Search results

From 2005 to 2015, the total assets managed by open private pension funds increased more than six times in Brazil, where the Free Benefit Generating Plan (PGBL) and the Free Benefit Generating Life (VGBL) represent 90% of these assets. However, private pension institutions are characterized by the collection of high management fees, thus keeping for themselves much of the benefits offered by the government as incentive for investment in this modality. High management fees are justified only when there is active management of these funds, theoretically generating higher performance: this study indicates that this is not the case in this market segment. Similar problems have been faced in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Sweden, which filed investigation concerning funds that charge high management fees for active management, while they actually provide management that may be regarded as passive. This demonstrates the scale and relevance of this issue, which has been surveyed and addressed by this study. To do this, dynamic style analysis was performed, through rolling regressions, followed by Kalman filter analysis in funds from the top-five private pension institutions in Brazil. Analyzing the exposure evolution of these funds to various asset classes and the R2 generated, passivity traces were found, mainly in composite variable income funds. Such funds are precisely those that should be more actively managed, as they charge the highest management fees. This article also demonstrates it is possible to build a passive portfolio, having a very similar style and returns without statistically significant differences, but at a lower management fee (and aligned with passive funds). ; De 2005 a 2015, o total de ativos geridos por fundos de previdência privada aberta no Brasil mais do que sextuplicou, com o Plano Gerador de Benefícios Livres (PGBL) e o Vida Gerador de Benefícios Livres (VGBL) representando 90% desses ativos. Entretanto, as instituições de previdência privada têm como característica a cobrança de elevadas taxas de administração, ficando, assim, com boa parte dos benefícios oferecidos pelo governo como incentivo para os investimentos nessa modalidade. Altas taxas de administração são justificáveis quando há uma gestão ativa desses fundos, gerando, em tese, uma performance superior: este estudo indica que não é isso que ocorre nesse segmento de mercado. Problemas semelhantes têm sido enfrentados em outros países, como Reino Unido, Dinamarca e Suécia, nos quais se abriu investigação a respeito de fundos que cobram altas taxas de administração por uma gestão ativa enquanto proporcionam, na realidade, uma gestão que pode ser considerada passiva. Isso demonstra o tamanho e a relevância desse problema, que foi levantado e abordado por este estudo. Para tanto, recorreu-se à análise dinâmica de estilos, via janelas móveis, seguida da análise via filtro de Kalman em fundos das cinco principais instituições de previdência privada do Brasil. A partir da análise da evolução das exposições desses fundos às diferentes classes de ativos e dos R2 gerados, encontraram-se indícios de passividade, principalmente nos fundos compostos com renda variável. Tais fundos são justamente os que deveriam ter gestão mais ativa, pois cobram as maiores taxas de administração. Este artigo também demonstra que é possível construir uma carteira passiva, com estilo muito semelhante e retornos sem diferenças estatisticamente significativas, mas com taxa de administração mais baixa (e alinhada com fundos passivos).

ABSTRACT From 2005 to 2015, the total assets managed by open private pension funds increased more than six times in Brazil, where the Free Benefit Generating Plan (PGBL) and the Free Benefit Generating Life (VGBL) represent 90% of these assets. However, private pension institutions are characterized by the collection of high management fees, thus keeping for themselves much of the benefits offered by the government as incentive for investment in this modality. High management fees are justified only when there is active management of these funds, theoretically generating higher performance: this study indicates that this is not the case in this market segment. Similar problems have been faced in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Sweden, which filed investigation concerning funds that charge high management fees for active management, while they actually provide management that may be regarded as passive. This demonstrates the scale and relevance of this issue, which has been surveyed and addressed by this study. To do this, dynamic style analysis was performed, through rolling regressions, followed by Kalman filter analysis in funds from the top-five private pension institutions in Brazil. Analyzing the exposure evolution of these funds to various asset classes and the R2 generated, passivity traces were found, mainly in composite variable income funds. Such funds are precisely those that should be more actively managed, as they charge the highest management fees. This article also demonstrates it is possible to build a passive portfolio, having a very similar style and returns without statistically significant differences, but at a lower management fee (and aligned with passive funds).

ABSTRACT From 2005 to 2015, the total assets managed by open private pension funds increased more than six times in Brazil, where the Free Benefit Generating Plan (PGBL) and the Free Benefit Generating Life (VGBL) represent 90% of these assets. However, private pension institutions are characterized by the collection of high management fees, thus keeping for themselves much of the benefits offered by the government as incentive for investment in this modality. High management fees are justified only when there is active management of these funds, theoretically generating higher performance: this study indicates that this is not the case in this market segment. Similar problems have been faced in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Sweden, which filed investigation concerning funds that charge high management fees for active management, while they actually provide management that may be regarded as passive. This demonstrates the scale and relevance of this issue, which has been surveyed and addressed by this study. To do this, dynamic style analysis was performed, through rolling regressions, followed by Kalman filter analysis in funds from the top-five private pension institutions in Brazil. Analyzing the exposure evolution of these funds to various asset classes and the R2 generated, passivity traces were found, mainly in composite variable income funds. Such funds are precisely those that should be more actively managed, as they charge the highest management fees. This article also demonstrates it is possible to build a passive portfolio, having a very similar style and returns without statistically significant differences, but at a lower management fee (and aligned with passive funds).