Skip to main content
MENU
Subscribe
  • Sign Up Free
  • LOGIN
  • Subscribe
  • Topics
    • Alternatives
    • Consultants
    • Coronavirus
    • Courts
    • Defined Contribution
    • ESG
    • ETFs
    • Face to Face
    • Hedge Funds
    • Industry Voices
    • Investing
    • Money Management
    • Opinion
    • Partner Content
    • Pension Funds
    • Private Equity
    • Real Estate
    • Russia-Ukraine War
    • SECURE 2.0
    • Special Reports
    • White Papers
  • Rankings & Awards
    • 1,000 Largest Retirement Plans
    • Top-Performing Managers
    • Largest Money Managers
    • DC Money Managers
    • DC Record Keepers
    • Largest Hedge Fund Managers
    • World's Largest Retirement Funds
    • Best Places to Work in Money Management
    • Excellence & Innovation Awards
    • WPS Innovation Awards
    • Eddy Awards
  • ETFs
    • Latest ETF News
    • Fund Screener
    • Education Center
    • Equities
    • Fixed Income
    • Commodities
    • Actively Managed
    • Alternatives
    • ESG Rated
  • ESG
    • Latest ESG News
    • The Institutional Investor’s Guide to ESG Investing
    • ESG Sustainability - Gaining Momentum
    • Climate Change: The Inescapable Opportunity
    • Impact Investing
    • 2022 ESG Investing Conference
    • ESG Rated ETFs
  • Defined Contribution
    • Latest DC News
    • DC Money Manager Rankings
    • DC Record Keeper Rankings
    • Innovations in DC
    • Trends in DC: Focus on Retirement Income
    • 2022 Defined Contribution East Conference
    • 2022 DC Investment Lineup Conference
  • Searches & Hires
    • Latest Searches & Hires News
    • Searches & Hires Database
    • RFPs
  • Performance Data
    • P&I Research Center
    • Earnings Tracker
    • Endowment Returns Tracker
    • Corporate Pension Contribution Tracker
    • Pension Fund Returns Tracker
    • Pension Risk Transfer Database
    • Future of Investments Research Series
    • Charts & Infographics
    • Polls
  • Careers
  • Events
    • View All Conferences
    • View All Webinars
    • 2023 Defined Contribution East
    • 2023 ESG Investing
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. ASSET OWNERS
July 09, 2012 01:00 AM

A case for performance fees in DB plans

Russell Kamp
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print
    Russell Kamp is managing partner of Kamp Consulting Solutions LLC, Midland Park, N.J.

    The looming retirement crisis in the United States has made it very clear that every participant in the management of retirement assets is now under increased pressure to support the investment needs of the aging U.S. population.

    In the face of this oncoming crisis, each of these participants — from investment managers to actuaries to consultants to custodians and the plan sponsor — needs to review their activities to determine what steps can be taken.

    With regard to investment managers in particular, one obvious area where progress can be made toward heading off this crisis relates to the performance of portfolios. Of course, improving the quality and consistency of returns is not trivial, and, in many cases, can be subject to the cyclical nature of the markets.

    So while improving gross investment returns is a laudable and important goal, careful attention to how investment managers are compensated for their efforts can provide another, arguably more predictable, way to have a positive impact on the net returns that the plans and individuals will actually see.

    To this end, compensating managers using performance-based fees can be, in many instances, a preferred strategy for plan sponsors and consultants compared with an all asset-based management fee structure.

    Fee structures

    Institutional plan sponsors seeking to invest in long-only equities traditionally have come to favor a “flat” asset-based fee structure, as offered by traditional relative-return investment managers.

    There are several reasons a plan sponsor might like this approach. A fixed asset-based fee allows all investors to have a general understanding of the dollar amount to be paid. This can be helpful for budgeting purposes and in setting expectations for stakeholders.

    Additionally, for those plan sponsors who are extremely confident in their ability to choose “superior” investment managers for their portfolio (those plan sponsors managers who think they can choose top-quartile managers, for example), fixed asset-based fees might make sense. Why pay more for outperformance?

    Investors in “alternative” products (such as hedge funds and private equity funds) have become accustomed to fee structures that combine asset- and performance-based fees. In particular, performance fees are believed to be an important part of aligning the incentives of manager and investor.

    As these alternative investment managers have started to cover traditional asset management space, it should not be surprising that they might be open to adopting fee structures that go beyond pure asset-based structures. In some cases, these managers are willing to go as far as structuring a fee schedule that has no base management fee while collecting a percentage of relative outperformance (for example, a manager might propose a “zero and 30” structure, where there is no asset-based fee charged but instead managers split profits exceeding the return of a benchmark in the proportion of 70% to the client and 30% to the manager). Effectively, this means the manager is only paid a fee if the client makes money or achieves relative outperformance to a benchmark.

    Possible benefits

    We believe that performance-based fees should be a strong consideration of plan sponsors and investors. While one of the obvious potential benefits of employing a performance-based fee is the alignment of interests between the investor and manager, there are several other arguments that support consideration of a performance-based fee.

    First, in many cases, managers base their fee schedules on inflated expectations for excess return (usually 1% to 2% annually over a market cycle). With a performance-based fee structure, there is no “guessing” as to potential value-add. A performance-based fee structure will only cost the plan sponsor more when outperformance is greater than the target outperformance, and will always cost less than a management-based fee structure in times of underperformance relative to performance objectives.

    The absence of a management-based fee also allows a quicker recovery from drawdowns. Since net and gross performance will always be the same for negative performance, the underperforming manager will not cost the plan anymore than the “underperformance,” while an asset-based fee manager's net performance is worse. In fact, an argument could be made that having a performance-based fee structure might enable clients to keep managers longer than they would ordinarily do, providing both the plan sponsor and manager the opportunity for a turnaround.

    Misguided perceptions

    Given some of the arguments above, why might some plan sponsors be reluctant to use performance-based fees?

    Investors might be concerned that a manager earning fees based on performance might take on excessive amounts of risk to potentially boost performance (manage to a greater tracking error). One way to reduce some of this anxiety is to report the ex-post return/risk results of all accounts in a particular strategy. By doing so, the manager reveals to the investor that the portfolio is staying within the risk taking parameters of the fund/account's mandate and other clients.

    Some investors mighty simply find paying a manager 25% to 30% of the outperformance to somehow be an unpalatable headline figure. Still others might perceive a fiduciary duty in limiting payment to an investment manager. In addition, some allocators might be uneasy with paying a greater dollar amount to managers in times of relative outperformance, especially if absolute performance is negative.

    Finally, for budgeting purposes it is true that a performance-based fee can vary quite a bit depending on the realized gross performance.

    However, it is important to remember that under the performance-fee model, these greater fees are only achieved when the investor is outperforming the fund's return target relative to the benchmark. In such cases of outperformance, the client receives a disproportionate share of the outperformance (e.g., 70% of outperformance under a 0/30 model).

    Overconfidence

    Despite the arguments for a performance-based fee approach, it remains true that if a plan sponsor were able to successfully choose managers that all ended up in the upper quartile of performance, they would be more likely to pay a larger dollar amount to their managers in fees (when using a performance-fee based approach).

    However, in general, ending up with a basket of top-quartile managers is extremely difficult. Assuming median performance is, in our opinion, a more conservative and likely scenario, under which performance-based fee approaches are likely to result in higher net-of-fees performance.

    Even if enlightened plan sponsors understand the likelihood of attaining median rather than top-quartile performance, some might instinctively believe that paying a fixed percentage fee on assets managed will result in better net performance than paying a small base fee with a performance sharing element.

    Table 1 compares the different return scenarios of a fixed 50-basis-point annual management-based fee and a 0/30% performance-based fee structure applied to the eVestment Large Cap Core Universe of 350 strategies for calendar year 2010. Given the median return of -0.88%, the asset-based fee example would result in a net performance of -1.38%, while the “net” performance in a 0/30% structure would still be -88 basis points.

    Table 1: Large-cap core returns from Dec. 31, 2009, to Dec. 31, 2010.
    Manager rank or groupingGross excess returnExcess return net of 0.50% mgmt. feeExcess return net of 0% mgmt. fee and 30% perf. incentive fee
    25th percentile0.82%0.32%0.55%
    Median-0.88%-1.38%-0.88%
    75th percentile-2.81%-3.31%-2.81%
    95th percentile-6.73%-7.23%-6.73%
    S&P 500 Total Return index: 15.06%
    Based on 350 observations from the eVestment Large Cap Core universe. S&P 500 index data sourced from Bloomberg.

    Table 2: Large-cap core returns from Dec. 31, 2007, to Dec. 31, 2010.
    Manager rank or groupingGross excess returnExcess return net of 0.50% mgmt. feeExcess return net of 0% mgmt. fee and 30% perf. incentive fee
    25th percentile2.28%1.78%1.59%
    Median0.84%0.34%0.49%
    75th percentile-0.48%-0.98%-0.48%
    95th percentile-2.74%-3.24%-2.74%
    S&P 500 Total Return index: -2.86%
    Based on 350 observations from the eVestment Large Cap Core universe. S&P 500 index data sourced from Bloomberg.

    When we extend the analysis to the last three years, in Table 2, and assuming the same 50-basis-point asset-based fee, the median net of fees performance is only 0.34%. The performance-based fee structure would result in net of fees performance of 0.49%, representing a savings of 15 basis points to an investor paying a performance-based fee.

    Although 15 basis points might not seem like much, an extra 15 basis points per year for 10 years on a $100 million portfolio earning 10% per year would result in an increase in value in the account of more than $3.5 million.

    Given the significant cost to plan sponsors of using poorly performing managers on asset-based fees, there are truly unmistakable benefits to a performance-based fee structure where the interests of the allocator and manager are absolutely aligned. While an asset-based fee structure is currently the typical offering for equity allocators, the average manager is clearly not adding value. Once plan sponsors look past their apprehension of paying for performance, this new (to the long-only equity investor, at least) structure, the alignment of interest with managers, and potential cost savings to the investor will prove incredibly beneficial.

    Conclusion

    Recent developments suggest that acceptance of performance fees in the long-only world might be growing. Two leading asset consulting firms in Australia have authored a guideline note highlighting six principles for fee negotiations with managers. These principles include the use of performance fees and a target for the payment of alpha between 25% and 33%. We couldn't agree more. n

    Related Articles
    A better structure for performance fees
    Recommended for You
    FTX_Screen_i.jpg
    FTX bankruptcy ensnares Kraft, Och and other family offices
    ONLINE_180419851_AR_0_SWJHUISTXOVN.jpg
    Northern Trust plan universe returns -4.2% in Q3
    holmgren_david_2013_wide-main_i.jpg
    More questions than answers in Hartford OCIO move
    The Institutional Investor's Guide to ESG Investing
    Sponsored Content: The Institutional Investor's Guide to ESG Investing

    Reader Poll

    January 25, 2023
    SEE MORE POLLS >
    Sponsored
    White Papers
    The Future of Infrastructure: Building a Better Tomorrow
    Fulcrum Issues: Equity Returns and Inflation — Choose Your Own Adventure
    What Matters Most in Considering a Private Debt Strategy
    Why pursue direct lending in the core middle market?
    Research for Institutional Money Management
    Are Factors a Thing of the Past?
    View More
    Sponsored Content
    Partner Content
    The Industrialization of ESG Investment
    For institutional investors, ETFs can make meeting liquidity needs easier
    Gold: the most effective commodity investment
    2021 Investment Outlook | Investing Beyond the Pandemic: A Reset for Portfolios
    Ten ways retirement plan professionals add value to plan sponsors
    Gold: an efficient hedge
    View More
    E-MAIL NEWSLETTERS

    Sign up and get the best of News delivered straight to your email inbox, free of charge. Choose your news – we will deliver.

    Subscribe Today
    December 12, 2022 page one

    Get access to the news, research and analysis of events affecting the retirement and institutional money management businesses from a worldwide network of reporters and editors.

    Subscribe
    Connect With Us
    • RSS
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn

    Our Mission

    To consistently deliver news, research and analysis to the executives who manage the flow of funds in the institutional investment market.

    About Us

    Main Office
    685 Third Avenue
    Tenth Floor
    New York, NY 10017-4036

    Chicago Office
    130 E. Randolph St.
    Suite 3200
    Chicago, IL 60601

    Contact Us

    Careers at Crain

    About Pensions & Investments

     

    Advertising
    • Media Kit
    • P&I Content Solutions
    • P&I Careers | Post a Job
    • Reprints & Permissions
    Resources
    • Subscribe
    • Newsletters
    • FAQ
    • P&I Research Center
    • Site map
    • Staff Directory
    Legal
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Request
    Pensions & Investments
    Copyright © 1996-2023. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • Topics
      • Alternatives
      • Consultants
      • Coronavirus
      • Courts
      • Defined Contribution
      • ESG
      • ETFs
      • Face to Face
      • Hedge Funds
      • Industry Voices
      • Investing
      • Money Management
      • Opinion
      • Partner Content
      • Pension Funds
      • Private Equity
      • Real Estate
      • Russia-Ukraine War
      • SECURE 2.0
      • Special Reports
      • White Papers
    • Rankings & Awards
      • 1,000 Largest Retirement Plans
      • Top-Performing Managers
      • Largest Money Managers
      • DC Money Managers
      • DC Record Keepers
      • Largest Hedge Fund Managers
      • World's Largest Retirement Funds
      • Best Places to Work in Money Management
      • Excellence & Innovation Awards
      • WPS Innovation Awards
      • Eddy Awards
    • ETFs
      • Latest ETF News
      • Fund Screener
      • Education Center
      • Equities
      • Fixed Income
      • Commodities
      • Actively Managed
      • Alternatives
      • ESG Rated
    • ESG
      • Latest ESG News
      • The Institutional Investor’s Guide to ESG Investing
      • ESG Sustainability - Gaining Momentum
      • Climate Change: The Inescapable Opportunity
      • Impact Investing
      • 2022 ESG Investing Conference
      • ESG Rated ETFs
    • Defined Contribution
      • Latest DC News
      • DC Money Manager Rankings
      • DC Record Keeper Rankings
      • Innovations in DC
      • Trends in DC: Focus on Retirement Income
      • 2022 Defined Contribution East Conference
      • 2022 DC Investment Lineup Conference
    • Searches & Hires
      • Latest Searches & Hires News
      • Searches & Hires Database
      • RFPs
    • Performance Data
      • P&I Research Center
      • Earnings Tracker
      • Endowment Returns Tracker
      • Corporate Pension Contribution Tracker
      • Pension Fund Returns Tracker
      • Pension Risk Transfer Database
      • Future of Investments Research Series
      • Charts & Infographics
      • Polls
    • Careers
    • Events
      • View All Conferences
      • View All Webinars
      • 2023 Defined Contribution East
      • 2023 ESG Investing