Can a student-managed fund transfer expert financial knowledge? Examining trustee voting consensus in a student-managed investments program

Abstract

Purpose

The “experience is the best teacher” model assumes that acquiring expertise in a given domain reduces biases. Research in expert knowledge in investment decisions has shown better ability to produce improved results in asset selection or portfolio returns. Universities created student-managed investment funds (SMIFs) to train students in portfolio management as fiduciaries. However, analyses of the effectiveness of the SMIF as a medium for expert knowledge transfer have not been done.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors’ analyze an SMIF's structure against established models of expert knowledge transfer, using the voting patterns of the trustees of the fund from the recorded minutes of the fund's meetings to show the fund's structure and outcomes demonstrate effective knowledge transfer. Voter consensus between faculty and student trustees is one proxy the authors use for knowledge transfer.

Findings

Consensus between faculty and students was uniformly high across all recommendations. Chi-square tests were employed to test for independence between approval of recommendation and level of consensus, showing dependence in most cases. Analysis of sale returns over the 12-year sample period showed significantly better performance of asset sales over relevant benchmarks for both equity and fixed income portfolios.

Originality/value

Most analyses of SMIF structure concentrate on well-known issues with things like student turnover, summers or other structural issues. Performance is evaluated based on returns. This study looks at the SMIF as an expert knowledge transfer medium and examines expert/novice decision approval in terms of knowledge transfer.

Citation

Belcher, L.J. and Belcher, L.J. (2023), "Can a student-managed fund transfer expert financial knowledge? Examining trustee voting consensus in a student-managed investments program", Managerial Finance, Vol. 49 No. 9, pp. 1502-1516. https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-09-2022-0429