Measuring manager performance expectations

Institutional investors do not act on their own expectations when choosing fund managers, rather their reliance on consultants, and past performance, exacerbates the agency problem in the institutional investment supply chain a new study from Oxford University shows.
Using survey data for 1999-2011 the academics analyse the views of plan sponsors on their asset managers, it covers investors with assets of about $7.6 trillion.
Using survey data institutional investors’ expectations about the future performance of fund managers and the impact of those expectations on asset allocation decisions is analysed.
“We find that institutional investors allocate funds mainly on the basis of fund managers’ past performance and of investment consultants’ recommendations, but not because they extrapolate their expectations from these. This suggests that institutional investors base their investment decisions on the most defensible variables at their disposal, and supports the existence of agency considerations in their decision making,” the study says.
The analysis looks at future manager performance as a function of three sets of possible determinants: first, the past performance of the asset managers; second, various non-performance attributes which plan sponsors identify in those asset managers; and third, the recommendations of asset managers by investment consultants.
The study then sets the plan sponsors’ expectations, and the possible drivers of these expectations, against the actual future performance of the asset managers. And the compares the plan sponsors’ expectations of asset manager performance, as well as past performance, consultants’ recommendations, and other factors, with the fund flows in and out of asset managers.
“This analysis allows us to test whether the well documented correlation between fund flows and past performance results from investors extrapolating future performance from past performance, or from agency problems, or both. If the correlation between fund flows and past performance results from plan sponsors extrapolating future performance from past performance then any influence of past performance on flows should be channeled through its effect on the expectation of future performance and, to the extent that these measures disagree, only expected future performance should matter. Money should not flow to funds with good past performance unless investors expect these funds also to do well in the future, and as a result only expected future performance, not past performance should be significant in a multivariate regression,” the study says.
The study finds that fund flows are driven by consultant recommendations and past performance of the fund managers.
“The fact plan sponsors do not act on their own expectations, or do so only marginally, when making investment decisions is consistent with agency rather than behavioral effects on the part of plan sponsors. A behavioral explanation for this would require us to believe
that plan sponsors take the trouble to form expectations about the future but then, unwittingly, fail to act on those expectations. It seems more likely that their actions are at variance with their own expectations because they feel that past performance and consultants’ recommendations are a more defensible explanation for their decisions.”

To access the paper click below

insitutional investor expectations, manager performance and fund flow

The Fiduciary Investors Symposium will be held at Oxford University from April 19-21.
For further information contact amanda.white@top1000funds.com

Sponsored Content

Leave a Comment

GIC, Temasek eye trillions of growth in climate adaptation market

GIC, Temasek eye trillions of growth in climate adaptation market

Singapore’s two largest asset owners, GIC and Temasek, see attractive opportunities in climate adaptation solutions – a relatively underfunded area compared to decarbonisation. The former has already made selective adaptation investments and said the opportunity set across public and private debt and equity could increase to $9 trillion by 2050.

Sort content by

Active ownership

Academics from the London Business School, Boston College and Temple University, examine the outperformance of US public companies following corporate social responsibility engagement.

Capturing illiquidity premiums

This paper commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of Finance investigates the possibilities for the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) to profit from liquidity premiums in  illiquid investments. It looks at the empirical evidence for the presence of liquidity effects in a broad range of asset classes: listed equities, corporate bonds, treasury and agency bonds, and

A trustee guide to factor investing

This research by academics at Tilburg University and the VU University Amsterdam, looks at the hurdles of implementing factor investing. It translates those into a checklist for implementing factor investing. The research, conducted for Robeco, finds that three approaches to factor investing are emerging and conducts case studies to examine how these approaches are implemented

Manager risk contribution in a multi-manager portfolio

This paper by MSCI creates a framework in order to answer the question: given a portfolio of managers, how does the active risk of each manager relate to the active risk of the portfolio? Asset owners often measure manager risk (the active risk of each manager) and have difficulty relating it to the contribution each

How active is your real estate fund manager?

Using detailed data from IPD, this paper looks at the holdings and performance of 256 UK commercial real estate funds from 2002-2011. It concludes the more active funds, those further from benchmark holdings, outperform but are not accompanied by higher risk.   To access the paper click here How active is your real estate fund

Persistently high equity risk premium unprecedented

This paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York looks at the equity risk premium information from 20 models and estimates the ERP for various time periods. Extraordinarily it finds that the (preferred) estimator places the one-year equity premium in July 2013 at 14.5 percent, the highest level in 50 years and well above the

Previous