COMMENTARY: Problems with the Endowment Model

IF 0.6 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Richard M. Ennis
{"title":"COMMENTARY: Problems with the Endowment Model","authors":"Richard M. Ennis","doi":"10.3905/JOI.2021.1.186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Alternative investments long ago ceased to be diversifiers, as their trading markets became more liquid and pricing there came to be more closely aligned with that of public markets. For the same reason, the principal classes of alts ceased to be sources of alpha and became a serious drag on performance. As a result of this market evolution, the endowment model’s signature asset-class diversification scheme now imposes rigidity without benefit: Asset classes have become silos, tantamount to quotas for large-scale investing in pricey alternative investments of uncertain merit. One hundred or more investment managers for an endowment portfolio are way too many: Inefficient diversification abounds. Costs approaching 2% of asset value are implausible on their face. TOPICS: Real assets/alternative investments/private equity, foundations & endowments, portfolio construction, performance measurement Key Findings ▪ Alternative investments have ceased to be diversifiers and have become a serious drag on performance. ▪ Having more than 100 managers for the typical large endowment is a source of inefficient diversification. ▪ An average estimated annual cost of 1.7%, combined with extensive diversification, virtually assures underperformance.","PeriodicalId":45504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3905/JOI.2021.1.186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Alternative investments long ago ceased to be diversifiers, as their trading markets became more liquid and pricing there came to be more closely aligned with that of public markets. For the same reason, the principal classes of alts ceased to be sources of alpha and became a serious drag on performance. As a result of this market evolution, the endowment model’s signature asset-class diversification scheme now imposes rigidity without benefit: Asset classes have become silos, tantamount to quotas for large-scale investing in pricey alternative investments of uncertain merit. One hundred or more investment managers for an endowment portfolio are way too many: Inefficient diversification abounds. Costs approaching 2% of asset value are implausible on their face. TOPICS: Real assets/alternative investments/private equity, foundations & endowments, portfolio construction, performance measurement Key Findings ▪ Alternative investments have ceased to be diversifiers and have become a serious drag on performance. ▪ Having more than 100 managers for the typical large endowment is a source of inefficient diversification. ▪ An average estimated annual cost of 1.7%, combined with extensive diversification, virtually assures underperformance.
评论:养老模式的问题
替代投资早就不再是多样化的投资,因为它们的交易市场变得更具流动性,定价也与公开市场的定价更加一致。出于同样的原因,主要类别的alts不再是alpha的来源,并成为性能的严重拖累。由于这种市场演变,捐赠模式的标志性资产类别多样化计划现在强加了刚性而没有好处:资产类别已经成为筒仓,相当于大规模投资价值不确定的昂贵替代投资的配额。一个捐赠投资组合的100多名投资经理太多了:低效的多元化比比皆是。从表面上看,接近资产价值2%的成本是难以置信的。主题:实物资产/另类投资/私募股权、基金会和捐赠基金、投资组合构建、绩效衡量关键发现▪ 另类投资已不再是多样化的投资,并严重拖累业绩。▪ 典型的大额捐赠基金拥有100多名管理人员是低效多元化的根源。▪ 平均估计每年1.7%的成本,再加上广泛的多元化,实际上确保了业绩不佳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Investing
Journal of Investing BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
42
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信