开发者:上海品职教育科技有限公司 隐私政策详情

应用版本:4.2.11(IOS)|3.2.5(安卓)APP下载

北欧神父 · 2023年03月17日

让外面的投资者管理,那就不应该再受到现有内部人员多少和经验的限制?

William Azarov is a portfolio manager for Westcome Investments, an asset management firm. Azarov is preparing for meetings with two of Westcome’s clients and obtains the help of Jason Boulder, a junior analyst. The first meeting is with Maglav Inc., a rapidly growing US-based technology firm with a young workforce and high employee turnover. Azarov directs Boulder to review the details of Maglav’s defined benefit (DB) pension plan. The plan is overfunded and has assets under management of $25 million. Boulder makes the following two observations:

  • Observation 1 Maglav’s shareholders benefit from the plan’s overfunded status.
  • Observation 2 The funded ratio of Maglav’s plan will decrease if employee turnover decreases.
  • Maglav outsources the management of the pension plan entirely to Westcome Investments. The fee structure requires Maglav to compensate Westcome with a high base fee regardless of performance. Boulder tells Azarov that outsourcing offers small institutional investors, such as Maglav’s pension plan, the following three benefits:Benefit 1: Regulatory requirements are reduced.
  • Benefit 2: Conflicts of interest are eliminated from principal–agent issues.
  • Benefit 3: Investors have access to a wider range of investment strategies through scale benefits.

In the meeting with Maglav, Azarov describes the investment approach used by Westcome in managing the pension plan. The approach is characterized by a high allocation to alternative investments, significant active management, and a reliance on outsourcing assets to other external asset managers. Azarov also explains that Maglav’s operating results have a low correlation with pension asset returns and that the investment strategy is affected by the fact that the pension fund assets are a small portion of Maglav’s market capitalization. Azarov states that the plan is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and follows generally accepted accounting principles, including Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 715, Compensation—Retirement Benefits.Azarov’s second meeting is with John Spintop, chief investment officer of the Wolf University Endowment Fund (the Fund). Spintop hired Westcome to assist in developing a new investment policy to present to the Fund’s board of directors. The Fund, which has assets under management of $200 million, has an overall objective of maintaining long-term purchasing power while providing needed financial support to Wolf University. During the meeting, Spintop states that the Fund has an annual spending policy of paying out 4% of the Fund’s three-year rolling asset value to Wolf University, and the Fund’s risk tolerance should consider the following three liability characteristics:

  • Characteristic 1 The Fund has easy access to debt markets.
  • Characteristic 2 The Fund supports 10% of Wolf University’s annual budget.
  • Characteristic 3 The Fund receives significant annual inflows from gifts and donations.

The Fund has a small investment staff with limited experience in managing alternative assets and currently uses the Norway model for its investment approach. Azarov suggests a change in investment approach by making an allocation to externally man-aged alternative assets—namely, hedge funds and private equity. Ten-year nominal expected return assumptions for various asset classes, as well as three proposed allocations that include some allocation to alternative assets, are presented in Exhibit 1.



Expected inflation for the next 10 years is 2.5% annually.


Which proposed allocation in Exhibit 1 would be most appropriate for the Fund given its characteristics?

选项:

A.

Allocation 1

B.

Allocation 2

C.

Allocation 3

解释:

C is correct.

Allocation 3 is the most appropriate allocation for the Fund. The annual expected returns for the three allocations are as follows:

Allocation 1 exp. return = (0.45 × 4.1%) + (0.40 × 6.3%) + (0.10 × 7.5%) + (0.05 × 9.1%)= 5.57%.

Allocation 2 exp. return = (0.10 × 4.1%) + (0.15 × 6.3%) + (0.15 × 7.5%) + (0.30 × 5.0%) + (0.30 × 9.1%)= 6.71%.

Allocation 3 exp. return = (0.13 × 4.1%) + (0.32 × 6.3%) + (0.40 × 7.5%) + (0.05 × 5.0%) + (0.10 × 9.1%)= 6.71%.

The real return for Allocation 1 is 3.07% (= 5.57% – 2.50%), and the real return for Allocation 2 and Allocation 3 is 4.21% (= 6.71% – 2.50%).

Therefore, Allocation 1 is not appropriate because the expected real rate of return is less than the annual spending rate of 4%. With expected spending at 4%, the purchasing power of the Fund would be expected to decline over time with Allocation 1.

Allocations 2 and 3 both offer an expected real rate of return greater than the annual spending rate of 4%. Thus, the purchasing power of the Fund would be expected to grow over time with either allocation. However, Allocation 3 is more appropriate than Allocation 2 because of its lower allocation to alternative assets (hedge funds and private equity). The total 60% allocation to alternative assets in Allocation 2 is well above the 15% allocation in Allocation 3 and is likely too high considering the Fund’s small investment staff and its limited experience with managing alternative investments. Also, given the Fund’s relatively small size of assets under management ($200 million), access to top hedge funds and private equity managers is likely to be limited.


老师,类似的题目我有一个共同的疑问,就是题目中已经说了“by making an allocation to externally man-aged alternative assets”要把这部分让外面的投资者管理,那就不应该再受到现有内部人员多少和经验的限制,但答案为什么还是说是受限于内部呢

1 个答案
已采纳答案

lynn_品职助教 · 2023年03月20日

嗨,努力学习的PZer你好:


老师,类似的题目我有一个共同的疑问,就是题目中已经说了“by making an allocation to externally man-aged alternative assets”要把这部分让外面的投资者管理,那就不应该再受到现有内部人员多少和经验的限制,但答案为什么还是说是受限于内部呢


是受限的。外包是小规模基金解决投资alternatives的一种方法,但是这种方法不是完美无缺的。


这个知识点我们要了解这些内容。


首先肯定是不适合自己管理的,因为经验、人手不足。


但是外包的时候需要注意,外部的基金经理非常多,即便是外包,选择合适的alternatives fund manager也是一门技术。


像这道题目一样,有几道题是从小规模也无法聘请到好的研究alternative investment团队这个角度考察了,主要是要看题干,下面举几个例子。


题干有说他们团队不具备投资另类产品的能力,原文:The Fund has a small investment staff with limited experience in managing alternative assets 

此外,因为他们是小基金,很难聘请得到top manager来管理另类投资;所以他们投另类资产也是有一些限制的。


从题干的with limitted experence in managing alternatives可以看出,这道题外包可能面临一定的挑战。


因此,结论是小规模基金适合外包,但是做题时要小心看题干,无法聘请到好的研究alternative investment团队是一个重要考点。


以上是回答同学对类似题目的共同疑问。


这道题的最主要问题还有一个,即Alternatives的比例太高了。


小基金投资60%的Alternatives肯定不行的,因为规模太小了,一来是他们没有alernatives的经验(外包也需要相关知识),二来是他们的规模太小, 高比例在Alternatives上风险过高。第三点是他们没办法接触到太好的基金经理。


从实务数据来看,一般非常大的基金,最大的系列(超过1billion的基金),此类基金投资altenatives的比例一般在50%~60%左右,而最小规模的基金,一般在10%左右。所以本题的小基金60%过高。如果调整成30%,在满足收益的条件下,也许可以考虑Portfolio 2。


如果几个Portfolio取得的收益是一样大的,我们优选选择Alternatives比例小的。这样尽可能避免自己不擅长的领域(or风险过大的领域)。

----------------------------------------------
就算太阳没有迎着我们而来,我们正在朝着它而去,加油!

  • 1

    回答
  • 0

    关注
  • 179

    浏览
相关问题