Read on Twitter
For me the best manager commentary teaches me something I didn't know.
So let's dive in on manager commentary and how it might be improved:
Let's start with the bad.
Most manager commentary does the following:
Start off with some esoteric anecdote and try to tie it back to the portfolio or macro themes of the quarter.
Then cover broad macro themes I've read about 20 previous times.
Most manager commentary does the following:
Start off with some esoteric anecdote and try to tie it back to the portfolio or macro themes of the quarter.
Then cover broad macro themes I've read about 20 previous times.
Then briefly discuss the holdings. If it's given, attribution is in absolute terms and not tied back to the relevant benchmark.
Holdings are discussed superficially. Numbers are given that I can pull up in my own attribution software.
Holdings are discussed superficially. Numbers are given that I can pull up in my own attribution software.
In this example I've really learned nothing and I've spent 20 or 30 minutes of my day reading something that hasn't really added any value.
If you aren't a manager in the portfolio, chances are I'm never reading your commentary again.
There's just too much content out there
If you aren't a manager in the portfolio, chances are I'm never reading your commentary again.
There's just too much content out there
Then there's the medium grade.
The manager gets straight to the point, gives attribution relative to the benchmark. What was additive, what detracted. It's still superficial but at least they've saved me the time of looking it up myself and it can be discussion points for DD
The manager gets straight to the point, gives attribution relative to the benchmark. What was additive, what detracted. It's still superficial but at least they've saved me the time of looking it up myself and it can be discussion points for DD
Then there's great commentary I don't miss.
You dive deep on the names: Your investment thesis, what's happening with the company, why you're still convicted, stats about the industry etc.
AND/OR
You dive deep on the names: Your investment thesis, what's happening with the company, why you're still convicted, stats about the industry etc.
AND/OR
You dive deep into your particular niche.
You tell me everything that's happening in distressed debt, infrastructure, factor models etc.
You dive deep on a topic you've spent 6 months looking at.
You've now taught me something I can apply across every strategy in your niche
You tell me everything that's happening in distressed debt, infrastructure, factor models etc.
You dive deep on a topic you've spent 6 months looking at.
You've now taught me something I can apply across every strategy in your niche
Maybe it's just me but I deeply prefer the latter example and there's just so much of it out there now it's hard for me to justify the time on the first.
As always, this is just my opinion. I hope you found it helpful.
As always, this is just my opinion. I hope you found it helpful.
