The OCIO landscape is diverse and nuanced: from consultants to asset managers, open architecture to proprietary platforms, and separate line-item fees to pricing that bundles OCIO as asset management fees.
This article explores the key types of OCIO providers, their investment philosophies, and the fee structures that define their services—helping asset owners make informed decisions about which model best fits their needs.
1. The Two Primary OCIO Provider Types
Consultant-Based OCIOs
Consulting firms that have evolved into OCIO providers typically emphasize independence, open architecture, and fiduciary alignment. These firms often began as traditional investment consultants and expanded into discretionary management to meet client demand for more agile and accountable investment execution.
Consultant-based OCIOs, such as Aon, generally select third-party managers based on merit and fit. These open architecture OCIOs offer clients access to a broad universe of investment managers, regardless of affiliation. This model is designed to minimize conflicts of interest, maximize flexibility and objectivity, and ensure that manager selection is driven by client needs, rather than internal product promotion.
Asset Manager-Based OCIOs
In contrast, asset managers that offer OCIO services often integrate their own investment products into client portfolios. These firms may offer economies of scale and deep expertise in some asset classes, but their use of proprietary funds can raise concerns about objectivity.
While some asset manager OCIOs offer access to third-party managers, the degree of openness varies. Asset owners should carefully evaluate whether the provider’s incentives align with their own investment goals.
2. Fee Models: What Are You Really Paying For?
A. Separate Fees
Many OCIOs charge a fee that is separate from the investment managers, as a flat fee or based on assets under management (AUM). This model is transparent and easy to understand. Some OCIOs include services like custody, performance reporting, and operational due diligence into the AUM fee, while others charge separately.
B. Bundling OCIO and Asset Manager Fees
Some OCIOs bundle their fees for OCIO services in with the fees for asset management—this can occur for both consultant-based and asset-manager-based OCIOs. This model provides predictability of total fees, but lacks transparency about how much the client is paying for OCIO services. Further, it provides incentives for the OCIO to use lower cost investment products, even if they are not in the best for the client, because savings accrue directly to the OCIO’s bottom line, not the client.
C. Hidden or Embedded Fees
Clients should be wary of embedded fees, especially in proprietary fund structures. These can include fund-of-funds layers, revenue-sharing arrangements, or markups on underlying manager fees. Transparent OCIOs disclose all layers of fees and provide full visibility into the cost of implementation.
The exhibit below shows a simple example of how one might compare the fees across different models, which can highlight that (1) the asset management fees may be different in an OCIO model because of the scale the OCIO brings, and (2) an OCIO with unbundled fees will have greater transparency than one with bundled fees.
| Fees |
Advisory Model |
OCIO Model: Unbundled Fees |
OCIO Model: Bundled Fees |
Investment Management Fees
(Current Asset Allocation) |
$000,000 (00 bps) |
$000,000 (00 bps) |
$000,000 (00 bps) |
| Investment Consulting Fees |
$000,000 (00 bps) |
$000,000 (00 bps) |
| Total |
$000,000 (00 bps) |
$000,000 (00 bps) |
$000,000 (00 bps) |