June 2026 marked my twentieth year working in the outsourced chief investment officer (OCIO) industry. For the past two decades, I have watched the conversation among institutions evolve from whether they should outsource investment management to whether they should reconsider the provider they already have.
When I entered the profession, the industry had not yet settled on what to call the service. Depending on the provider, terms such as delegated consulting, discretionary consulting, implemented consulting, managed portfolios, and outsourced investment management were all used to describe variations of the model. Much of the discussion centered on governance and whether outsourcing was the right fit for an institution.
As time passed, this sub-industry of financial services moved from niche offering to mainstream acceptance. Governance models were debated. Conference panels were filled. Surveys were published. And the market largely answered the question with a resounding yes to outsourcing. Assets managed under OCIO arrangements have soared, from roughly $1 trillion in 2015 to more than $3 trillion by the end of 2024, according to Cerulli Associates.
While the industry has largely settled on the term “OCIO,” the way providers approach the role can vary considerably. OCIO models are not interchangeable. Differences in team structure, performance evaluation, investment process, philosophy, portfolio construction, transparency, and service model can all shape the client experience. As institutions become familiar with the model, these differences become more visible and more important.
In what follows, I explore several issues that institutions should consider evaluating when they’re contemplating an OCIO to OCIO transition. They reflect the questions that tend to emerge only after an institution has lived with the model long enough to understand what it truly needs from a provider.