Expanding Management in Student Managed Investment Funds
Expanding Management in Student Managed Investment Funds
复制标题
扩大学生管理投资基金的管理
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jerry J. Stevens
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Charlton;J. Earl;Jerry J. Stevens
作为大学课程的一部分，体验式教育方案的好处已被大量研究证明(例如，参见Houde，2007；Kolb and Kolb，2005；Kayes and Kayes，2003；Gagnon and Witt-Smith，2001；LaForge and Bging，1998；Gagnon，1988；McKeachie，1974；以及Dewey，1938)。与更传统的课堂结构相比，体验式教育的主要好处包括更高水平的学生参与，终身学习技能的发展，以及更深层次的教育经验导致更长时间的保留。Burkhalter和Schaer(1985)提供的证据表明，体验式教育计划有助于学生更好地为职业生涯做准备。研究还表明，体验式教育有助于学生培养沟通技能，做出更好的职业决策，并改善就业市场前景(例如，参见Carter和Thomas，1986；Knaper和Cropley，1985；以及Schiller和Hanks，1984)。学生管理的投资基金(以下简称SMIF)是许多商学院流行的体验式教育形式。学生在教职员工和从业者顾问委员会的监督下管理真正的资金。SMIF项目必须在学生自主决策的“边做边学”的目标和产生尽可能高的风险调整后回报的传统目标之间取得平衡。这两个目标的平衡因课程不同而不同。在本文中，我们提出了一个积极向学生整体学习倾斜的SMIF结构，作为该基金的主要目标。我们的结构将学习目标扩展到对财务原则的有效应用之外，包括对所有操作决策的更高级别的学生管理。教师和顾问委员会的作用仅限于在基金的投资政策声明中规定的参数范围内进行监督。1学生经理负责有关人事、运营、利益相关者管理和投资的全方位决策。学生必须在持续的基础上为所有决定提供充分的报告、分析和解释，但除非违反政策或协议，否则学生的决定仍然有效。该项目因其学生责任的广度和对超越经济表现的目标的强调而独一无二。TRADITIONAL SMIF PROGRAMS劳伦斯(1994)概述了SMIF的早期历史，从1952年的甘农大学基金开始。在最近的一项调查中，劳伦斯(2008)发现，超过314所大学管理着超过4.07亿美元的资产。为了应对SMIF项目的快速增长和持续的兴趣，金融学系成立了学生管理投资项目协会，以便就SMIF问题和创新进行对话。2学院定期在学术会议和发表的研究中分享SMIF项目的经验。大众媒体也承认SMIF提供了独特的体验式学习机会(例如，见Elmerraji，2012；Trejos，2008；Opdyke，1998；Ruth，1997；Rose，1997；Siwolop，1996)的文章。许多雇主现在积极寻找在其教育项目中具有资金管理经验的学生/许多论文讨论了实施SMIF项目所使用的广泛方法。例如，Kahl(1998)和Cox和Goff(1996)提出了SMIF计划的组织结构。多兰和史蒂文斯(2010)引入了一种独特的自上而下的SMIF结构，该结构基于金融和经济学学生的协调混合。Johnson、Alexander和Allen(1996)将使用电子会议形式的小组决策过程与更传统的面对面小组会议进行了比较。Dewally和Krause(2009)提出了一个基于交易所交易基金投资的学生管理投资俱乐部计划。虽然有许多不同的基金结构，但Neely和Cooley(2004)的调查结果表明，教师为学生基金提供了大部分组织结构，选择学生经理，并参与或影响决策。…
INTRODUCTIONThe benefits of experiential education programs as part of a college curriculum are documented by a number of studies (for example, see Houde, 2007; Kolb and Kolb, 2005; Kayes and Kayes, 2003; Gagnon and Witt-Smith, 2001; LaForge and Busing, 1998; Gagnon, 1988; McKeachie, 1974; and Dewey, 1938). Key benefits from experiential education compared to more traditional classroom structures include a higher level of student involvement, development of lifelong learning skills, and a deeper educational experience leading to longer-term retention. Burkhalter and Schaer (1985) provide evidence that experiential education programs help students better prepare for professional careers. Research also shows that experiential education helps students develop communication skills, make better career decisions, and improve job-market prospects (for example, see Carter and Thomas, 1986; Knaper and Cropley, 1985; and Schiller and Hanks, 1984).Student Managed Investment Funds (hereafter, noted as SMIFs) are a popular form of experiential education in many business schools. Students manage real money under supervision from some combination of faculty and practitioner advisory boards. SMIF programs must balance the goal of "learning by doing" from independent decisions by students with the traditional goal of generating the highest possible risk adjusted return. The balance of these two goals varies by program.In this paper, we present a SMIF structure tilted aggressively toward overall student learning as the primary objective of the fund. Our structure expands the learning objectives beyond competent application of finance principles to include higher levels of student management for all operational decisions. The roles of faculty and advisory boards are limited to oversight within set parameters defined in the fund's Investment Policy Statement.1 Student managers are responsible for a full range of decisions on personnel, operations, stakeholder management, and investments. Students must provide adequate reporting, analysis, and explanations for all decisions on an ongoing basis, but student decisions stand unless a policy or protocol is violated. The program is unique for its breadth of student responsibilities and emphasis on goals beyond financial performance.TRADITIONAL SMIF PROGRAMSLawrence (1994) outlines the early history of SMIFs starting with the Gannon University fund in 1952. In a more recent survey Lawrence (2008) finds that over 314 universities manage more than $407 million of assets. In response to the rapid growth and continued interest in SMIF programs, finance faculty formed the Association of Student Managed Investment Programs to allow a dialogue on SMIF issues and innovations.2 Faculty regularly share experiences with SMIF programs at academic conferences and in published research. The popular press also recognizes the unique experiential learning opportunities offered by SMIFs (for example see articles by Elmerraji, 2012; Trejos, 2008; Opdyke, 1998; Ruth, 1997; Rose, 1997; and Siwolop, 1996). Many employers now actively seek students who have fund management experience in their educational program/A number of papers address the wide range of approaches that have been used to implement a SMIF program. For example, Kahl (1998) and Cox and Goff (1996) present organizational structures for SMIF programs. Dolan and Stevens (2010) introduce a unique top-down SMIF structure based on a coordinated blend of finance and economics students. Johnson, Alexander, and Allen (1996) compare a group decision-making process using an electronic meeting format with a more traditional face-to-face group meeting. Dewally and Krause (2009) present a student managed investment club program based on investing with Exchange Traded Funds. While there are many different fund structures, survey findings by Neely and Cooley (2004) indicate that faculty members provide much of the organizational structure for student funds, select student managers, and either participate or influence the decisions. …