RE: mtb15 Jun 2017 16:15
Actually, I agree with the skill point GS - however, a couple of things: Firstly, what you've quoted below is the absolute returns of the funds (I think?) - these will be largely (90-95%) driven by the asset class, not skill of the manager - I prefer cheaper asset classes, which often means after they've fallen). You would need to compare them with the relevant benchmarks over each period to ascertain the relative performance, supposedly driven by skill. However, even the most skillful managers tend to see cyclical relative returns due to the fact that they tend to follow a certain stock picking style (eg growth or value) which some times will work, and sometimes won't depending on the market environment. Hence, if you find what you believe to be a skillful manager, you probably want to appoint him at the bottom of his cycle rather than the top (though the asset class is actually more important than the manager in most cases). Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, historical relative performance is not a great guide to skill except over the very long term (10 yrs) with no change in team or approach (very rare in institutional products).
Sorry, enough lecturing from me - I spent about 10 years researching asset managers earlier in my career, so do have some experience in this area.