| |
By the
2008 AASCIF Finance & Investments Standing Committee
 The
availability of information from the analysis of investment portfolios
has proliferated in recent years with the advancement of technology
and the increased use of quantitative tools for investment management.
In fact, at times we can find ourselves suffering from information
overload as computer and television screens constantly stream market
data. One goal of the Finance & Investments Committee this
year was to conduct a “survey of the survey”, with
a view toward determining the current survey’s usefulness.
First, the Committee would like to thank those who found the time
to respond to the ten questions we put forth in our “survey
of the survey”. We received a total of 22 anonymous responses
from the 37 AASCIF member funds.
One easily drawn observation is that the majority of funds responding
do not rely on the annual survey as a critical part of their investment
decision making process. Nine funds indicated the survey is never
used, while another ten funds said the survey was referenced three
times or less in the past year. Thirteen funds said the survey
was not used in the investment strategy decision process, while
six funds responded that although it was used, it was not a source
of frequent comparison to peer data.
The majority of funds responding indicated a source of peer data
other than the survey. Fourteen funds stated they use peer data
for annual comparisons as a part of their annual review of investment
strategy, but only two of those funds rely on the survey for that
peer data. Nine of the funds who use peer data include additional
investment data of entities other than state funds, such as private
carriers. Further, three funds indicated that state fund peer data
would not be useful, while two stated they were either not sure
or that it would be useful for comparison purposes only. As would
be expected, there was also a noticeable difference in the sources
of peer data for U.S. and Canadian state fund entities.
The content and format of the existing survey was also not widely
supported. Respondents were evenly split as to whether the additional
questions included in the 2006 survey were helpful (10 said yes,
10 said no). Respondents were also evenly split as to whether they
would like to see the survey expanded or condensed (6 for expansion,
6 for condensing). Notably, seven respondents skipped the question
on whether to condense or expand.
Overwhelmingly, responding funds supported adding statutory investment
limitations to the survey (17 out of 22), and believed the survey
would need to be made available earlier in the year to provide
value (15 of 22 with most citing April as the month for availability).
The revised format for presentation of individual fund portfolio
data was supported by most respondents (11 of 15 responses), but
again notably, seven respondents skipped this question.
As we all know, networking and idea sharing are some of the great
benefits of being an AASCIF member. However, it’s apparent
from the “survey on the survey” results that the annual
Finance & Investments Survey may not be providing the same
value it once was. With the variety of resources providing investment
data for peer comparisons such as investment consultants, managers,
and custodians and the ability many funds have to build ad hoc
reports via on-line connections to these systems, the cost of responding
to and accumulating the results of the annual Finance & Investments
Survey has likely exceeded the benefits received. Additionally,
much of the information shared in the survey is typically discussed
casually during the annual workshop hosted by the Committee. Based
on the survey results and the abundance of quality investment information
available, the Committee is recommending the annual survey no longer
be conducted and it will not be completed this year. We would appreciate
any comment the membership of AASCIF may have on this topic via
email to Steve Hardin at steve_h@compsourceok.com.
|
