Abstract
In <b><i>A Comparative Analysis of Performance Fees</i></b>, from the Summer 2018 issue of <b><i>The Journal of Portfolio Management</i></b>, <b>Megan Czasonis</b>, <b>Baykan Pamir</b>, <b>David Turkington</b> (all at <b>State Street Associates</b>) and <b>Mark Kritzman</b> (of <b>Windham Capital Management</b>) compare flat-fee structures for investment management services with performance-based fee structures. They demonstrate that determining an investor’s preference among different possible fee structures depends on the complex interplay of the fee structure, the expected performance of the investment portfolio, and the investor’s attitude toward risk. The authors argue that the appropriate approach for evaluating performance fees and comparing them with an alternative flat fee is to simulate the distribution of after-fee returns and, given a particular utility function for investors, to use the certainty equivalent of the after-fee return distribution to determine the appropriate fee structure. The authors also explain how the asymmetric nature of performance fees causes the distribution of net returns to be non-normal, even if before-fee returns are normally distributed. This can cause biased results when using tools that treat net returns as normally distributed. <b>TOPICS:</b>In portfolio management, portfolio management/multi-asset allocation
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
