-
Private investors rarely have direct access to the fund managers running their portfolio holdings, limiting their ability to understand the decisions behind performance data.
-
Professional, whole-of-market investment firms like MKC Invest meet fund managers face-to-face, challenge their thinking, and hold them accountable on behalf of investors.
-
These meetings provide qualitative insights - such as team stability, process discipline, and governance strength - that cannot be found in factsheets or past performance tables.
-
Combining quantitative analysis with direct engagement offers a fuller picture of a fund’s strengths and risks, helping to inform more robust portfolio decisions.
When it comes to investing, private investors often rely on historic data: charts, past performance tables, or peer-group rankings. These tools can be helpful in building a picture of how a fund has behaved in the past. They offer a degree of comparability, are easy to access, and can be digested without needing to speak to anyone involved in managing the money.
But this only scratches the surface. True discernment in fund selection lies in what is beyond the numbers: the reality of a fund manager’s current thinking, the processes guiding their decisions, and the factors that will shape tomorrow’s performance. This depth of understanding can only be uncovered through direct engagement - conversation, challenge, and professional scrutiny.
For most private investors, these opportunities do not exist. They have no means of sitting across the table from the fund managers responsible for their portfolio holdings. They cannot test a manager’s conviction, question their rationale, or explore their contingency plans.
This is the gap that professional, whole-of-market investment firms can fill. By meeting managers face-to-face, challenging their thinking, and holding them accountable, such firms provide investors with an extra layer of oversight that goes far beyond what is visible on a factsheet.
Data vs Dialogue: The Hidden Advantage
Publicly accessible metrics like returns, volatility, or tracking error offer a snapshot of what a fund has done. They can help identify consistency, volatility, and relative position within a peer group. But they do not explain why a fund performed the way it did. They reveal little about the investment culture, decision-making framework, research discipline, or the specific market tailwinds and headwinds that shaped those returns.
It is in this “why” - and in the ability to assess whether a fund’s results are likely to be repeatable - that professional oversight holds a decisive advantage.
Firms like MKC Invest do not just collect historic data; they meet fund managers face-to-face, interrogate their reasoning, and assess subtle qualitative signals that will never appear in a spreadsheet. These signals might include the way a team debates investment ideas, how consistently a process is applied in difficult markets, or whether a manager has adapted thoughtfully to structural changes in the economy.
These meetings go far deeper than survey responses or marketing slides. They explore team cohesion, investment culture, process discipline, and roadmaps under stress — the very attributes that determine whether today’s track record is underpinned by skill and discipline, or whether it is a product of temporary circumstances.
Why Meetings Matter: Evidence from the Field
There is robust evidence supporting this approach. A Two Sigma/Venn study concluded that qualitative insights from meetings significantly add value. On a related note, other academic research shows that fund managers who engage in private dialogue with portfolio firms gain “soft information”: nuanced insights that cannot be captured in public data, but which can influence performance outcomes.
This kind of access allows professional investors to test the resilience of a fund’s strategy. A manager may have delivered exceptional returns in the past, but a deeper conversation can reveal if this was achieved by taking concentrated bets, benefiting from favourable market cycles, or through a truly repeatable process.
Equally, a manager with unremarkable past returns might be running a robust, disciplined process that positions them well for different market conditions ahead. This balance between data and dialogue helps form a more rounded view — one that recognises both the potential and the limitations of any strategy.
The Depth of Due Diligence
Unlike private investors, who generally rely on what is publicly available, professional investment teams conduct a multi-layered due diligence process that blends quantitative analysis, qualitative evaluation, and operational checks.
Quantitative analysis examines performance consistency, risk-adjusted returns, factor exposures, and portfolio construction. It seeks to determine whether returns were achieved through market movements or genuine skill, and how the fund behaves in different conditions.
Qualitative evaluation looks beyond the numbers, assessing team dynamics, decision-making frameworks, investment process discipline, alignment between the manager’s stated approach and their actual implementation, and succession plans.
Operational due diligence checks governance, infrastructure, compliance, risk controls, legal structures, and the quality of service providers. Weaknesses in these areas can present hidden risks regardless of investment skill.
This structured approach is not just best practice; it is essential. Funds can differ dramatically not just in the assets they hold, but in how they think, govern, and react under pressure.
MKC Invest: Whole-of-Market, Front-Line Access
At MKC Invest, this philosophy applies across the full investable market. The team systematically:
- Identifies and meets hundreds of fund managers annually.
- Engages directly with the people responsible for portfolio decisions.
- Drills into strategy rationale, benchmark selection, risk stress-testing, and operational discipline.
This is about more than relationship-building - it is about ongoing accountability. Regular meetings allow MKC Invest to track whether managers stay true to their process, adapt appropriately to changing conditions, and maintain the culture and discipline that support good decision-making.
For private investors, replicating this is almost impossible. They cannot easily arrange such meetings, access internal research teams, or probe the operational side of a fund. Through professional oversight, they gain indirect access to that process - and the reassurance that someone is actively questioning and monitoring those managing their money.
Why It Matters
Deciding whether a fund is “good” based purely on past numbers is akin to hiring someone based on their CV alone: it tells you what they have done, but not how they will respond to future challenges.
By contrast, the professional oversight process enables:
- Transparency - Asking direct questions about positioning, strategy changes, and decision triggers.
- Consistency signals - Testing whether managers would stick to their process in adverse conditions.
- Governance confidence - Assessing how they would handle key departures, operational risks, or market shocks.
These insights do not remove the inherent uncertainty of investing, but they do provide a more complete picture of the risks and potential of a strategy.
The Professional Edge
Private investors are limited by time, access, and the information available in the public domain. They often rely on marketing narratives or rankings based on past data.
Professional managers are empowered by direct access, contextual understanding, operational insight, and the ability to track integrity and skill over time.
If investing were a sport, relying solely on performance tables is like judging a team by the scoreboard without seeing the training ground, understanding the tactics, or knowing the fitness and discipline of the players. In markets where advantages can be small and fleeting, that extra insight matters.
Conclusion
Numbers alone tell only part of the story. Real confidence in fund selection comes not from past tables, but from looking fund managers in the eye, probing their logic, challenging their assumptions, and testing their conviction. That is precisely the advantage offered by whole-of-market portfolio managers such as MKC Invest.
This approach does not guarantee success - markets are unpredictable, and all investments carry risk. But it does ensure that the decisions shaping a portfolio are subject to rigorous, informed, and ongoing scrutiny.
After all, if you are entrusting someone with your long-term financial future, shouldn’t you know that someone has looked them in the whites of their eyes?
Important: The value of investments can go down as well as up, and you may get back less than you invest. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.
