Insight Article Desktop Banner
Insight Article
July 27, 2023

How Multi-Manager Platforms Find Strength in Numbers

Insight Video Mobile Banner
July 27, 2023

How Multi-Manager Platforms Find Strength in Numbers

Insight Article

How Multi-Manager Platforms Find Strength in Numbers

Share Icon

July 27, 2023


Multi-manager platforms are experiencing a surge in investor interest. Consider this excerpt from Bloomberg article:

“Investors are plowing money into funds that don’t rely on the next macro genius or star stockpicker, but instead offer an army of traders who invest in an array of strategies. These behemoths secured pretty much all of the new money in the hedge fund industry last year, cementing a tectonic shift that’s accelerated since the pandemic.”1


Why are these vehicles attracting so many investors? How do they compare with traditional hedge funds? What should investors consider if they are interested in them? We tackle these and other fundamental questions about multi-manager platforms in the following FAQ.

1. What are multi-manager platform hedge funds?

Multi-PM hedge funds, hedge fund platforms, or Multi-Manager Platforms (“Multi-PM” or “MMPs”) are investment organizations that employ many specialized hedge fund managers and strategies, collectively operating as one entity, where individual units have discrete P&L responsibilities.

Multi-PMs share several characteristics:

  • They are investment vehicles in which the manager oversees a number of independent portfolio management and trading teams.
  • Multi-PMs are responsible for integrating risks and overseeing all operational activities, even though decision-making can be centralized or decentralized, and the investment approach can be coordinated or free standing.
  • Many are designed as all-weather investments, seeking to deliver absolute return and attractive risk-adjusted returns throughout almost any market environment. Some, less concerned about neutrality, seek to concentrate the best ideas into a mix of bottoms-up/top-down portfolio construction methodology. Others apply thematic tilts to the portfolio, trying to take advantage of investment trends, momentum or short-term market moves.
  • Multi-PM platforms deploy capital across many multi-asset opportunities, including a wide variety of fundamental and quantitative strategies.
  • They manage the risks generated by the underlying investment teams, relying on substantial investments in technology and expert teams of investment and IT professionals.

2. Broadly speaking, what are the potential advantages for the client of a Multi-PM platform over the traditional, single-manager hedge fund?

Managers of traditional hedge funds are typically sophisticated specialists and gifted investors, employing any of almost three dozen strategies, as defined and classified by organizations such as Hedge Fund Research, Eurekahedge, or Preqin. Investors must not only select which hedge fund strategy is best for the prevailing environment, but also which manager is best positioned to execute the strategy. Consequently, single-manager funds tend to carry net exposures and trading betas associated with their particular strategy. More often they are amplified forms of the manager’s investment views, leading to highly correlated ideas and holdings. In many cases, portfolio construction and risk management tend not to be as sophisticated as their core investment management expertise.

A multi-manager platform offers a range of diversified alpha sources and centralizes the risk management function. The independent managers are thus free to put their talents to their highest and best use. The platform manager devotes a comparable level of expertise to managing risk, ensuring, for example, that all unwanted exposures are hedged and that the independent investment managers are within risk budget guidelines. Simply put, many Multi-PM funds consistently deliver their investment objective and target volatility.

3. Broadly speaking what are the potential disadvantages?

Multi-PM platforms are operationally complex structures that demand a wide range of capabilities from the platform manager, which entails a high-level commitment of time, resources and expertise.

The platform manager must be able to attract and retain multiple talented investment teams, allocate assets, and establish and enforce risk budgets. They must hedge the overall risk exposure of the independent managers and minimize the correlation of their performance. Multi-PMs must also manage high turnover rates while sourcing specialists and developing talent.

Thus, investor due diligence of Multi-PMs must take into account skillsets and infrastructure that in many ways are markedly different from single-fund managers. The same is true when considering different Multi-PMs and assessing the likelihood of consistent alpha generation. Moreover, the due diligence task is sometimes hindered by inconsistent or obscure reporting, limited investment transparency, and fee opacity.

4. How many of these sophisticated specialist investors are there and how big is the universe?

There are over 8,800 hedge fund managers, according to Preqin, a leading provider of hedge fund intelligence, and in the same AIMA headcount study,2 it was estimated in North America that there are 78,500 hedge fund employees with an average number of 19.7 employees per fund manager. Estimated employees in Europe and Asia Pacific were 21,000 and 11,700, respectively. Typically hedge funds are evenly split between investment and non-investment professionals, suggesting 55,600 in the total hedge fund talent pool. However, this broad population represents all hedge fund strategies and not the narrower set the Multi-PM platforms employ.

Focusing on just Multi-PMs, we believe there are roughly 9,500 investment professionals across more than 30 firms worldwide. Both the quantity and quality of trading talent have grown with the strategy. From 2008 to 2021, Multi- PMs expanded almost 50% faster than the industry3 and during this period more and more investment professionals learned to hone their skills, making them attractive to this style of investing. Right now the universe of trading talent has never been larger.

Display 1: Multi-PMs Have Grown Faster than the Rest of the Industry as of Late

Source: eVestment. As of March 31, 2023. Note: Data rebased to 100. Hedge fund industry managed $3.8 trillion at the end of March, of which about $904 billion was in multi-strategy money pools.


5. What evidence is there that the Multi-PM structure has outperformed traditional single-manager hedge fund?

For the 10 years ended March 31, 2023, a Multi-PM Peer Group Composite,4 comprised of 32 members, had an annual average return of 7.97% vs. 4.44% for traditional hedge funds, with about half the volatility (See Display 2). Even though this Multi-PM Peer Group Composite outperformed the HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index by 3.53%, Multi-PMs, with their lower beta and tighter risk management, collectively generated more than 8.02% of annualized alpha when compared to the HFRI index, over the same period (See Display 3).

Display 2: Multi-PM Platforms Have Delivered Stronger Risk-Adjusted Returns Than Hedge Funds

Source: MSIM AIP Hedge Fund Solutions. As of March 31, 2023.

Display 3: Multi-PMs Have Consistently Generated More Alpha than Hedge Funds

Source: MSIM AIP Hedge Fund Solutions. Shows difference between rolling 36 month annualized alphas and 10-year average excess alpha. As of March 31, 2023.


6. What evidence is there that Multi-PMs are achieving a significant degree of market neutrality?

A. Using the same 10 years ended March, 31, 2023, the correlation of the Multi-PM Peer Group Composite to the S&P 500 Index is 0.18 vs. HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index of 0.52. Market sensitivity, as measured in terms of beta to the S&P 500 Index, is 0.04 vs. 0.26, respectively. Alternatively, and one of the more compelling ways to show market neutrality, is to view the results during some of the worst down-market periods. Looking at the aggregate (equal weighted average) returns of the Multi-PM Peer Group Composite, one can almost see a wave of positive and negative results, oscillating around zero (See Display 4). 

Display 4: Multi-Manager Platforms Have Held Up Well Through S&P 500 Downturns

Source: MSIM AIP Hedge Fund Solutions. As of March 31, 2023.


B. Another straightforward way to assess market risk mitigation is to look at the average result when markets are down. Display 5 shows the average return of the Multi-PM Peer Group Composite during every period the S&P 500 index was negative. This is sometimes called “downside capture.”

Display 5: On Average, Multi-Manager Platforms Gained During S&P 500 Downturns

Source: MSIM AIP Hedge Fund Solutions. As of March 31, 2023.


C. Finally, a bit more technical, if you analyze each return of the Multi-PM Peer Group Composite relative to the market, distinguishing between up markets and down markets on the x-axis, you can see no discernible pattern. But a regression analysis reveals that during down markets (the red dots), the beta of the Multi-PM Peer Group Composite to the S&P 500 is close to zero, with a modest upward slope (0.05). Similarly, during positive markets, (the green dots), the beta follows a similar upward slope (0.06). The level of market neutrality in both down and up markets can be denoted in the R-Squared statistic.5 In down markets the R-Squared is 3.6% and in up markets 2.7%, suggesting less than 10% of the market explains Multi- PM’s returns (See Display 6).

Display 6: Multi-PMs Have a Low R-Squared With the Market

Source: MSIM AIP Hedge Fund Solutions. As of March 31, 2023.


7. How is market neutrality integral to both portfolio construction and risk management?

The goals of market neutrality and generating pure alpha are two sides of the same coin: Both seek to avoid or mitigate unwanted market risk. The two goals shape every aspect of a multi-manager platform, from the selection and onboarding of investment teams to the platform manager’s intricate hedging protocols. Some of the more advanced platforms seek to manage and, through controlled processes, reinforce diversification. By actively monitoring and separating overlapping risks while concurrently engineering steps to promote low correlations, portfolio construction and risk management merge. Perhaps obvious, there are tried and true approaches that ensure tight risk management and low correlations and limit market exposures.

  • CURATED DIVERSE UNIVERSES AND RISK GUIDELINES FOR PM TEAMS — Fundamental long/short equity managers are selected for their expertise within any of the major Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) sectors or sub-sectors. The more selective platforms can partition the PM’s trading universes and establish bespoke risk guidelines, whereas others can have multiple teams in the same sector and simply employ monolithic down-and-out risk management rules. Quant strategies are diversified across time horizons, with dollar volume and VaR limits. Many factors, such as the size and philosophy of the manager, the heterogeneity of industry risk, and the number of key return drivers, as well as the sector’s native levels of active risk or total trading volumes, can influence how the platform manager decides on maintaining neutrality.
  • MINIMIZATION OF INTER-MANAGER CORRELATION — The platform manager monitors potential overlaps among country/industry/style risk factors and seeks to identify and mitigate “crowded” trades. Quant strategies, especially the ones with short horizons, tend to have low correlations to market risks and the ability to adapt quickly to rapidly changing trading environments. But surveillance without action tends to be a passive form of risk management. The more advanced platforms employ live oversight of risk budgets for the independent managers and provide real-time feedback to enhance risk management, and also reserve the right to exercise their at-the-touch liquidity, should it be needed.
  • CENTRALIZED TRADING PORTFOLIOS AND RISK LIMIT ENFORCEMENT — Most platform managers construct a dedicated portfolio to hedge unwanted risk factors through overlays. Market and industry risks can be offset in blunt fashion with futures or sector ETFs whereas factor risk reduction can be accomplished by trading efficient baskets of stocks. For quant oversight, limits for each PM tend to be enforced based on target dollar volatility and volatility-based drawdown triggers. Limits on gross and net dollar exposure, and position concentration as a percent of trading levels, provide bright-line tests for the platform manager to enforce daily.

The bottom line is that market neutrality ensures, to the greatest extent possible, that investors are paying only for active risk, not for beta or factor exposures that are easily—and cheaply—replicated in numerous other investments.

8. How does a platform manager ensure that expenses are minimized and that the firm’s incentives are aligned with the investors’?

Multi-PMs fees are generally higher and involve variations on the classic hedge fund 2%/20% fee structure because of the two differing levels of management involved. One level of competitive compensation is required to attract and retain the underlying trading teams akin to the 2%/20% model. Additionally, the platform manager who oversees the entire infrastructure and operation, while managing the overall risk and fund administration is compensated. Good platform managers invest heavily in the business, personnel and technology. For investors, the payoff should be reflected in the after-fee performance of the Multi-PM, and we believe this value proposition is reflected in the Multi-PM track record (See Display 2). The complementary skills of the platform manager and the independent managers more than compensate for the total fees, and have generated more alpha, on average, than a single-manager fund.

Platform managers can, and should, do everything possible to align incentives of their managers with investors, with some of the more innovative managers embedding performance hurdles in their fee structures. Such structures shift a portion of the fixed management fees to fees that are charged to investors only when earned by performance. We have seen newer entrants challenge the open-ended structure with some success.

9. What are the strengths to look for in a platform manager?

To attract the best talent in a highly competitive environment, platform managers need to stand out as the “partner of choice” for independent managers. We believe the most attractive platforms offer the independent manager’s risk-taking autonomy combined with a strong franchise that has a global reach, backed by organizational stability and limited business risk.

Investors need assurance that the platform manager views them as partners, investing alongside them, with a cost infrastructure optimized to maximize their return. In this context, “franchise strength” means the willingness to negotiate competitive terms with independent managers, vendors and service providers for the benefit of investors.

Investors deserve a partner that is a fiduciary committed to the highest standards and institutional responsibilities. This includes comprehensive reporting and providing enough transparency or access to key decision makers to understand not just how alpha is being generated, but why it is likely to persist.

10. Why are multi-manager platforms particularly timely in today’s environment?

Hedging unwanted market exposure has always been key to protecting alpha, but doing so has become more complicated and nuanced.

For example, the impact of “risk on/ risk off” episodes in the pre-pandemic world usually was effectively hedged with the S&P 500 Index, largely because factors like growth, momentum and value had reasonably consistent—and predictable— performance during such periods.

But the same has not held in a post- COVID environment. Investors have had to rapidly switch between the prospects of the economy opening up and shutting down, and the related impact on stocks from labor shortages, supply-chain dynamics and so forth. Such considerations have only increased with the U.S. Fed’s withdrawal of liquidity and inflation-fighting rate increases amid the Russia/Ukraine conflict.

Performance factors have undergone large shifts in direction and magnitude, and as a result, the S&P 500 Index has become too blunt a tool for hedging. Factor exposures associated with hedge funds have been behaving very differently under the surface of daily market moves.

This evolution of risk led to underperformance of many traditional hedge funds in 2021 and Q1 2022 compared with Multi-PM hedge funds, which are structurally better equipped to identify complicated changes in factor performance and keep hedging techniques up to date.



Multi-manager platforms share with traditional hedge funds the potential to generate alpha and a return profile that is uncorrelated with major asset classes or performance factors. But they also add a level of diversified alpha sources and sophisticated risk management that is difficult for many hedge funds to match. If this description fits your portfolio objectives, we believe multi-manager platforms deserve your consideration.


1 Source: Bloomberg, “An Army of Faceless Suits is Taking Over the $4 Trillion Hedge Fund World,” January 30, 2022, Nishant Kumar

2 Source: As of March 31, 2022.

3 eVestment (Source: Bloomberg, “An Army of Faceless Suits Is Taking Over the $4 Trillion Hedge Fund World,” January 31, 2022, Nishant Kumar)

4 Source: MSIM AIP Hedge Fund Solutions. Performance reflects a population of 32 Multi-PM hedge funds in operation over the 10-year period, starting with fifteen as of May 2013 and ending with 35 as of March 31, 2023. This composite represents the equal weighted mean average of the monthly returns for each available Multi-PM constituent as they entered the market. Specific composite membership, methodology and additional data is available under a non-disclosure agreement and upon request.

5 R-Squared is an explanatory metric that measures how much of the market’s movements is responsible for the Multi-PM Peer Group Composite’s variation.


HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index (“HFRI Fund Weighted”):
The HFRI Fund Weighted Index is a global, equal-weighted index of single-manager funds that report to HFR Database. Constituent funds report monthly net of all fees performance in USD and have a minimum of $50 million under management or $10 Million under management and a twelve-month track record.

Alpha: The excess return of an asset not explained by systemic (market) risk.

Beta: Represents the Fund’s volatility relative to the market. A statistical measure of the tendency of a market or security to rise or fall sharply within a period of time, usually measured by standard deviation. Higher levels of volatility correspond with higher levels of risk. See also Standard Deviation.


Risk Considerations
The views and opinions and/or analysis expressed are those of the author or the investment team as of the date of preparation of this material and are subject to change at any time without notice due to market or economic conditions and may not necessarily come to pass. Furthermore, the views will not be updated or otherwise revised to reflect information that subsequently becomes available or circumstances existing, or changes occurring, after the date of publication. The views expressed do not reflect the opinions of all investment personnel at Morgan Stanley Investment Management (MSIM) and its subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively “the Firm”), and may not be reflected in all the strategies and products that the Firm offers.

Forecasts and/or estimates provided herein are subject to change and may not actually come to pass. Information regarding expected market returns and market outlooks is based on the research, analysis and opinions of the authors or the investment team. These conclusions are speculative in nature, may not come to pass and are not intended to predict the future performance of any specific strategy or product the Firm offers. Future results may differ significantly depending on factors such as changes in securities or financial markets or general economic conditions.

This material has been prepared on the basis of publicly available information, internally developed data and other third-party sources believed to be reliable. However, no assurances are provided regarding the reliability of such information and the Firm has not sought to independently verify information taken from public and third-party sources.

This material is a general communication, which is not impartial and all information provided has been prepared solely for informational and educational purposes and does not constitute an offer or a recommendation to buy or sell any particular security or to adopt any specific investment strategy. The information herein has not been based on a consideration of any individual investor circumstances and is not investment advice, nor should it be construed in any way as tax, accounting, legal or regulatory advice. To that end, investors should seek independent legal and financial advice, including advice as to tax consequences, before making any investment decision.

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc., and its affiliates and their respective directors, officers, employees, members, general and limited partners, sponsors, trustees, managers, agents, advisors, representatives, heirs, successors, and executors shall have no liability whatsoever in connection with any such information’s actual or purported accuracy, completeness, fairness, reliability or suitability.

Charts and graphs provided herein are for illustrative purposes only. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Certain information contained herein constitutes forward-looking statements, which can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “project,” “estimate,” “intend,” “continue” or “believe” or the negatives thereof or other variations thereon or other comparable terminology. Due to various risks and uncertainties, actual events or results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. No representation or warranty is made as to future performance or such forward-looking statements.

The indexes are unmanaged and do not include any expenses, fees or sales charges. It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Any index referred to herein is the intellectual property (including registered trademarks) of the applicable licensor. Any product based on an index is in no way sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by the applicable licensor and it shall not have any liability with respect thereto.

The Firm has not authorised financial intermediaries to use and to distribute this material, unless such use and distribution is made in accordance with applicable law and regulation. Additionally, financial intermediaries are required to satisfy themselves that the information in this material is appropriate for any person to whom they provide this material in view of that person’s circumstances and purpose. The Firm shall not be liable for, and accepts no liability for, the use or misuse of this material by any such financial intermediary.

This material may be translated into other languages. Where such a translation is made this English version remains definitive. If there are any discrepancies between the English version and any version of this material in another language, the English version shall prevail.

The whole or any part of this material may not be directly or indirectly reproduced, copied, modified, used to create a derivative work, performed, displayed, published, posted, licensed, framed, distributed or transmitted or any of its contents disclosed to third parties without the Firm’s express written consent. This material may not be linked to unless such hyperlink is for personal and non-commercial use. All information contained herein is proprietary and is protected under copyright and other applicable law.

This material is only intended for and will only be distributed to persons resident in jurisdictions where such distribution or availability would not be contrary to local laws or regulations.

MSIM, the asset management division of Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), and its affiliates have arrangements in place to market each other’s products and services. Each MSIM affiliate is regulated as appropriate in the jurisdiction it operates. MSIM’s affiliates are: Eaton Vance Management (International) Limited, Eaton Vance Advisers International Ltd, Calvert Research and Management, Eaton Vance Management, Parametric Portfolio Associates LLC, and Atlanta Capital Management LLC.

This material has been issued by any one or more of the following entities:

This material is for Professional Clients/Accredited Investors only.

In the EU, MSIM and Eaton Vance materials are issued by MSIM Fund Management (Ireland) Limited (“FMIL”). FMIL is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland and is incorporated in Ireland as a private company limited by shares with company registration number 616661 and has its registered address at The Observatory, 7-11 Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2, D02 VC42, Ireland.

Outside the EU, MSIM materials are issued by Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited (MSIM Ltd) is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England. Registered No. 1981121. Registered Office: 25 Cabot Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 4QA.

In Switzerland, MSIM materials are issued by Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc, London (Zurich Branch) Authorised and regulated by the Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht (“FINMA”). Registered Office: Beethovenstrasse 33, 8002 Zurich, Switzerland.

Outside the US and EU, Eaton Vance materials are issued by Eaton Vance Management (International) Limited (“EVMI”) 125 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1AR, UK, which is authorised and regulated in the United Kingdom by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Italy: MSIM FMIL (Milan Branch), (Sede Secondaria di Milano) Palazzo Serbelloni Corso Venezia, 16 20121 Milano, Italy. The Netherlands: MSIM FMIL (Amsterdam Branch), Rembrandt Tower, 11th Floor Amstelplein 1 1096HA, Netherlands. France: MSIM FMIL (Paris Branch), 61 rue de Monceau 75008 Paris, France. Spain: MSIM FMIL (Madrid Branch), Calle Serrano 55, 28006, Madrid, Spain.

MSIM Ltd (Representative Office, Unit Precinct 3-7th Floor-Unit 701 and 702, Level 7, Gate Precinct Building 3, Dubai International Financial Centre, Dubai, 506501, United Arab Emirates. Telephone: +97 (0)14 709 7158).


Hong Kong: This material is disseminated by Morgan Stanley Asia Limited for use in Hong Kong and shall only be made available to “professional investors” as defined under the Securities and Futures Ordinance of Hong Kong (Cap 571). The contents of this material have not been reviewed nor approved by any regulatory authority including the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong. Accordingly, save where an exemption is available under the relevant law, this material shall not be issued, circulated, distributed, directed at, or made available to, the public in Hong Kong. Singapore: This material is disseminated by Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company and may not be circulated or distributed, whether directly or indirectly, to persons in Singapore other than to (i) an accredited investor (ii) an expert investor or (iii) an institutional investor as defined in Section 4A of the Securities and Futures Act, Chapter 289 of Singapore (“SFA”); or (iv) otherwise pursuant to, and in accordance with the conditions of, any other applicable provision of the SFA. This publication has not been reviewed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Australia: This material is disseminated in Australia by Morgan Stanley Investment Management (Australia) Pty Limited ACN: 122040037, AFSL No. 314182, which accept responsibility for its contents. This publication, and any access to it, is intended only for “wholesale clients” within the meaning of the Australian Corporations Act. Calvert Research and Management, ARBN 635 157 434 is regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission under U.S. laws which differ from Australian laws. Calvert Research and Management is exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence in accordance with class order 03/1100 in respect of the provision of financial services to wholesale clients in Australia.

Japan: This material may not be circulated or distributed, whether directly or indirectly, to persons in Japan other than to (i) a professional investor as defined in Article 2 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (“FIEA”) or (ii) otherwise pursuant to, and in accordance with the conditions of, any other allocable provision of the FIEA. This material is disseminated in Japan by Morgan Stanley Investment Management (Japan) Co., Ltd., Registered No. 410 (Director of Kanto Local Finance Bureau (Financial Instruments Firms)), Membership: the Japan Securities Dealers Association, The Investment Trusts Association, Japan, the Japan Investment Advisers Association and the Type II Financial Instruments Firms Association.


This is a Marketing Communication.

It is important that users read the Terms of Use before proceeding as it explains certain legal and regulatory restrictions applicable to the dissemination of information pertaining to Morgan Stanley Investment Management's investment products.

The services described on this website may not be available in all jurisdictions or to all persons. For further details, please see our Terms of Use.

Not FDIC Insured—Offer No Bank Guarantee—May Lose Value
Not Insured By Any Federal Government Agency—Not A Deposit

Subscriptions    •    Privacy & Cookies    •    Your Privacy Choices Your Privacy Choices Icon    •    Terms of Use

©  Morgan Stanley. All rights reserved.

Morgan Stanley Distribution, Inc. Member FINRA/SIPC.