Are there any regulatory or reporting risks associated with the unaudited AUM figures?

Regulatory / reporting risk

Because Lazard’s July‑2025 AUM numbers are presented as “unaudited,” they have not yet been verified by an independent auditor or filed in a formal SEC filing (e.g., a Form 10‑K or 10‑Q). This means the figures could be subject to later adjustment if the audit uncovers accounting errors, mis‑classifications of inflows/outflows, or discrepancies in the FX‑hedging accounting. From a compliance standpoint, any material change would have to be disclosed in a subsequent filing, and the company could face a “material misstatement” risk under the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act if the unaudited data materially deviates from the audited results. Investors therefore carry a reporting‑risk premium until the numbers are finalized.

Trading implications

In practice, the market typically prices in the trend rather than the exact dollar amount of unaudited AUM. Lazard’s disclosed net inflow (+$4.5 bn) and market‑driven appreciation (+$3.9 bn) signal continued client‑growth momentum, which is bullish for the stock. However, the unaudited label adds a short‑term risk buffer: any downward revision (e.g., a smaller net inflow or a correction to FX depreciation) could trigger a sell‑off on the next earnings release or audit update. Traders can therefore:

• Long‑biased on the current momentum but keep a tight stop just below the recent low (≈$140 per share) to protect against a surprise negative audit adjustment.
  
• Position‑size modestly and consider a partial hedge (e.g., buying protective puts) if the portfolio exposure to Lazard is sizable, reflecting the reporting‑risk tail.
  

Overall, the unaudited AUM figures do not create a regulatory red‑flag that would halt trading, but they do embed a near‑term reporting risk that can amplify price volatility around the next audited release. Maintaining a disciplined risk‑management framework—tight stops, modest sizing, and optional downside protection—will help capture the upside while limiting exposure to a potential audit‑driven correction.