Who Is Managing the Total Portfolio?
When Asset Owners Start Thinking Like Asset Managers
At this point, portfolio design becomes a matter of governance. For institutional investors with internal teams, one key question arises:
Is the organisation acting primarily as an asset owner or as a collection of asset managers?
While the distinction may seem subtle, it fundamentally changes the objective being optimised. Asset managers build the best possible portfolio within assigned objectives and constraints. Asset owners determine whether those objectives and portfolios advance the institution’s overall mandate. Both roles are essential, but issues arise when asset managers’ priorities overshadow asset owners’ responsibilities.
Two Different Objectives
An asset manager normally operates within a clearly defined opportunity set. A public equity team may seek to outperform an equity benchmark. A private equity team may try to construct the strongest portfolio of funds and direct investments. A real estate team may diversify across geography, sector, property type and investment structure. Within each mandate, these are reasonable objectives.
The asset owner, however, must determine the appropriate aggregate exposure to equity, credit, inflation, real-rate, liquidity, and other risks. The goal is not to optimise each asset class independently, but to build a portfolio that best serves the institution as a whole.
These two objective functions are not the same.
An asset manager asks:
How can I improve this portfolio within my mandate?
An asset owner asks:
Does improving this portfolio improve the total fund?
Sometimes the answer is yes; other times, it is not.
Internalisation Can Blur the Boundary
This distinction becomes less clear when an asset owner builds substantial internal investment capabilities.
Internal management can offer important advantages. It may reduce costs, strengthen alignment, improve access to information, preserve institutional knowledge and allow the organisation to respond more directly to changing market conditions.
However, internalisation also shifts organisational identity. As investment teams gain specialised expertise, set performance targets, and compete for capital, they increasingly resemble asset-management businesses. They establish their own processes, cultures, and definitions of success based on the performance of their mandates.
Over time, the institution may excel at managing individual portfolios but lose clarity over total portfolio oversight. The main risk is not poor team performance, but strong performance against objectives that do not fully align with the asset owner’s perspective.
The Silo Can Be Rational
Silo behaviour is often seen as an organisational failure, but this view can be overly simplistic.
Within an asset-class structure, silo optimisation is usually rational. A private equity team is hired, resourced and evaluated to build a strong private equity portfolio. A public markets team is expected to use its risk budget effectively. A credit team is rewarded for generating attractive credit returns.
Each team, therefore, focuses on improving diversification, manager selection, portfolio construction, and expected return within its mandate.
The difficulty is that the mandate itself may not reflect the marginal needs of the total fund. A real estate portfolio can become better diversified across sectors while adding exposure to economic risks already present elsewhere. A private equity portfolio can gain additional managers and strategies while increasing the institution’s aggregate sensitivity to equity markets, leverage and financing conditions. A credit team may identify an attractive opportunity without fully reflecting that similar credit risk is already embedded in private credit, real estate debt, infrastructure financing or equity holdings.
While each decision may be locally sound, the resulting total portfolio can still be suboptimal.
Optimising individual mandates does not guarantee optimal outcomes for the total fund.
A Collection of Good Portfolios Is Not Necessarily a Good Total Portfolio
Traditional asset-class governance often assumes that a total portfolio can be constructed by combining well-managed components. While this may work in theory under a very particular situation, institutional portfolios are more complex. The value of an investment depends on both its individual characteristics and the institution’s existing holdings. An asset with a strong standalone return may add little if it duplicates existing risks, while another with a lower return may be valuable if it diversifies the portfolio when support is most needed.
The relevant unit of analysis is therefore not the investment in isolation. It is the investment’s contribution to the total portfolio. This is particularly important when asset classes share common macroeconomic drivers. Public equity and private equity may be managed by separate teams, but both are substantially exposed to economic growth. Real estate and infrastructure may be presented as distinct allocations, but each may contain combinations of growth, inflation, duration, leverage and liquidity risk. Public credit and private credit may differ in structure and liquidity while remaining exposed to many of the same underlying credit conditions.
Labels may differ, but economic risks often overlap. Effective total portfolio management requires focusing on underlying exposures rather than just asset-class labels.
The Owner Must Decide What the Portfolio Still Needs
Asset-management teams are generally organised around what they can invest in.
The asset owner must focus on the institution’s needs, which requires a different decision sequence. The process begins with the mandate, which defines acceptable risk levels. The risk target is set through a reference portfolio or similar anchor. The organisation must then identify dominant, scarce, and diversifying exposures relative to its liabilities and current portfolio.
Only after this assessment should capital be allocated to individual strategies. Opportunities identified by investment teams must be evaluated on more than their standalone attractiveness.
The more important questions are:
These are asset-owner questions that cannot be fully addressed within a single asset-class mandate.
Who Owns the Total-Fund Objective?
Many institutions have a CIO, asset-allocation team, total-portfolio team, or investment-risk function. However, these roles alone do not establish true ownership of the total-fund objective.
True ownership involves more than reporting aggregate exposures after decisions are made; it requires decision-making authority. Someone must be empowered to reject investments that do not benefit the total fund, compare opportunities across organisational boundaries, and challenge asset-class allocations when a different exposure would better serve the institution, even if the affected team is highly capable.
Exercising this authority is challenging because asset-class teams often have deeper market expertise. The asset owner should not replace this expertise, but instead focus on its distinct role.
Central teams do not need more expertise in private equity than the private equity team. Instead, they must understand how private equity interacts with the broader institution. This is the allocator’s unique responsibility.
Performance Measurement Shapes Identity
Performance measurement influences whether teams act as asset owners or asset managers.
When teams are evaluated mainly against asset-class benchmarks, they focus on relative performance within their mandates. While this can improve accountability, it may also reinforce the view that the asset class is primary and the total fund is just an aggregation.
A team may outperform its benchmark while adding risk that the institution did not need. Another team may underperform its asset-class benchmark while making decisions that protect liquidity or reduce an unwanted total-fund exposure. A purely silo-based performance framework may reward the first and penalise the second. This does not mean asset-class performance should be ignored. It, however, means relative returns must be interpreted alongside each team’s contribution to total-fund outcomes.
The institution should distinguish between:
- skill within a mandate;
- the value of the mandate itself; and
- the mandate’s contribution to the total portfolio.
These are distinct sources of performance and should not be treated as interchangeable.
Total Portfolio Management Is Not Centralised Asset Management
A total-portfolio approach is sometimes mistaken for centralising all investment decisions, which simply replaces one problem with another.
Specialist teams remain essential. Private market underwriting, security selection, portfolio-company governance, credit structuring and active trading require expertise that cannot be replicated by a central allocation function.
Total-portfolio management does not aim to weaken specialisation, but to align it with institutional objectives. The asset owner defines the problem, and specialist teams identify and implement solutions. Achieving this requires balancing central direction with delegated authority.
Insufficient delegation limits the use of investment expertise, while excessive delegation can result in a lack of accountability for interactions among mandates.
The optimal model is neither full centralisation nor full decentralisation, but clear ownership of decisions at the appropriate level.
From Capital Allocation to Risk Allocation
Institutions often adopt asset-manager thinking because capital allocations are visible, while risks are less apparent.
It is easy to track allocations to public equity, private credit, or infrastructure, but harder to see shared economic risks. Consequently, governance discussions often focus on capital allocations instead of total-fund exposures.
But equal capital allocations do not imply equal risk contributions. Nor do different asset-class labels guarantee diversification.
The owner must allocate not only capital, but also risk, liquidity, and governance capacity. This shifts the central portfolio function’s role from setting asset-class weights to continuously assessing how implementation decisions affect aggregate exposures.
Total-portfolio management is not an afterthought, but the framework within which asset-class decisions should be made.
The Necessary Tension
Tension between asset-owner and asset-manager perspectives is inevitable and not inherently negative. Asset managers should advocate for opportunities they understand, challenge central team assumptions, and seek flexibility to apply their expertise.
Meanwhile, the asset owner must retain the authority to compare opportunities across the total portfolio and decline investments that do not advance institutional objectives. The goal is not to eliminate this tension, but to make it productive.
This requires clarity about whose objective governs decisions. When the institution owns the capital, bears the liabilities, and faces the consequences, the total fund objective must take precedence.
Asset Managers Optimise Portfolios. Asset Owners Optimise Institutions.
Internal investment teams can provide significant institutional advantage, but only if there is a clear distinction between managing assets and owning the investment problem.
Institutions should encourage specialist teams to think like top asset managers, but must not lose sight of their role as asset owners.
The difference is one of perspective.
- Asset managers work within mandates. Asset owners decide how those mandates fit together.
- Asset managers seek the best opportunities in their markets. Asset owners determine which opportunities the institution actually needs.
- Asset managers optimise portfolios. Asset owners optimise institutions.
A total portfolio is not simply the sum of strong asset-class portfolios. It is built by intentionally coordinating specialised investment capabilities around a shared institutional objective.
That leads to the next governance question:
What decision rights, risk ownership and organisational structures are required to keep the total-fund objective at the centre?
* To prevent confusion between the institutional mandate and the asset class mandate, I highlighted the latter in pink font.
* Images generated using ChatGPT
Comments
Post a Comment