绩效费对多经理人CTA投资组合的影响

IF 0.4 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Alternative Investments Pub Date : 2019-09-30 DOI:10.3905/jai.2019.22.2.024
Kathryn M. Kaminski, Marat Molyboga
{"title":"绩效费对多经理人CTA投资组合的影响","authors":"Kathryn M. Kaminski, Marat Molyboga","doi":"10.3905/jai.2019.22.2.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The authors study the impact of fees on the performance of multi-manager portfolios within managed futures. Using net-of-fee monthly returns of commodity trading advisors (CTAs) and their fee structures as reported in the BarclayHedge database, they estimate the time series of gross returns. They find that fees represent approximately 50% of gross performance, on average. They consider three fee structures: management fee only; a standard structure that includes both management and incentive fees; and a pooled, or netted, fee structure in which the incentive fee is based on aggregate portfolio performance rather than the performance of individual managers. They also vary the number of managers in a portfolio from 1 to 20 and consider crystallization frequencies between 3 and 12 months. Regardless of the fee structure, they find that average performance increases monotonically with the number of managers in a portfolio, and the distribution of performance becomes tighter. Performance improvement relative to a single-manager investment is highest for multi-manager portfolios that rely on a pooled fee structure. Pooling fees results in fee savings of up to 40% relative to the standard fee management and performance fee structures. They also find that less frequent crystallization consistently improves performance. TOPICS: Portfolio construction, manager selection, futures and forward contracts","PeriodicalId":45142,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alternative Investments","volume":"22 1","pages":"24 - 34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Performance Fees on Multi-Manager CTA Portfolios\",\"authors\":\"Kathryn M. Kaminski, Marat Molyboga\",\"doi\":\"10.3905/jai.2019.22.2.024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The authors study the impact of fees on the performance of multi-manager portfolios within managed futures. Using net-of-fee monthly returns of commodity trading advisors (CTAs) and their fee structures as reported in the BarclayHedge database, they estimate the time series of gross returns. They find that fees represent approximately 50% of gross performance, on average. They consider three fee structures: management fee only; a standard structure that includes both management and incentive fees; and a pooled, or netted, fee structure in which the incentive fee is based on aggregate portfolio performance rather than the performance of individual managers. They also vary the number of managers in a portfolio from 1 to 20 and consider crystallization frequencies between 3 and 12 months. Regardless of the fee structure, they find that average performance increases monotonically with the number of managers in a portfolio, and the distribution of performance becomes tighter. Performance improvement relative to a single-manager investment is highest for multi-manager portfolios that rely on a pooled fee structure. Pooling fees results in fee savings of up to 40% relative to the standard fee management and performance fee structures. They also find that less frequent crystallization consistently improves performance. TOPICS: Portfolio construction, manager selection, futures and forward contracts\",\"PeriodicalId\":45142,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Alternative Investments\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"24 - 34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Alternative Investments\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.2019.22.2.024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alternative Investments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.2019.22.2.024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作者研究了费用对管理期货中多管理人投资组合绩效的影响。他们利用巴克莱对冲(BarclayHedge)数据库中报告的商品交易顾问(cta)的月净费用回报及其费用结构,估算了总回报的时间序列。他们发现,费用平均约占总业绩的50%。他们考虑了三种收费结构:仅收取管理费;包括管理费和奖励费的标准结构;以及一种汇集或净额收费结构,在这种结构中,奖励费是基于投资组合的总体表现,而不是单个经理的表现。他们还将投资组合中的经理人数量从1人调整到20人,并考虑3到12个月之间的结晶频率。无论费用结构如何,他们发现平均绩效随着投资组合中经理数量的增加而单调增加,并且绩效分布变得更加紧密。与单经理投资相比,依赖于集中收费结构的多经理投资组合的业绩改善幅度最大。与标准费用管理和绩效费用结构相比,集中费用可节省高达40%的费用。他们还发现,不那么频繁的结晶可以持续提高性能。主题:投资组合构建,经理选择,期货和远期合约
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Impact of Performance Fees on Multi-Manager CTA Portfolios
The authors study the impact of fees on the performance of multi-manager portfolios within managed futures. Using net-of-fee monthly returns of commodity trading advisors (CTAs) and their fee structures as reported in the BarclayHedge database, they estimate the time series of gross returns. They find that fees represent approximately 50% of gross performance, on average. They consider three fee structures: management fee only; a standard structure that includes both management and incentive fees; and a pooled, or netted, fee structure in which the incentive fee is based on aggregate portfolio performance rather than the performance of individual managers. They also vary the number of managers in a portfolio from 1 to 20 and consider crystallization frequencies between 3 and 12 months. Regardless of the fee structure, they find that average performance increases monotonically with the number of managers in a portfolio, and the distribution of performance becomes tighter. Performance improvement relative to a single-manager investment is highest for multi-manager portfolios that rely on a pooled fee structure. Pooling fees results in fee savings of up to 40% relative to the standard fee management and performance fee structures. They also find that less frequent crystallization consistently improves performance. TOPICS: Portfolio construction, manager selection, futures and forward contracts
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alternative Investments (JAI) provides you with cutting-edge research and expert analysis on managing investments in hedge funds, private equity, distressed debt, commodities and futures, energy, funds of funds, and other nontraditional assets. JAI is the official publication of the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst Association (CAIA®). JAI provides you with challenging ideas and practical tools to: •Profit from the growth of hedge funds and alternatives •Determine the optimal mix of traditional and alternative investments •Measure and track portfolio performance •Manage your alternative investment portfolio with proven risk management practices
期刊最新文献
Commodity Futures and Trend Inflation Inflation Hedging Potential of Infrastructure Sector and Sub-Sector Returns—Evidence from Emerging Markets Listed Real Estate in a Multi-Asset World: Does It Add Value? Too Much of A Good Thing? Drawbacks of Stressing Measurement of Impact Investing Editor’s Letter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1