SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 46
Download to read offline
How do
Endowments
Measure Up
Against Cheap
Market Portfolios?
Endowment Returns Performance over Time
Author Neal M. Dikeman
Comparative 10 yr Returns for 8 Selected Portfolios
Endowments struggle to perform
• 10 years encompassing both one of the strongest bull markets
and most severe retractions in the last 100 years provides a good
test of portfolio performance
• Despite leverage and access to more sophisticated investment strategies
• Over this time Median Endowments would have been better off
just buying a 10 year T bill in 2006 and collecting the coupons in a
money market
• Of the 8 Model portfolios Median Endowments was
• worst spread to Treasuries, Sharpe Ratio, AND compound annual returns,
• bottom quartile on average annual returns, adjusted average, and number of years
positive,
• bottom half on standard deviation.
• Author’s own portfolio comprised of primarily of simple
allocations of low cost equity index funds and direct real estate
out performed every model portfolio
• On both absolute and risk adjusted basis
• Frankly, ridiculous!
Observations
• Even top performers like Yale did not perform on risk adjusted
basis over this period
• Vs either a simple 50/50 S& 500/ 10 Yr Treasuries Mix or the Author’s portfolio
• The issue does not appear to be a function of the date selected
• Comparing Last 5 years of 10 year rolling returns, Endowments struggle to bear
• Smaller Endowments are measurably worse, and only large
endowments showed signs of performance even before risk
adjustments
• Poor Asset Allocation /Allocation Timing choices are largely, but
perhaps not solely, to blame
• Unclear that Endowment Asset Allocations are built to either take
advantage of bull markets, or protected from another black swan
event
• Endowment returns for the last 10 years do not appear to be keeping pace with the
typical spending rates + inflation, even though market portfolios might have
permitted that with different Asset Allocations
Over 10 Years US Endowment Returns Fail to match Cheap Market
Portfolios while Taking Significant Increased Risk
• 4.8% Compound Annual Returns for the Median US Endowment even failed
to beat a portfolio of 10 Year Treasuries, let alone a balanced portfolio, while
taking on significant risk
• Underperformed cheap market portfolio by a 1/3rd with 3/5th more Risk
• Returns barely exceeded average nominal withdrawal rates – asset
growth largely from new donations
• Asset Allocations/Market Timing largely to blame
Endowments Returns Dramatically Underperform
Source: How do Endowments Measure Up Against Cheap Market Portfolios –
Author Neal M. Dikeman, Sep 2017
Comparative Returns on
8 Model Portfolios:
• Endowments
• Median Endowment NACUBO
• Yale Endowment
• Texas A&M Endowment
• Benchmarks
• S&P 500 Total Return Dvds Reinvested
• 10 Year Treasury Total Return w Reinvestment
• 50/50 S&P 500 and 10 Year Treasury
• Author’s Portfolio
• ND Securities Only (90% equity indices mix, 10% selected equities)
• ND Incl Investment Real Estate
• Performance and risk metrics calculated annually for last 10 years
from 6/30/16, most recent data published as of this research
• Supplemented with Last 5 Year’s Rolling 10 year Averages for Endowments by Size
and Quartile vs 2 of the Benchmark portfolios
Median Endowment was chosen as exemplar of a typical
Endowment, Average Endowment and percentiles provide context
for the Median as exemplar in a historical rolling analysis.
Yale was chosen as one of the largest Endowments, and industry
thoughtleaders and generally acknowledged high performer.
Texas A&M is author’s alma mater, and was chosen as a second large
Endowment to provide color to Yale’s performance.
S&P 500 was chosen as the most widely used asset performance
benchmark, and most widely available equity index fund.
10 Year Treasury was chosen as the largest, most liquid and easily
traded income security, the common benchmark of the risk free rate
of return, as well as maturity matched to the time period calculated.
50/50 benchmark was selected as a hybrid to illustrate diversification
impact of fixed income and equities, and as an easily constructed, low
cost, liquid, readily available actual alternative portfolio.
Author’s Portfolio was chosen to illustrate an actual Cheap Market
Portfolio in action.
*Benchmark portfolios implicitly assume annual rebalancing.
**10 years was chosen to encompass both a major up and down
market period, and as one of the most typical time frames used to
judge investment performance
*** All Portfolios including Benchmarks were selected prior to any analysis,
there was no additional selection iteration to find superior benchmarks.
Comparative 10 yr Returns for 8 Selected Portfolios
-30.0%
-20.0%
-10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Yale Endowment Texas A&M
S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr
ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate ND Public Securities Portfolio Jan 1 10 Yr Treasury
Average Return
Top Performing Endowments Increased Returns with Additional Risk
-30.0%
-20.0%
-10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Yale Annual Returns vs 50/50 S&P and Treasuries
Yale Endowment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr Over/Under Performance
Yale
50/50
S&P
Treas
10 yr Ann.
Compound
Returns
8.1% 7.2%
Sharpe .43 .60
Avg Ann.
Returns
9.1% 7.5%
Std Dev 14.4% 7.6%
% Yrs Below 4 6
10 yr Compound Ann Returns Yale
10 yr Compound Ann Returns 50/5- S&P/10 Yr
Risk Free Rate 10 yr Treas at Beg Period
But Median Endowments Inferior Returns with Additional Risk
Median
Endow
ment
50/50
S&P
Treas
10 yr Ann.
Compound
Returns
4.8% 7.2%
Sharpe .21 .60
Avg of Ann.
Returns
5.5% 7.5%
Std Dev 12.1% 7.6%
% Yrs Below 6 4
-25.0%
-20.0%
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Median Endowment Annual Returns vs 50/50 S&P and Treasuries
Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees 50/50 S&P/10 Yr Over/Under Performance
10 yr Compound Ann Returns Median Endowment
10 yr Compound Ann Returns 50/5- S&P/10 Yr
Risk Free Rate 10 yr Treas at Beg Period
-25.0%
-20.0%
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Median Endowment Annual Returns vs 50/50 S&P and
Treasuries
Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees 50/50 S&P/10 Yr Over/Under Performance
-25.0%
-20.0%
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Yale Annual Returns vs 50/50 S&P and Treasuries
Yale Endowment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr Over/Under Performance
Stnd Deviation 50/50 S&P/10 Yr
Avg Ann Performance 50/50 S&P/10 Yr
Median Endowment 1/3rd Worse Returns and 3/5ths More Risk
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Median Ann.
Returns
Average Ann.
Returns
Max Ann.
Returns
Adj Avg Ann.
Returns
Premium of
Ann. Mean
to Treasuries
Compounded
Ann. 10 Yr
Returns
Indexed
Increase over
10 Yrs
Median Endowment Performance v 50/50 S&P /10
Yr Treasuries
-80%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Std Dev Ann Returns Sharpe Ratio Min Ann. Returns % Yrs Positive
Median Endowment Risk v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries
34% Worse Compounded Ann.
10 Yr Returns
61% Worse Sharpe/Std Devvs
Yale Endowment 4.6x Increase in Risk to Increase in Reward
13% Better Compounded Ann.
10 Yr Returns
58% Worse Sharpe/Std Devvs
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Median Ann.
Returns
Average Ann.
Returns
Max Ann.
Returns
Adj Avg Ann.
Returns
Premium of
Ann. Mean to
Treasuries
Compounded
Ann. 10 Yr
Returns
Indexed
Increase over
10 Yrs
Yale Endowment Performance v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr
Treasuries
-140%
-120%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
Std Dev Ann Returns Sharpe Ratio Min Ann. Returns % Yrs Positive
Yale Endowment Risk v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries
Across Multiple Risk/Reward Measures Top Yale Endowment Ekes out Moderate Additional Performance for
2-8x Additional Risk vs Median Endowment Huge Underperformance for 60% More Risk
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Median Endowment Performance v Risk Measures v 50/50 S&P /
10 Yr Treasuries
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Yale Endowment Performance v Risk Measures v 50/50 S&P / 10
Yr Treasuries
Additional Risk / Reward Ratio*
1.83x 2.84x 1.92x 1.89x
Additional Risk / Reward Ratio**
4.63x 2.10x 2.24x 8.77x
*Median Endowment positive ratio indicates negative return for increased risk vs benchmark **Yale Endowment positive ratio indicates increased return for increased risk vs benchmark
Author’s Portfolio 18% Better Returns for 67% More Risk vs 50/50 Portfolio
18% Better Compounded Ann.
10 Yr Returns
67% Worse Sharpe/Std Devvs
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Median Ann.
Returns
Average Ann.
Returns
Max Ann.
Returns
Adj Avg Ann.
Returns
Premium of
Ann. Mean to
Treasuries
Compounded
Ann. 10 Yr
Returns
Indexed
Increase over
10 Yrs
ND Portfolio w Real Estate Performance v 50/50 S&P
/10 Yr Treasuries
-140%
-120%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
Std Dev Ann Returns Sharpe Ratio Min Ann. Returns % Yrs Positive
ND Portfolio w Real Estate Risk v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries
Top Yale Endowment Underperforms Author on Risk/Reward Basis on Every Metric
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Yale Endowment Performance v Risk Measures v 50/50 S&P / 10
Yr Treasuries
Additional Risk / Reward Ratio
3.67x 1.85x 1.54x 2.68x
Additional Risk / Reward Ratio
4.63x 2.10x 2.24x 8.77x
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
ND Portfolio Incl RE Performance v Risk Measures v 50/50 S&P / 10
Yr Treasuries
Additional Risk / Reward Ratio
3.67x 1.85x 1.54x 2.68x
Author’s
Portfolio
outperforms
Top Performing
Yale
Endowment on
Risk /Return
0.00x
1.00x
2.00x
3.00x
4.00x
5.00x
6.00x
7.00x
8.00x
9.00x
10.00x
Avg Std Dev Ann Returns & Sharpe /
Compounded Ann 10 Yr Returns
Avg All Risk Measures/Avg All
Performance Measures
Sharpe Ratio/Compounded Ann 10 yr
Returns
Avg Std Dev Ann Returns & Sharpe/ Avg 10
Yr Compounded & Ann Median Returns
4 Measures of Increases in Risk/ Increases Performance Measures vs 50/50 S&P 500 /10 Yr
Treasuries
Yale Endowment Performance v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries ND Portfolio w Real Estate Performance v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries
Author’s Public Securities Portfolio vs S&P 500 Less Risk More Return
3% Better Compounded Ann.
10 Yr Returns
4% Better Sharpe/Std Devvs
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Median Ann.
Returns
Average Ann.
Returns
Max Ann.
Returns
Adj Avg Ann.
Returns
Premium of
Ann. Mean to
Treasuries
Compounded
Ann. 10 Yr
Returns
Indexed
Increase over
10 Yrs
ND Public Securities Portfolio Performance v S&P 500
w Reinvested Dvds
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Std Dev Ann Returns Sharpe Ratio Min Ann. Returns % Yrs Positive
ND Public Securities Portfolio Risk v S&P 500 w Reinvested Dvds
Top Yale Endowment Underperforms Author’s Public Securities Portfolio on Risk/Reward
on Key Compounded Ann Returns vs Sharpe and Std Dev Metrics
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Yale Endowment Performance v Risk Measures v 50/50 S&P / 10
Yr Treasuries
Additional Risk / Reward Ratio
3.67x 1.85x 1.54x 2.68x
Additional Risk / Reward Ratio
4.63x 2.10x 2.24x 8.77x
Additional Risk / Reward Ratio*
-1.29x 2.81x -1.50x 0.29x
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
ND Public Securities Portfolio v Risk Measures v S&P 500 w
invested Dvds
*Negative ratio indicates increased return for reduced risk vs benchmark
Author’s Total and
Public Securities
Portfolio
outperform Top
Performing Yale
Endowment vs
Benchmarks on 7
of 8 Risk / Return
Measures
-4.00x
-2.00x
0.00x
2.00x
4.00x
6.00x
8.00x
10.00x
Avg Std Dev Ann Returns & Sharpe /
Compounded Ann 10 Yr Returns
Avg All Risk Measures/Avg All
Performance Measures
Sharpe Ratio/Compounded Ann 10 yr
Returns
Avg Std Dev Ann Returns & Sharpe/ Avg
10 Yr Compounded & Ann Median
Returns
4 Measures of Increases in Risk/ Increases Performance Measures
Yale Endowment Performance v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries ND Portfolio w Real Estate Performance v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries
ND Public Securities Portfolio Performance v S&P 500 v Reinvested Dvds
*Negative ratio ND Public Securities Portfolio Performance vs S&P 500 v Reinvested Dvds indicates increased return for reduced risk vs benchmark
Rolling 3 Yr Average Highlights Performance Differences vs Average in Up
vs Down Markets Highlights Differences in Risk Ratios
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
3 Yr Rolling Average Annual Returns by Portfolio
Average Return Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Yale Endowment
Texas A&M S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment
50/50 S&P/10 Yr ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate ND Public Securities Portfolio
Comparative 10 yr Returns for 8 Selected Portfolios
Median
Ann.
Returns
Average
Ann.
Returns
Std Dev
Ann
Returns
Min Ann.
Returns
Max Ann.
Returns
Adj Avg
Ann.
Returns
% Yrs
Positive
Sharpe
Ratio
Premium of
Ann. Mean to
Treasuries
Compounded
Ann. 10 Yr
Returns
Indexed
Increase
over 10 Yrs
Endowments Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees 6.95% 5.46% 12.10% -19.10% 19.80% 6.73% 60% 0.21 2.57% 4.79% 160%
Yale Endowment 10.20% 9.10% 14.42% -24.60% 28.00% 10.95% 90% 0.43 6.22% 8.13% 219%
Texas A&M Endowment 5.50% 5.83% 12.09% -18.00% 22.00% 6.78% 50% 0.24 2.94% 5.17% 166%
Benchmarks S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 14.71% 8.89% 17.48% -28.89% 24.90% 11.61% 80% 0.34 6.00% 7.44% 205%
10 Year Treasury Return w
reinvestment 5.96% 6.08% 5.44% -3.91% 14.58% 6.27% 80% 0.59 3.20% 5.95% 178%
50/50 S&P/10 Yr 10.13% 7.49% 7.65% -11.04% 14.08% 8.98% 90% 0.60 4.60% 7.22% 201%
Author’s Portfolio ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate 13.36% 9.71% 15.78% -24.45% 24.85% 12.09% 80% 0.43 6.82% 8.54% 227%
ND Public Securities Portfolio 10.48% 8.95% 16.93% -24.45% 28.98% 10.62% 80% 0.36 6.07% 7.65% 209%
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Balanced Scorecard Ranking of Portfolios
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
9.00%
Compounded Ann. 10 Yr Returns*Balanced
Scorecard stack
ranks all the
portfolios by each
performance
metric above, and
scores 0.5 for 1st,
.25 for 2nd, .125
for 3rd et al in each
metric, and
aggregating the
metric rankings.
10 yr Annual Total Returns for 3 Selected Endowments
Endowments 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Median Endowment, FY, Net of
Fees -2.1% 2.2% 15.8% 11.7% -0.1% 19.8% 12.1% -19.1% -3.3% 17.50%
Indexed 159.68 163.11 159.60 137.82 123.38 123.45 103.04 91.92 113.62 117.50 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 4.8%
Yale Endowment 3.40% 11.50% 20.20% 12.50% 4.70% 21.90% 8.90% -24.60% 4.50% 28%
Indexed 218.54 211.35 189.55 157.70 140.18 133.88 109.83 100.86 133.76 128.00 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 8.1%
Texas A&M -1.75% 0% 17% 11% -1% 22% 12% -18% 0% 17%
Indexed 165.60 168.55 168.55 144.06 129.78 131.09 107.45 95.94 117.00 117.00 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 5.2%
Note: Yale Endowment in 2007 was 60% Real Estate, Private Equity and Hedge Funds and alternative investments, growing to 80% in 2009 post financial crisis, and at 2016
was 70%, an extreme outlier among endowments. These asset classes tend to be harder to value and mark to market, so some of the valuations and volatility in the Yale
numbers may not be comparable to the other portfolios, and stickiness in valuation adjustments may explain why Yale has only 1 negative year out of 10. Also of note The
Yale Portfolio performance in the recent years prior to 2007 delivered materially higher spread to the S&P 500 market performance that during the modeled 10 year
performance period, indicating the dominant variable in Yale performance numbers may be the relative returns of PE and Hedge Fund indices to the S&P 500 Index.
Asset Allocation for the Median Endowment, on an equal weighted average basis, was 29% alternative in 2016.
http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/EndowmentFiles/2016-NCSE-Public-Tables_Asset-Allocations.pdf
See Asset Allocation
10 yr Annual Total Returns for 3 Selected Benchmarks
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 1.41% 9.94% 22.68% 24.90% 4.95% 21.08% 19.48% -28.89% -9.68% 23.02%
Indexed 204.94 202.09 183.82 149.84 119.97 114.31 94.41 79.02 111.11 123.02 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 7.4%
10 Year Treasury Return w
reinvestment 8.44% 4.53% -0.05% -3.91% 14.58% 4.83% 7.85% 6.80% 12.62% 5.13%
Indexed 178.31 164.44 157.31 157.38 163.79 142.96 136.37 126.44 118.39 105.13 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 6.0%
50/50 S&P/10 Yr 4.9% 7.2% 11.3% 10.5% 9.8% 13.0% 13.7% -11.0% 1.5% 14.1%
Indexed 200.81 191.39 178.47 160.33 145.10 132.20 117.04 102.97 115.75 114.08 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 7.2%
Note:
• 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment, was constructed to match annual 6/30 FY returns available for the endowment data, and as such,
consists of the purchase of a 10 year Note at the beginning of period, selling for a gain/loss at the end of period at the calculated value of that
Note and the most recent rate, and the value rec’d + interest earned used to acquire a new 10 Year Note at the same rate.
• Beginning 10 Year Treasury Note Rate was 5.09% Jul 1 2006, falling to 1.50% Jul 1 2016 for returns.
• The 50/50 Portfolio includes the 10 Year and S&P 500 Index each year, implicitly rebalancing to 50/50 each 6/30 YE.
• Calculators used are in the Assumptions notes at end of report.
10 yr Annual Total Returns for Author’s Portfolio
Author’s Portfolio 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real
Estate 8.9% 10.2% 20.3% 19.9% 8.3% 24.8% 16.6% -24.5% -10.4% 23.00%
Indexed 226.99 208.50 189.25 157.35 131.25 121.16 97.05 83.27 110.22 123.00 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 8.5%
ND Public Securities Portfolio 2.6% 5.3% 24.1% 20.8% 4.0% 29.0% 15.7% -24.5% -10.4% 23.00%
Indexed 209.08 203.78 193.54 156.00 129.16 124.23 96.32 83.27 110.22 123.00 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 7.7%
Note:
• ND Portfolio is actual net gains on beginning period balance for a set directly managed portfolio at Vanguard. Allocation is 100% equities, mix
of S&P 500 Index Fund, Small Cap Value Index Fund, Total International Index Fund, and a small allocation of direct equities, 2006-2016.
• Real estate returns consist of IRR of initial investments over holding period, calculated as 9/2016 3rd party appraised value, original purchase
price + rehab cost, annual net cashflows. No real estate investments were held prior to 2010, which means the Sharpe Ratio and Standard
Deviation are likely overstated for the portfolio if allocations were held from beginning, and portfolio returns understated. No leverage was
included in the portfolio during this period.
• Combined portfolio allocates returns /yr weighted by securities at mark to market, and real estate annual returns at original cost, minimizing
annual revaluation impacts, and understating both real estate contribution in mark to market.
10 yr Annual Total Returns for Model Portfolios
Endowments 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees -2.1% 2.2% 15.8% 11.7% -0.1% 19.8% 12.1% -19.1% -3.3% 17.50%
Indexed 159.68 163.11 159.60 137.82 123.38 123.45 103.04 91.92 113.62 117.50 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 4.8%
Yale Endowment 3.40% 11.50% 20.20% 12.50% 4.70% 21.90% 8.90% -24.60% 4.50% 28%
Indexed 218.54 211.35 189.55 157.70 140.18 133.88 109.83 100.86 133.76 128.00 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 8.1%
Texas A&M -1.75% 0% 17% 11% -1% 22% 12% -18% 0% 17%
Indexed 165.60 168.55 168.55 144.06 129.78 131.09 107.45 95.94 117.00 117.00 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 5.2%
Benchmarks
S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 1.41% 9.94% 22.68% 24.90% 4.95% 21.08% 19.48% -28.89% -9.68% 23.02%
Indexed 204.94 202.09 183.82 149.84 119.97 114.31 94.41 79.02 111.11 123.02 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 7.4%
10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 8.44% 4.53% -0.05% -3.91% 14.58% 4.83% 7.85% 6.80% 12.62% 5.13%
Indexed 178.31 164.44 157.31 157.38 163.79 142.96 136.37 126.44 118.39 105.13 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 6.0%
50/50 S&P/10 Yr 4.9% 7.2% 11.3% 10.5% 9.8% 13.0% 13.7% -11.0% 1.5% 14.1%
Indexed 200.81 191.39 178.47 160.33 145.10 132.20 117.04 102.97 115.75 114.08 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 7.2%
Author’s Portfolio
ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate 8.9% 10.2% 20.3% 19.9% 8.3% 24.8% 16.6% -24.5% -10.4% 23.00%
Indexed 226.99 208.50 189.25 157.35 131.25 121.16 97.05 83.27 110.22 123.00 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 8.5%
ND Public Securities Portfolio 2.6% 5.3% 24.1% 20.8% 4.0% 29.0% 15.7% -24.5% -10.4% 23.00%
Indexed 209.08 203.78 193.54 156.00 129.16 124.23 96.32 83.27 110.22 123.00 100.00
Compounded 10 Yr Returns 7.7%
Ranking of
Compounded
Annual
Returns over
10 Years
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
9.00%
ND Portfolio incl
Sec & Inv Real
Estate
Yale Endowment ND Public
Securities
Portfolio
S&P 500 w
reinvested Dvds
50/50 S&P/10 Yr 10 Year Treasury
Return w
reinvestment
Texas A&M Median
Endowment, FY,
Net of Fees
Compounded Ann. 10 Yr Returns
Ranking of
Indexed Value
of 100 Grown
at the Annual
Return Rates
for 10 years
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
ND Portfolio incl
Sec & Inv Real
Estate
Yale Endowment ND Public
Securities
Portfolio
S&P 500 w
reinvested Dvds
50/50 S&P/10 Yr 10 Year Treasury
Return w
reinvestment
Texas A&M Median
Endowment, FY,
Net of Fees
Indexed Increase over 10 Yrs
Returns vs
Risk Free
Rate -25.0%
-20.0%
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Average Annual Return Components of Selected Portfolios: Risk
Free Rate and Risk Premium*
Jan 1 10 Yr Treasury Average Spread to Treasuries
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
2016 2014 2012 2010 2008
Rolling 2 Yr Avg 10 Yr Treasury Rate
*Average Spread to Treasuries for each year for basket of 8
Model Portfolios
Sharpe Ratio
vs Returns
0.21 , 4.79%
0.43 , 8.13%
0.24 , 5.17%
0.34 , 7.44%
0.59 , 5.95%
0.60 , 7.22%
0.43 , 8.54%
0.36 , 7.65%
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
9.00%
- 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Sharpe Ratio
Compounded
Ann. 10 Yr
Returns
Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees 0.21 4.79%
Yale Endowment 0.43 8.13%
Texas A&M 0.24 5.17%
S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 0.34 7.44%
10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 0.59 5.95%
50/50 S&P/10 Yr 0.60 7.22%
ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate 0.43 8.54%
ND Public Securities Portfolio 0.36 7.65%
Texas A&M
Median Endowment,
FY, Net of Fees
Yale Endowment
S&P 500 w reinvested
Dvds
10 Year Treasury Return w
reinvestment
50/50 S&P/10 Yr
ND Portfolio incl Sec &
Inv Real Estate
ND Public
Securities
Portfolio
CompounedAnn.10yrReturns
Sharpe Ratio
Median of 8 Model Portfolios
Stnd
Deviation vs
Risk Premium
12.10%, 2.57%
14.42%, 6.22%
12.09%, 2.94%
17.48%, 6.00%
5.44%, 3.20%
7.65%, 4.60%
15.78%, 6.82%
16.93%, 6.07%
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% 20.00%
Std Dev Ann Returns
Premium of Ann. Mean
to Treasuries
Median Endowment,
FY, Net of Fees 12.10% 2.57%
Yale Endowment 14.42% 6.22%
Texas A&M 12.09% 2.94%
S&P 500 w reinvested
Dvds 17.48% 6.00%
10 Year Treasury
Return w reinvestment 5.44% 3.20%
50/50 S&P/10 Yr 7.65% 4.60%
ND Portfolio incl Sec &
Inv Real Estate 15.78% 6.82%
ND Public Securities
Portfolio 16.93% 6.07%
Texas A&M
Median Endowment,
FY, Net of Fees
Yale Endowment
S&P 500 w
reinvested Dvds
PremiumofAnn.MeantoTreasuries
50/50 S&P/10 Yr
ND Portfolio incl Sec &
Inv Real Estate
ND Public
Securities
Portfolio
Std Dev Ann Returns
(0.25)
(0.20)
(0.15)
(0.10)
(0.05)
-
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
-2.50% -2.00% -1.50% -1.00% -0.50% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50%
SpreadtoMeanSharpeRatio
Spread to Mean Compounded Ann. 10 yr Returns
Spread to Mean Sharpe Ratio vs Spread to Mean Compounded Ann. 10 yr Returns
Texas A&M
Median Endowment,
FY, Net of Fees
Yale Endowment
S&P 500 w reinvested
Dvds
10 Year Treasury Return w
reinvestment
50/50 S&P/10 Yr
ND Portfolio incl Sec &
Inv Real Estate
ND Public Securities
Portfolio
Mean
Returns vs
Max / Min
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
-30.0%
-20.0%
-10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
Median
Endowment, FY,
Net of Fees
Texas A&M 10 Year
Treasury Return
w reinvestment
50/50 S&P/10 Yr S&P 500 w
reinvested Dvds
ND Public
Securities
Portfolio
Yale
Endowment
ND Portfolio incl
Sec & Inv Real
Estate
Min Ann. Returns Max Ann. Returns Average Ann. Returns
Ranking Median of 10 yr Annual Returns
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv
Real Estate
ND Public Securities
Portfolio
Yale Endowment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr Median Endowment, FY,
Net of Fees
10 Year Treasury Return w
reinvestment
Texas A&M
Median Ann. Returns
Ranking Average of 10 yr Annual Returns
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv
Real Estate
Yale Endowment ND Public Securities
Portfolio
S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 50/50 S&P/10 Yr 10 Year Treasury Return w
reinvestment
Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY,
Net of Fees
Average Ann. Returns
Ranking Standard Deviation of 10 yr Annual Returns
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
18.00%
20.00%
S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds ND Public Securities
Portfolio
ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv
Real Estate
Yale Endowment Median Endowment, FY,
Net of Fees
Texas A&M 50/50 S&P/10 Yr 10 Year Treasury Return w
reinvestment
Std Dev Ann Returns
Ranking Minimum of 10 yr Annual Returns
-35.00%
-30.00%
-25.00%
-20.00%
-15.00%
-10.00%
-5.00%
0.00%
10 Year Treasury Return w
reinvestment
50/50 S&P/10 Yr Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY,
Net of Fees
ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv
Real Estate
ND Public Securities
Portfolio
Yale Endowment S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds
Min Ann. Returns
Ranking Maximum of 10 yr Annual Returns
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
ND Public Securities
Portfolio
Yale Endowment S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv
Real Estate
Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY,
Net of Fees
10 Year Treasury Return w
reinvestment
50/50 S&P/10 Yr
Max Ann. Returns
Ranking Adjusted Average of 10 yr Annual Returns*
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv
Real Estate
S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds Yale Endowment ND Public Securities
Portfolio
50/50 S&P/10 Yr Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY,
Net of Fees
10 Year Treasury Return w
reinvestment
Adj Avg Ann. Returns
*Adjusted Average is average of annual returns excluding Min and Max years for each Portfolio
Ranking % of Years with Positive Returns over 10 yrs
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yale Endowment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 10 Year Treasury Return w
reinvestment
ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv
Real Estate
ND Public Securities
Portfolio
Median Endowment, FY,
Net of Fees
Texas A&M
% Yrs Positive
Ranking Annual Sharpe Ratio of 10 yr Annual Returns
-
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
50/50 S&P/10 Yr 10 Year Treasury Return w
reinvestment
ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv
Real Estate
Yale Endowment ND Public Securities
Portfolio
S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY,
Net of Fees
Sharpe Ratio
Sharpe ratio is calculated identically for each portfolio, using the average of the 10 year fiscal year annual returns less the average risk free, the 10 Year Treasury Note rate on
Jan 1 of each year, the midpoint of the annual fiscal year, divided by the standard deviation of the 10. Sharpe ratio for any given portfolio could vary materially if period
selection or periodicity is changed, and caution should be taken to use this Sharpe ratio calculation in absolute terms outside of establishing the relative ranking of portfolios
calculated in a similar manner.
Ranking Premium of Mean of 10 yr Annual Returns over Mean 10 yr
Annual Risk Free Rate*
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv
Real Estate
Yale Endowment ND Public Securities
Portfolio
S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 50/50 S&P/10 Yr 10 Year Treasury Return w
reinvestment
Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY,
Net of Fees
Premium of Ann. Mean to Treasuries
*Risk free rate used is 10 yr Treasury rate at Calendar YE / midpoint of FY
Last 5 Years of Rolling 10 Year Returns
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
S&P 500 7.3% 7.7% 7.8% 7.3% 6.1%
50/50 S&P 10 Year Treasuries 6.9% 6.5% 6.8% 6.3% 6.6%
NACUBO Endowment Report Averages
Average 5.0% 6.3% 7.1% 7.1% 6.2%
Median 4.9% 6.2% 7.0% 7.1% 6.2%
75th 5.6% 6.9% 7.7% 7.8% 6.9%
25th 5.2% 5.5% 6.3% 6.3% 5.5%
Over/Under to S&P
Average -2.3% -1.4% -0.7% -0.2% 0.1%
Median -2.4% -1.5% -0.8% -0.2% 0.1%
75th -1.7% -0.8% -0.1% 0.6% 0.8%
25th -2.1% -2.2% -1.5% -0.9% -0.6%
Over/Under to 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasury
Average -1.9% -0.2% 0.3% 0.8% -0.4%
Median -2.0% -0.3% 0.2% 0.8% -0.4%
75th -1.3% 0.4% 0.9% 1.5% 0.4%
25th -1.7% -1.0% -0.5% 0.0% -1.1%
This Analysis is
Not A Fluke of
2016
On a 10 Year Rolling Basis, Median
Endowment has underperformed an S&P
500 Index Fund for 4 of the last 5 Years,
and 50/50 S&P 500/10 Year Treasuries 3
of 5.
Without adjusting for Risk
*A fund that was able to stay top quartile
for 5 years running arguably
outperformed 50/50 benchmark but not
S&P 500. Data on detail performance
distributions was not available to assess
persistence of performance *2016 rolling numbers may differ from annual due to rounding error, portfoliovisualizer calculator used as per Assumptions note
Last 5 Years of Rolling 10 Year Returns
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
S&P 500 7.3% 7.7% 7.8% 7.3% 6.1%
50/50 S&P 10 Year Treasuries 6.9% 6.5% 6.8% 6.3% 6.6%
Performance by AUM
>$1 Bil 5.7% 7.2% 8.2% 8.3% 7.6%
$500 mm - $1 Bil 5.3% 6.7% 7.3% 7.6% 6.6%
$100 - 500 mm 4.8% 6.2% 7.1% 7.0% 6.0%
$50 - 100 mm 4.7% 5.9% 6.5% 6.7% 5.7%
$25 - 50 mm 4.7% 5.6% 6.5% 6.4% 5.8%
< $25 mm 5.0% 6.0% 6.6% 6.3% 5.7%
Over/Under to S&P
>$1 Bil -1.6% -0.5% 0.4% 1.1% 1.5%
$500 mm - $1 Bil -2.0% -1.0% -0.5% 0.4% 0.5%
$100 - 500 mm -2.5% -1.5% -0.7% -0.2% -0.1%
$50 - 100 mm -2.6% -1.8% -1.3% -0.5% -0.4%
$25 - 50 mm -2.6% -2.1% -1.3% -0.8% -0.3%
< $25 mm -2.3% -1.7% -1.2% -0.9% -0.4%
Over/Under to 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasury
>$1 Bil -1.2% 0.7% 1.4% 2.0% 1.1%
$500 mm - $1 Bil -1.6% 0.2% 0.5% 1.3% 0.1%
$100 - 500 mm -2.1% -0.3% 0.3% 0.7% -0.6%
$50 - 100 mm -2.2% -0.6% -0.3% 0.4% -0.9%
$25 - 50 mm -2.2% -0.9% -0.3% 0.1% -0.8%
< $25 mm -1.9% -0.5% -0.2% 0.0% -0.9%
Picture
Dramatically
Worsens for
Smaller
Endowments
So How Did We Get Here?
Charitable Uncharitable
It is simply an asset allocation question – you are what you eat;
Endowments had significantly higher allocations to alternative assets
and international
Both segments that have underperformed US equities in last
10 Years
But the asset allocation is correct, and will perform over longer
periods
Endowments chased hot trends in alternative assets from the 90s and early 2000s including PE and hedge funds and got burned as
returns regressed to the mean or they got in over there heads
Smaller endowments with less exposure to alternative assets performed even more poorly than larger ones with higher average
exposures, so alternative asset exposure might explain some of the larger Endowments performance, but not all the underperformance.
Investment advisors chasing alpha and diversification away from assets correlated to the US markets missed the increased trend towards
correlation across asset classes or didn’t account properly for either black swan, asset volatility, or exchange rate risk
If it is simply asset allocation, how did any retail investor with a broad based index fund outperform the Endowment world? Are they
better at Asset Allocation? Is this just another story of passive investing beating active? Or was this simply a “lucky” period, and
backtesting further would find superior Endowment returns?
Larger or more sophisticated endowments were able to secure better
manager talent/access to proprietary deals, and can drive returns by
taking the long view
Support for this thesis can be seen in the performance of >$500/1 Bil
AUM Endowments on a rolling 12 basis 2012-2015, and the increased
performance by AUM of Endowments in the NACUBO survey, and in
the performance of Yale, one of the industry leaders.
While Yale managed to marginally outperform the S&P by 60 bps/yr with moderately less risk, to achieve that it had to move to 75%+ of
assets in highly illiquid and hard to value PE and hedge funds alternative assets and a large expensive investment infrastructure. In fact,
what assurances do we have that the illiquid and esoteric assets in these Endowments actually even delivered the returns they show? If
they are invested in illiquid assets, shouldn’t they get a premium for that? Or have they taken liquidity reserves? Typical liquidity
premium in a valuation could be as high as 20-50%, and there is no evidence that alternative asset heavy portfolios are earning an
appropriate liquidity risk premium to market, the opposite seems to be true. Yale only picked up a mere 90 bps over the S&P mixed with
50 % risk free 10 year Treasuries, and still had 2x the Stnd Deviation, ¾ the Sharpe Ratio, and underperformed 4 of 10 years that pretty
basic portfolio.
Over last 5 years, even 75th percentile of endowments failed to deliver, and even the average $1 Bil+ AUM Endowment needed nearly
60% alternative assets to beat the indices by <100-200 bps 60% of the time with substantially more risk. The author beat Yale with basic,
low cost index funds and rent houses that anyone who watches HGTV can buy, and can liquidate his portfolio in 24 hours for securities,
and perhaps 90 days for the real estate.
Texas A&M is classed as a large endowment, $1.5 Bil AUM, and performed similarly in our study to the Median Endowment, with similar
asset allocations. And arguably the large Endowment strong rolling 10 year performance 2012-2015 is simply an artifact of the 10 Year
rolling analysis picking up strong alternative asset performance in the early 2000s, offset by strong US market performance and falling
So How Did We Get Here? (Cont’d)
Charitable Uncharitable
We were in a unique era with a once in a generation financial crisis,
followed by a valuation bubble in US stocks driven by QE, and a
collapse in rates artificially driving up Treasuries; disciplined allocations
by patient capital will perform over time
We measured over 10 years, that’s not exactly short.
Rolling 10 years back for 5 years didn’t appear to change the end result.
Every 10 year period has its uniqueness and issues, this 10 year period encompassed both one of the worst financial crises and longest
bull markets in history, so is a good period to be testing. Frankly, an Endowment by its nature is intended to be designed to manage in
periods of high extremes. One would argue the Endowments have the advantages over the retail portfolio constructed
It is still pretty bad to barely match the risk free rate in the period you started, in a period with historically low inflation. If Treasuries
Rates didn’t collapse, and no stock bubble existed, the equities and alternative strategies would have arguably been lower, and one could
have delivered nearly 5% for zero cost just in risk free 10 year Treasuries HTM, which is about what the Median Endowment returned.
Smart money these days has been trending to international and more
sophisticated products, looking for alpha, value, and diversification, as
the US stock, bonds, and real estate seem to be at historic highs, the
endowments are ahead of the game.
That’s fine, but the proof is in the pudding.
Warren Buffet paraphrased, don’t bet against the US, and market timing is rarely
If Endowments are sophisticated enough to handle the asset allocation + exchange rate risks associated with more sophisticated strategy,
why are they being beaten so badly on market timing of that strategy by a basic retail investor portfolio for so long?
We picked an arbitrary measurement date and arbitrarily measured on
an annual basis.
We did. We picked the most recent one available (the Endowment data published on a FY calendar and 2016 was the most recent
publicly available to us). We also looked at Standard Deviation, % of years above/below, and Sharpe Ratio for 10 years of data across two
major events. Then we challenged the results with 5 years of 10 year rolling averages against the two main, across a distribution of size
and percentile.
It is possible that shifting measurement periods or looking at quarterly, daily, or monthly data would change the result, but our data and
measurement periods were chosen by the data limitations we had, not iterated or gamed. Also if this were the case, we would probably
expect to see more variance in the standard deviation, % of years above/below and the other risk rankings or time than we do. It would
still be concerning if adjusting periodicity was the only variable that allowed Endowments to demonstrate performance against market.
It is true
Asset Allocations
Endowments
2016
Domestic
Equities
Fixed
Income
Non US
Equities
Alternative
Strategies*
Cash
Dollar Weighted
Avg
16% 8% 19% 53% 4%
Equal Weighted
Avg
30% 16% 18% 29% 7%
Domestic
Equities
Fixed
Income
Non US
Equities
Alternative
Strategies*
Cash
Yale 2016 4% 4.9% 14.9% 73.9% 2.3%
Yale 2006 11.6% 3.8% 14.6% 67.5% 2.5%
Texas A&M
2016
24.5% 12.4% 26.3% 33.3% 3.4%
http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/EndowmentFiles/2016-NCSE-Public-Tables_Asset-
Allocations.pdf
https://www.txamfoundation.com/About/Financials/Investments.aspx
http://investments.yale.edu/endowment-update/
*Incl real estate
Author Neal M. Dikeman
• Author Neal M. Dikeman is a venture capitalist and startup executive with significant investment, board level, and
executive experience, having spent 1/3rd of his career in finance roles at some of the largest companies in the world,
Bankers Trust/Deutsche Bank, Royal Dutch Shell, and a CalPERS backed PE fund, and in between founded, ran, served as
director, CFO and other executive positions in successful tech startups.
• Professionally he has been a venture capitalist at Royal Dutch Shell, prior to that cofounded merchant bank Jane Capital
Partners in 2001 at age 25, delivering superior returns to partners and clients from 2001-2013, including multiple IPOs.
• At Jane Capital he was Founder of 7 Silicon Valley venture backed technology startups, including in fintech, cleantech, and
internet. Served as CFO, CEO, Chairman, and VP, and board director multiple times. The companies he founded have gone
on to raise over $250 mm in venture capital, with 3 reaching 9 figure valuations <48 months from founding.
• He is an experienced private equity and venture capital investor for 18 years, at a CalPERS backed PE fund, at Globalgate,
the ecommerce venture capital firm behind YellowPages.com, Jane Capital Partners, and Royal Dutch Shell. Involved in
highly successful exits at each stop. Began career in investment banking at a Wall Street investment bank, Bankers Trust,
later Deutsche Bank.
• BA in Economics from Texas A&M University; Author of Investing for Wealth; Currently board member at American Electric
Technologies (NASDAQ:AETI), and Greenhome.com.
Assumptions
• *Jun 30 FY, annualized assumptions used
• http://investments.yale.edu/endowment-update/
• http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/EndowmentFiles/2016-NCSE-Public-Tables_Annual-Rates-of-
Return.pdf
• http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/EndowmentFiles/2016-NCSE-Public-Tables_Asset-
Allocations.pdf
• http://annualreport2015.txamfoundation.com/
• https://dqydj.com/treasury-return-calculator/
• http://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/
• http://www.multpl.com/10-year-treasury-rate/table/by-year
• https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio
• http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO-
Commonfund_Study_of_Endowments/Public_NCSE_Tables/Total_Market_Value_of_Endowments
.html

More Related Content

What's hot

netwealth educational webinar - The evolution of asset allocation
netwealth educational webinar - The evolution of asset allocationnetwealth educational webinar - The evolution of asset allocation
netwealth educational webinar - The evolution of asset allocationnetwealthInvest
 
Hilltop decorrelated fund september 2013 factsheet
Hilltop decorrelated fund september 2013 factsheetHilltop decorrelated fund september 2013 factsheet
Hilltop decorrelated fund september 2013 factsheetJohn Robertson
 
Fixed Deposit vs Debt Oriented Hybrid Fund
Fixed Deposit vs Debt Oriented Hybrid FundFixed Deposit vs Debt Oriented Hybrid Fund
Fixed Deposit vs Debt Oriented Hybrid FundGirish Kodashettar
 
Make your money work for you!
Make your money work for you!Make your money work for you!
Make your money work for you!Prez2907
 
Venstone AG | Diferente types d'outils d'investissement
Venstone AG | Diferente types d'outils d'investissementVenstone AG | Diferente types d'outils d'investissement
Venstone AG | Diferente types d'outils d'investissementVenstone AG
 
Grindrod de-risking retirement payers and growers may 2015
Grindrod  de-risking retirement payers and growers may 2015Grindrod  de-risking retirement payers and growers may 2015
Grindrod de-risking retirement payers and growers may 2015Senate Group Financial Advisors
 
Dynamic Risk Management in Practice
Dynamic Risk Management in PracticeDynamic Risk Management in Practice
Dynamic Risk Management in PracticeRedington
 
Endowment Management: Spend Policy
Endowment Management: Spend PolicyEndowment Management: Spend Policy
Endowment Management: Spend PolicyJeff Sobers
 
Endowment Management: Distribution Basics
Endowment Management: Distribution BasicsEndowment Management: Distribution Basics
Endowment Management: Distribution BasicsJeff Sobers
 
Liquid and liquid plus funds
Liquid and liquid plus fundsLiquid and liquid plus funds
Liquid and liquid plus fundsJeet Palan
 
Fami save learn mutual funds financial administrators of the philippines
Fami save learn mutual funds   financial administrators of the philippinesFami save learn mutual funds   financial administrators of the philippines
Fami save learn mutual funds financial administrators of the philippinespadre821
 
Blackstone
BlackstoneBlackstone
Blackstonejai789
 

What's hot (20)

netwealth educational webinar - The evolution of asset allocation
netwealth educational webinar - The evolution of asset allocationnetwealth educational webinar - The evolution of asset allocation
netwealth educational webinar - The evolution of asset allocation
 
Hilltop decorrelated fund september 2013 factsheet
Hilltop decorrelated fund september 2013 factsheetHilltop decorrelated fund september 2013 factsheet
Hilltop decorrelated fund september 2013 factsheet
 
Wealth Management - Week 2
Wealth Management - Week 2Wealth Management - Week 2
Wealth Management - Week 2
 
Case Study: John & Betty
Case Study: John & BettyCase Study: John & Betty
Case Study: John & Betty
 
Taxes & trading costs
Taxes & trading costsTaxes & trading costs
Taxes & trading costs
 
Fixed Deposit vs Debt Oriented Hybrid Fund
Fixed Deposit vs Debt Oriented Hybrid FundFixed Deposit vs Debt Oriented Hybrid Fund
Fixed Deposit vs Debt Oriented Hybrid Fund
 
Harvard Endowment Fund
Harvard Endowment Fund Harvard Endowment Fund
Harvard Endowment Fund
 
How To Invest Long Term (updated to Jan 2011)
How To Invest Long Term (updated to Jan 2011)How To Invest Long Term (updated to Jan 2011)
How To Invest Long Term (updated to Jan 2011)
 
Make your money work for you!
Make your money work for you!Make your money work for you!
Make your money work for you!
 
Senate presentation june 2015
Senate presentation june 2015Senate presentation june 2015
Senate presentation june 2015
 
Venstone AG | Diferente types d'outils d'investissement
Venstone AG | Diferente types d'outils d'investissementVenstone AG | Diferente types d'outils d'investissement
Venstone AG | Diferente types d'outils d'investissement
 
Grindrod de-risking retirement payers and growers may 2015
Grindrod  de-risking retirement payers and growers may 2015Grindrod  de-risking retirement payers and growers may 2015
Grindrod de-risking retirement payers and growers may 2015
 
Momentum Myriad
Momentum Myriad Momentum Myriad
Momentum Myriad
 
Dynamic Risk Management in Practice
Dynamic Risk Management in PracticeDynamic Risk Management in Practice
Dynamic Risk Management in Practice
 
Investment Presentation August 2010
Investment Presentation August 2010Investment Presentation August 2010
Investment Presentation August 2010
 
Endowment Management: Spend Policy
Endowment Management: Spend PolicyEndowment Management: Spend Policy
Endowment Management: Spend Policy
 
Endowment Management: Distribution Basics
Endowment Management: Distribution BasicsEndowment Management: Distribution Basics
Endowment Management: Distribution Basics
 
Liquid and liquid plus funds
Liquid and liquid plus fundsLiquid and liquid plus funds
Liquid and liquid plus funds
 
Fami save learn mutual funds financial administrators of the philippines
Fami save learn mutual funds   financial administrators of the philippinesFami save learn mutual funds   financial administrators of the philippines
Fami save learn mutual funds financial administrators of the philippines
 
Blackstone
BlackstoneBlackstone
Blackstone
 

Similar to How do Endowments Measure Up Against Cheap Market Portfolios

Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing ?
Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing ?Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing ?
Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing ?Fabio Michetti
 
Jamal Adams Economics finance presentation 2010 2011
Jamal Adams Economics finance presentation 2010 2011Jamal Adams Economics finance presentation 2010 2011
Jamal Adams Economics finance presentation 2010 2011jadamslhs
 
Financial Planning - Simplified
Financial Planning - SimplifiedFinancial Planning - Simplified
Financial Planning - SimplifiedDyota Solutions
 
Chapter-10-2gekuzc.pptx
Chapter-10-2gekuzc.pptxChapter-10-2gekuzc.pptx
Chapter-10-2gekuzc.pptxMohamed Masry
 
DSP Regular Savings Fund Presentation.pdf
DSP Regular Savings Fund Presentation.pdfDSP Regular Savings Fund Presentation.pdf
DSP Regular Savings Fund Presentation.pdfDSP Mutual Fund
 
DSP Regular Savings Fund
DSP Regular Savings FundDSP Regular Savings Fund
DSP Regular Savings FundDSP Mutual Fund
 
4113151SaroFinalAssignment-Investing.docxby Svetlana Sa.docx
4113151SaroFinalAssignment-Investing.docxby Svetlana Sa.docx4113151SaroFinalAssignment-Investing.docxby Svetlana Sa.docx
4113151SaroFinalAssignment-Investing.docxby Svetlana Sa.docxtroutmanboris
 
Class Investing Basics
Class Investing BasicsClass Investing Basics
Class Investing BasicsSocial Thread
 
Hilltop decorrelated fund august 2013 factsheet
Hilltop decorrelated fund august 2013 factsheetHilltop decorrelated fund august 2013 factsheet
Hilltop decorrelated fund august 2013 factsheetJohn Robertson
 
Market Volatility - Fight or Flight
Market Volatility - Fight or FlightMarket Volatility - Fight or Flight
Market Volatility - Fight or FlightIan Po
 
Portfolio Management Project
Portfolio Management ProjectPortfolio Management Project
Portfolio Management ProjectLAI Wei
 
Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing (update Nov 2017)?
Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing (update Nov 2017)?Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing (update Nov 2017)?
Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing (update Nov 2017)?Fabio Michetti
 
product,tenure and objective
product,tenure and objectiveproduct,tenure and objective
product,tenure and objectiveVinayak Sapre
 

Similar to How do Endowments Measure Up Against Cheap Market Portfolios (20)

Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing ?
Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing ?Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing ?
Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing ?
 
Jamal Adams Economics finance presentation 2010 2011
Jamal Adams Economics finance presentation 2010 2011Jamal Adams Economics finance presentation 2010 2011
Jamal Adams Economics finance presentation 2010 2011
 
Time weighted vs-dollar-weighted returns
Time weighted vs-dollar-weighted returnsTime weighted vs-dollar-weighted returns
Time weighted vs-dollar-weighted returns
 
Financial Planning - Simplified
Financial Planning - SimplifiedFinancial Planning - Simplified
Financial Planning - Simplified
 
L Pch22
L Pch22L Pch22
L Pch22
 
Chapter-10-2gekuzc.pptx
Chapter-10-2gekuzc.pptxChapter-10-2gekuzc.pptx
Chapter-10-2gekuzc.pptx
 
DSP Regular Savings Fund Presentation.pdf
DSP Regular Savings Fund Presentation.pdfDSP Regular Savings Fund Presentation.pdf
DSP Regular Savings Fund Presentation.pdf
 
DSP Regular Savings Fund
DSP Regular Savings FundDSP Regular Savings Fund
DSP Regular Savings Fund
 
An Abundant Retirement
An Abundant RetirementAn Abundant Retirement
An Abundant Retirement
 
4113151SaroFinalAssignment-Investing.docxby Svetlana Sa.docx
4113151SaroFinalAssignment-Investing.docxby Svetlana Sa.docx4113151SaroFinalAssignment-Investing.docxby Svetlana Sa.docx
4113151SaroFinalAssignment-Investing.docxby Svetlana Sa.docx
 
Class Investing Basics
Class Investing BasicsClass Investing Basics
Class Investing Basics
 
Hilltop decorrelated fund august 2013 factsheet
Hilltop decorrelated fund august 2013 factsheetHilltop decorrelated fund august 2013 factsheet
Hilltop decorrelated fund august 2013 factsheet
 
Fundraising
FundraisingFundraising
Fundraising
 
110118 Fundraising
110118 Fundraising110118 Fundraising
110118 Fundraising
 
Market Volatility - Fight or Flight
Market Volatility - Fight or FlightMarket Volatility - Fight or Flight
Market Volatility - Fight or Flight
 
Portfolio Management Project
Portfolio Management ProjectPortfolio Management Project
Portfolio Management Project
 
Multi cap pms
Multi cap pmsMulti cap pms
Multi cap pms
 
Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing (update Nov 2017)?
Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing (update Nov 2017)?Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing (update Nov 2017)?
Is Value Investing the “Holy Grail” of financial investing (update Nov 2017)?
 
product,tenure and objective
product,tenure and objectiveproduct,tenure and objective
product,tenure and objective
 
UPDATED PPT BSE.ppt
UPDATED PPT BSE.pptUPDATED PPT BSE.ppt
UPDATED PPT BSE.ppt
 

More from Neal Dikeman

Rules of Engagement for Residential Real Estate Investing
Rules of Engagement for Residential Real Estate InvestingRules of Engagement for Residential Real Estate Investing
Rules of Engagement for Residential Real Estate InvestingNeal Dikeman
 
The Congress App and Our Looming Federal Debt Crunch by Neal Dikeman, Liberta...
The Congress App and Our Looming Federal Debt Crunch by Neal Dikeman, Liberta...The Congress App and Our Looming Federal Debt Crunch by Neal Dikeman, Liberta...
The Congress App and Our Looming Federal Debt Crunch by Neal Dikeman, Liberta...Neal Dikeman
 
Ault Bee Company Rights Offering - Angel Investing in 1926
Ault Bee Company Rights Offering - Angel Investing in 1926Ault Bee Company Rights Offering - Angel Investing in 1926
Ault Bee Company Rights Offering - Angel Investing in 1926Neal Dikeman
 
Startuplandia Unplugged - How to do a Startup
Startuplandia Unplugged - How to do a StartupStartuplandia Unplugged - How to do a Startup
Startuplandia Unplugged - How to do a StartupNeal Dikeman
 
Cleantech.org Energy Storage Venture Investment Analysis
Cleantech.org Energy Storage Venture Investment AnalysisCleantech.org Energy Storage Venture Investment Analysis
Cleantech.org Energy Storage Venture Investment AnalysisNeal Dikeman
 
Anatomy of a Venture Capital Fundraising
Anatomy of a Venture Capital FundraisingAnatomy of a Venture Capital Fundraising
Anatomy of a Venture Capital FundraisingNeal Dikeman
 

More from Neal Dikeman (7)

Rules of Engagement for Residential Real Estate Investing
Rules of Engagement for Residential Real Estate InvestingRules of Engagement for Residential Real Estate Investing
Rules of Engagement for Residential Real Estate Investing
 
The Congress App and Our Looming Federal Debt Crunch by Neal Dikeman, Liberta...
The Congress App and Our Looming Federal Debt Crunch by Neal Dikeman, Liberta...The Congress App and Our Looming Federal Debt Crunch by Neal Dikeman, Liberta...
The Congress App and Our Looming Federal Debt Crunch by Neal Dikeman, Liberta...
 
Ault Bee Company Rights Offering - Angel Investing in 1926
Ault Bee Company Rights Offering - Angel Investing in 1926Ault Bee Company Rights Offering - Angel Investing in 1926
Ault Bee Company Rights Offering - Angel Investing in 1926
 
Startuplandia Unplugged - How to do a Startup
Startuplandia Unplugged - How to do a StartupStartuplandia Unplugged - How to do a Startup
Startuplandia Unplugged - How to do a Startup
 
Cleantech.org Energy Storage Venture Investment Analysis
Cleantech.org Energy Storage Venture Investment AnalysisCleantech.org Energy Storage Venture Investment Analysis
Cleantech.org Energy Storage Venture Investment Analysis
 
VC 101
VC 101VC 101
VC 101
 
Anatomy of a Venture Capital Fundraising
Anatomy of a Venture Capital FundraisingAnatomy of a Venture Capital Fundraising
Anatomy of a Venture Capital Fundraising
 

Recently uploaded

Financial analysis on Risk and Return.ppt
Financial analysis on Risk and Return.pptFinancial analysis on Risk and Return.ppt
Financial analysis on Risk and Return.ppttadegebreyesus
 
Liquidity Decisions in Financial management
Liquidity Decisions in Financial managementLiquidity Decisions in Financial management
Liquidity Decisions in Financial managementshrutisingh143670
 
Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.
Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.
Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.Precize Formely Leadoff
 
AnyConv.com__FSS Advance Retail & Distribution - 15.06.17.ppt
AnyConv.com__FSS Advance Retail & Distribution - 15.06.17.pptAnyConv.com__FSS Advance Retail & Distribution - 15.06.17.ppt
AnyConv.com__FSS Advance Retail & Distribution - 15.06.17.pptPriyankaSharma89719
 
Market Morning Updates for 16th April 2024
Market Morning Updates for 16th April 2024Market Morning Updates for 16th April 2024
Market Morning Updates for 16th April 2024Devarsh Vakil
 
ΤτΕ: Ανάπτυξη 2,3% και πληθωρισμός 2,8% φέτος
ΤτΕ: Ανάπτυξη 2,3% και πληθωρισμός 2,8% φέτοςΤτΕ: Ανάπτυξη 2,3% και πληθωρισμός 2,8% φέτος
ΤτΕ: Ανάπτυξη 2,3% και πληθωρισμός 2,8% φέτοςNewsroom8
 
Hello this ppt is about seminar final project
Hello this ppt is about seminar final projectHello this ppt is about seminar final project
Hello this ppt is about seminar final projectninnasirsi
 
Gender and caste discrimination in india
Gender and caste discrimination in indiaGender and caste discrimination in india
Gender and caste discrimination in indiavandanasingh01072003
 
Banking: Commercial and Central Banking.pptx
Banking: Commercial and Central Banking.pptxBanking: Commercial and Central Banking.pptx
Banking: Commercial and Central Banking.pptxANTHONYAKINYOSOYE1
 
Thoma Bravo Equity - Presentation Pension Fund
Thoma Bravo Equity - Presentation Pension FundThoma Bravo Equity - Presentation Pension Fund
Thoma Bravo Equity - Presentation Pension FundAshwinJey
 
Abhay Bhutada Leads Poonawalla Fincorp To Record Growth In FY24
Abhay Bhutada Leads Poonawalla Fincorp To Record Growth In FY24Abhay Bhutada Leads Poonawalla Fincorp To Record Growth In FY24
Abhay Bhutada Leads Poonawalla Fincorp To Record Growth In FY24Champak Jhagmag
 
NO1 Certified Black Magic Specialist Expert In Bahawalpur, Sargodha, Sialkot,...
NO1 Certified Black Magic Specialist Expert In Bahawalpur, Sargodha, Sialkot,...NO1 Certified Black Magic Specialist Expert In Bahawalpur, Sargodha, Sialkot,...
NO1 Certified Black Magic Specialist Expert In Bahawalpur, Sargodha, Sialkot,...Amil baba
 
10 QuickBooks Tips 2024 - Globus Finanza.pdf
10 QuickBooks Tips 2024 - Globus Finanza.pdf10 QuickBooks Tips 2024 - Globus Finanza.pdf
10 QuickBooks Tips 2024 - Globus Finanza.pdfglobusfinanza
 
Financial Preparation for Millennia.pptx
Financial Preparation for Millennia.pptxFinancial Preparation for Millennia.pptx
Financial Preparation for Millennia.pptxsimon978302
 
Introduction to Health Economics Dr. R. Kurinji Malar.pptx
Introduction to Health Economics Dr. R. Kurinji Malar.pptxIntroduction to Health Economics Dr. R. Kurinji Malar.pptx
Introduction to Health Economics Dr. R. Kurinji Malar.pptxDrRkurinjiMalarkurin
 
Money Forward Integrated Report “Forward Map” 2024
Money Forward Integrated Report “Forward Map” 2024Money Forward Integrated Report “Forward Map” 2024
Money Forward Integrated Report “Forward Map” 2024Money Forward
 
Uae-NO1 Rohani Amil In Islamabad Amil Baba in Rawalpindi Kala Jadu Amil In Ra...
Uae-NO1 Rohani Amil In Islamabad Amil Baba in Rawalpindi Kala Jadu Amil In Ra...Uae-NO1 Rohani Amil In Islamabad Amil Baba in Rawalpindi Kala Jadu Amil In Ra...
Uae-NO1 Rohani Amil In Islamabad Amil Baba in Rawalpindi Kala Jadu Amil In Ra...Amil baba
 
Uk-NO1 Amil baba in pakistan Amil Baba in Karachi Black Magic Islamabad Kala ...
Uk-NO1 Amil baba in pakistan Amil Baba in Karachi Black Magic Islamabad Kala ...Uk-NO1 Amil baba in pakistan Amil Baba in Karachi Black Magic Islamabad Kala ...
Uk-NO1 Amil baba in pakistan Amil Baba in Karachi Black Magic Islamabad Kala ...Amil baba
 
ekthesi-trapeza-tis-ellados-gia-2023.pdf
ekthesi-trapeza-tis-ellados-gia-2023.pdfekthesi-trapeza-tis-ellados-gia-2023.pdf
ekthesi-trapeza-tis-ellados-gia-2023.pdfSteliosTheodorou4
 
The Inspirational Story of Julio Herrera Velutini - Global Finance Leader
The Inspirational Story of Julio Herrera Velutini - Global Finance LeaderThe Inspirational Story of Julio Herrera Velutini - Global Finance Leader
The Inspirational Story of Julio Herrera Velutini - Global Finance LeaderArianna Varetto
 

Recently uploaded (20)

Financial analysis on Risk and Return.ppt
Financial analysis on Risk and Return.pptFinancial analysis on Risk and Return.ppt
Financial analysis on Risk and Return.ppt
 
Liquidity Decisions in Financial management
Liquidity Decisions in Financial managementLiquidity Decisions in Financial management
Liquidity Decisions in Financial management
 
Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.
Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.
Overview of Inkel Unlisted Shares Price.
 
AnyConv.com__FSS Advance Retail & Distribution - 15.06.17.ppt
AnyConv.com__FSS Advance Retail & Distribution - 15.06.17.pptAnyConv.com__FSS Advance Retail & Distribution - 15.06.17.ppt
AnyConv.com__FSS Advance Retail & Distribution - 15.06.17.ppt
 
Market Morning Updates for 16th April 2024
Market Morning Updates for 16th April 2024Market Morning Updates for 16th April 2024
Market Morning Updates for 16th April 2024
 
ΤτΕ: Ανάπτυξη 2,3% και πληθωρισμός 2,8% φέτος
ΤτΕ: Ανάπτυξη 2,3% και πληθωρισμός 2,8% φέτοςΤτΕ: Ανάπτυξη 2,3% και πληθωρισμός 2,8% φέτος
ΤτΕ: Ανάπτυξη 2,3% και πληθωρισμός 2,8% φέτος
 
Hello this ppt is about seminar final project
Hello this ppt is about seminar final projectHello this ppt is about seminar final project
Hello this ppt is about seminar final project
 
Gender and caste discrimination in india
Gender and caste discrimination in indiaGender and caste discrimination in india
Gender and caste discrimination in india
 
Banking: Commercial and Central Banking.pptx
Banking: Commercial and Central Banking.pptxBanking: Commercial and Central Banking.pptx
Banking: Commercial and Central Banking.pptx
 
Thoma Bravo Equity - Presentation Pension Fund
Thoma Bravo Equity - Presentation Pension FundThoma Bravo Equity - Presentation Pension Fund
Thoma Bravo Equity - Presentation Pension Fund
 
Abhay Bhutada Leads Poonawalla Fincorp To Record Growth In FY24
Abhay Bhutada Leads Poonawalla Fincorp To Record Growth In FY24Abhay Bhutada Leads Poonawalla Fincorp To Record Growth In FY24
Abhay Bhutada Leads Poonawalla Fincorp To Record Growth In FY24
 
NO1 Certified Black Magic Specialist Expert In Bahawalpur, Sargodha, Sialkot,...
NO1 Certified Black Magic Specialist Expert In Bahawalpur, Sargodha, Sialkot,...NO1 Certified Black Magic Specialist Expert In Bahawalpur, Sargodha, Sialkot,...
NO1 Certified Black Magic Specialist Expert In Bahawalpur, Sargodha, Sialkot,...
 
10 QuickBooks Tips 2024 - Globus Finanza.pdf
10 QuickBooks Tips 2024 - Globus Finanza.pdf10 QuickBooks Tips 2024 - Globus Finanza.pdf
10 QuickBooks Tips 2024 - Globus Finanza.pdf
 
Financial Preparation for Millennia.pptx
Financial Preparation for Millennia.pptxFinancial Preparation for Millennia.pptx
Financial Preparation for Millennia.pptx
 
Introduction to Health Economics Dr. R. Kurinji Malar.pptx
Introduction to Health Economics Dr. R. Kurinji Malar.pptxIntroduction to Health Economics Dr. R. Kurinji Malar.pptx
Introduction to Health Economics Dr. R. Kurinji Malar.pptx
 
Money Forward Integrated Report “Forward Map” 2024
Money Forward Integrated Report “Forward Map” 2024Money Forward Integrated Report “Forward Map” 2024
Money Forward Integrated Report “Forward Map” 2024
 
Uae-NO1 Rohani Amil In Islamabad Amil Baba in Rawalpindi Kala Jadu Amil In Ra...
Uae-NO1 Rohani Amil In Islamabad Amil Baba in Rawalpindi Kala Jadu Amil In Ra...Uae-NO1 Rohani Amil In Islamabad Amil Baba in Rawalpindi Kala Jadu Amil In Ra...
Uae-NO1 Rohani Amil In Islamabad Amil Baba in Rawalpindi Kala Jadu Amil In Ra...
 
Uk-NO1 Amil baba in pakistan Amil Baba in Karachi Black Magic Islamabad Kala ...
Uk-NO1 Amil baba in pakistan Amil Baba in Karachi Black Magic Islamabad Kala ...Uk-NO1 Amil baba in pakistan Amil Baba in Karachi Black Magic Islamabad Kala ...
Uk-NO1 Amil baba in pakistan Amil Baba in Karachi Black Magic Islamabad Kala ...
 
ekthesi-trapeza-tis-ellados-gia-2023.pdf
ekthesi-trapeza-tis-ellados-gia-2023.pdfekthesi-trapeza-tis-ellados-gia-2023.pdf
ekthesi-trapeza-tis-ellados-gia-2023.pdf
 
The Inspirational Story of Julio Herrera Velutini - Global Finance Leader
The Inspirational Story of Julio Herrera Velutini - Global Finance LeaderThe Inspirational Story of Julio Herrera Velutini - Global Finance Leader
The Inspirational Story of Julio Herrera Velutini - Global Finance Leader
 

How do Endowments Measure Up Against Cheap Market Portfolios

  • 1. How do Endowments Measure Up Against Cheap Market Portfolios? Endowment Returns Performance over Time Author Neal M. Dikeman
  • 2. Comparative 10 yr Returns for 8 Selected Portfolios Endowments struggle to perform • 10 years encompassing both one of the strongest bull markets and most severe retractions in the last 100 years provides a good test of portfolio performance • Despite leverage and access to more sophisticated investment strategies • Over this time Median Endowments would have been better off just buying a 10 year T bill in 2006 and collecting the coupons in a money market • Of the 8 Model portfolios Median Endowments was • worst spread to Treasuries, Sharpe Ratio, AND compound annual returns, • bottom quartile on average annual returns, adjusted average, and number of years positive, • bottom half on standard deviation. • Author’s own portfolio comprised of primarily of simple allocations of low cost equity index funds and direct real estate out performed every model portfolio • On both absolute and risk adjusted basis • Frankly, ridiculous! Observations • Even top performers like Yale did not perform on risk adjusted basis over this period • Vs either a simple 50/50 S& 500/ 10 Yr Treasuries Mix or the Author’s portfolio • The issue does not appear to be a function of the date selected • Comparing Last 5 years of 10 year rolling returns, Endowments struggle to bear • Smaller Endowments are measurably worse, and only large endowments showed signs of performance even before risk adjustments • Poor Asset Allocation /Allocation Timing choices are largely, but perhaps not solely, to blame • Unclear that Endowment Asset Allocations are built to either take advantage of bull markets, or protected from another black swan event • Endowment returns for the last 10 years do not appear to be keeping pace with the typical spending rates + inflation, even though market portfolios might have permitted that with different Asset Allocations
  • 3. Over 10 Years US Endowment Returns Fail to match Cheap Market Portfolios while Taking Significant Increased Risk • 4.8% Compound Annual Returns for the Median US Endowment even failed to beat a portfolio of 10 Year Treasuries, let alone a balanced portfolio, while taking on significant risk • Underperformed cheap market portfolio by a 1/3rd with 3/5th more Risk • Returns barely exceeded average nominal withdrawal rates – asset growth largely from new donations • Asset Allocations/Market Timing largely to blame Endowments Returns Dramatically Underperform Source: How do Endowments Measure Up Against Cheap Market Portfolios – Author Neal M. Dikeman, Sep 2017
  • 4. Comparative Returns on 8 Model Portfolios: • Endowments • Median Endowment NACUBO • Yale Endowment • Texas A&M Endowment • Benchmarks • S&P 500 Total Return Dvds Reinvested • 10 Year Treasury Total Return w Reinvestment • 50/50 S&P 500 and 10 Year Treasury • Author’s Portfolio • ND Securities Only (90% equity indices mix, 10% selected equities) • ND Incl Investment Real Estate • Performance and risk metrics calculated annually for last 10 years from 6/30/16, most recent data published as of this research • Supplemented with Last 5 Year’s Rolling 10 year Averages for Endowments by Size and Quartile vs 2 of the Benchmark portfolios Median Endowment was chosen as exemplar of a typical Endowment, Average Endowment and percentiles provide context for the Median as exemplar in a historical rolling analysis. Yale was chosen as one of the largest Endowments, and industry thoughtleaders and generally acknowledged high performer. Texas A&M is author’s alma mater, and was chosen as a second large Endowment to provide color to Yale’s performance. S&P 500 was chosen as the most widely used asset performance benchmark, and most widely available equity index fund. 10 Year Treasury was chosen as the largest, most liquid and easily traded income security, the common benchmark of the risk free rate of return, as well as maturity matched to the time period calculated. 50/50 benchmark was selected as a hybrid to illustrate diversification impact of fixed income and equities, and as an easily constructed, low cost, liquid, readily available actual alternative portfolio. Author’s Portfolio was chosen to illustrate an actual Cheap Market Portfolio in action. *Benchmark portfolios implicitly assume annual rebalancing. **10 years was chosen to encompass both a major up and down market period, and as one of the most typical time frames used to judge investment performance *** All Portfolios including Benchmarks were selected prior to any analysis, there was no additional selection iteration to find superior benchmarks.
  • 5. Comparative 10 yr Returns for 8 Selected Portfolios -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Yale Endowment Texas A&M S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate ND Public Securities Portfolio Jan 1 10 Yr Treasury Average Return
  • 6. Top Performing Endowments Increased Returns with Additional Risk -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Yale Annual Returns vs 50/50 S&P and Treasuries Yale Endowment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr Over/Under Performance Yale 50/50 S&P Treas 10 yr Ann. Compound Returns 8.1% 7.2% Sharpe .43 .60 Avg Ann. Returns 9.1% 7.5% Std Dev 14.4% 7.6% % Yrs Below 4 6 10 yr Compound Ann Returns Yale 10 yr Compound Ann Returns 50/5- S&P/10 Yr Risk Free Rate 10 yr Treas at Beg Period
  • 7. But Median Endowments Inferior Returns with Additional Risk Median Endow ment 50/50 S&P Treas 10 yr Ann. Compound Returns 4.8% 7.2% Sharpe .21 .60 Avg of Ann. Returns 5.5% 7.5% Std Dev 12.1% 7.6% % Yrs Below 6 4 -25.0% -20.0% -15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Median Endowment Annual Returns vs 50/50 S&P and Treasuries Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees 50/50 S&P/10 Yr Over/Under Performance 10 yr Compound Ann Returns Median Endowment 10 yr Compound Ann Returns 50/5- S&P/10 Yr Risk Free Rate 10 yr Treas at Beg Period
  • 8. -25.0% -20.0% -15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Median Endowment Annual Returns vs 50/50 S&P and Treasuries Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees 50/50 S&P/10 Yr Over/Under Performance -25.0% -20.0% -15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Yale Annual Returns vs 50/50 S&P and Treasuries Yale Endowment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr Over/Under Performance Stnd Deviation 50/50 S&P/10 Yr Avg Ann Performance 50/50 S&P/10 Yr
  • 9. Median Endowment 1/3rd Worse Returns and 3/5ths More Risk -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Median Ann. Returns Average Ann. Returns Max Ann. Returns Adj Avg Ann. Returns Premium of Ann. Mean to Treasuries Compounded Ann. 10 Yr Returns Indexed Increase over 10 Yrs Median Endowment Performance v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries -80% -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% Std Dev Ann Returns Sharpe Ratio Min Ann. Returns % Yrs Positive Median Endowment Risk v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries 34% Worse Compounded Ann. 10 Yr Returns 61% Worse Sharpe/Std Devvs
  • 10. Yale Endowment 4.6x Increase in Risk to Increase in Reward 13% Better Compounded Ann. 10 Yr Returns 58% Worse Sharpe/Std Devvs 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Median Ann. Returns Average Ann. Returns Max Ann. Returns Adj Avg Ann. Returns Premium of Ann. Mean to Treasuries Compounded Ann. 10 Yr Returns Indexed Increase over 10 Yrs Yale Endowment Performance v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries -140% -120% -100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% Std Dev Ann Returns Sharpe Ratio Min Ann. Returns % Yrs Positive Yale Endowment Risk v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries
  • 11. Across Multiple Risk/Reward Measures Top Yale Endowment Ekes out Moderate Additional Performance for 2-8x Additional Risk vs Median Endowment Huge Underperformance for 60% More Risk -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% Median Endowment Performance v Risk Measures v 50/50 S&P / 10 Yr Treasuries -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Yale Endowment Performance v Risk Measures v 50/50 S&P / 10 Yr Treasuries Additional Risk / Reward Ratio* 1.83x 2.84x 1.92x 1.89x Additional Risk / Reward Ratio** 4.63x 2.10x 2.24x 8.77x *Median Endowment positive ratio indicates negative return for increased risk vs benchmark **Yale Endowment positive ratio indicates increased return for increased risk vs benchmark
  • 12. Author’s Portfolio 18% Better Returns for 67% More Risk vs 50/50 Portfolio 18% Better Compounded Ann. 10 Yr Returns 67% Worse Sharpe/Std Devvs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Median Ann. Returns Average Ann. Returns Max Ann. Returns Adj Avg Ann. Returns Premium of Ann. Mean to Treasuries Compounded Ann. 10 Yr Returns Indexed Increase over 10 Yrs ND Portfolio w Real Estate Performance v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries -140% -120% -100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% Std Dev Ann Returns Sharpe Ratio Min Ann. Returns % Yrs Positive ND Portfolio w Real Estate Risk v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries
  • 13. Top Yale Endowment Underperforms Author on Risk/Reward Basis on Every Metric -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Yale Endowment Performance v Risk Measures v 50/50 S&P / 10 Yr Treasuries Additional Risk / Reward Ratio 3.67x 1.85x 1.54x 2.68x Additional Risk / Reward Ratio 4.63x 2.10x 2.24x 8.77x -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% ND Portfolio Incl RE Performance v Risk Measures v 50/50 S&P / 10 Yr Treasuries Additional Risk / Reward Ratio 3.67x 1.85x 1.54x 2.68x
  • 14. Author’s Portfolio outperforms Top Performing Yale Endowment on Risk /Return 0.00x 1.00x 2.00x 3.00x 4.00x 5.00x 6.00x 7.00x 8.00x 9.00x 10.00x Avg Std Dev Ann Returns & Sharpe / Compounded Ann 10 Yr Returns Avg All Risk Measures/Avg All Performance Measures Sharpe Ratio/Compounded Ann 10 yr Returns Avg Std Dev Ann Returns & Sharpe/ Avg 10 Yr Compounded & Ann Median Returns 4 Measures of Increases in Risk/ Increases Performance Measures vs 50/50 S&P 500 /10 Yr Treasuries Yale Endowment Performance v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries ND Portfolio w Real Estate Performance v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries
  • 15. Author’s Public Securities Portfolio vs S&P 500 Less Risk More Return 3% Better Compounded Ann. 10 Yr Returns 4% Better Sharpe/Std Devvs -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Median Ann. Returns Average Ann. Returns Max Ann. Returns Adj Avg Ann. Returns Premium of Ann. Mean to Treasuries Compounded Ann. 10 Yr Returns Indexed Increase over 10 Yrs ND Public Securities Portfolio Performance v S&P 500 w Reinvested Dvds 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Std Dev Ann Returns Sharpe Ratio Min Ann. Returns % Yrs Positive ND Public Securities Portfolio Risk v S&P 500 w Reinvested Dvds
  • 16. Top Yale Endowment Underperforms Author’s Public Securities Portfolio on Risk/Reward on Key Compounded Ann Returns vs Sharpe and Std Dev Metrics -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Yale Endowment Performance v Risk Measures v 50/50 S&P / 10 Yr Treasuries Additional Risk / Reward Ratio 3.67x 1.85x 1.54x 2.68x Additional Risk / Reward Ratio 4.63x 2.10x 2.24x 8.77x Additional Risk / Reward Ratio* -1.29x 2.81x -1.50x 0.29x -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% ND Public Securities Portfolio v Risk Measures v S&P 500 w invested Dvds *Negative ratio indicates increased return for reduced risk vs benchmark
  • 17. Author’s Total and Public Securities Portfolio outperform Top Performing Yale Endowment vs Benchmarks on 7 of 8 Risk / Return Measures -4.00x -2.00x 0.00x 2.00x 4.00x 6.00x 8.00x 10.00x Avg Std Dev Ann Returns & Sharpe / Compounded Ann 10 Yr Returns Avg All Risk Measures/Avg All Performance Measures Sharpe Ratio/Compounded Ann 10 yr Returns Avg Std Dev Ann Returns & Sharpe/ Avg 10 Yr Compounded & Ann Median Returns 4 Measures of Increases in Risk/ Increases Performance Measures Yale Endowment Performance v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries ND Portfolio w Real Estate Performance v 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasuries ND Public Securities Portfolio Performance v S&P 500 v Reinvested Dvds *Negative ratio ND Public Securities Portfolio Performance vs S&P 500 v Reinvested Dvds indicates increased return for reduced risk vs benchmark
  • 18. Rolling 3 Yr Average Highlights Performance Differences vs Average in Up vs Down Markets Highlights Differences in Risk Ratios -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 3 Yr Rolling Average Annual Returns by Portfolio Average Return Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Yale Endowment Texas A&M S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate ND Public Securities Portfolio
  • 19. Comparative 10 yr Returns for 8 Selected Portfolios Median Ann. Returns Average Ann. Returns Std Dev Ann Returns Min Ann. Returns Max Ann. Returns Adj Avg Ann. Returns % Yrs Positive Sharpe Ratio Premium of Ann. Mean to Treasuries Compounded Ann. 10 Yr Returns Indexed Increase over 10 Yrs Endowments Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees 6.95% 5.46% 12.10% -19.10% 19.80% 6.73% 60% 0.21 2.57% 4.79% 160% Yale Endowment 10.20% 9.10% 14.42% -24.60% 28.00% 10.95% 90% 0.43 6.22% 8.13% 219% Texas A&M Endowment 5.50% 5.83% 12.09% -18.00% 22.00% 6.78% 50% 0.24 2.94% 5.17% 166% Benchmarks S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 14.71% 8.89% 17.48% -28.89% 24.90% 11.61% 80% 0.34 6.00% 7.44% 205% 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 5.96% 6.08% 5.44% -3.91% 14.58% 6.27% 80% 0.59 3.20% 5.95% 178% 50/50 S&P/10 Yr 10.13% 7.49% 7.65% -11.04% 14.08% 8.98% 90% 0.60 4.60% 7.22% 201% Author’s Portfolio ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate 13.36% 9.71% 15.78% -24.45% 24.85% 12.09% 80% 0.43 6.82% 8.54% 227% ND Public Securities Portfolio 10.48% 8.95% 16.93% -24.45% 28.98% 10.62% 80% 0.36 6.07% 7.65% 209% - 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Balanced Scorecard Ranking of Portfolios 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% Compounded Ann. 10 Yr Returns*Balanced Scorecard stack ranks all the portfolios by each performance metric above, and scores 0.5 for 1st, .25 for 2nd, .125 for 3rd et al in each metric, and aggregating the metric rankings.
  • 20. 10 yr Annual Total Returns for 3 Selected Endowments Endowments 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees -2.1% 2.2% 15.8% 11.7% -0.1% 19.8% 12.1% -19.1% -3.3% 17.50% Indexed 159.68 163.11 159.60 137.82 123.38 123.45 103.04 91.92 113.62 117.50 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 4.8% Yale Endowment 3.40% 11.50% 20.20% 12.50% 4.70% 21.90% 8.90% -24.60% 4.50% 28% Indexed 218.54 211.35 189.55 157.70 140.18 133.88 109.83 100.86 133.76 128.00 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 8.1% Texas A&M -1.75% 0% 17% 11% -1% 22% 12% -18% 0% 17% Indexed 165.60 168.55 168.55 144.06 129.78 131.09 107.45 95.94 117.00 117.00 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 5.2% Note: Yale Endowment in 2007 was 60% Real Estate, Private Equity and Hedge Funds and alternative investments, growing to 80% in 2009 post financial crisis, and at 2016 was 70%, an extreme outlier among endowments. These asset classes tend to be harder to value and mark to market, so some of the valuations and volatility in the Yale numbers may not be comparable to the other portfolios, and stickiness in valuation adjustments may explain why Yale has only 1 negative year out of 10. Also of note The Yale Portfolio performance in the recent years prior to 2007 delivered materially higher spread to the S&P 500 market performance that during the modeled 10 year performance period, indicating the dominant variable in Yale performance numbers may be the relative returns of PE and Hedge Fund indices to the S&P 500 Index. Asset Allocation for the Median Endowment, on an equal weighted average basis, was 29% alternative in 2016. http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/EndowmentFiles/2016-NCSE-Public-Tables_Asset-Allocations.pdf See Asset Allocation
  • 21. 10 yr Annual Total Returns for 3 Selected Benchmarks 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 1.41% 9.94% 22.68% 24.90% 4.95% 21.08% 19.48% -28.89% -9.68% 23.02% Indexed 204.94 202.09 183.82 149.84 119.97 114.31 94.41 79.02 111.11 123.02 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 7.4% 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 8.44% 4.53% -0.05% -3.91% 14.58% 4.83% 7.85% 6.80% 12.62% 5.13% Indexed 178.31 164.44 157.31 157.38 163.79 142.96 136.37 126.44 118.39 105.13 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 6.0% 50/50 S&P/10 Yr 4.9% 7.2% 11.3% 10.5% 9.8% 13.0% 13.7% -11.0% 1.5% 14.1% Indexed 200.81 191.39 178.47 160.33 145.10 132.20 117.04 102.97 115.75 114.08 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 7.2% Note: • 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment, was constructed to match annual 6/30 FY returns available for the endowment data, and as such, consists of the purchase of a 10 year Note at the beginning of period, selling for a gain/loss at the end of period at the calculated value of that Note and the most recent rate, and the value rec’d + interest earned used to acquire a new 10 Year Note at the same rate. • Beginning 10 Year Treasury Note Rate was 5.09% Jul 1 2006, falling to 1.50% Jul 1 2016 for returns. • The 50/50 Portfolio includes the 10 Year and S&P 500 Index each year, implicitly rebalancing to 50/50 each 6/30 YE. • Calculators used are in the Assumptions notes at end of report.
  • 22. 10 yr Annual Total Returns for Author’s Portfolio Author’s Portfolio 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate 8.9% 10.2% 20.3% 19.9% 8.3% 24.8% 16.6% -24.5% -10.4% 23.00% Indexed 226.99 208.50 189.25 157.35 131.25 121.16 97.05 83.27 110.22 123.00 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 8.5% ND Public Securities Portfolio 2.6% 5.3% 24.1% 20.8% 4.0% 29.0% 15.7% -24.5% -10.4% 23.00% Indexed 209.08 203.78 193.54 156.00 129.16 124.23 96.32 83.27 110.22 123.00 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 7.7% Note: • ND Portfolio is actual net gains on beginning period balance for a set directly managed portfolio at Vanguard. Allocation is 100% equities, mix of S&P 500 Index Fund, Small Cap Value Index Fund, Total International Index Fund, and a small allocation of direct equities, 2006-2016. • Real estate returns consist of IRR of initial investments over holding period, calculated as 9/2016 3rd party appraised value, original purchase price + rehab cost, annual net cashflows. No real estate investments were held prior to 2010, which means the Sharpe Ratio and Standard Deviation are likely overstated for the portfolio if allocations were held from beginning, and portfolio returns understated. No leverage was included in the portfolio during this period. • Combined portfolio allocates returns /yr weighted by securities at mark to market, and real estate annual returns at original cost, minimizing annual revaluation impacts, and understating both real estate contribution in mark to market.
  • 23. 10 yr Annual Total Returns for Model Portfolios Endowments 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees -2.1% 2.2% 15.8% 11.7% -0.1% 19.8% 12.1% -19.1% -3.3% 17.50% Indexed 159.68 163.11 159.60 137.82 123.38 123.45 103.04 91.92 113.62 117.50 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 4.8% Yale Endowment 3.40% 11.50% 20.20% 12.50% 4.70% 21.90% 8.90% -24.60% 4.50% 28% Indexed 218.54 211.35 189.55 157.70 140.18 133.88 109.83 100.86 133.76 128.00 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 8.1% Texas A&M -1.75% 0% 17% 11% -1% 22% 12% -18% 0% 17% Indexed 165.60 168.55 168.55 144.06 129.78 131.09 107.45 95.94 117.00 117.00 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 5.2% Benchmarks S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 1.41% 9.94% 22.68% 24.90% 4.95% 21.08% 19.48% -28.89% -9.68% 23.02% Indexed 204.94 202.09 183.82 149.84 119.97 114.31 94.41 79.02 111.11 123.02 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 7.4% 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 8.44% 4.53% -0.05% -3.91% 14.58% 4.83% 7.85% 6.80% 12.62% 5.13% Indexed 178.31 164.44 157.31 157.38 163.79 142.96 136.37 126.44 118.39 105.13 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 6.0% 50/50 S&P/10 Yr 4.9% 7.2% 11.3% 10.5% 9.8% 13.0% 13.7% -11.0% 1.5% 14.1% Indexed 200.81 191.39 178.47 160.33 145.10 132.20 117.04 102.97 115.75 114.08 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 7.2% Author’s Portfolio ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate 8.9% 10.2% 20.3% 19.9% 8.3% 24.8% 16.6% -24.5% -10.4% 23.00% Indexed 226.99 208.50 189.25 157.35 131.25 121.16 97.05 83.27 110.22 123.00 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 8.5% ND Public Securities Portfolio 2.6% 5.3% 24.1% 20.8% 4.0% 29.0% 15.7% -24.5% -10.4% 23.00% Indexed 209.08 203.78 193.54 156.00 129.16 124.23 96.32 83.27 110.22 123.00 100.00 Compounded 10 Yr Returns 7.7%
  • 24. Ranking of Compounded Annual Returns over 10 Years 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate Yale Endowment ND Public Securities Portfolio S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 50/50 S&P/10 Yr 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Compounded Ann. 10 Yr Returns
  • 25. Ranking of Indexed Value of 100 Grown at the Annual Return Rates for 10 years 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate Yale Endowment ND Public Securities Portfolio S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 50/50 S&P/10 Yr 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Indexed Increase over 10 Yrs
  • 26. Returns vs Risk Free Rate -25.0% -20.0% -15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Average Annual Return Components of Selected Portfolios: Risk Free Rate and Risk Premium* Jan 1 10 Yr Treasury Average Spread to Treasuries 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 2016 2014 2012 2010 2008 Rolling 2 Yr Avg 10 Yr Treasury Rate *Average Spread to Treasuries for each year for basket of 8 Model Portfolios
  • 27. Sharpe Ratio vs Returns 0.21 , 4.79% 0.43 , 8.13% 0.24 , 5.17% 0.34 , 7.44% 0.59 , 5.95% 0.60 , 7.22% 0.43 , 8.54% 0.36 , 7.65% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% - 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 Sharpe Ratio Compounded Ann. 10 Yr Returns Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees 0.21 4.79% Yale Endowment 0.43 8.13% Texas A&M 0.24 5.17% S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 0.34 7.44% 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 0.59 5.95% 50/50 S&P/10 Yr 0.60 7.22% ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate 0.43 8.54% ND Public Securities Portfolio 0.36 7.65% Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Yale Endowment S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate ND Public Securities Portfolio CompounedAnn.10yrReturns Sharpe Ratio Median of 8 Model Portfolios
  • 28. Stnd Deviation vs Risk Premium 12.10%, 2.57% 14.42%, 6.22% 12.09%, 2.94% 17.48%, 6.00% 5.44%, 3.20% 7.65%, 4.60% 15.78%, 6.82% 16.93%, 6.07% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% 20.00% Std Dev Ann Returns Premium of Ann. Mean to Treasuries Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees 12.10% 2.57% Yale Endowment 14.42% 6.22% Texas A&M 12.09% 2.94% S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 17.48% 6.00% 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 5.44% 3.20% 50/50 S&P/10 Yr 7.65% 4.60% ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate 15.78% 6.82% ND Public Securities Portfolio 16.93% 6.07% Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Yale Endowment S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds PremiumofAnn.MeantoTreasuries 50/50 S&P/10 Yr ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate ND Public Securities Portfolio Std Dev Ann Returns
  • 29. (0.25) (0.20) (0.15) (0.10) (0.05) - 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 -2.50% -2.00% -1.50% -1.00% -0.50% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% SpreadtoMeanSharpeRatio Spread to Mean Compounded Ann. 10 yr Returns Spread to Mean Sharpe Ratio vs Spread to Mean Compounded Ann. 10 yr Returns Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Yale Endowment S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate ND Public Securities Portfolio
  • 30. Mean Returns vs Max / Min 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Texas A&M 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds ND Public Securities Portfolio Yale Endowment ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate Min Ann. Returns Max Ann. Returns Average Ann. Returns
  • 31. Ranking Median of 10 yr Annual Returns 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate ND Public Securities Portfolio Yale Endowment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment Texas A&M Median Ann. Returns
  • 32. Ranking Average of 10 yr Annual Returns 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate Yale Endowment ND Public Securities Portfolio S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 50/50 S&P/10 Yr 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Average Ann. Returns
  • 33. Ranking Standard Deviation of 10 yr Annual Returns 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% 20.00% S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds ND Public Securities Portfolio ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate Yale Endowment Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Texas A&M 50/50 S&P/10 Yr 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment Std Dev Ann Returns
  • 34. Ranking Minimum of 10 yr Annual Returns -35.00% -30.00% -25.00% -20.00% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate ND Public Securities Portfolio Yale Endowment S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds Min Ann. Returns
  • 35. Ranking Maximum of 10 yr Annual Returns 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% ND Public Securities Portfolio Yale Endowment S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr Max Ann. Returns
  • 36. Ranking Adjusted Average of 10 yr Annual Returns* 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds Yale Endowment ND Public Securities Portfolio 50/50 S&P/10 Yr Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment Adj Avg Ann. Returns *Adjusted Average is average of annual returns excluding Min and Max years for each Portfolio
  • 37. Ranking % of Years with Positive Returns over 10 yrs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Yale Endowment 50/50 S&P/10 Yr S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate ND Public Securities Portfolio Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Texas A&M % Yrs Positive
  • 38. Ranking Annual Sharpe Ratio of 10 yr Annual Returns - 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 50/50 S&P/10 Yr 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate Yale Endowment ND Public Securities Portfolio S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Sharpe Ratio Sharpe ratio is calculated identically for each portfolio, using the average of the 10 year fiscal year annual returns less the average risk free, the 10 Year Treasury Note rate on Jan 1 of each year, the midpoint of the annual fiscal year, divided by the standard deviation of the 10. Sharpe ratio for any given portfolio could vary materially if period selection or periodicity is changed, and caution should be taken to use this Sharpe ratio calculation in absolute terms outside of establishing the relative ranking of portfolios calculated in a similar manner.
  • 39. Ranking Premium of Mean of 10 yr Annual Returns over Mean 10 yr Annual Risk Free Rate* 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% ND Portfolio incl Sec & Inv Real Estate Yale Endowment ND Public Securities Portfolio S&P 500 w reinvested Dvds 50/50 S&P/10 Yr 10 Year Treasury Return w reinvestment Texas A&M Median Endowment, FY, Net of Fees Premium of Ann. Mean to Treasuries *Risk free rate used is 10 yr Treasury rate at Calendar YE / midpoint of FY
  • 40. Last 5 Years of Rolling 10 Year Returns 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 S&P 500 7.3% 7.7% 7.8% 7.3% 6.1% 50/50 S&P 10 Year Treasuries 6.9% 6.5% 6.8% 6.3% 6.6% NACUBO Endowment Report Averages Average 5.0% 6.3% 7.1% 7.1% 6.2% Median 4.9% 6.2% 7.0% 7.1% 6.2% 75th 5.6% 6.9% 7.7% 7.8% 6.9% 25th 5.2% 5.5% 6.3% 6.3% 5.5% Over/Under to S&P Average -2.3% -1.4% -0.7% -0.2% 0.1% Median -2.4% -1.5% -0.8% -0.2% 0.1% 75th -1.7% -0.8% -0.1% 0.6% 0.8% 25th -2.1% -2.2% -1.5% -0.9% -0.6% Over/Under to 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasury Average -1.9% -0.2% 0.3% 0.8% -0.4% Median -2.0% -0.3% 0.2% 0.8% -0.4% 75th -1.3% 0.4% 0.9% 1.5% 0.4% 25th -1.7% -1.0% -0.5% 0.0% -1.1% This Analysis is Not A Fluke of 2016 On a 10 Year Rolling Basis, Median Endowment has underperformed an S&P 500 Index Fund for 4 of the last 5 Years, and 50/50 S&P 500/10 Year Treasuries 3 of 5. Without adjusting for Risk *A fund that was able to stay top quartile for 5 years running arguably outperformed 50/50 benchmark but not S&P 500. Data on detail performance distributions was not available to assess persistence of performance *2016 rolling numbers may differ from annual due to rounding error, portfoliovisualizer calculator used as per Assumptions note
  • 41. Last 5 Years of Rolling 10 Year Returns 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 S&P 500 7.3% 7.7% 7.8% 7.3% 6.1% 50/50 S&P 10 Year Treasuries 6.9% 6.5% 6.8% 6.3% 6.6% Performance by AUM >$1 Bil 5.7% 7.2% 8.2% 8.3% 7.6% $500 mm - $1 Bil 5.3% 6.7% 7.3% 7.6% 6.6% $100 - 500 mm 4.8% 6.2% 7.1% 7.0% 6.0% $50 - 100 mm 4.7% 5.9% 6.5% 6.7% 5.7% $25 - 50 mm 4.7% 5.6% 6.5% 6.4% 5.8% < $25 mm 5.0% 6.0% 6.6% 6.3% 5.7% Over/Under to S&P >$1 Bil -1.6% -0.5% 0.4% 1.1% 1.5% $500 mm - $1 Bil -2.0% -1.0% -0.5% 0.4% 0.5% $100 - 500 mm -2.5% -1.5% -0.7% -0.2% -0.1% $50 - 100 mm -2.6% -1.8% -1.3% -0.5% -0.4% $25 - 50 mm -2.6% -2.1% -1.3% -0.8% -0.3% < $25 mm -2.3% -1.7% -1.2% -0.9% -0.4% Over/Under to 50/50 S&P /10 Yr Treasury >$1 Bil -1.2% 0.7% 1.4% 2.0% 1.1% $500 mm - $1 Bil -1.6% 0.2% 0.5% 1.3% 0.1% $100 - 500 mm -2.1% -0.3% 0.3% 0.7% -0.6% $50 - 100 mm -2.2% -0.6% -0.3% 0.4% -0.9% $25 - 50 mm -2.2% -0.9% -0.3% 0.1% -0.8% < $25 mm -1.9% -0.5% -0.2% 0.0% -0.9% Picture Dramatically Worsens for Smaller Endowments
  • 42. So How Did We Get Here? Charitable Uncharitable It is simply an asset allocation question – you are what you eat; Endowments had significantly higher allocations to alternative assets and international Both segments that have underperformed US equities in last 10 Years But the asset allocation is correct, and will perform over longer periods Endowments chased hot trends in alternative assets from the 90s and early 2000s including PE and hedge funds and got burned as returns regressed to the mean or they got in over there heads Smaller endowments with less exposure to alternative assets performed even more poorly than larger ones with higher average exposures, so alternative asset exposure might explain some of the larger Endowments performance, but not all the underperformance. Investment advisors chasing alpha and diversification away from assets correlated to the US markets missed the increased trend towards correlation across asset classes or didn’t account properly for either black swan, asset volatility, or exchange rate risk If it is simply asset allocation, how did any retail investor with a broad based index fund outperform the Endowment world? Are they better at Asset Allocation? Is this just another story of passive investing beating active? Or was this simply a “lucky” period, and backtesting further would find superior Endowment returns? Larger or more sophisticated endowments were able to secure better manager talent/access to proprietary deals, and can drive returns by taking the long view Support for this thesis can be seen in the performance of >$500/1 Bil AUM Endowments on a rolling 12 basis 2012-2015, and the increased performance by AUM of Endowments in the NACUBO survey, and in the performance of Yale, one of the industry leaders. While Yale managed to marginally outperform the S&P by 60 bps/yr with moderately less risk, to achieve that it had to move to 75%+ of assets in highly illiquid and hard to value PE and hedge funds alternative assets and a large expensive investment infrastructure. In fact, what assurances do we have that the illiquid and esoteric assets in these Endowments actually even delivered the returns they show? If they are invested in illiquid assets, shouldn’t they get a premium for that? Or have they taken liquidity reserves? Typical liquidity premium in a valuation could be as high as 20-50%, and there is no evidence that alternative asset heavy portfolios are earning an appropriate liquidity risk premium to market, the opposite seems to be true. Yale only picked up a mere 90 bps over the S&P mixed with 50 % risk free 10 year Treasuries, and still had 2x the Stnd Deviation, ¾ the Sharpe Ratio, and underperformed 4 of 10 years that pretty basic portfolio. Over last 5 years, even 75th percentile of endowments failed to deliver, and even the average $1 Bil+ AUM Endowment needed nearly 60% alternative assets to beat the indices by <100-200 bps 60% of the time with substantially more risk. The author beat Yale with basic, low cost index funds and rent houses that anyone who watches HGTV can buy, and can liquidate his portfolio in 24 hours for securities, and perhaps 90 days for the real estate. Texas A&M is classed as a large endowment, $1.5 Bil AUM, and performed similarly in our study to the Median Endowment, with similar asset allocations. And arguably the large Endowment strong rolling 10 year performance 2012-2015 is simply an artifact of the 10 Year rolling analysis picking up strong alternative asset performance in the early 2000s, offset by strong US market performance and falling
  • 43. So How Did We Get Here? (Cont’d) Charitable Uncharitable We were in a unique era with a once in a generation financial crisis, followed by a valuation bubble in US stocks driven by QE, and a collapse in rates artificially driving up Treasuries; disciplined allocations by patient capital will perform over time We measured over 10 years, that’s not exactly short. Rolling 10 years back for 5 years didn’t appear to change the end result. Every 10 year period has its uniqueness and issues, this 10 year period encompassed both one of the worst financial crises and longest bull markets in history, so is a good period to be testing. Frankly, an Endowment by its nature is intended to be designed to manage in periods of high extremes. One would argue the Endowments have the advantages over the retail portfolio constructed It is still pretty bad to barely match the risk free rate in the period you started, in a period with historically low inflation. If Treasuries Rates didn’t collapse, and no stock bubble existed, the equities and alternative strategies would have arguably been lower, and one could have delivered nearly 5% for zero cost just in risk free 10 year Treasuries HTM, which is about what the Median Endowment returned. Smart money these days has been trending to international and more sophisticated products, looking for alpha, value, and diversification, as the US stock, bonds, and real estate seem to be at historic highs, the endowments are ahead of the game. That’s fine, but the proof is in the pudding. Warren Buffet paraphrased, don’t bet against the US, and market timing is rarely If Endowments are sophisticated enough to handle the asset allocation + exchange rate risks associated with more sophisticated strategy, why are they being beaten so badly on market timing of that strategy by a basic retail investor portfolio for so long? We picked an arbitrary measurement date and arbitrarily measured on an annual basis. We did. We picked the most recent one available (the Endowment data published on a FY calendar and 2016 was the most recent publicly available to us). We also looked at Standard Deviation, % of years above/below, and Sharpe Ratio for 10 years of data across two major events. Then we challenged the results with 5 years of 10 year rolling averages against the two main, across a distribution of size and percentile. It is possible that shifting measurement periods or looking at quarterly, daily, or monthly data would change the result, but our data and measurement periods were chosen by the data limitations we had, not iterated or gamed. Also if this were the case, we would probably expect to see more variance in the standard deviation, % of years above/below and the other risk rankings or time than we do. It would still be concerning if adjusting periodicity was the only variable that allowed Endowments to demonstrate performance against market. It is true
  • 44. Asset Allocations Endowments 2016 Domestic Equities Fixed Income Non US Equities Alternative Strategies* Cash Dollar Weighted Avg 16% 8% 19% 53% 4% Equal Weighted Avg 30% 16% 18% 29% 7% Domestic Equities Fixed Income Non US Equities Alternative Strategies* Cash Yale 2016 4% 4.9% 14.9% 73.9% 2.3% Yale 2006 11.6% 3.8% 14.6% 67.5% 2.5% Texas A&M 2016 24.5% 12.4% 26.3% 33.3% 3.4% http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/EndowmentFiles/2016-NCSE-Public-Tables_Asset- Allocations.pdf https://www.txamfoundation.com/About/Financials/Investments.aspx http://investments.yale.edu/endowment-update/ *Incl real estate
  • 45. Author Neal M. Dikeman • Author Neal M. Dikeman is a venture capitalist and startup executive with significant investment, board level, and executive experience, having spent 1/3rd of his career in finance roles at some of the largest companies in the world, Bankers Trust/Deutsche Bank, Royal Dutch Shell, and a CalPERS backed PE fund, and in between founded, ran, served as director, CFO and other executive positions in successful tech startups. • Professionally he has been a venture capitalist at Royal Dutch Shell, prior to that cofounded merchant bank Jane Capital Partners in 2001 at age 25, delivering superior returns to partners and clients from 2001-2013, including multiple IPOs. • At Jane Capital he was Founder of 7 Silicon Valley venture backed technology startups, including in fintech, cleantech, and internet. Served as CFO, CEO, Chairman, and VP, and board director multiple times. The companies he founded have gone on to raise over $250 mm in venture capital, with 3 reaching 9 figure valuations <48 months from founding. • He is an experienced private equity and venture capital investor for 18 years, at a CalPERS backed PE fund, at Globalgate, the ecommerce venture capital firm behind YellowPages.com, Jane Capital Partners, and Royal Dutch Shell. Involved in highly successful exits at each stop. Began career in investment banking at a Wall Street investment bank, Bankers Trust, later Deutsche Bank. • BA in Economics from Texas A&M University; Author of Investing for Wealth; Currently board member at American Electric Technologies (NASDAQ:AETI), and Greenhome.com.
  • 46. Assumptions • *Jun 30 FY, annualized assumptions used • http://investments.yale.edu/endowment-update/ • http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/EndowmentFiles/2016-NCSE-Public-Tables_Annual-Rates-of- Return.pdf • http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/EndowmentFiles/2016-NCSE-Public-Tables_Asset- Allocations.pdf • http://annualreport2015.txamfoundation.com/ • https://dqydj.com/treasury-return-calculator/ • http://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/ • http://www.multpl.com/10-year-treasury-rate/table/by-year • https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio • http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO- Commonfund_Study_of_Endowments/Public_NCSE_Tables/Total_Market_Value_of_Endowments .html