INTRODUCTION
Effective endowment management requires the asking and answering of many key questions. The broadest of these are: Does our governance structure facilitate sound, disciplined decision-making? Do those individuals charged with responsibility for overseeing the assets have sufficient understanding of institutional investing and sufficient information at their disposal to make informed decisions? Are they spending enough time to do the job right? Do we have explicit, written policies that describe the endowments objectives and the means taken to achieve them? Do we have the knowledge, experience, and resources needed to implement those policies effectively? Are we monitoring and measuring the results of our decisions in ways that tell us whether we are succeeding in achieving our objectives?
GOVERNANCE
Good governance leads to good decisions and weak governance to poor decisions. By governance we mean the structure, size, and composition of the committee charged with responsibility for the endowment, and how that committee goes about organizing itself to discharge that responsibility.
Investment Consultants
What is the consultant hired for? What role is the consultant expected to play? Not only should the answer to these questions inform the choice of a consultant, but if the committee, the organizations staff, and the consultant are not entirely clear on this point after the consultant has been selected, disharmony and discontent will surely ensue. What knowledge, research, expertise, and resources can the consultant provide? What kind of questions should we be asking our consultant? How can we get the most value for our consulting fees?
Meetings
How should meetings be managed? How long should they last? Who is responsible for the agenda? What differentiates a good meeting from a bad meeting? What should be the structure and content of the minutes? What happens when a committee member misses a meeting?
Successful investing requires as much perspiration as inspiration, but investment committee members rarely spend enough time on endowment management to break a sweat.
POLICIES
Introduction
Endowment funds are not ends in themselves, but the means to an end, which is to provide financial support to their organization. Until the organization defines its financial objectives for the endowment fund, it cannot begin to construct investment objectives designed to realize those ends. Consequently, the trustees first responsibility is to define the funds financial objectives and their second is to articulate commensurate investment objectives.
Until the organization denes its nancial objectives for the endowment fund, it cannot begin to construct investment objectives designed to realize those ends.
Asset Allocation Modeling
The sloppy approach to asset allocation is to run a model designed to optimize the trade-off between risk (defined as volatility) and return, and allocate accordingly. Although model enthusiasts often present themselves as rigorous statisticians, model inputswhich determine the outputsare in fact no better than educated guesstimates. Consequently, although models are extremely useful to inform ones thinking about risk and return, they should never be used as the sole determinant of an asset allocation.
Spending
The answer to How much can we spend? is contingent on answers to four other questions: Do we want to grow, maintain, or liquidate the endowment fund? If we decide to maintain the fund, how much risk of failing to realize that objective will we tolerate? What average annual real rate of return can we expect to earn over the life of the fund? How much variability in the level of spending can we stand?
Asset Allocation
A funds strategic asset allocation should be articulated in the form of a long-term policy portfolio, reflecting the asset mix best suited to realize the funds investment objectives over the long term. The investment committee must also decide whether the endowment should engage in tactical asset allocation, which is the attempt to add value by tactical deviations from the strategic asset mix. Such deviations should be deliberate and purposeful, rather than accidental and random, and the results of such decisions should be closely evaluated.
I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
Introduction
Many endowmentsparticularly smaller funds managed by investment committeessquander the value of carefully designed policies by careless implementation.
Resources
Here, the first question to ask is not, What do we want to do? but, What can we do, given available resources and expertise? In particular, investors intending to diversify their portfolios into alternative investments should first assess the resources required to do so successfully.
Alternative Assets
In so-called alternative investmentsparticularly hedge funds, private markets, and private real estatethe dispersion of returns among managers is so broad that the consequences of poor manager selection can be severe. Consequently, investors should not heed the siren song of alternative assets until and unless they have answered four key questions: Do we understand the risk and return characteristics, and the underlying source of return of these prospective investments? Do we know what additional resources are required to invest successfully in these areas? Are we prepared to pay what is needed to succeed? What are our implementation options and how should we evaluate them?
E V A L U AT I O N
Endowment funds should not only measure performance, but also evaluate the risks incurred to attain the returns. Few do so with any rigor, but since returns are essentially the payments investors receive for incurring various kinds of risks, this fundamental component of performance should not be ignored. Too often, trustees ask only the impossibly broad question, How did we do? They should ask: How did we do relative to our long-term objective? our policy portfolio? other organizations like ours? What is the purpose for which we are asking, How did we do? To determine whether we are maintaining the real value of the assets? To see if we are beating our policy portfolio benchmark? To assess whether our tactical bets have paid off? To judge how staff have performed?
O F F I C E L O C AT I O N S
7
ARLINGTON 4100 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 1300 Arlington, VA 22203-1664 United States Tel 703.526.8500 Fax 703.526.8501 BOSTON 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110-2112 United States Tel 617.457.7500 Fax 617.457.7501 DALLAS 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2600 Dallas, TX 75201-2969 United States Tel 214.468.2800 Fax 214.468.2801 LONDON 80 Victoria Street Cardinal Place London SW1E 5JL United Kingdom Tel 44.20.7592.2200 Fax 44.20.7592.2201 MENLO PARK 2730 Sand Hill Road, Suite 300 Menlo Park, CA 94025-7074 United States Tel 650.854.8400 Fax 650.854.8415 SINGAPORE Six Battery Road, Suite 13-08 Singapore 049909 Tel 65.6224.8688 Fax 65.6224.8788 SYDNEY MLC Centre Level 65 19 Martin Place, Suite 6503 Sydney NSW 2000 Australia Tel 61.2.9229.6500 Fax 61.2.9229.6501