WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT MANAGER EXPERIENCE · What everyone should know about manager...

WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT

MANAGER EXPERIENCE

A CITYWIRE RESEARCH REPORT BY

DR. NISHA LONG Head of Cross Border Investment Research

When it comes to fund manager experience, when and where does it matter the most and how much emphasis should we be placing on it? In this research study Citywire’s head of cross border investment research, Dr Nisha Long, busts some myths about fund manager experience.

What everyone should know about manager experience 2

RESEARCH FINDINGS

• Underperformers culled in one asset class and not in another.

• Experience brings opposing risk requirements in different asset classes.

• Do ‘storyteller’ fund managers survive despite underperformance?

• How managers in one asset class are hindered by large AUM.

• Behavioural characteristics of the top performing and most experienced fund managers revealed.


INTRODUCTIONHow exactly should fund manager experience be factored into selection processes? This study looks at bond and equity managers to see how increased experience is linked to performance.

Citywire’s research and editorial teams talk regularly to fund analysts and selectors around the world and have canvassed views on manager experience. We asked if a manager’s experience mattered more when selecting a bond manager or an equity fund – here are some responses from that sample:

FUND SELECTOR COMMENTS

TRACKING 16,000 FUND MANAGERSThe starting point of this research was to look at Citywire’s fund manager database, through which we currently track over 16,000 fund managers around the world, managing over 26,000 funds across 270 investment sectors.

CITYWIRE FUND MANAGER DATABASE

Active managers tracked: 16,000Running over 26,400 funds

Inactive managers: 14,000

I took the comments made here and tested some of the assumptions. The main questions I have aimed to answer in this research study are:

• Does manager experience matter more in bonds or equities?

• What are the characteristics of alpha generating managers?

• How should you use the findings of this study in fund selection?

Tenure makes it very comfortable to select a manager because I can easily demonstrate why I have selected a manager, but in my opinion it doesn’t make it a better decision. I have a hard time demonstrating that long tenure goes along with good future returns.

Espen Seidel - Group CEO / portfolio manager at Finansco Vorvaltning, Norway Experience matters more in equities than in bonds.

Most bond managers under 60 never witnessed a major bear market in their own asset class except in 1994. Experienced equity managers on the other hand might have already lived through a few major market movements.

Alberic Menoud - Director at 2P, Luxembourg

Manager experience is very important, regardless if it is in bonds or equities.

Ansgar Nolte - Co-head of portfolio management at Berenberg


SECTORS ANALYSED & WHYFor the purposes of this study we chose the sectors where manager and fund information coverage was the longest and deepest, spanning more than a decade [see table 1]. They are also some of the largest sectors we track in terms of assets under management and the number of managers active in each of these sectors. To compare bond and equity managers, we looked at the following sectors, to give us like-for-like regional coverage:

METHODOLOGY

TABLE 1 - DATA ANALYSISSECTOR COVERAGE

EQUITY BONDSGlobal Global

Europe Europe

US US Dollar

Global Emerging Markets Emerging Markets HC

The first step in analysing any difference between bond and equity managers was to take the data back to 2010 and look at each discrete year going through to 2016, giving us seven years in total. In each of these years, three separate categories of managers were analysed: • Category 1: The top 10 best performers in each sector as

defined by their three year risk adjusted returns.• Category 2: The top 10 managers with the largest assets

under management [AUM].• Category 3: The top 10 most experienced managers in the sector.

For each of these categories, four main areas were looked at:1. Average amount of money they run.2. Average experience in years.3. Average three year risk-adjusted ratio.4. Average three year standard deviation or the amount of

risk taken to get their returns.

AUM [€ mill] Experience [years]

3 year risk-adjusted returns3 year standard deviation

DATA ANALYSISMETHODOLOGY - DISCRETE YEARS: 2010 -2016 = 7 years

CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3

TOP 10Top Performers

3 year risk-adjusted return

TOP 10Largest AUM

TOP 10Most Experienced


FINDINGS: EQUITIES

EQUITY - GLOBAL TOP PERFORMERS LARGEST AUM MOST EXPERIENCED

Experience 7 13 26

AUM [€ mill] 664.1 6,975.1 1,814.3

3 yr MR 1.19 0.11 -0.07

3 yr SD 16.28 16.72 16.12

EQUITY - EUROPE TOP PERFORMERS LARGEST AUM MOST EXPERIENCED

Experience 7 10 21

AUM [€ mill] 320.2 3,260.4 266.6

3 yr MR 1.19 0.27 -0.07

3 yr SD 14.13 14.05 13.88

EQUITY - US TOP PERFORMERS LARGEST AUM MOST EXPERIENCED

Experience 8 15 31

AUM [€ mill] 513.7 3,513.9 841.9

3 yr MR 0.79 0.03 -0.08

3 yr SD 16.21 14.74 15.45

EQUITY - GEM TOP PERFORMERS LARGEST AUM MOST EXPERIENCED

Experience 6 12 21

AUM [€ mill] 1,243.8 4,392.4 482.7

3 yr MR 0.98 0.17 -0.13

3 yr SD 19.63 19.97 21.06

TABLE 2 - FINDINGS: EQUITIESAVERAGE 2010 - 2016

Table 2 above shows the accumulated averages over the discrete years 2010 through to 2016.

GLOBAL EQUITIESIn this sector the 10 top performers’ average experience is seven years. Managers with the largest assets have an average experience of 13 years and the ten most experienced managers have an average experience of 26 years. Next up we have assets under management [AUM]. The top performers, on average, run over €600 million of assets. The managers with the largest AUM on average run €7 billion and the most experienced managers, on average, run just under €2 billion. Therefore the top performers run the least amount of assets.Looking at the three year manager ratio, which is a derivation of the information ratio, the top performers, as expected, have a high positive manager ratio. However managers running the most assets are just treading water with close to zero manager ratio. They are still adding alpha, but only just. Next we have the most experienced managers where the average manager ratio is negative. The most experienced are underperforming.Turning our attention to risk, the most experienced global equity managers on average take the least risk out of all three categories.

EUROPEAN EQUITIESAgain the 10 top performers’ average experience comes in at seven years. The most experienced managers underperform and take the least risk whilst the top performers take the most risk to get their returns.

US EQUITIESHere too the most experienced underperform and take less risk than the top performers. The top performers in US equities also manage the least amount of assets, around €500 million which seems to be a sweet spot for these successful managers.

EMERGING MARKET EQUITIESIn the emerging markets equities sector, the most experienced also underperform here, but that’s where the similarities end. The most experienced managers in this sector run the least amount of assets out of the three categories, and they take the most risk. Looking at the top performers, they take the least risk, which is the complete opposite to what we have seen with the developed market equities managers. They have different behavioural characteristics.


SUMMARY OF EQUITIES FINDINGS [TABLE 2]

SUMMARY EQUITIES: AVERAGES

The top performers in Global, Europe and US equities all take more risk than the most experienced managers, and in some cases the most risk out of all three categories [indicated by the pink circle in table 2]. But the most important finding here is that the most experienced, in all sectors, underperform on average [indicated by the blue circle in table 2].What we also see here [indicated by the green circle in table

2] is that the emerging market managers have different characteristics. It is the most experienced managers that take the most risk and the top performing managers who take the least risk, which is opposite to what we have seen for the developed market equity sectors.

TOP PERFORMERS LARGEST AUM MOST EXPERIENCED

Experience 7 13 26

AUM [€ mill] 499.3 4583.1 974.3

3 yr MR 1.06 0.14 -0.07

3 yr SD 15.54 15.17 15.15

TABLE 3 - FINDINGS: EQUITIESAVERAGES

Average over 3 sectors [ex GEM]

In summary [table 3], and as there are some anomalies in the emerging markets which will skew averages, here we are just taking the averages of managers active in the developed markets. On average, the most experienced equity managers underperform and take the least risk.The top performers in equities take the most risk and also run the least amount of assets. They have their sweet spot of managing around €500 million of assets.Managers with the largest assets are not really adding much value against the markets; their returns are lacklustre, with many risk averse managers index hugging, or at the very least, taking care not to make any bold moves which may lead to loss in capital.


FINDINGS: BONDS

BONDS GLOBAL TOP PERFORMERS LARGEST AUM MOST EXPERIENCED

Experience 9 10 23

AUM [€ mill] 672.4 7,404.6 408.2

3 yr MR 1.32 0.37 0.3

3 yr SD 6.86 7.09 8.67

BONDS EUROPE TOP PERFORMERS LARGEST AUM MOST EXPERIENCED

Experience 8 6 15

AUM [€ mill] 262.8 650.7 129.9

3 yr MR 0.64 0.004 0.19

3 yr SD 4.28 4.34 4.39

BONDS US DOLLAR TOP PERFORMERS LARGEST AUM MOST EXPERIENCED

Experience 8 11 22

AUM [€ mill] 721.1 2,438.0 171.3

3 yr MR 0.86 0.31 0.12

3 yr SD 3.88 4.39 4.4

BONDS EM HC TOP PERFORMERS LARGEST AUM MOST EXPERIENCED

Experience 8 9 17

AUM [€ mill] 410.8 2,207.1 1,155.9

3 yr MR 0.51 0.04 0.14

3 yr SD 9.28 8.63 9.17

TABLE 4 - FINDINGS: BONDSAVERAGE 2010 - 2016

GLOBAL BONDS In the global bonds sector, the top performing managers average experience is nine years, slightly higher than we saw for the top performers in global equities. Managers with the largest assets are not that far behind with an average experience of 10 years. But here we start to see some differences emerging between equity and bond managers. The most experienced manage the least amount of assets. The biggest difference when comparing to equities is that in all three bond categories analysed, the managers outperform.In terms of risk, the most experienced take on the most risk, which is the complete opposite of what we saw from global equity managers where the most experienced take the least risk to get their returns.

EUROPEAN BONDSWith European bonds, a similar story emerges. Again, we have the most experienced running the least amount of assets, but they are also taking the most risk. The top performers on average are taking the least risk and managers in all three categories are outperforming.

US DOLLAR BONDSHere the average experience of the top performers comes in at eight years. Managers in all three categories are outperforming. The most experienced run the least amount of assets and once again it is the top performers that are taking the least risk.

EMERGING MARKET BONDSAgain, it is a different story from the developed markets as we saw previously for equities. It is the top performers that manage the least assets and take on the most risk. These are similar traits to what we have seen for developed market equity managers, even though we are looking at bond managers.Therefore these emerging market managers need to be treated differently from the developed markets with these different character traits.


SUMMARY OF BONDS FINDINGS [TABLE 4]

SUMMARY BONDS: AVERAGES

Overall, the most experienced bond managers in developed markets run the least assets in each category of managers analysed [indicated by the pink circles in table 4]. Talking to asset managers and to fund selectors, I found that often these managers are now in senior positions, running whole departments or have taken on advisory roles. As a result, these managers have had to reduce the number of funds they manage as these responsibilities limit the amount of time they are able to

spend on the day-to-day management of portfolios.But they still take on the most risk [indicated by the blue circles in table 4].However, bond emerging market managers are acting like developed market equity managers in that the top performers in this sector run the least amount of assets [indicated by the green circle in table 4] and they take on the most risk to get their returns [indicated by the yellow circle in table 4].


Experience 8 9 20

AUM [€ mill] 552.1 3496.6 236.5

3 yr MR 0.94 0.23 0.18

3 yr SD 5.0 5.2 5.8

TABLE 5 - FINDINGS: BONDSAVERAGES

Average over 3 sectors

In summary: [table 5] Just concentrating on the developed market averages due to the different behaviour of the emerging market managers, the most experienced managers run the least amount of assets out of the three categories, but take on the most risk. And bond managers in all three categories outperform.


OVERALL FINDINGS: EQUITY VS BOND MANAGERS

ANALYSIS: What does experience mean for managers active in risky sectors?

EQUITY MANAGERS VS BOND MANAGERS

EQUITY BONDSAVERAGE EXPERIENCE

of top perfomers

= 7 YEARS

AVERAGE EXPERIENCE of top perfomers

= 8 YEARSTOP PERFORMERS = TAKE MOST RISK TOP PERFORMERS = TAKE LEAST RISK

MOST EXPERIENCED = UNDERPERFORM & Take LEAST risk

MOST EXPERIENCED = OUTPERFORM & Take MOST risk

LARGEST AUM = CLOSET TRACKERS & large AUM hinders performance

LARGEST AUM = Alpha generators & large AUM not a hindrance

To sum up the data and compare bond and equity managers:

• The average experience of the top performing equity managers is seven years as measured on a three year risk adjusted basis. In bonds, the average experience of the top performing managers comes in at eight years.

• The top performers in equity take the most risk to get their returns, whilst in bonds they take the least risk.

• Another big difference is that the most experienced managers in equity underperform and take the least risk, but the most experienced in bonds outperform and take the most risk.

Managers active in the Bond – Global High Yield sector are analysed here to see if risky assets change the behavioural characteristics of managers [table 6]. What we can gauge from the table above is that [pink circle in table 6] the top performers run the least assets; [blue circle in table 6] they also take the most risk and [green circle in table 6] the most experienced underperform. Doesn’t this look familiar?Bond managers that run funds at the risky end of the bond

• And finally, managers who run the biggest funds in equities are hindered by their large assets and are only just adding value to their funds, whereas bond managers with large funds are still strong alpha generators and having a large amount of assets doesn’t seem to hinder their performance

One point I haven’t included in the summary above is the behaviour of emerging market managers which we have seen throughout this study exhibit different behavioural characteristics to the managers active in the developed markets.On the back of these differences seen for the more risky emerging markets, I decided to look at manager characteristics in another sector that is deemed risky – but in bonds.

spectrum are acting like equity managers with similar behavioural traits. High yield bonds are seen as equity proxies due to their likeness to equities and that is one of the reasons why manager characteristics are similar to the outright equity managers. This emphasises the need to treat managers who run riskier assets, not just in emerging markets, in a different manner to those segments deemed as less risky, such as managers active in the developed markets.


Experience 6 11 14

AUM [€ mill] 441.4 3,389.9 1,452.8

3 yr MR 0.86 -0.12 -0.15

3 yr SD 10.05 9.2 9.4

BONDS GHY = Equity Proxy = similar charateristics to equity managers

TABLE 6 - BONDS - GLOBAL HIGH YIELDAVERAGE OVER DISCRETE YEARS 2010 - 2016

Bonds Global HY


ANALYSIS: Research commentary: What is happening to the most experienced managers in equities?

What can we learn from all this data and more importantly what is happening to the most experienced equity managers? They underperform and take the least risk to get their returns. What could be the reason for this? The next section of this report takes a look at some explanations from the world of academia that I have found most compelling.

ACADEMIC STUDY One plausible explanation was put forward by Nicole Boyson*

of Purdue University, Krannert graduate school of management, where she studied long serving managers in the hedge fund world. Here are some of her findings:

• Older managers have more to lose should their funds fail such as their reputation, their current income as well as personal wealth.

• In order to preserve all this they reduce volatility and herd more than younger managers. They tend to follow the crowd and this has a knock-on effect on their returns; that’s why we’re seeing them underperform. This theory can also be applied to what we’re seeing in the mutual fund industry.

To put this into a fund manager context; some of the most experienced managers may not be getting any better with experience, but what they are becoming is more confident and better storytellers. They know what people want to hear to keep on investing with them.

*Reference: Boyson, Nicole [2008], “Do hedge funds exhibit performance persistence? A new approach,” Financial. Analysts Journal, 64[6], 15-26.

• Managers will perhaps have personal assets in their funds and are trying to preserve that for their retirement and personal gain.

• They tend not to take on risky behaviour which can increase the probability of termination.

This offers one explanation of what happens to the most experienced equity managers’ performance, but there is also another take on it. In the course of this research I talked to Professor Nick Chater from the University of Warwick in the UK, whose research interest is in behavioural science. He has a theory which could explain why the most experienced equity managers are still active, even though they’re underperforming.

Academic studies conducted by Boyson and Chater go some way to explain some of the behaviour we are seeing from the most experienced equity managers. But what is happening to the most experienced bond managers who on average outperform and take on more risk? For this, we can once again turn to data.

WATCH THE VIDEO

http://view.vzaar.com/13345710/video


ANALYSIS: What is happening to the most experienced managers in bonds?

To get an idea of the differences between bond and equity managers, the following charts [charts 1-4] show the number of years of experience a fund manager has along the x-axis and on the y-axis we have the percentage of managers who have that level of experience in the sector.

First looking at global equities [pink line in chart 1], almost 90% of managers have a one year track record, 65% have three years, 46% have five years and the numbers continue to drop off as the number of years of experience increases. Just 2% have a 20 year track record in the global equities sector. Moving on to look at global bond managers [represented by the blue line in chart 1], it is similar to global equity managers at one year. Around 90% of global bond managers are still active. But look at what happens at three years, five years, and seven years. Bond managers are leaving their funds a lot quicker than equity managers.

Here is a similar story in Europe [chart 2]. European bond managers stop managing their funds at a faster pace than European equity managers. At 10 years of manager experience, just 9% of bond managers have 10 years’ experience, compared to 27% of managers in equities having 10 years of experience.

CHART 1 - MANAGER EXPERIENCE: ‘DROP-OFF’GLOBAL

CHART 2 - MANAGER EXPERIENCE: ‘DROP-OFF’EUROPE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% M

anag

ers

Experience in years1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

% Bonds % Equity

88

65

46

34

21

107

86

57

36

25

132 2 0 1

% M

anag

ers

% Bonds % Equity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


89

66

50

40

27

102

87

55

38

232 0 0 0

9


A similar story again appears for US equity and US bond managers [chart 3]. Bond managers are dropping off a lot quicker than equity managers as the number of years’ experience increases.

And finally we have the emerging markets [chart 4]. Emerging market bond managers are not dropping off as fast, but still at a faster rate than emerging market equity managers. This starts to converge at around 10 years’ experience.

Overall, the trend is that bond managers stop managing their funds at a much faster rate than equity managers. To explain this, the next step in the research was to look at why these bond managers are leaving earlier in their careers compared to the equity managers. Is there a link to performance?

CHART 3 - MANAGER EXPERIENCE: ‘DROP-OFF’US

CHART 4 - MANAGER EXPERIENCE: ‘DROP-OFF’EMERGING MARKETS

% M

anag

ers

% Bonds % Equity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


92

72

56

43

28

158

89

58

39

256 5

2 1

16

% Bonds % Equity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% M

anag

ers


91

66

48

32

16

7 8

90

59

38

23

143 3 1 1


MANAGER ‘DROP-OFF’ AND PERFORMANCE LINK

The following charts, 5 to 8, show managers who had between 12 and 18 months experience in each of the discrete years starting in 2010 and taking it to 2016. How these charts work [charts 5-8]: I have looked at the underperforming managers in 2010 and worked out what percentage of these underperforming managers were still active two years later. I have repeated this process for 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

Global equity managers [represented by pink bars chart 5] in 2010 74% of equity managers that underperformed that year were still active in their respective sectors two years later. In 2011 63% were still active two years later in 2013. On average, over 70% of the underperformers in equities in each year were still managing their funds two years later. Now if we look at bonds [blue bars in chart 5], and straight away in 2010, there is a stark difference. Just 46% of the underperformers in 2010 were still active two years later. In 2011 still down on equity managers.In 2012, there was a bit of a pause on getting rid of the underperforming bond managers, but this must be seen in the context of what was happening at the time, with markets feeling the effects of the Euro debt crisis and with the ECB pumping in virtually unlimited amounts through Quantitative Easing. These bond managers were given a second chance, but only because most of their peers were also underperforming at the time. The asset management firms couldn’t really get rid-off all the poor performing bond managers, or there wouldn’t be anyone left to manage the bond funds. But as soon as the markets became steady, the underperforming bond managers were culled again.

CHART 5 - MANAGER ‘DROP-OFF’ & PERFORMANCE LINKGLOBAL: % UNDERPERFORMERS STILL ACTIVE 2 YEARS LATER

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Equities % Bonds %

74

63

78

7275

46

56

75

64

52


Taking a look at Europe [chart 6]: I wouldn’t want to be an underperforming bond manager in this sector! A small number of underperforming managers are left in bonds. Just 20% of the underperformers in 2014 survived to the end of 2016. Similar levels were seen in 2010 where just 30% of the underperformers were still in their jobs. However, the trend continues - a high percentage of underperforming equity Europe managers are still allowed to carry on managing their funds.

Most active managers in the US have a tough time in US large caps as the market is very efficient making it hard for active managers to outperform the US market. The poor performing equity managers still hang on at an impressive rate. 86% of the underperformers in 2012 were still managing funds in 2014. But look at what’s happened to the bond managers in 2012 and 2013 [indicated by the circle in chart 7] they were picked right off. The bad performers were terminated a lot quicker in bonds.

CHART 6 - MANAGER ‘DROP-OFF’ & PERFORMANCE LINKEUROPE: % UNDERPERFORMERS STILL ACTIVE 2 YEARS LATER

CHART 7 - MANAGER ‘DROP-OFF’ & PERFORMANCE LINKUS: % UNDERPERFORMERS STILL ACTIVE 2 YEARS LATER

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Equities % Bonds %

6972

69

55

67

30

44

57

50

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Equities % Bonds %

50

69

86

65

7571

67

33

25

62


In 2010 and 2011 in the emerging markets, the same trend is visible as previously seen for the developed markets [chart 8]. However the main difference emerges when we look at 2012 and 2013 where more underperforming equity managers have lost their jobs than bond managers. But as mentioned before, this is a riskier segment and the emerging market bond managers are acting like the developed market equity managers.In this case, the storytellers can be conceived to be the bond managers. The asset management firms are also treating the risky equity managers like bond managers when it comes to firing them early on in their careers for underperformance.Having said that, 100% of the underperformers in equities in 2014 were still active at the end of 2016. But there is an explanation for this. The emerging markets were volatile leading into 2015 and also saw the crash in China that summer which had a knock on effect to the rest of the developed markets. Managers were allowed to stay on their equity funds due to the majority underperforming. But the same can’t be said for bond managers where there has been aggressive culling of the underperformers.If your performance was poor in bonds, you were shown the door pretty quick – a trend we now know well for bond managers.

CHART 8 - MANAGER ‘DROP-OFF’ & PERFORMANCE LINKEM: % UNDERPERFORMERS STILL ACTIVE 2 YEARS LATER

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Equities % Bonds %

38

62

33

58

64

80

59

75

100

29


This study tackles some long standing myths around manager experience and here are a few take away points to consider when looking at experience:

• We can get an idea of when a fund manager is likely to peak with performance in terms of experience, and that’s around seven to eight years on average for both bond and equity managers.

• Experience is important in both equity and bonds, but as I’ve shown you throughout this research they need to be treated differently as the managers display different characteristics and that’s down to the fact that …

• It’s harder for poor performing bond managers to survive in the asset management industry, especially early on in their career, compared to poor performing equity managers, who are given a second chance. But as a result of this second chance, many of the most experienced equity managers underperform, and they most likely have been underperforming for quite some time.

• The ‘best of breed’ bond managers are left as the underperformers tend to be terminated earlier in their careers. Therefore if you pick an experienced bond manager you’re more likely to get alpha than picking a more experienced equity manager. Experience is key and rewarding in fixed income.

• For this reason you need to be wary of choosing the most experienced in equities. Check if they are the storytellers. They may be feeding off good past performance and may have a great narrative for why you should stay invested with them.

• However, as we all know, there are some good experienced equity managers out there, but you really need to dig deep to find them.

• Managers running the more risky assets, such as in the emerging markets and high yield bonds, add

another layer to your due diligence process. They share the same characteristics as equity managers.

CONCLUSION & KEY TAKEAWAYS


LIVE COMMENTARY

CITYWIRE ITALY RETREAT 2017 ‘AVOIDING THE STORY TELLERS – HOW I LEARNED THE HARD WAY’

CITYWIRE MADRID FORUM 2018 ‘YOU FORGIVE AN EQUITY MANAGER… BUT NOT A BOND MANAGER’

We invited fund selectors to discuss issues brought up in this research in event panel discussions. Here are their thoughts.

Chaired by ANGUS FOOTE, Director, Citywire EuropeLUCA ANZOLA, Head of fund research and due diligence, FideuramMAURO BICHELLI, Director of pension funds, Fondapi

ANGUS FOOTE

CHRIS SLOLEY

LUCA ANZOLA

GUENDALINA BOLIS

MAURO BICHELLI

VANESSA DEL VALLE BROUSSARD

Chaired by CHRIS SLOLEY, Editor, Citywire SelectorGUENDALINA BOLIS, CEO, Inversis GestionVANESSA DEL VALLE BROUSSARD, Senior fund analyst, AllFunds Bank

VIEW

VIEW

DOWNLOAD

DOWNLOAD

http://citywireselector.com/news/top-selectors-how-to-handle-storyteller-fund-managers/a1076504?ref=citywire_global_videos_list

http://view.vzaar.com/13913853/video

http://download.vzaar.com/vzaar/tG6/gDD/target/tG6gDDI7czMw_640_360_1115.mp4?response-content-disposition=attachment&AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ74MFWNVAFH6P7FQ&Expires=1529570054&Signature=H4x5nLtxsX6KuP4tcZ9oI%2B6jZ20%3D


FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

DR. NISHA LONG Head of Cross Border Investment Research [email protected]+44[0]20 840 2197

As Head of Cross-Border Investment Research, Dr Nisha Long is involved in the analysis and screening of over 16,000 managers tracked globally by Citywire. Having joined Citywire a year after completing her Doctorate at Imperial College, London, she has 12 years’ experience in fund and manager analysis. Her investment commentary features regularly in Citywire’s media and the national press.

CITYWIRE HELPS INVESTORS AROUND THE WORLD TO MAKE BETTER INVESTMENTS™

We have been doing this since 1999 for select groups of professional investors across Europe, Asia, the US and Latin America. Around the world, we produce 10 magazines and more than 40 websites and host around 3,600 delegates at more than 100 events every year. Citywire also publishes unique Fund Manager Ratings that track the career performance records of about 16,000 active mutual fund managers around the world. Citywire is based in London which is home to most of our 220 staff. We also have offices in New York, Milan, Munich and Singapore.

TO FIND OUT MORE VISIT US AT

ABOUTCITYWIRE.COM

© Copyright Citywire Financial Publishers Ltd [“Citywire”], 2018. All rights reserved. The content of this presentation/guide is proprietary and confidential and is protected by the laws of England and Wales and applicable laws of other countries throughout the world. This presentation/guide is only for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorised reproduction, distribution or exhibition of this presentation/guide or any of its content is prohibited. For the avoidance of doubt, you must not use our show guide for the purpose of building a database or to use this for your own commercial exploitation by its inclusion in your own activities and services. Use of the data in this way may result civil liability, criminal prosecution or both.Citywire’s name and logo and the names of any Citywire products and services included in this presentation/guide are trademarks of Citywire. Nothing contained in this presentation/guide shall be construed as conferring any licence or right to any Citywire patent, copyright or trade mark.

WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT MANAGER EXPERIENCE · What everyone should know about manager...

Documents

Transcript of WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT MANAGER EXPERIENCE · What everyone should know about manager...