Performance fees hardly worth it

There is no appreciable difference in the returns of asset owners that do pay performance fees and those that don’t, so what’s the point of these fees?

That’s the question to ask, based on a research paper from Maastricht University and De Nederlasche Bank, in the Netherlands. The researchers looked at 218 Dutch pension funds between 2012 and 2015. They found no difference between the investment performance of those that paid performance fees and those that didn’t.

The paper, Does it pay to pay performance fees? Empirical evidence from Dutch pension funds, claims to be the first that examines the relationship between performance fees and the net investment performance of a pension fund and, in doing so, shows whether it pays for pension funds to pay performance fees at all.

The research looks at total returns, excess return and performance fees for the total portfolio and six major asset classes, and finds that those investors that paid performance fees do not produce higher, or lower, returns than those that don’t.

(There is one minor exception. Pension funds that pay performance fees for hedge funds report a net excess return 3 basis points higher, on average, but that disappears when the authors correct for risk.)

In 2015, the funds, whose combined assets are €985 billion ($1.1 billion), paid €1.5 billion ($1.7 billion) in performance fees, across a variety of asset classes but most commonly in private equity and hedge funds. These fees represented a 36 per cent increase from 2012, when the funds paid €1.1 billion ($1.25 billion) in performance fees.

Sponsored Content

Paying performance fees could be “economically rational”, the paper states, if they enable pension funds to enhance their overall net performance by recovering these costs with superior returns or higher diversification benefits. The findings show this isn’t necessarily what happens.

The authors observed that “performance fees primarily relate to gross excess returns for equities and hedge funds where investors pay 2.1 basis points and 30.5 basis points, respectively, for every 100 basis points of gross excess return”.

The 218 Dutch funds’ total return over the period studied was 9.72 per cent, with a 0.11 per cent excess return over the benchmark, after costs. For private equity, the total return was 11.54 per cent, with an excess return of 1.4 per cent, and for hedge funds it was 2.64 per cent, with an excess return of 0.12 per cent.

The paper further calls into question the relevance of performance fees by showing that pension fund size and specialisation are “economically more important for net returns than paying performance fees”.

Specialisation is positively correlated with net returns for private equity and hedge funds, the paper demonstrates; pension funds with an allocation to these asset classes 1 percentage point higher than their peers’ reported a 1.31 and 1.37 basis point, respectively, higher net total return.

As for size, the research also supports the notion that bigger is better. It finds empirical evidence that larger and more specialised pension funds pay less in performance fees for a given level of excess return in alternative asset classes, possibly as a result of their better negotiating power. Larger funds also apply performance fees more often, and pay significantly less for the same performance by asset managers.

The authors did recognise that, in theory, performance fees could be a valuable tool to minimise the principal-agent conflict between pension funds and asset managers.

The research paper cites academic studies outlining the benefits of performance fees, including aligning the managers’ incentives with the pension fund’s interests, and linking the manager’s reward to performance. Ideally, this should increase the effort from the manager and translate into higher investment returns.

The drawbacks are that the manager receives the same performance fee whether the performance comes from skill or luck, and the payments create a skewed incentive structure, as the manager benefits from excess returns but does not suffer from losses.

“We find no statistical evidence that paying fees for most asset classes adds or subtracts value,” the authors conclude.

The paper is by Dirk Broeders, Arco van Oord, and David Rijsbergen.

Leave a Comment

Future Fund looks to slash external tech spend in cost-cutting drive

Future Fund looks to slash external tech spend in cost-cutting drive

Australia's Future Fund is hoping to find tens of millions in cost savings by consolidating arrangements with external data and tech providers and putting a number of roles under review as it reconsiders resourcing in a volatile investment environment that it “expects to endure”.

Sort content by

GPIF fee structure aligns interests

The world’s largest investor restructured how it pays its active mandates to get more certainty from managers. Its actions, which were taken after self-reflection, will affect the entire sector.

Fees kill alpha from hedge funds

Many hedge fund portfolios perform well before costs but fall into negative alpha after charges are levied, Canadian firm CEM Benchmarking's analysis of nearly 400 large investors has found.

Building a better fee model

Changes in standard funds-management fee structures are inevitable. Better alignment and fairness can be arranged if the stakeholders are willing to make it happen. Mercer presents some ideas.

Fees get another rethink

A new measure of the value a manager adds meets a proposed rate of compensation and protection for asset owners in the Thinking Ahead Institute’s plan for fairer performance fees.

AustralianSuper’s equities ride

The large size and penchant for active investment of the $120 billion AustralianSuper present both opportunities and challenges for its fund managers and inhouse equities team.

A strategy to believe in

Nevada’s public pension plan only pays 11 bps in total costs due to 80 per cent of the fund being indexed. But CIO Steve Edmundson says low fees are a byproduct, not the reason for the strategy.

Previous