How Multi-Asset Funds Missed Targets (in Many Different Ways)

How a multi-asset fund is measured and marketed needs tougher scrutiny from investors, according to consulting firm PiRho.

In a paper questioning whether diversified growth funds (DGFs) meet expectations, the consulting firm advised investors to look not only at how they performed compared to the market average, but also to the benchmark they set themselves.

“Investors in DGFs would for the most part be disappointed with the performance of DGFs over the past four years.” —PiRhoThis is not a simple task, the consulting firm said, as each fund uses different methods—multiple benchmarks, adjusted targets, and more “aspirational” objectives—to gauge whether they have hit the mark or not.

Despite this range of measurements, many have failed to meet their own expectations over the last four years, PiRho found. From a group of 16 UK-based DGFs, just two funds reached their four-year implied return targets by the end of last year, after fees were paid.

Want the latest institutional investment industry news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters. 

One of the main reasons was the economic environment, which had not been predicted when setting out the funds’ objectives, the paper claimed.

“Overall, investors in DGFs expecting ‘equity-like returns with lower volatility over an economic cycle’ would for the most part be disappointed with the performance of DGFs over the past four years,” the paper said. “The determination of governments post the financial crisis to support economic growth has contributed to strong equity markets as well as strong bond markets.”

In these circumstances, diversification—which is “at the heart of the diversified growth fund”—has not paid off as compared with a simple equity and bond portfolio, PiRho said.

However, the consultants advised investors to not dismiss those funds that missed their targets out of hand, but instead use the exercise as a reminder of discipline in manager selection.

“We believe to really understand the likely performance characteristics of a fund it is necessary to ‘look under the bonnet’ and examine the manager’s approach to risk management rather than simply relying on the fund’s stated objective,” the paper concluded.

Related Content: Multi-Asset: What Happened?

Hedge funds report far more data than the sector is often given credit for, research has found—but it is often unhelpful to investors.

“Fund managers have incentives to limit disclosure in order to reduce the likelihood that their strategies can be identified and replicated.”In a research paper titled “Hedge Fund Voluntary Disclosure”, authors Gavin Cassar of INSEAD, Joseph Gerakos of the University of Chicago, Jeremiah Green of Pennsylvania State University, and John Hand of the University of North Carolina studied thousands of letters from hedge funds to investors.

“Contrary to the industry’s reputation for opacity,” the authors wrote, “we find that hedge funds voluntarily provide their investors with a wide and rich array of content including data related to current and past performance, fund risk, fund investment positions, forward-looking information about the investment environment, and discussion and attribution of past performance.”

At the same time, there were significant biases within reports, with better-performing funds tending to disclose less information than those generating lower returns. The authors found that good performance was “more likely to be attributed to internal factors, while poor performance is more likely to be attributed to external factors”.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news. 

“Riskier funds are reliably less likely to report monthly historical returns, the volatility of returns, the worst month’s performance, downside risk, and Sharpe ratio.”“Fund managers have incentives to limit disclosure to their investors in order to reduce the likelihood that their proprietary strategies can be identified and replicated,” the authors added. This appeared to be an effective strategy, as returns were generally better for funds that communicated less information about their holdings and strategies to investors.

In addition, the authors cast doubt on the widely-held theory that more reporting and disclosure improved investors’ ability to monitor risks and performance, thereby reducing “information asymmetry”.

“We find that riskier funds are reliably less likely to report the distribution of monthly historical returns, the volatility of returns, the worst month’s performance, downside risk, and Sharpe ratio,” the authors stated.

The research also found no overall correlation between the amount of information disclosed to investors and the reporting of performance data to commercial databases.

“We suggest that care should be taken when using the decision to report to a commercial database as a commitment by the hedge fund to voluntarily provide its current investors with adequate disclosure,” the authors said.

The full research can be downloaded here.