In our previous post, Strategic Asset Allocation: 6 Practical Frameworks for Better Decisions, we explored different methodologies that guide long-term asset allocation. While each approach has its merits, the reality is that most institutions use a blend of methods that fit their particular circumstances.

For those who prefer a structured approach with room for judgment, Mean-Variance Optimization (MVO) continues to be a cornerstone tool. But let's be honest – MVO is only as good as:

  1. The inputs you feed it (your capital market assumptions)
  2. The qualitative judgment you apply to its outputs
  3. How well your Investment Committee and staff collaborate throughout the process
  4. Your ability to execute through thoughtful manager selection

At Resonanz Capital, we've seen firsthand how institutions struggle to bridge the gap between elegant theory and messy reality. This post will walk through how real Investment Committees (ICs) can practically implement MVO while ensuring their governance structure and manager relationships support their strategic allocation decisions.

1. Getting Started: Setting Clear Objectives and Boundaries

What the IC Really Does:

The Investment Committee's first job is to answer fundamental questions that shape everything else:

  • "What return do we actually need?" (Maybe it's CPI + 4.5% to support your spending policy)
  • "How much volatility can we tolerate before we start making emotional decisions?"
  • "What's our true liquidity profile – how much cash might we need and when?"
  • "Are there investments we simply won't consider, regardless of the numbers?" (ESG considerations, certain sectors, etc.)

We've seen committees spend hours debating optimal allocations without first agreeing on these basics. Don't make that mistake.

How Staff Supports This:

Your investment team then takes these high-level directives and transforms them into something quantifiable:

  • Mapping out which asset classes are even on the table
  • Defining liquidity tiers (e.g., "we need 25% accessible within 30 days")
  • Setting up practical risk guardrails to monitor

This initial step creates the playing field for all subsequent decisions. Without it, you're essentially optimizing in the dark.

2. The Engine Room: Developing Realistic Capital Market Assumptions

Let's face it – your optimization is only as good as your inputs. Capital market assumptions are educated guesses about future returns, risks, and correlations. They're never perfect, but they need to be thoughtful.

The IC's Contribution:

Smart committees don't just accept staff or consultant projections at face value. They:

  • Challenge key assumptions: "Are these inflation estimates realistic given current Fed policy?"
  • Bring real-world perspectives: "We've been through three market cycles, and correlations always go to 1 in a crisis"
  • Ensure assumptions align with their investment philosophy: "We believe emerging markets are structurally undervalued over the next decade"

The best committees ask probing questions without micromanaging the technical details.

Where Staff Adds Value:

Your investment team does the analytical heavy lifting:

  • Diving into historical patterns while recognizing their limitations
  • Incorporating forward-looking indicators like yield curves and valuation metrics
  • Leveraging outside research while filtering for biases
  • Using techniques like Black-Litterman to blend quantitative outputs with committee insights

This isn't just number-crunching – it's creating a set of reasonable expectations about how different assets might behave over your time horizon.

3. The Technical Core: Running Your Baseline Optimization

With clear objectives and thoughtful assumptions, now comes the mathematical heart of the process – identifying portfolios that maximize return for a given level of risk.

Staff's Technical Process:

Your investment team will:

  1. Map out your investment universe: Define the full menu of asset classes available to you – from traditional stocks and bonds to alternatives like private equity, real estate, or hedge funds.
  2. Set practical guardrails: Translate the IC's guidance into specific parameters: "No more than 20% in illiquid assets," "Minimum 30% in fixed income," or "Maximum 5% to any single manager."
  3. Generate the efficient frontier: Run the optimization to identify the portfolios that theoretically deliver the best return for various risk levels.
  4. Identify a manageable set of options: Narrow down to 3-5 reasonable portfolio mixes that hit different risk-return profiles but are all implementable.

 

How the IC Engages:

The committee's job is to examine these outputs with a critical eye:

  • "These private equity allocations look high – do we have the patience and governance to maintain that exposure through market cycles?"
  • "I notice emerging markets get a large allocation – is that driven by unrealistic return assumptions?"
  • "How different is this from our current portfolio, and what would implementation actually entail?"

Good committees recognize that the optimization output is the beginning of the conversation, not the final word.

4. Reality Testing: Stress Tests and Qualitative Filters

The mathematical optimization gives you efficiency on paper. Now you need to see how these portfolios might hold up in the real world.

Putting Portfolios Through Their Paces

Your investment team should test candidate portfolios against:

  • Historical stress periods (how would this mix have performed in 2008 or during the 2020 COVID crash?)
  • Hypothetical scenarios that keep you up at night (rapid inflation, geopolitical crises, liquidity freezes)
  • Prolonged challenging environments (what if we face a "lost decade" with low returns?)

We've seen too many institutions adopt theoretically optimal portfolios without understanding how they might perform in adverse conditions. Don't skip this step.

The Governance Reality Check

Here's where honest self-assessment matters:

  • Does your committee have the expertise to oversee complex alternatives?
  • Does your staff have the bandwidth to monitor sophisticated strategies?
  • Can you stay disciplined during market stress, or will you abandon the strategy at the worst possible time?

One foundation we worked with reduced their private equity allocation not because it was mathematically suboptimal, but because they realistically assessed their governance limitations. That's wisdom.

Aligning with Your Mission and Values

For many endowments and family offices, financial returns aren't the only consideration:

  • How does this portfolio align with your broader institutional mission?
  • Are there sectors or approaches that conflict with your values?
  • Should impact investments be incorporated, and if so, how?

The optimization won't answer these questions – they require thoughtful discussion about what matters beyond the numbers.

5. Making It Real: From Asset Classes to Actual Investments

Even the most elegant asset allocation is just a theoretical exercise until you implement it through actual investments – typically via external managers for most institutions.

How the IC Shapes Implementation:

The committee needs to establish ground rules for manager selection:

  • Setting performance expectations for active management
  • Defining acceptable fee levels and structures
  • Determining how concentrated or diversified manager lineups should be
  • Establishing criteria for hiring and firing decisions

Your best asset allocation can be undermined by poor implementation choices. Be as thoughtful about manager selection as you are about asset allocation.

Staff's Critical Role:

Your investment team transforms the allocation into a portfolio by:

  • Researching and vetting managers across both performance and qualitative dimensions
  • Building a complementary roster where manager strengths and weaknesses balance each other
  • Creating a monitoring framework that flags concerns before they become problems
  • Providing clear reporting that keeps the IC informed without drowning them in details

The best staff teams understand that implementation isn't just about finding the "best" managers – it's about finding the right combination of managers to bring your strategic allocation to life.

Connecting the Dots:

Manager selection and asset allocation must work hand-in-hand:

  • Each manager should have a clear role in fulfilling a specific portion of your target allocation
  • Style exposures (growth/value, quality, size) should be deliberately managed across the portfolio
  • Factor risks should be monitored to avoid unintended concentrations
  • The aggregate manager lineup should reflect the risk/return profile you established in your SAA

We've seen too many institutions develop a thoughtful asset allocation only to implement it with a random collection of managers that create an entirely different risk profile. Integration matters.

6. Staying on Track: Policies, Rebalancing, and Monitoring

Once your strategic allocation is implemented, disciplined oversight keeps it effective.

Formalizing Your Approach:

The Investment Policy Statement isn't just a compliance document – it's your roadmap:

  • Document target allocations and allowable ranges
  • Establish clear rebalancing triggers and processes
  • Define benchmarks that actually match your strategy
  • Clarify who has authority to make different types of decisions

A well-crafted IPS reduces the risk of reactive decision-making during market stress.

The Discipline of Rebalancing:

Rebalancing is where theory meets practical reality:

  • Your staff monitors positions against targets, identifying when you drift beyond established ranges
  • The committee ensures the rebalancing approach balances transaction costs against maintaining your risk profile
  • Both groups need to resist the temptation to let winners run indefinitely (which fundamentally changes your risk exposure)

We've watched institutions meticulously develop allocations only to let market movements completely reshape their portfolios over time. Disciplined rebalancing is essential.

Honest Performance Assessment:

Regular review keeps your strategy on track:

  • Staff prepares attribution analysis that explains where returns are coming from
  • The IC evaluates progress toward long-term objectives, not just recent performance
  • Both groups reassess whether fundamental assumptions remain valid as markets evolve

The best committees maintain perspective during both outperformance and underperformance, recognizing that strategic allocation is a long-term proposition.

Making the IC-Staff Partnership Work

The success of this entire framework hinges on effective collaboration between committee and staff:

  • Respect different lanes – The IC focuses on policy and oversight; staff handles analysis and execution
  • Communicate clearly and often – Regular updates prevent surprises and build trust
  • Document decisions and rationales – Institutional memory matters, especially as committee membership changes
  • Create space for education – The investment landscape constantly evolves, and committees need ongoing learning
  • Foster constructive debate – The best decisions emerge when assumptions are respectfully challenged
  • Be explicit about decision rights – Clarity about who decides what prevents confusion and delays

We've seen brilliant investment strategies fail because of governance dysfunction. The human element matters as much as the analytics.

Conclusion: Blending Rigor with Practicality

Mean-Variance Optimization provides a powerful analytical starting point for Strategic Asset Allocation. But its true value comes when combined with judgment, governance, and disciplined implementation.

The most successful institutions approach SAA as a collaborative process where:

  • The Investment Committee provides direction, oversight, and perspective
  • Investment staff contributes analysis, implementation, and monitoring
  • External managers execute with skill in their specific domains

This integrated approach creates an allocation that's not just mathematically elegant but practically effective – one that can be maintained through market cycles and organizational changes.

In our experience working with dozens of institutions, the difference between theoretical optimization and actual success comes down to this blend of quantitative rigor and qualitative wisdom. Asset allocation isn't just a mathematical exercise – it's a governance process that requires both head and heart.

Subscribe to our Newsletter