• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • LATIF
  • Conferences
  • Dashboard
  • Edit My Profile
  • Log In
  • Logout
  • Register
  • Edit this post

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • Welsh pension fund confirms £50m investment in clean energy

    August 10, 2022

  • Inflation ‘disastrous’ for local services, warns LGA

    August 10, 2022

  • Consultation opens into care charging reforms

    August 9, 2022

  • ADASS survey: ‘worst fears confirmed for adult social care’

    August 5, 2022

  • GMCA to unlock funds for home energy-efficiency upgrades

    August 4, 2022

  • Levelling up committee calls for urgent boost to social care funding

    August 4, 2022

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews
  • Briefs

Daniel Godfrey: LGPS and the cost of active management

0
  • by Guest
  • in Blogs · LGPS
  • — 1 Feb, 2017

Photo: Geralt / Pixabay

Objectives, capacity constraints and purpose all play a role in deciding what to pay for active management, according to Daniel Godfrey.

How much should you pay for active management?

Not a penny more than you need to.

Perhaps that’s not a helpful answer, but there is no simple answer. To start, let’s assume that you have completed manager diligence and that you believe the active manager has the skills and resources to deliver the objectives.


Subscribe to our LGPS Quarterly Briefing and be first to receive more content like this.


There are several factors that need to be considered on a case-by-case basis when assessing whether you’re being asked for a fair price or not.

Objectives

Firstly, you certainly need to have a clear understanding of the objectives that the active manager is promising to deliver.

For example, is the manager aiming to beat an index benchmark? If so, by how much and over what period? Are they trying to limit the downside for their performance against the index, the “tracking error” (which will inevitably limit the upside too)?

Another example, would be where the active manager is not trying to beat an index, but is trying to deliver positive returns after inflation. Do they have a target return objective? Are they trying to limit the downside? Over what period is their promise being made.

Buyers of active management need to be clear that they understand the objectives and the strategy the active manager intends to employ.

Investment managers also need to be clear about measures, timeframes and targets before any contract is signed. Without them, how do you know when and how you should be pleased or disappointed? How can you hold the manager accountable?

Capacity constraints

The second criteria you need to understand is whether the manager describes this particular strategy as being capacity constrained. Are they acknowledging that there may be diseconomies of scale? And, if so, what are they doing about it? And if they are not constraining capacity, do you agree with their analysis?

This all has a bearing on what you should be prepared to pay for active management.

It’s obvious, that you should be prepared to pay more for a higher return. It’s also clear that you should be prepared more for other factors that may be important to you, such as a cap on volatility or downside protection.

But, of course, one of the problems for buyers of active management is that setting an objective is far from guaranteeing that it will be delivered.

That is why performance fees can seem attractive. You only pay the full rate if you achieve your objectives. But on the other hand, do you really expect investment managers to do anything other than showing up every day and doing their best?

And can a performance fee cause perverse outcomes? Could it cause an investment manager to take excessive risks if they are behind their target and have “nothing to lose?”

In the general case, performance fees are unnecessary. The ad valorem nature of investment fees comes with a performance element built-in. The better the performance, the greater the asset base on which fees are levied.

However, in the case of capacity-constrained strategies there may be a stronger competing argument that the manager has the commercial right to optimise their revenues despite voluntarily constraining volumes. In such a case, if the performance fee is structured in such a way as to ensure that, if paid, everyone is happy, then it seems reasonable even if you don’t expect the manager to work any harder.

Purpose

But when you are paying for an active manager, and deciding what to pay, the fundamental consideration is around the very nature of investment. If we assume that the purpose of investment is to create wealth over long periods of time, both for investors, investees and the economy, then we have to ask ourselves to what extent is an active strategy that aims to beat an index benchmark fulfiling that purpose?

The purpose becomes to “beat the market” and an unspoken, although nearly as important, purpose is not to fail by too much. This leads to the incomprehensible outcome of “underweighting” where you pay active managers to buy and hold shares in companies that they think are going to do badly because of the risks of being too far behind the index.

The substantial majority of active, index-benchmark targeted funds fail to beat the market over long periods of time. If beating the market is your objective, you might be better off giving up and buying passive funds or changing your objective.

Given the long-term nature of the needs of individuals, active management would be better focused on long-term, high-conviction, low-turnover, high-engagement that eschew any index comparisons and instead articulate long-term, cumulative, total return targets. With these objectives, skilled active managers will deliver good returns and a healthier impact on the economy and society.

It’s why The People’s Trust is being established with a truly mutual model and with exactly that objective and strategy.

Fair price

So, what should you pay for active investment management? The only sensible answer is a fair price, based on the anticipated outcomes and bearing in mind the criteria and measures that must have clear answers in advance.

Paying for active management that is only trying to beat the index by a small amount is a fool’s game. Look for long-term value for money. And be prepared to be patient.

Daniel Godfrey is a co-founder of the People’s Trust investment fund and a former chief executive of the Investment Association.

Get the Room151 Newsletter

Share

You may also like...

  • Room151’s 10th Anniversary: LGPS shifts from alternatives to pooling and Covid 3rd Nov, 2021
  • Managing performance in a choppy UK money market 18th Jan, 2022
  • Local authority accounts: embrace the complexity 28th Mar, 2022
  • Is local government funding “broken”? 12th Feb, 2021

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • 151 BRIEFS – WHAT’s NEW?

    • Inflation ‘disastrous’ for local services, warns LGA
    • Consultation opens into care charging reforms
    • ADASS survey: ‘worst fears confirmed for adult social care’
    • GMCA to unlock funds for home energy-efficiency upgrades
    • Levelling up committee calls for urgent boost to social care funding
  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    Valuations & Risk
    LGPS Women

  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    LGPS Women
    Valuations & Risk
  • Latest tweets

    Room151 3 hours ago

    Which LGPS pools and funds are attending the LGPS Investment Forum on Nov 2 & the LGPS Private Markets Forum on Nov 1st? Answer here: lnkd.in/eDHU8tuy pic.twitter.com/D3gd63Rh7F

    Room151 20 hours ago

    LGPS and levelling up: nothing to fear but fear itself: There have been a number of objections to government plans for LGPS funds to invest 5% of their assets in local projects. But George Graham says these objections can be[...] dlvr.it/SWL7vt pic.twitter.com/ebwBEkZTy4

    Room151 21 hours ago

    George Graham @SYpensions @bordertocoast channels his inner FDR in a call for local government pension funds to avoid the fear factor and embrace levelling up #LGPS #localgov room151.co.uk/local-governme…

    Room151 2 days ago

    Changes to rules on capital receipts raise wider questions: Stephen Kitching argues that DLUHC’s latest rule changes are part of a series following on from revisions to MRP guidance and the purchase of commercial property. He questions whether… dlvr.it/SWGqKC pic.twitter.com/Ycr5hWZDPk

    Room151 5 days ago

    ‘No ifs, no buts’: the Bank of England continues its battle with inflation: Partner Content: CCLA Investment Management’s Robert Evans discusses the MPC’s 0.5% increase in the Official Bank Rate and its ongoing commitment to the 2% inflation target… dlvr.it/SW7SNC pic.twitter.com/ryOzYRSNA9

    Room151 6 days ago

    DLUHC changes rules on flexible use of capital receipts: The levelling up secretary has written to all council leaders to amend the rules concerning the flexible use of capital receipts to fund transformation projects. In his letter, Greg Clark[...] dlvr.it/SW3jyX pic.twitter.com/KEhSSaMITl

    Room151 7 days ago

    Local audit and financial reporting: let’s take back control: Mazars’ Suresh Patel suggests three steps that auditors and council finance teams should take to help get financial reporting and local audit back on track. Following my recent appearance… dlvr.it/SW0PfV pic.twitter.com/miL7pjukce

    Room151 1 week ago

    The case for residential investment: income, impact and resilience: Partner Content: Emma Gullifer from Columbia Threadneedle discusses the options for pension funds looking to invest in residential property including the Build-to-Rent market.… dlvr.it/SVzKwN pic.twitter.com/hdgZ4zKt4H

    Room151 1 week ago

    Draft accounts: delays continue despite deadline dash: Dan Bates discusses the latest data on the publication of local authority accounts and examines why so many councils missed the 31 July deadline. Sunday 31 July 2022 was the[...] dlvr.it/SVx2ZT pic.twitter.com/gdELhD3Yis

    Room151 1 week ago

    DLUHC proposes devolution deal in York and North Yorkshire: The government has proposed a devolution deal for York and North Yorkshire, which it says will bring over £540m of investment to the areas over 30 years. The deal will[...] dlvr.it/SVvzPQ pic.twitter.com/JUKfgZB17f

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Previous story James Bevan: Tech stocks and the future of chips
  • Next story Business rates multiplier reform will cost local government £80bn

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website.OK