Skip to main content
Log in

Equilibrium Incentives to Acquire Precise Information in Delegated Portfolio Management

  • Published:
Journal of Financial Services Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates how a linear contract offered to a portfolio manager affects her incentives to acquire precise information. I show that increasing the manager's portfolio share increases her demand for precise information. This result contrasts with the existing irrelevance results where the manager's portfolio share does not affect her precision choice. The irrelevance result relies on the manager facing a constant asset price, regardless of her demand. In a noisy rational expectations framework, increasing the manager's share decreases her demand and results in a less informative asset price. Thus, the manager gathers more precise information when offered a larger fraction of portfolio returns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Admati, A., and P. Pfleiderer. “Does It All Add Up? Benchmarks and Compensation of Active Portfolio Managers.” Journal of Business 70 (1997), 323–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, F., and G. Gorton. “Churning Bubbles.” Review of Economic Studies 60 (1993), 813–836.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biais, B., and L. Germain. “Incentive Compatible Contracts for the Sale of Information.” The Review of Financial Studies 15 (2002), 987–1003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, J. “Does Option Compensation Increase Managerial Risk Appetite.” Journal of Finance 55 (2000), 2311–2331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, S. R., and R. Sundaram. “Fee Speech: Signalling, Risk Sharing, and The Impact of Fee Structures on Investor Welfare.” The Review of Financial Studies 15 (2002), 1465–1497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davanzo, L., and S. Nesbit. “Performance Fees for Investment Management.” Financial Analyst Journal January (1987), 14–20.

  • Goldman, E., and S. Slezak. “Delegated Portfolio Management and Rational Prolonged Mispricing.” Journal of Finance 58 (2003), 283–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golec, J. “Empirical Tests of a Principal/Agent Model of the Investor/Investment Advisor Relationship.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 27 (1992), 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinblatt, M., and S. Titman. “Adverse Risk Incentives and Design of Performance Based Contracts.” Management Science 35 (1989), 807–822.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinold, R., and A. Rudd. “Incentive Fees: Who Wins? Who Loses?” Financial Analyst Journal, January (1987), 27–38.

  • Huberman, G., and S. Kandel. “On the Incentives for Money Managers: A Signalling Approach.” European Economic Review 37 (1993), 1065–1081.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, R., and A. Craig. Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, Fourth Edition. Macmillan Publishing: New York, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakonishok, J. A., A. Schleifer, and R. Vishny. “The Structure and Performance of the Money Management Industry.” Brookings Papers: Microeconomics (1992), 339–391.

  • Stoughton, N. “Moral Hazard and the Portfolio Management Problem.” Journal of Finance 48 (1993), 2009–2028.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. B. “Theory of Syndicates.” Econometrica 36 (1968), 119–132.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ozerturk, S. Equilibrium Incentives to Acquire Precise Information in Delegated Portfolio Management. Journal of Financial Services Research 25, 25–36 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FINA.0000008663.41246.2c

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FINA.0000008663.41246.2c

Navigation