The AMC market's growth has consistently outrun the infrastructure supporting it. For years, a portfolio manager trying to find the right setup for a launch faced the same wall: no common framework for comparing providers, no transparent pricing, and no way to orient themselves without entering multiple simultaneous sales processes that took weeks and generated more confusion than clarity. That gap is beginning to close — and the way it is closing is itself instructive. This session examines that infrastructure evolution through a concrete case study: the GenTwo AMC Creator, a comparison and discovery tool built to bring transparency to a market that has historically had very little of it. Lukas Sitar, who leads business solutions at GenTwo, and Melanie Glöckler, a service designer on the firm's innovation team, walk through how the tool came to be, what they learned when real users encountered the first version, and how that learning reshaped both the product and their understanding of what practitioners actually need. The roadmap — from discovery tool to end-to-end execution platform — points toward something larger: a market in which the distance between intent and launch is measured in days rather than months.
Lukas Sitar leads business solutions at GenTwo, with responsibility for the firm's partner relationships and the go-to-market around the AMC Creator. Melanie Glöckler is a service designer on GenTwo's innovation team, focused on needs-based development — understanding what customers are struggling with and building against that. Together they co-led the AMC Creator initiative from idea through execution and now through its ongoing development. The session is explicitly framed, at the outset, as something other than a product demonstration: it is an account of a market problem and how one attempt to solve it evolved.
08·01The gap the market lived with
Sitar's explanation of the problem begins with GenTwo's position. As an infrastructure provider working daily with portfolio managers, partner banks, broker-custodians, and regulators, the firm sits at a crossroads that very few market participants share. That position made the friction visible from every angle simultaneously.
On the buy side, the frustration was consistent. Portfolio managers knew an AMC was the right vehicle for what they were trying to do, but orienting themselves in the market meant running five separate sales processes in parallel — none of which had any incentive to offer a transparent comparison. The process took weeks, generated conflicting information, and often ended without a clear answer.
We are at the intersection of portfolio managers, partners, broker-custodians, banks, and regulators — we talk to all of them every single day. That gives us a perspective only a few players in the market have, and we see the friction from every angle.Lukas Sitar, GenTwo
On the supply side, the problem appeared in a different form. Banks, broker-custodians, and issuance platforms all had strong offerings, but there was no common language in the market. Every provider described their capabilities differently, structured fees differently, bundled services differently. A strong offering could get lost in translation simply because there was no shared framework against which to present it. The absence of that framework was not accidental — it suited providers that had established distribution relationships and preferred that potential clients start conversations through them. But as the market grew and new entrants arrived, the cost of the opacity rose with it.
08·02Co-built with the market
The decision to build the AMC Creator grew out of this accumulated observation rather than a formal product strategy. Internal conversations — sales debriefs, partner discussions, feedback from strategy managers — had circled the same point often enough that it became impossible to ignore. GenTwo had the data and the overview to build something meaningful. The question was whether partners would support it.
The answer was immediate. When Sitar took the idea to a small number of key partners, the response was uniformly positive. They recognised the same gap and agreed to help define what a fair comparison should look like, what information mattered most, and how their offerings should be represented accurately to managers they were trying to reach. The tool was co-created with the market from the outset, rather than being built and presented to it.
"The tool wasn't just a GenTwo view of how the market should be presented," Sitar says. "It was genuinely shaped with the market." That collaboration is, in itself, a small signal of something changing in an industry that has traditionally competed on information asymmetry.
08·03The MVP and what the data revealed
The first version was deliberately simple. Glöckler describes the brief as almost austere: a few steps, a handful of questions about the manager's strategy and asset classes, and a set of recommendations at the end. The build was fast — Glöckler vibe-coded the initial prototype herself, using AI-assisted development tools, with the development team providing oversight on security and compliance. The intentional scrappiness was the point: launch, observe, and learn from real behavior rather than perfect the design in advance.
What happened next changed the direction of the product entirely. Within weeks, thousands of visitors had come through — far more than anticipated. That volume generated data, and the data told a clear story. Glöckler's team identified what they called the "highway" — the optimal path through the tool with the highest conversion — and, more revealingly, the exits: the moments where people abandoned the journey. The single most important pattern was structural. The linear flow did not match how managers actually approached the decision.
Their approach was much more exploratory. They wanted to toggle an assumption and see what changed. They wanted to understand what was possible before committing to any direction. They wanted to play around, not fill out a form.Melanie Glöckler, GenTwo
A portfolio manager thinking about an AMC launch does not arrive with a checklist. They arrive with intent and uncertainty — they know roughly what they want to do but not yet how. A sequential questionnaire treated that uncertainty as a problem to be resolved step by step. What they actually needed was something closer to an exploration space.
08·04The Booking.com of AMCs
The reference point that reoriented the design came from the team's own experience. When you plan a trip without a fixed itinerary, you do not fill out a form — you explore. You adjust dates, toggle filters, watch options shift in real time. You are not committing to anything; you are learning what is possible. Skyscanner, Booking.com — the entire design logic of modern travel platforms is built around a user who has a clear intent but needs the tool to help them discover how to act on it.
That became the new model. The static questionnaire was replaced by a dynamic, filter-driven comparison tool in which selections update results in real time, parameters can be freely adjusted, and managers can move between options without feeling funnelled toward a predetermined outcome. Asset class, regulatory status, issuer domicile, fee structure — each filter narrows or expands the partner list immediately. Each partner card can be expanded to show pricing tiers across AUM bands, regulatory status, onboarding speed, service details, and applicable restrictions. A second journey through the tool lets a manager draft a sample term sheet by specifying currency, fee structure, asset classes, strategy guidelines, and investment restrictions — and receive a draft document by return.
The design principle running through both journeys is explicit. "We built it deliberately to feel like a calculator rather than a contract," Sitar says. "You're running scenarios, testing assumptions." Nothing in the tool is binding. No commitment is implied by using it. The sole ambition is to compress weeks of parallel sales conversations into a single, self-directed session — and to let managers arrive at their first real provider conversation already oriented.
08·05What gets built next
The AMC Creator's roadmap runs in three directions. The first is continuous refinement — the tool is treated as a living product, with weekly data review and an ongoing loop between user behavior and interface improvement. The second is an education layer: content articles, explainers, and short formats on fee structures, structure types, and provider selection criteria, designed to meet managers at an earlier stage of their learning process and point them toward the tool when they are ready. The travel analogy holds here too: the AMC Creator is the booking platform, but people need to understand the destination before they start searching.
The third direction is the most significant: extending the platform from discovery into execution. Today the tool helps a manager find the right setup and the right partner. The ambition is to push the drafted term sheet directly into the issuance workflow — a seamless journey from intent to launched AMC within a single platform experience. Sitar is careful about the timeline: there are open questions and integration work between here and there. But the direction is clear. The endpoint is a market where the gap between deciding to launch and actually launching has been compressed to the point where it no longer functions as a barrier.
International expansion runs in parallel. The partners currently on the platform are primarily associated with the Swiss market, but the traffic data tells a different story: visitors from every continent are already using the tool. The AMC market's globalization — visible throughout this report in the demand from Latin America, Asia, and across Europe — is creating appetite for infrastructure that does not yet exist in local markets.
08·06What it says about the market
The AMC Creator is one tool built by one team at one firm. But the problem it is trying to solve — and the approach it took to solving it — reflects something broader about where the AMC market currently stands. Pablo Conde noted in the SRP session that transparency is one of the market's defining unresolved tensions: a product measured in the trillions that generates almost no public data, operating in a value chain where opacity has historically served incumbent interests. The infrastructure layer is where that changes — not through regulation, but through tools that make comparison easier, pricing more legible, and the buy-side's orientation less dependent on the sell-side's willingness to be transparent.
The AMC Creator also illustrates something about the pace of infrastructure development in financial markets today. A service designer, working with AI-assisted coding tools, built and shipped a functional first version in a matter of weeks. The thousands of users who came through it in the first month generated enough behavioral data to redesign the product entirely. The current version reflects what users actually do rather than what designers assumed they would do. That cycle — build, observe, redesign — is not typical of financial market infrastructure. It is becoming more typical, and the implications for how quickly gaps get closed are significant.
As Sitar puts it, the market still has a long way to go. The tool is not finished; by design, it never will be. But the direction is clear, and the speed of travel is accelerating. What you see today, as the session closes, is the worst it will ever be.