|
leftmenu1.gif
|
|
Investment Manager Evaluation Criteria
We developed a number of criteria to evaluate and determine which company and team we were going to place our business with.
Company considerations
|
Criteria |
Description |
|
Capabilities |
Estate and trust planning, equity, fixed income, alternative
investments, trading. Investment research. |
|
Access |
To
information, knowledge and experience. |
|
Focus |
Private client, retail client, institutional. |
|
Platforms |
Investment products. Exchange funds, collars, margin loans. |
|
Reputation |
General reputation and standing in the industry. |
|
Fees |
How much it costs to do things. |
|
Background |
Company age, office locations, number of employees, revenue, assets
under management, culture, principles. |
Team considerations
|
Criteria |
Description |
|
Capabilities |
Estate and trust planning, equity, fixed income, alternative
investments, trading. |
|
Access |
To
information, knowledge and experience. Relative size and significance of
team to the company. |
|
Interactions |
Between team members, with other advisors and with ourselves. Ability to
communicate and support thoughts and opinions. Ability to teach and
educate. |
|
Thinking |
Dealing with and adapting to new situations, synthesizing new thoughts
from new or incomplete information. Organization. |
|
Knowledge |
Breadth and depth. Estate and trust planning, equity, fixed income,
alternative investments, trading. |
|
Experience |
Breadth and depth. Estate and trust planning, equity, fixed income,
alternative investments, trading. |
|
Focus |
Client base. Assets under management. Account types and sizes. |
|
Tendencies |
Investment and operating tendencies. Adaptability. Accuracy. |
|
Performance |
General investment performance. Investment models and methodology. |
|
Location |
Geographic location and accessibility. |
|
Responsiveness |
Responsive and proactive. |
|
Reputation |
General reputation and standing in the industry. |
|
Privacy |
Respect and maintenance of privacy. |
|
Background |
Team size, education, roles, access to firm resources. |
In general
we observed a diversity of views, styles and strengths during our evaluation.
The “teams” we talked to ranged in size from a single individual to groups
consisting of many people. There were many considerations that shaped our
thinking. The real and perceived differences between the companies and teams
could be argued but at the end of the day we looked at our goals and priorities,
considered our impressions of the companies and teams, weighed them against each
other and made a decision.
|
|
