Why is our money-weighted return lower than the manager's time-weighted return?
The manager reports what the portfolio earned; the internal rate of return reports what the scheme's money earned, and the difference belongs to whoever chose the flow dates.
Because a time-weighted return gives every year an equal vote and a money-weighted return weights each year by the capital exposed to it. On the Marchwood mandate the two differ by 0.6739 point a year — 4.8012 per cent net against 4.1272 per cent net. The scheme's largest balance met its worst year and its smallest balance met its best. In money the timing cost 6,357,745.18, which is 12.1 times the manager's net outperformance of 0.0556 point a year.
Two returns, both correct
A time-weighted return gives every year an equal vote. It strips out money arriving and leaving on dates the manager did not choose and could not refuse, which is why it is the right thing for a manager to report. A money-weighted return — the internal rate of return on the dated cash — gives each year a vote proportional to the capital exposed to it. On the Marchwood mandate the first is 4.8012 per cent a year net and the second is 4.1272 per cent a year net. Both are correct, and neither is an error.
The two disagree exactly to the extent that capital was badly distributed across the years. The scheme was funded with 500,000,000, took in a bulk transfer of 120,000,000 at the start of Year 2, and paid a buy-in premium of 180,000,000 out at the start of Year 3.
Year
Opening balance
Net return
Gain or loss
Year 1
500,000,000.00
10.5431%
52,715,380.00
Year 2
672,715,380.00
-6.1938%
-41,666,554.15
Year 3
451,048,825.85
12.2431%
55,222,547.41
Year 4
506,271,373.26
5.5923%
28,312,385.52
Year 5
534,583,758.78
2.8667%
15,325,120.77
The five years of the mandate, net of fees.
Read the first two numeric columns together. The largest balance of the five years, 672,715,380.00, met the worst year, in which the portfolio lost 5.9320 per cent gross and 6.1938 net. The smallest balance, 451,048,825.85, met the best year, in which it made 12.5490 gross and 12.2431 net. That is the whole of the 0.6739 point. The transfer arrived in time for the loss and the premium left in time to miss the recovery.
The same gap, in money
A percentage gap of this kind is easy to nod at and hard to feel, so convert it. Take the scheme's net capital of 440,000,000, place all of it at inception, leave it alone, and let it earn exactly the portfolio returns it did earn. No skill is added, no timing is improved, and nothing about the manager changes.
Capital schedule
Terminal value
As it actually happened
549,908,879.55
All at inception, same returns
556,266,624.73
Cost of the flow timing
6,357,745.18
That 6,357,745.18 is 1.4449 per cent of the capital the scheme put in and 5.78 per cent of the 109,908,879.55 the mandate actually gained. Set it beside total fees of 7,616,440.40 and it is 83.5 per cent of five years of management charges. The fee was negotiated hard and disclosed fully; most of that amount again was lost to a matter on which nobody put a figure.
The vivid version of this story blames the withdrawal, and the arithmetic does not support it. Split the 6,357,745.18 by flow. The 120,000,000 arrived a year late and so missed Year 1's 10.5431 per cent net, worth 14,469,310.14 carried forward to the end. The 180,000,000 that left had earned a cumulative 3.6963 per cent net over Years 1 and 2, which the all-at-inception schedule never has, and that runs 8,111,557.49 the other way. The expensive decision was the late arrival, not the exit.
What the number will not bear
Two limits, and stating them protects the figure from the first person who wants it dropped.
It will not bear comparison between schemes. A money-weighted return is a fact about one set of cash flows and one investment history together, so ranking 4.1272 against another scheme's figure is meaningless. The only legitimate comparison is a scheme against itself, money-weighted against time-weighted, on the same portfolio over the same window.
It will not bear being generalised into a rule about flows. The gap is large here because the flows were large: the transfer in was 24.0 per cent of the mandate at inception and the payment out was 26.8 per cent of the balance it left. A scheme with flows of two or three per cent a year would show a gap measured in single basis points.
Nor does the 0.6739 overlap with anything already reported. It does not double-count the fee drag of 0.2875 point a year or the gross outperformance of 0.3432. Those are properties of the portfolio's returns; this is a property of the capital exposed to them.
The line the pack should carry
Beneath the time-weighted return since inception, net, put the money-weighted return since inception, net, on the same basis and to the same number of decimals, and beside them the difference in money. On this mandate it reads 4.8012, 4.1272 and 6,357,745.18. It needs five dated amounts and one closing balance, all of which sit in the administrator's records before the quarter closes, and a single spreadsheet function. There is no system to buy.
The covering note should say what the line is not. It is not an accusation. The flows were sound decisions taken for sound reasons, and neither was a market call. The difference will sometimes be positive, and in those years the line reports a windfall. What changes is the shape of the next conversation: with five years of this line in the pack, the date on which a large transfer is funded stops being a purely administrative output and becomes a choice with a measurable spread.
The workbooks behind this article
Every figure above is a live formula in the free companion files for
Asset Management. Each workbook ends with a Checks sheet
setting the printed figure beside the computed one. No account and no email address.
At what wealth does a family office pay?A five-person office costs the same $2,442,000 at $100m as at $2bn. Against a tiered multi-family schedule the two curves cross exactly once.
Does an undrawn revolver count as liquidity?67.4567 per cent of the headroom, and it leaves at a fall in annual revenue of 8.4127 per cent — not the 13.3333 per cent the board deck implies.
Does supply chain finance count as debt?66,049,315 released, and leverage of 2.7622× or 3.1362× depending on which balance the test is asked of — the second is a breach at today's EBITDA.
Does the fulcrum move with enterprise value?A worked capital structure at three enterprise values. The break migrates from the first lien to the subordinated notes without a single document changing.
How many companies does a reserve pool defend?Holding pro rata to the Series D costs $14.76m per company. A $40m reserve defends 2.71 of forty — and 61 per cent of the cost is the last round.
How much room a 1.15x downside actually leaves79 basis points of margin. The leverage covenant fails first, five basis points before the coverage covenant the chapter reports on, and 4.6 per cent of EBITDA is the whole cushion.
How the GP catch-up is actually solvedMost write-ups state the catch-up formula then hardcode the answer. Set it as a solve and it moves on its own when the carry rate does.
How do you set a minimum cash balance?Three components, 124,596,281 in total — and the double count that turns a margin of 27,403,719 into an apparent shortfall of -3,988,281.
Is a 2/10 net 60 discount worth taking?An annualised 14.8980 per cent against a revolver at 4.50 per cent — worth 5,471,890 a year, and 0.3132 turns of reported leverage.
Should corporate debt be fixed or floating?78.1818 per cent of gross debt fixed, and a net floating exposure after cash of -608,000.00 — the proportion, not the instrument.
Six ways to state the same fund's return7.12 per cent, 18.04 per cent, or 1.323 times the public market — one fund, one set of flows. The eleven-point gap is the valuation, and it is not cash.
The IRR at which a closed-ended fund merely tiesA drawdown fund advertising 13.25 per cent ties an evergreen netting 8.64. On committed rather than called capital, 78.7 per cent of the edge vanishes.
The month a remediation trigger has to be armed byMonth 8, on a one-year window and a 14-week hiring lead time. The date is 12W − L/4.33 and holds for any portfolio size — the book only changes the euros.
Two routes to the same NAVFive findings in one quarter-end close, and not one of them was a modelling error. Every one was a control that did not exist.
What a CBAM certificate buffer costs to holdCarry and protection are both linear in the buffer, so the break-even probability is identical at 5 per cent and at 30 — and 2027 costs exactly twice 2026.
What a clawback actually collateralises24 million recovers 13.20 net of tax and 7.20 is escrowed. The rule is e ≥ 1 − t, and every euro won on the tax clause lands uncollateralised.
What a co-investment programme actually saves37 basis points, and a 22.8 per cent total-loss rate erases it. At the usual per-deal cap a single failure is 37 per cent of the annual cohort.
What a diligence exercise actually recoversEighteen basis points is only the part that reaches the yield. Three of the four instruments never do, and the exercise is worth thirty-one.
What a follow-on reserve is actually worth0.019 turns under plain dilution, 0.285 under pay-to-play. The optimum is a property of the shareholders’ agreement, not of the portfolio.
What a lease mark-to-market is actually worth5,788,000 becomes 807,365 once the over-market stream, the expiry dates and the cost of re-letting are priced — and nothing at all below a 43.7 per cent renewal rate.
What a minimum payment actually does£81.53 leaves the account and £20.46 reaches the debt. On minimums alone the set clears in 258 months and repays 1.78 times what was borrowed.
What a month of delay costs in an enforcement463,000 euros of present value a month. No single error about enforcement, and no pair of errors, moves the indifference point from 58.7 cents to the 72 on the table.
What a pro rata cheque actually costsDefending costs 1.25 times the initial cheque across two rounds, not more in each — and below a 521 exit the follow-on dollars come back worth less than they cost.
What a subscription line does to the IRR20 per cent becomes 38.41 on the same asset while the multiple falls. Two dollars of interest buys 18.4 points, and the longer the line runs the cheaper each point gets.
What one point of fees actually costsOne point on the annual charge turns 738,846 into 567,961 over forty years — 23 per cent of the pot, and 2.43 of wealth lost per 1 of fee.
When the promote stops clearingCarried interest is not proportional to performance near the hurdle. It is a step function, and $2m of headroom is what stands between a promote and none.
Why a secondaries bid-ask gap has no zoneThe seller’s floor and the buyer’s ceiling are one formula at two rates. At equal required returns the zone is exactly zero — here it is 11.02 points apart.
Why refining a due diligence rubric makes it weakerThree of twelve managers carry a terminal flaw and the average approves all three. Splitting eight domains into sixteen makes it easier to hide, not harder.