the disappointing performance of managed management

Formerly reserved for wealthy clients, management under mandate, also called “managed management” or “delegated management”, has become widespread in almost all life insurance contracts. It has therefore become industrialized. Do not expect to obtain tailor-made management of your contract, this management method works with grids. The modus operandi is as follows: you entrust your savings to the insurer, who, most of the time, relies on the advice of a renowned management company such as Edmond de Rothschild et Management, Carmignac Gestion, Lazard Frères Gestion. , etc.

These establish allocations based on several risk profiles (three to five in general), that is to say they distribute your savings between different investment vehicles. Then, at regular intervals – once a month for example – the management company reviews this distribution and changes it, if necessary, based on its analysis of the market. All clients with the same profile will therefore have exactly the same investments.

Read also: Article reserved for our subscribers Life insurance: what return can you expect from funds in euros?

This monitoring remains no less valuable for an investor who has little time and knowledge to carry out this work themselves. But you must plan to pay additional contract management fees to benefit from it. The results still need to be there. In this matter, opacity is king. Apart from a few online players and certain mutual insurance companies, professionals do not communicate the performance of their mandates.

Eighty-five performances analyzed

However, the site specializing in personal insurance and financial investments Good Value for Money collected, clified and analyzed the performances of 85 offers over the last six calendar years, between 2017 and 2022. Each insurer developing its own profiles and using its own nomenclature, their management offers under mandate were clified for this study into five risk levels.

Result: over this period, the average annual performance amounted to 0.87% for the prudent profile (the least risky), 1% for the moderate profile, 2.12% for the balanced, 2.72% for the offensive and 3.99% for the bold (the riskiest). These figures are net of all media and contract fees.

“These results show that managed management is only profitable for savers who agree to take a significant dose of risk”comments Cyrille Chartier-Kastler, the founder of Good Value for Money. “Below the dynamic and offensive profiles, managed management returned less than the euro fund over the period. These profiles were penalized by the lack of risk taking and by the piling up of costs from insurers and management companies. »

You have 40% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.

Source link

Leave a Reply