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.
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.
In a recent Q&A with Buyouts’ Chris Witowsky, GEM’s Caroline Dallas, a Director in our Investment Research Group, shared her perspective on how recent private equity market shifts are influencing talent dynamics, emerging manager activity, and LP appetite across the lower mid-market.
Sourcing and manager selection typically get top billing in conversations around private investments, but one underappreciated aspect of a successful private allocation—explored in our recent whitepaper—is the art of pacing commitments to ensure appropriate portfolio allocation.
Let’s start a conversation about how we can help.
