Evaluating funding managers is a difficult endeavor. Why else would asset homeowners expend a lot time and sources, typically with assistance from consultants, to conduct supervisor searches? Correct supervisor choice and analysis requires thorough due diligence, however a comparatively easy filter can function a useful preliminary display screen of potential funding managers.

There are three primary questions that asset homeowners ought to ask of any quantitative supervisor earlier than initiating their due diligence course of with that supervisor. If a supervisor doesn’t present enough responses, they could not advantage additional consideration. Although our focus is quantitative managers, the identical questions additionally work for elementary managers, particularly regarding the quantitative screens or alerts they use of their funding processes.

1. What are the drivers of your funding course of?

Funding managers ought to be capable to clarify what elements they take into account most vital to their funding determination making and supply some conceptual justification for them. For instance, their fairness elements must be economically intuitive and comprehensible fairly than opaque or artificial. As a living proof, take into account the definition of the Worth issue. A single comprehensible metric like price-to-book has benefits over hybrids comparable to a “Worth” issue comprised of some mixture of price-to-book and price-to-earnings.

Why keep away from such hybrid approaches? First, the proof that price-to-earnings is a rewarded danger issue has far weaker empirical help relative to price-to-book. Second, even when we have been to make use of each metrics, a hybrid that mixes the 2 particular person metrics not directly, say 50% price-to-book and 50% price-to-earnings, doesn’t make any financial sense. That’s, what’s the return stream of the hybrid “issue” a return stream of? Third, combining completely different metrics could give us exposures that we are not looking for. Lastly, even when we mix elements as above, we must apply some type of weighting scheme, whether or not static or dynamic. However then now we have to supply a justification for our weighting scheme. If our solely justification is that it labored effectively in a backtest, then we’re succumbing to essentially the most elementary error in each investing and statistics: We’re basing what is meant to be a generalizable funding technique on an overfitted metric.

Thus, utilizing a transparent set of things that makes financial sense and might be defended on conceptual grounds is vital to evaluating whether or not a supervisor has a agency and well-constructed funding course of or is making funding choices based mostly on a flimsier set of issues.

An vital extra element of fairness issue methods is controlling the potential detrimental interplay impact among the many varied fairness elements. For instance, the shares in a Worth technique have no less than some publicity to Momentum and Dimension, amongst different elements. If the publicity is giant and detrimental, then the technique may wash away the premia that’s being harvested from the Worth publicity. Thus, managers should have a process in place that permits for issue tilts however controls for these detrimental interplay results. If not, then a given technique will stray from its said mandate. Managers ought to be capable to clarify how their course of ensures their meant exposures within the presence of interplay results.

Lastly, an vital facet of gauging a supervisor’s solutions to our first query is their consistency. What if completely different members of an funding group, say the top of analysis and the senior portfolio managers, have divergent views on what crucial elements are of their funding course of? Then perhaps their technique shouldn’t be totally developed. This “inconsistency danger” can plague each quantitative and elementary managers however is probably extra frequent amongst elementary managers who typically have much less disciplined funding processes relative to their quantitative friends.

2. What proof is there that your funding course of can be efficient?

A well-constructed funding course of must be validated by way of a big physique of empirical proof and a complete array of statistical assessments. For instance, a quantitative course of must be supported by very giant information units, assessments that use completely different subsamples, and varied varieties of simulations. All these validation strategies must be documented, ideally in peer-reviewed journals. For instance, the funding group at Scientific Beta has collectively revealed dozens of papers through the years that articulate its views and again up its strategy to fairness issue investing with proof.

Why is publishing papers in journals helpful? As a result of it offers the broader funding neighborhood the chance to guage an funding group’s concepts. And since the evaluators share no enterprise pursuits with the authors, their assessments are extra goal. Publishing analysis helps set up the legitimacy of quantitative funding processes. Not solely does it present a view right into a supervisor’s funding methodology, however it additionally aligns a supervisor’s analysis efforts with real scientific apply.

In science, solutions to questions are derived from consensus. That’s, completely different analysis groups working independently come to comparable conclusions. Due to this, their outcomes reinforce one another. If a supervisor can not clarify or present any help, empirical or in any other case, why their course of works, asset homeowners ought to take it as a purple flag.

After all, some funding companies don’t publish their analysis as a result of they are saying they wish to defend the proprietary parts of their funding course of, their ”secret sauce.” However that isn’t convincing. In any case, different companies do publish their analysis with out concern of misappropriation. Both means, a agency’s methodologies must be supported by each proprietary supervisor analysis and analysis exterior to the agency.

3. What danger controls are a part of your funding course of?

Making certain {that a} technique is delivering what it’s alleged to and isn’t exposing itself to undesirable dangers is integral to efficient funding processes. For instance, in an fairness issue technique, the objective is usually offering targeted publicity to a number of elements. So, a Worth technique’s return must be primarily pushed by publicity to the Worth issue. If an element technique’s return stream comes from different elements or the idiosyncratic danger of particular person shares, then undesirable danger exposures are creeping in. Thus, lack of danger management could result in unintended penalties.

Mannequin misspecification is a possible danger in any funding technique. Quantitative methods, specifically, typically decide the asset weights of their portfolio utilizing some type of optimization. Whereas any optimization could also be constrained, it nonetheless may unduly expose a portfolio to focus danger in particular securities, areas, or sectors, amongst different varieties of danger. In any case, no mannequin is ideal, and each mannequin processes inputs in another way. As such, managers have to have controls in place to protect in opposition to any given mannequin tilting the portfolio in direction of undesirable or overly concentrated exposures. Utilizing a couple of mannequin to find out asset weights is a method to do that.

In making use of any mannequin, deciding on what inputs to make use of is a vital consideration. Does a course of rely totally on extra secure metrics, comparable to volatility, or on extra erratic variables, anticipated returns, for instance? Managers should present this info to guarantee asset homeowners that their fashions are strong and secure.

Concluding Ideas

To make certain, these three questions are only the start of the due diligence course of. Nonetheless, as an preliminary filter, they’re nice beginning factors for evaluating any supervisor. If the solutions to any of those questions are unsatisfactory, the supervisor’s course of could have elementary flaws, and the supervisor could also be unsuitable for additional vetting.

When you appreciated this publish, don’t neglect to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.

---

All posts are the opinion of the writer(s). As such, they shouldn’t be construed as funding recommendation, nor do the opinions expressed essentially mirror the views of CFA Institute or the writer’s employer.

Picture credit score: ©Getty Photographs / Alex Liew

---

Skilled Studying for CFA Institute Members

CFA Institute members are empowered to self-determine and self-report skilled studying (PL) credit earned, together with content material on Enterprising Investor. Members can report credit simply utilizing their on-line PL tracker.