What Are Assets Under Management (AUM)?

Assets under management (AUM) is the total market value of the investments that a person or entity manages on behalf of clients. Assets under management definitions and formulas vary by company.

In the calculation of AUM, some financial institutions include bank deposits, mutual funds, and cash in their calculations. Others limit it to funds under discretionary management, where the investor assigns authority to the company to trade on their behalf.

Overall, AUM is only one aspect used in evaluating a company or investment. It is also usually considered in conjunction with management performance and management experience. However, investors often consider higher investment inflows and higher AUM comparisons as a positive indicator of quality and management experience.

Understanding Assets Under Management

Assets under management refers to how much money a hedge fund or financial institution is managing for their clients. AUM is the sum of the market value for all of the investments managed by a fund or family of funds, a venture capital firm, brokerage company, or an individual registered as an investment advisor or portfolio manager.

Used to indicate the size or amount, AUM can be segregated in many ways. It can refer to the total amount of assets managed for all clients, or it can refer to the total assets managed for a specific client. AUM includes the capital the manager can use to make transactions for one or all clients, usually on a discretionary basis.

For example, if an investor has $50,000 invested in a mutual fund, those funds become part of the total AUM—the pool of funds. The fund manager can buy and sell shares following the fund’s investment objective using all of the invested funds without obtaining any additional special permissions.

Within the wealth management industry, some investment managers may have requirements based on AUM. In other words, an investor may need a minimum amount of personal AUM for that investor to be qualified for a certain type of investment, such as a hedge fund. Wealth managers want to ensure the client can withstand adverse markets without taking too large of a financial hit. An investor’s individual AUM can also be a factor in determining the type of services received from a financial advisor or brokerage company. In some cases, individual assets under management may also coincide with an individual’s net worth.

Calculating Assets Under Management

Methods of calculating assets under management vary among companies. Assets under management depends on the flow of investor money in and out of a particular fund and as a result, can fluctuate daily. Also, asset performance, capital appreciation, and reinvested dividends will all increase the AUM of a fund. Also, total firm assets under management can increase when new customers and their assets are acquired.

Factors causing decreases in AUM include decreases in market value from investment performance losses, fund closures, and a decrease in investor flows. Assets under management can be limited to all of the investor capital invested across all of the firm’s products, or it can include capital owned by the investment company executives.

In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has AUM requirements for funds and investment firms in which they must register with the SEC. The SEC is responsible for regulating the financial markets to ensure that it functions in a fair and orderly manner. The SEC requirement for registration can range between $25 million to $110 million in AUM, depending on several factors, including the size and location of the firm.

Why AUM Matters

Firm management will monitor AUM as it relates to investment strategy and investor product flows in determining the strength of the company. Investment companies also use assets under management as a marketing tool to attract new investors. AUM can help investors get an indication of the size of a company’s operations relative to its competitors.

AUM may also be an important consideration for the calculation of fees. Many investment products charge management fees that are a fixed percentage of assets under management. Also, many financial advisors and personal money managers charge clients a percentage of their total assets under management. Typically, this percentage decreases as the AUM increases; in this way, these financial professionals can attract high-wealth investors.

Real-Life Examples of Assets Under Management

When evaluating a specific fund, investors often look at its AUM since it functions as an indication of the size of the fund. Typically, investment products with high AUMs have higher market trading volumes making them more liquid, meaning investors can buy and sell the fund with ease.

SPY

For example, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) is one of the largest equity exchange-traded funds on the market. An ETF is a fund that contains a number of stocks or securities that match or mirror an index, such as the S&P 500. The SPY has all 500 of the stocks in the S&P 500 index.

As of Mar. 11, 2022, the SPY had assets under management of $380.7 billion with an average daily trading volume of 113 million shares. The high trading volume means liquidity is not a factor for investors when seeking to buy or sell their shares of the ETF.

EDOW

The First Trust Dow 30 Equal Weight ETF (EDOW) tracks the 30 stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA). As of Mar. 11, 2022, the EDOW had assets under management of $130 million and much lower trading volume compared to the SPY, averaging approximately 53,000 shares per day. Liquidity for this fund could be a consideration for investors, meaning it could be difficult to buy and sell shares at certain times of the day or week.

What Is Agency Theory?

Agency theory is a principle that is used to explain and resolve issues in the relationship between business principals and their agents. Most commonly, that relationship is the one between shareholders, as principals, and company executives, as agents.

Understanding Agency Theory

An agency, in broad terms, is any relationship between two parties in which one, the agent, represents the other, the principal, in day-to-day transactions. The principal or principals have hired the agent to perform a service on their behalf.

Principals delegate decision-making authority to agents. Because many decisions that affect the principal financially are made by the agent, differences of opinion, and even differences in priorities and interests, can arise. Agency theory assumes that the interests of a principal and an agent are not always in alignment. This is sometimes referred to as the principal-agent problem.

By definition, an agent is using the resources of a principal. The principal has entrusted money but has little or no day-to-day input. The agent is the decision-maker but is incurring little or no risk because any losses will be borne by the principal.

Financial planners and portfolio managers are agents on behalf of their principals and are given responsibility for the principals’ assets. A lessee may be in charge of protecting and safeguarding assets that do not belong to them. Even though the lessee is tasked with the job of taking care of the assets, the lessee has less interest in protecting the goods than the actual owners.

Areas of Dispute in Agency Theory

Agency theory addresses disputes that arise primarily in two key areas: A difference in goals or a difference in risk aversion.

For example, company executives, with an eye toward short-term profitability and elevated compensation, may desire to expand a business into new, high-risk markets. However, this could pose an unjustified risk to shareholders, who are most concerned with the long-term growth of earnings and share price appreciation.

Another central issue often addressed by agency theory involves incompatible levels of risk tolerance between a principal and an agent. For example, shareholders in a bank may object that management has set the bar too low on loan approvals, thus taking on too great a risk of defaults.

Reducing Agency Loss

Various proponents of agency theory have proposed ways to resolve disputes between agents and principals. This is termed “reducing agency loss.” Agency loss is the amount that the principal contends was lost due to the agent acting contrary to the principal’s interests.

Chief among these strategies is the offering of incentives to corporate managers to maximize the profits of their principals. The stock options awarded to company executives have their origin in agency theory. These incentives seek a way to optimize the relationship between principals and agents. Other practices include tying executive compensation in part to shareholder returns. These are examples of how agency theory is used in corporate governance.

These practices have led to concerns that management will endanger long-term company growth in order to boost short-term profits and their own pay. This can often be seen in budget planning, where management reduces estimates in annual budgets so that they are guaranteed to meet performance goals. These concerns have led to yet another compensation scheme in which executive pay is partially deferred and to be determined according to long-term goals.

These solutions have their parallels in other agency relationships. Performance-based compensation is one example. Another is requiring that a bond is posted to guarantee delivery of the desired result. And then there is the last resort, which is simply firing the agent.

What is an Aggressive Investment Strategy?

An aggressive investment strategy typically refers to a style of portfolio management that attempts to maximize returns by taking a relatively higher degree of risk. Strategies for achieving higher than average returns typically emphasize capital appreciation as a primary investment objective, rather than income or safety of principal. Such a strategy would therefore have an asset allocation with a substantial weighting in stocks and possibly little or no allocation to bonds or cash.

Aggressive investment strategies are typically thought to be suitable for young adults with smaller portfolio sizes. Because a lengthy investment horizon enables them to ride out market fluctuations, and losses early in one’s career have less impact than later, investment advisors do not consider this strategy suitable for anyone else but young adults unless such a strategy is applied to only a small portion of one’s nest-egg savings. Regardless of the investor’s age, however, a high tolerance for risk is an absolute prerequisite for an aggressive investment strategy.

Understanding Aggressive Investment Strategy

The aggressiveness of an investment strategy depends on the relative weight of high-reward, high-risk asset classes, such as equities and commodities, within the portfolio.

For example, Portfolio A which has an asset allocation of 75% equities, 15% fixed income, and 10% commodities would be considered quite aggressive, since 85% of the portfolio is weighted to equities and commodities. However, it would still be less aggressive than Portfolio B, which has an asset allocation of 85% equities and 15% commodities.

Even within the equity component of an aggressive portfolio, the composition of stocks can have a significant bearing on its risk profile. For instance, if the equity component only consists of blue-chip stocks, it would be considered less risky than if the portfolio only held small-capitalization stocks. If this is the case in the earlier example, Portfolio B could arguably be considered less aggressive than Portfolio A, even though it has 100% of its weight in aggressive assets.

Yet another aspect of an aggressive investment strategy has to do with allocation. A strategy that simply divided all available money equally into 20 different stocks could be a very aggressive strategy, but dividing all money equally into just 5 different stocks would be more aggressive still.

Aggressive Investment strategies may also include a high turnover strategy, seeking to chase stocks that show high relative performance in a short time period. The high turnover may create higher returns, but could also drive higher transaction costs, thus increasing the risk of poor performance.

Aggressive Investment Strategy and Active Management

An aggressive strategy needs more active management than a conservative “buy-and-hold” strategy, since it is likely to be much more volatile and could require frequent adjustments, depending on market conditions. More rebalancing would also be required to bring portfolio allocations back to their target levels. Volatility of the assets could lead allocations to deviate significantly from their original weights. This extra work also drives higher fees as the portfolio manager may require more staff to manage all such positions.

Recent years have seen significant pushback against active investing strategies. Many investors have pulled their assets out of hedge funds, for example, due to those managers’ underperformance. Instead, some have chosen to place their money with passive managers. These managers adhere to investing styles that often employ managing index funds for strategic rotation. In these cases, portfolios often mirror a market index, such as the S&P 500.

What Is Active Management?

The term active management means that an investor, a professional money manager, or a team of professionals is tracking the performance of an investment portfolio and making buy, hold, and sell decisions about the assets in it. The goal of any investment manager is to outperform a designated benchmark while simultaneously accomplishing one or more additional goals such as managing risk, limiting tax consequences, or adhering to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards for investing. Active managers may differ from other is how they accomplish some of these goals.

For example, active managers may rely on investment analysis, research, and forecasts, which can include quantitative tools, as well as their own judgment and experience in making decisions on which assets to buy and sell. Their approach may be strictly algorithmic, entirely discretionary, or somewhere in between.

By contrast, passive management, sometimes known as indexing, follows simple rules that try to track an index or other benchmark by replicating it. Those who advocate for passive management maintain that the best results are achieved by buying assets that mirror a particular market index or indexes. Their contention is that passive management removes the shortfalls of human biases and that this leads to better performance. However, studies comparing active and passive management have only served to keep the debate alive about the respective merits of either approach.

Understanding Active Management

Investors who believe in active management do not support the stronger forms of the efficient market hypothesis (EMH), which argues that it is impossible to beat the market over the long run because all public information has already been incorporated in stock prices.

Those who support these forms of the EMH insist that stock pickers who spend their days buying and selling stocks to exploit their frequent fluctuations will, over time, likely do worse than investors who buy the components of the major indexes that are used to track the performance of the wider markets over time. But this point of view narrows investing goals into a single dimension. Active managers would contend that if an investor is concerned with more than merely tracking or slightly beating a market index, an active management approach might be better suited for the task.

Active managers measure their own success by measuring how much their portfolios exceed (or fall short of) the performance of a comparable unmanaged index, industry, or market sector.

For example, the Fidelity Blue Chip Growth Fund uses the Russell 1000 Growth Index as its benchmark. Over the five years that ended June 30, 2020, the Fidelity fund returned 17.35% while the Russell 1000 Growth Index rose 15.89%. Thus, the Fidelity fund outperformed its benchmark by 1.46% for that five-year period. Active managers will also assess portfolio risk, along with their success in achieving other portfolio goals. This is an important distinction for investors in retirement years, many of whom may have to manage risk over shorter time horizons.

Strategies for Active Management

Active managers believe it is possible to profit from the stock market through any of a number of strategies that aim to identify stocks that are trading at a lower price than their value merits. Their strategies may include researching a mix of fundamental, quantitative, and technical indications to identify stock selections. They may also employ asset allocation strategies aligned with their fund’s goals.

Many investment companies and fund sponsors believe it’s possible to outperform the market and employ professional investment managers to manage the company’s mutual funds. They may see this as a way to adjust to ever-changing market conditions and unprecedented innovations in the markets.

Disadvantages of Active Management

Actively managed funds generally have higher fees and are less tax-efficient than passively managed funds. The investor is paying for the sustained efforts of investment advisers who specialize in active investment, and for the potential for higher returns than the markets as a whole.

An investor considering active management should take a hard look at the actual returns after fees of the manager.

Advantages of Active Management

A fund manager’s expertise, experience, and judgment are employed by investors in an actively managed fund. An active manager who runs an automotive industry fund might have extensive experience in the field and might invest in a select group of auto-related stocks that the manager concludes are undervalued.

Active fund managers have more flexibility. There is more freedom in the selection process than in an index fund, which must match as closely as possible the selection and weighting of the investments in the index.

Actively managed funds allow for benefits in tax management. The flexibility in buying and selling allows managers to offset losers with winners.

Managing Risk

Active fund managers can manage risks more nimbly. A global banking exchange-traded fund (ETF) may be required to hold a specific number of British banks. That fund is likely to have dropped significantly following the shock Brexit vote in 2016. An actively managed global banking fund, meanwhile, might have reduced its exposure to British banks due to heightened levels of risk.

Active managers can also mitigate risk by using various hedging strategies such as short selling and using derivatives.

Active Management Performance 

There is plenty of controversy surrounding the performance of active managers. Their success or failure depends largely on which of the contradictory statistics is quoted.

Over 10 years ending in 2021, active managers who invested in domestic small growth stocks were most likely to beat the index. A study showed that 88% of active managers in this category outperformed their benchmark index before fees were deducted.