Stuart Pearce


Portfolio Manager
Alluvium Asset Management

Stuart has 20 years’ experience across institutional asset management, corporate advisory and property valuation/advisory. His extensive global equities background encompasses investment analysis, portfolio management, systems development and risk management over a variety of market conditions. He also has broader experience in corporate finance and private market valuations, and a strong interest in psychology and behavioural finance. Stuart founded Alluvium in 2013. Previously he was a Senior Portfolio Manager at Perennial Investment Partners. At Perennial Stuart was responsible for the analysis of European investment opportunities where he generated significant outperformance over his seven year tenure. He was also instrumental in developing the portfolio and risk management systems and processes in respect of some of Perennial’s funds. Prior to Perennial, Stuart spent four years as a Portfolio Manager/Analyst at Colonial First State Investments and four years with KPMG Corporate Finance. He commenced his professional career as a Property Valuer in the mid 1990’s. Stuart is a CFA Charterholder. He also has a Graduate Diploma in Applied Finance and Investment from the Financial Services Institute of Australia, a Master of Tourism from the James Cook University of North Queensland and a Bachelor of Business in Property (Valuation) from the University of South Australia.


No areas of expertise

What’s more important, process or outcomes?

Stuart Pearce

Sometimes friends like to discuss general market conditions. A while back one of my mates commented that things must be great given the prevailing booming market. I concurred, agreeing performance was great, but I also mentioned I’m not terribly excited by it all, because we tend to focus on process... Show More

volatility long term process outcome

More secrets… not all dirty

Stuart Pearce

I would like to expand on the “Dirty Secrets fund managers don't want you to know” wire by Lachlan Hughes from of a couple of weeks back. Show More

performance risk fees Benchmark

See 4 more comments

FAANGs too expensive? Consider the WAMITs.

Stuart Pearce

Much has been written about the FAANGs - Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google (Alphabet). With a combined weighting of almost 5% in the MSCI World Index, and returns of 43.3% over the year they have largely driven US and global indices. Not so much has been said about the... Show More

Hi Adrian, Thanks for your comment. My understanding is that the HWM typically only resets at the time the performance fee is paid. If it reset at the peak NAV during the applicable period, then that would solve the issue and I would be very happy to stand corrected. Perhaps others (Steve?) can chime in with their understanding. I'd suggest check the fine print in the PDS, but you'd probably have to go to the additional info booklet or even the Constitution...

On More secrets… not all dirty -

Thank you Steve for correcting and clarifying. The point I wish to make is that without individual HWMs, the more frequent the payment the more likely the allocation of the fee among individual investors is fair. For a better illustration let's continue the example and the assumption of annual payments. The HWM would reset at $1.50. And let's say the Fund's gross price at the end of the following year is $1.70 so the accrued performance fee of 4c is paid and the resulting net value is $1.66. Now the investor we referred to previously that paid $1.80 originally would incur the fee despite incurring an investment loss. However had the fee been paid semi-annually (at the $1.80 level), the resetting of the HWM at that level would mean no performance fee would be incurred and the end unit price would be $1.70. Correct?

On More secrets… not all dirty -

Steve, thanks for your comments. I respectfully disagree that any points are incorrect. Applying a $1.35 end price and backing out the performance fee would equate to a $1.6875 gross price, or a 68.75% gross return over the year. But the assumption is a 50% gross return over the year. I agree that if the fee had been paid at 31 December the gross and net unit prices would both be $1.80, and the end price would have been $1.35 and the investor's loss would also be 25%. But because the premise of the example is annual performance fee payments, the correct base for the -25% gross return is $2.00, not $1.80. It illustrates that the annual payment frequency reduces the 25% loss at the gross level to 22% at the net level by the unwinding of the performance fee. A good thing. But it also shows that the investor pays a $0.10 performance fee for a $0.40 loss. As you correctly state, a half yearly payment period would avoid this. The point is that less frequent payment of performance fees is always optimal for fund investors when assessed as a whole, but not necessarily for each individual investor in the fund.

On More secrets… not all dirty -