In Part 2 of our podcast series, Investment Committees: More than the sum of their parts, we take a look at traditional versus discretionary advisory services. Luka Arnerich, CAIA, a consultant with more than ten years of working with committees in both types of engagements, shares his thoughts and insights on what the difference is and how it affects long-term outcomes, as well as how a committee might decide between one or the other.
“The main difference is that in a traditional advisory approach, essentially the committee is responsible for the decision-making of the portfolio over time, and that includes implementation, changing managers, examining research that we’re providing to make a tactical tilt in the portfolio based on the opportunities and risks we see in the market,” explains Luka. “But really in discretionary services, it’s more of a governance role. If you’re going to hire an investment advisor, we think it’s better to use the full services of that investment firm. This is our day job.”
Listen to the full podcast here:
You can also read our recent white paper, Investment Committees: More than the sum of their parts, here.