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.
|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.|
|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.||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.||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.