5 Things to Consider When Choosing an OCIO

October 1, 2015 |
1 minute read
|

Nearly all CFOs and investment committees consider it. And more than ever are acting upon it: investigating the possibility of an Outsourced CIO (OCIO) to manage their institution’s investments.

The Essential P’s

There are typically two “essential P’s” to consider when assessing potential OCIO providers —  People and Processes. But once that due diligence is completed, and the evaluation process enters the final stretch (that is, the waning pages of an RFP), it comes down to two more Ps that are just as critical: Performance and Price. And this is where the reporting can get a little muddy.

And here’s why: While OCIO providers’ people and processes are relatively easy to compare and contrast to determine their value, performance and price are areas where such simple and direct comparisons are more difficult to make. Neither performance nor price lends itself to a simple check-the-box evaluation. Instead, crafting comparisons is a complex apples-to-oranges exercise, because there are so many variables to consider in each of those categories.

Complex, but not impossible: Here are some criteria for comparing the price and performance of OCIO candidates.

Criteria for Comparison

  1. Performance – The challenge in determining an OCIO’s performance begins with the question of how exactly one defines the term

  2. Price – Many institutions conducting an OCIO search will claim price doesn’t matter. But everyone knows that it does.

  3. Fees vs. costs – One challenge in determining total outlay for investment management is, frankly, defining one’s terms, as in fees paid vs. total costs incurred.

  4. Added Value – Another important consideration in comparing fees is understanding an OCIO’s additional duties and resulting value.

  5. Fee models – There are several different types of fee models in the OCIO realm, and it’s important to peel the onion (again) in order to decipher them.

At first glance, performance and price may seem straightforward, quantitative measures. But they are far from simple metrics. History has shown that it actually takes more time and effort to decipher these two seemingly quantitative factors than the qualitative ones, such as people and processes.

While complex, it’s by no means impossible. The below eBook provides some criteria for comparing the price and performance of OCIO candidates. In this document, we’ll uncover factors to consider when hiring an OCIO, as well as tips for comparing performance.

If you’re considering outsourcing a CIO for your institution, make sure to download the full article, Of Apples, Oranges and Onions: Assessing OCIO Performance and Fees.  

Stay connected with the Insights Blog

Popular Blog Posts


Governance And Policy | Insights Blog

What is an OCIO?

Outsourced investment management, once primarily a solution for small institutions with limited resources, is now used by a broad range of long-term investors. When properly implemented, outsourcing...
Governance And Policy | Insights Blog

Should We Issue an Investment Manager RFP? 7 Key Considerations

Best practice for nonprofits is to issue a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) for an investment management partner every market cycle. Typically, that is at least every 7 to 10 years, or as it is...
Governance And Policy | Insights Blog

Observations on Diverse Manager Selection Across Asset Classes

At Commonfund, we believe diverse managers offer clients access to investment talent and valuable investment opportunities and therefore should be explored and invested in. Overlooking the merits of...

Disclaimer

Information, opinions, or commentary concerning the financial markets, economic conditions, or other topical subject matter are prepared, written, or created prior to printing and do not reflect current, up-to-date, market or economic conditions. Commonfund disclaims any responsibility to update such information, opinions, or commentary. To the extent views presented forecast market activity, they may be based on many factors in addition to those explicitly stated in this material. Forecasts of experts inevitably differ. Views attributed to third parties are presented to demonstrate the existence of points of view, not as a basis for recommendations or as investment advice. Managers who may or may not subscribe to the views expressed in this material make investment decisions for funds maintained by Commonfund or its affiliates. The views presented in this material may not be relied upon as an indication of trading intent on behalf of any Commonfund fund, or of any Commonfund manager. Market and investment views of third parties presented in this material do not necessarily reflect the views of Commonfund and Commonfund disclaims any responsibility to present its views on the subjects covered in statements by third parties. Statements concerning Commonfund’s views of possible future outcomes in any investment asset class or market, or of possible future economic developments, are not intended, and should not be construed, as forecasts or predictions of the future investment performance of any Commonfund fund. Such statements are also not intended as recommendations by any Commonfund entity or employee to the recipient of the presentation. It is Commonfund’s policy that investment recommendations to its clients must be based on the investment objectives and risk tolerances of each individual client. All market outlook and similar statements are based upon information reasonably available as of the date of this presentation (unless an earlier date is stated with regard to particular information), and reasonably believed to be accurate by Commonfund. Commonfund disclaims any responsibility to provide the recipient of this presentation with updated or corrected information. Past performance is not indicative of future results. For more information please refer to Important Disclosures.