October 22, 2024
The Long View—a series from GEM’s Co-CIO, Matt Bank— explores a range of topics relevant to the fiduciaries and allocators of institutional capital.
In Part I of his three-part series on the Endowment Model, Co-CIO Matt Bank argued that the Endowment Model is better thought of as a set of investment principles than a recipe to be followed. Merely replicating the asset allocation of Yale’s Investment Office or another leading institutional investor has always been an unlikely path to success for the average investor. Nevertheless, blaming the model for the disappointing performance of institutional funds over the last decade-and-a-half has become sport.
Active management in any form is, for the most part, doomed in aggregate.
But that’s not the whole story.
In Part II of the series, Bank unpacks the flawed quantitative arguments often used by the Model’s detractors in assessing endowment performance and presents a better framework for evaluating long-term success.
Head of Investments Jay Ripley joined Ted Seides on the Capital Allocators podcast to discuss his path from private equity to GEM, the firm’s approach to backing emerging managers and independent sponsors, and the importance of strong manager selection amid growing dispersion.
In a recent byline, GEM’s Co-Founder and Managing Partner, Stephanie Lynch, examines the merits of in-person nonprofit board meetings and highlights why virtual interactions often lack the depth of engagement required for effective board leadership.
Strong returns from leading university endowments have reignited discussion about how institutions can sustain performance in a shifting market environment. In commentary for The Wall Street Journal, GEM’s Co-CIO, Matt Bank, reflects on how endowment leaders are preparing for more uncertain conditions ahead.
Let’s start a conversation about how we can help.
