanum, Fideuram–ISPB, Franklin Templeton, and others.

Globally, Azimut competes against massive scale players—BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity—with cost advantages from assets measured in trillions rather than billions.

Azimut is committed to its independence—an independence won and defended with determination. They are proud to be the largest independent asset manager in Italy, in a position to offer effective asset management services and solutions based on specific, non-generalist expertise.

The independence positioning creates differentiation in markets where bank-owned competitors face inherent conflicts of interest.

---

↑ Back to Top

XI. Hamilton's 7 Powers Framework Analysis

1. Scale Economies: MODERATE

Its current market cap is $4.56B with 142M shares. At €100+ billion AUM, Azimut achieves meaningful operational leverage—fixed costs spread across a substantial asset base. However, true scale economies in asset management accrue primarily at much larger scale (BlackRock's ~$10 trillion AUM) where infrastructure investments amortize across orders of magnitude more assets.

Azimut's scale advantage is regional rather than global—dominant in Italy but subscale globally.

2. Network Effects: STRONG ⭐

The advisor network creates genuine network effects. More advisors attract more product development resources, which creates better offerings for advisors to recommend, which attracts more successful advisors seeking quality products. The virtuous cycle compounds over time.

The shareholders' agreement amplifies network effects through economic alignment—advisors invested in the network's success actively contribute to its growth rather than merely extracting value from it.

3. Counter-Positioning: STRONG ⭐

Counter-positioning occurs when an incumbent cannot or will not respond to a disruptive entrant's model because doing so would damage their existing business. Azimut's independence model counter-positions against bank-owned competitors who cannot credibly claim alignment-of-interest without abandoning proprietary product push.

Banks theoretically could adopt Azimut's model but doing so would cannibalize their product distribution profits, which fund the branches and employees that serve their core banking business. The integrated bank model prevents genuine independence.

4. Switching Costs: MODERATE

Client switching costs in wealth management are moderate. Moving assets between custodians is administratively tedious but not prohibitive. The deeper switching cost is relationship-based—clients who trust their advisor's judgment are reluctant to restart with an unknown advisor at a competitor.

The TNB transaction complicates this dynamic. Clients whose advisors move to TNB must decide whether to follow the advisor (maintaining relationship) or stay with Azimut (maintaining firm relationship). The outcome will test the relative strength of advisor-client versus firm-client bonds.

5. Branding: MODERATE

In wealth management, brand operates primarily through trust and reputation. Azimut's 30+ year track record, FTSE MIB inclusion, and regulatory standing create credibility. The independence brand is distinctive and consistently communicated.

However, wealth management brands lack the consumer recognition of product brands. Most retail investors likely couldn't name any Italian asset manager; sophisticated investors might recognize Azimut but probably alongside numerous competitors.

6. Cornered Resource: WEAK

Cornered resource—preferential access to a valuable asset—is not a significant factor. Investment talent is portable. Technology is replicable. Distribution relationships can be competed away. Azimut doesn't possess unique data, intellectual property, or physical resources that competitors cannot access or develop.

7. Process Power: MODERATE

Process power emerges from superior organizational capabilities developed over time. Azimut's 30+ years of operating the integrated model have refined processes for advisor recruitment, product development, compliance, and client service. Competitors could theoretically replicate these processes but not instantly—organizational capabilities require years to develop.

Summary: Azimut's competitive position relies primarily on network effects (the advisor ecosystem) and counter-positioning (the independence model that bank-owned competitors cannot easily adopt). These are durable but not impregnable advantages.

---

↑ Back to Top

XII. Valuation Considerations & Key Metrics

Azimut Holding has an annual dividend of €1.75 per share, with a yield of 5.14%. The dividend is paid once per year and the last ex-dividend date was May 19, 2025.

Azimut Holding has a 5-year dividend growth rate of +11.84%. Azimut Holding's payout ratio is 66.9264. Azimut Holding's annualized dividend payout is €1.75.

The 5%+ dividend yield with double-digit dividend growth rate positions Azimut as a dividend growth investment in a sector where many competitors have suspended or cut dividends amid fee compression pressures.

9.7x P/E Ratio. 3.3x P/S Ratio. 5.3% Current Dividend Yield. 51% Payout Ratio.

The sub-10x P/E suggests market skepticism about growth prospects or concerns about business quality. European asset managers generally trade at discounts to U.S. peers, reflecting structural factors including fee pressure, passive investing competition, and slower economic growth expectations.

Key Performance Indicators for Ongoing Monitoring:

1. Net Inflows (Managed): The most important organic growth metric. Net inflows into managed products (as opposed to administered/custody assets) directly drive future fee revenue. Azimut's record €13 billion managed inflows in the first nine months of 2025 demonstrates distribution effectiveness.

2. Recurring Fee Growth Rate: Given fee pressure across the industry, maintaining or growing recurring fees as a percentage of AUM indicates pricing power. The 11% YoY growth in recurring fees during 2024 suggests resilience.

3. Private Markets AUM as % of Total: Higher private markets weighting implies higher average fees and stickier assets. Monitoring this ratio over time indicates success of the strategic pivot.

---

↑ Back to Top

XIII. Bull Case vs. Bear Case

↑ Back to Top

Bull Case

Independence as Durable Moat: In a world increasingly skeptical of financial institutions' alignment with client interests, Azimut's employee-ownership model creates genuine differentiation. As trust becomes more valuable, the independence premium should increase.

Private Markets Tailwind: The shift from public to private markets continues globally as investors seek returns uncorrelated with public equity volatility. Azimut's early investments in private markets capabilities—Libera Impresa, AACP—position it to capture this secular trend.

Emerging Markets Growth: Wealth creation in emerging markets will outpace developed markets for decades. Azimut's early presence in Turkey, Brazil, Mexico, UAE, and Asia provides optionality on this growth with established local platforms.

TNB Value Creation: If the spin-off proceeds successfully, Azimut realizes €1.2 billion potential consideration while retaining 19.99% exposure to TNB's upside. The fee guarantee provides €2.4 billion in minimum revenue over 12 years—essentially locking in distribution economics.

Valuation Discount: At sub-10x P/E with 5%+ dividend yield, Azimut trades at a discount to intrinsic value that could narrow as operational execution demonstrates business quality.

↑ Back to Top

Bear Case

Regulatory Risk: The Bank of Italy's findings of "significant governance and organizational shortcomings" create material uncertainty. While management characterizes these as "fully manageable," regulatory relationships can deteriorate, and approval timelines can extend indefinitely.

Italy Concentration: Despite international expansion, Italy remains the core market. Italian economic stagnation, demographic headwinds (aging population, emigration of young talent), and structural challenges in the Italian economy limit domestic growth potential.

Fee Compression Relentlessness: The passive investing revolution shows no signs of abating. Costs continue compressing across all active strategies. Azimut's higher-touch advisory model may resist commoditization better than pure product manufacturers, but pricing power faces structural pressure.

TNB Execution Risk: The spin-off involves substantial operational complexity—regulatory approvals, technology platform development, advisor transfers, client migrations. Any execution failures could damage both the remaining Azimut business and the spun-off TNB.

Currency & Emerging Market Volatility: International operations expose Azimut to currency fluctuations and emerging market instability. Turkish lira depreciation, Brazilian real weakness, or political upheaval in any of the 20 operating countries creates unpredictable earnings impacts.

Key Person Risk: Pietro Giuliani has led Azimut for over 30 years. While succession to Giorgio Medda and Alessandro Zambotti as co-CEOs is underway, the founder's departure (whenever it occurs) removes institutional knowledge and potentially changes strategic direction.

---

↑ Back to Top

XIV. Conclusion & Lessons

Azimut's journey from a small Italian advisory firm under bank ownership to a global independent asset manager with €123 billion in AUM offers several lessons for investors and students of business strategy:

Independence Can Be Strategy, Not Just Structure: In an industry where conflicts of interest are endemic—banks push proprietary products, insurance companies favor their own funds—genuine independence creates differentiation that customers value and pay premium fees to access.

Ownership Alignment Compounds Over Time: The employee ownership model established in the 2002 MBO continues paying dividends two decades later. Advisors who are shareholders think like owners; portfolio managers who are shareholders manage money like their own capital is at stake.

Geographic Diversification Requires Patient Capital: Azimut's international expansion began in 2010 and remains unprofitable in aggregate at certain subsidiaries even in 2025. Returns on international investment are materializing but required over a decade of capital deployment and capability building.

Private Markets Represent Industry Evolution: The shift from public to private markets isn't a temporary trend but a structural industry transformation. Asset managers without private markets capabilities will struggle to deliver differentiated returns and premium fees.

Regulatory Relationships Matter: The current Bank of Italy situation demonstrates that even well-established firms face regulatory scrutiny that can materially impact strategic plans. Governance and compliance are not merely cost centers but strategic enablers.

With the 2024 financial results, we have generated over €2.8 billion in net profit over the past six years, equivalent to approximately 80% of our current market capitalization and 100% of the average market capitalization in 2019. Over the same period, the total assets entrusted to us by our clients have grown by 120%, reaching approximately €110 billion.

That performance—€2.8 billion in cumulative profits equaling 80% of market cap over six years—illustrates the fundamental undervaluation concern. If the business consistently generates profits approximating its market value every 7-8 years, either the market is deeply skeptical about sustainability or Azimut faces execution challenges that haven't yet materialized.

The next 12-18 months will prove decisive. TNB regulatory approval, action plan implementation at Azimut Capital Management, and continued execution on international expansion will determine whether Azimut's independence-driven strategy continues compounding value or faces structural headwinds that overwhelm operational excellence.

For long-term investors, Azimut offers exposure to wealth management growth with a differentiated ownership structure and emerging markets positioning. The risks are real—regulatory, concentration, execution—but priced into a valuation that implies substantial skepticism. Whether that skepticism proves warranted or creates opportunity depends on judgment calls about management quality, industry evolution, and Italy's economic trajectory that each investor must make independently.

---

This article reflects publicly available information as of November 29, 2025. All statements represent analysis of public sources and should not be considered investment advice. Investors should conduct their own due diligence before making investment decisions.