Douglas Rivers, chief scientist at pollster YouGov, said data coming out of the current US presidential election confirms significant cultural and demographic shifts that are reshaping the political map. Rivers told the Fiduciary Investors Symposium that the once-popular “demographics is destiny” mantra predicting permanent centre-left majorities has lost meaning in the Trump era. 

Douglas Rivers, chief scientist at pollster YouGov, said data coming out of the current US presidential election confirms significant cultural and demographic shifts that are reshaping the political map.

Rivers, who is also a Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, told the Fiduciary Investors Symposium that the general election underway in the US between former president Donald Trump and current vice-president Kamala Harris is the “most momentous” in living memory.

“It’s been scripted to generate more surprises than anything I can remember, but it is serious business,” Rivers told the symposium, hosted by Top1000funds.com and held on the Stanford campus in Palo Alto, California, last month. “It’s been amazingly devoid of discussion of issues, but a feast for anyone that likes following elections.”

Rivers presented insights from a historic data set called ‘Say 24’, compiled via a major survey of 130,000 voters jointly administered by teams at Yale, Arizona State and Stanford universities.

He described the poll results for much of the past year as a “snooze” as Trump and previous Democratic frontrunner President Joe Biden seemed to enjoy peculiarly entrenched support and preconceived perceptions, both unable to shift deeply held opinions about them in the electorate or persuade new voters to join their respective coalitions.

But Rivers said the race was thrown on its head by the presidential debate in June, after which President Biden suffered sustained negative press commentary about his performance and age, and high-profile defections of allies and donors, leading to his withdrawal and endorsement of Harris as Democratic nominee, which she clinched at the party’s convention in August.

“Harris started down about four points relative to Trump, and then quickly overcame him, and then now leads, typically by two, three, sometimes four or five points in the polls,” Rivers said. “What Harris has done – and they’ve run an amazingly good campaign over the last six weeks – is to improve her positives. The views of Harris were pretty negative as being a ‘lightweight, inarticulate, unprepared’ and so forth. Since then, she really has done extraordinarily well.”

Demographics is destiny (or is it?)

However, he added that the data suggested Harris, who is perceived as more left-leaning than Biden, still faced a “problem on her ideological positioning” given that the US electorate has an inherent Republican advantage.

“The US is a centre-right country – that is, about a third of American voters describe themselves as being ‘conservative’ [and] about a quarter is ‘liberal’. So, there’s about an eight-point gap there,” Rivers said.

While the traditional right-wing/left-wing schism that has dominated electoral politics in liberal democracies throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries still holds sway in the US, Rivers said the data suggested there have been profound shifts in allegiance and sentiment since Trump entered, and disrupted, public life.

“20 years ago, you heard about ‘demographics as destiny’, which was that if Democrats maintain the majorities among these two minority groups [Blacks and hispanics] and were able to just do reasonably well among whites, they would have a permanent majority,” Rivers said. “What happened is completely different since then.”

Following an “autopsy” of the 2012 election – at which Barack Obama won a second term and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was defeated – Rivers said Republicans embarked on a new strategy to woo latino voters, with some success.

Trump has also gained support from Black males, and has a near 80 per cent stranglehold on rural voters, Rivers said, both of which are new developments that overturn historical allegiances. Similarly, under Trump, Republicans are now seen as broadly isolationist on foreign policy, while Democrats are more globalist, also overturning traditional norms.

The growing support for Trump and Republicans among working class and minority voters reflects similar dynamics emerging other Anglosphere democracies. In the UK, for example, the right-leaning Conservative and Reform parties have attracted more support from working-class and non-tertiary educated voters, as has the conservative Liberal party in Australia.

On the flipside, these declines in support for Democrats among traditional bases have been offset by increases in support from university-educated and suburban middle-class voters, especially women, he said.

Notwithstanding the dynamics signalled by the data, Rivers added the caveat that polling can be an inexact science.

“It’s beyond our ability to make precise predictions,” he admitted. “The dirty little secret of counting votes is only accurate to about a 10th of a point. If you recount a state, you can expect movements of about a 10th of a point on a recount. So, whenever an election is that close – it’s anyone’s guess who actually won.”

Investing as an endowment works well with $43 billion of assets but the approach doesn’t scale efficiently, and will throw up some significant challenges as the endowment grows, the head of Stanford Management Corporation has told the Fiduciary Investors Symposium.

Size could be a challenge to the endowment-model style of investing, says Robert Wallace, chief executive of the Stanford Management Company, which manages the university’s $43 billion endowment.

Two of the tenets of the endowment model – an aggressive asset allocation heavily weighted towards private equity and venture capital; and partnerships with distinctive funds managers – are challenged by larger asset sizes.

“We implement the endowment model that was developed by my former boss and mentor and friend, David Swenson, and it works really, really well,” Wallace told delegates at the Fiduciary Investors Symposium at Stanford.

“It provides very attractive risk-adjusted returns over long periods. If you can execute well, if you can pick your partners well, I think it’s a really wonderful model in that way, but it doesn’t scale effortlessly or infinitely.

“And so, your ability to manage a portfolio like we do at Stanford [when it reaches] $500 billion is, I would argue, pretty much zero. I don’t think you can do it. Maybe you can do it at $100 billion. I hope I get a chance to find that out. But, you know, at some point it’s not possible.”

Stanford Management Company had just $1.7 billion in assets when was established as a formal entity to manage the university endowment, and Wallace said that even now, with assets of $43 billion, the team is refining its approach due the difficulty in maintaining desired allocations to some asset categories.

“That’s something I think a lot about,” he said.

Wallace said he thinks of asset allocation and manager selection as being “inseparably linked, two sides of the same coin”. He says this is particularly true for asset classes like venture capital, private equity, private real estate, absolute return and private natural resources where the dispersion from active management is very wide.

“If you’re in the median venture capital fund in the United States, you’re going to end up with results that are well below public markets,” he said.

“You have to feel sure that you can access the top quartile, better the top decile.

“You can’t be in the middle of the distribution in these expensive, fancy asset classes. You have to be towards the top of the distribution. And so, your ability to have an asset allocation like this is really dependent upon your ability to build the right partnerships, and so I always think they go together.”

As the fund gets larger its ability to access different partners is changing and Wallace is aware of the impact of size on manager selection.

“At $43 billion our ability to access the right type of partners in some of these categories, particularly early-stage venture, is a lot different than it was 10 years ago when we were $20 billion, and so if we’re every lucky enough to get to $80 billion it will be different again, because some of these categories don’t scale very well, particularly things like venture capital,” he said.

Broadly speaking the endowment is looking for managers which have a competitive advantage that will allow place them at the top of the distribution in their asset class. That means a robust process but also a strong alignment of interest.

“We care a lot about a strong economic alignment of interests, and we work hard to make sure that the economic terms of the partnership that we’re in with our partners are fair to Stanford, and that they reward our partner for superior performance,” Wallace said.

“This is probably the hardest part. We have to see a superior investment judgment, so a strong process that accurately surfaces and analyses all of the quantitative and qualitative risks that go into an investment thesis is essential.”

Wallace said the SMC team spends an enormous amount of time with partners and potential partners, and the due diligence process can sometimes take more than a year. An additional perquisite is an appropriate regard for human an environmental welfare.

“We’re long-term investors, and we care about working with people that have a long- term sensibility, that want to build powerful businesses in the public or private sector and be rewarded for that in the long run, and therefore do demonstrate an appropriate regard for human and environmental welfare,” he said.

The endowment is the biggest line item on Stanford’s $9 billion annual budget, contributing $2 billion a year, the equivalent of about 5 per cent of the endowment in payouts each year. It’s one of two objectives that influence the asset allocation: to provide capital to the university annually; and to impact future operating budgets.

“We need to have a pretty high return over long periods in order to satisfy both of those goals,” he said, noting that around 70 per cent of the portfolio is in equity risk.

“The reason we don’t have 100 per cent in equities is if you’re 23 per cent of the operating budget, and you’re up and down 15 or 20 per cent every year, that’s really hard for the operating budget to absorb, and we would argue that you don’t need to take that volatility in order to get 8, 9 or 10 per cent return from your portfolio.”

Making the most of Stanford’s Silicon Valley location, Wallace is working with the team to take advantage of the innovation and opportunities coming from the venture capital world in its backyard, and the insights of the university’s professors.

But he’s also embracing the opportunity he can afford students and the impact that young, intellectually curious minds can have on the culture of the investments office.

After graduating from Yale, Wallace himself went into the Yale investments office under David Swensen, and it’s ahe has been implementing since he started in the top job at Stanford nine years ago. HMC has hired one or two Stanford undergraduates from the business school as analysts each year, from but also hires from the computer science, philosophy, psychology and history departments.

“You get these incredibly bright, intellectually curious, energetic, high-integrity people that are 21 or 22 and after you’ve given them access to the type of endowment portfolio that Stanford has and the type of partners around the world that we have, after five years they’re phenomenal investors,” Wallace said.

“After 10 years they’re better than you are, almost certainly, and they’re still only 32, so it’s one of the things that we’ve done now for nine years.

“They are these incredible raw sources potential that have no bad habits. It’s been a great source of strength for our office, but also, I think, a source of a lot of fun to have these incredible young people around.”

Finding ways to accommodate neurodiverse individuals within investment teams could be the key to unlocking better investment performance, as well as bringing the benefits of better collaboration and creativity, the Fiduciary Investors Symposium at Stanford University has heard.

Stanford Research Initiative on Long-Term Investing executive research director Ashby Monk said exploring the benefits of neurodiversity is an avenue of research that builds on the work already done to help asset owners become better at what they do.

He said the asset owner community controls about $140 trillion of capital and they are “quietly becoming the most important organisations in the world”.

The core of the research Monk oversees at Stanford is about “how do I help you make more money?”.

“We focus on your governance,” Monk said. “We focus on your culture, your technology and your ability to innovate.

“Some people think of my work as sitting in the category of behavioural finance. At times, it feels that way. But [while] behavioural finance academics do a fabulous job of diagnosing your biases, cognitive and behavioural, they may not have the solutions ready made to de-bias your organisations, to tune your decision makings, to make smarter, more efficient decisions, to generate higher performance.”

Monk said neurodivergence is the latest topic of research.

“Neurodivergence is not – let’s get it out there – a disorder,” he said. “It’s like biodiversity. [It is] the normal range and variation of human brains. We see it as a superpower.”

Monk said that although he doesn’t love the idea of putting a label on neurodivergence, sometimes that’s what must be done to enable organisations to recognise, harness and value it in their ranks.

“You do need to accommodate different things in your organisation in order to get the most out of these talented individuals,” Monk said.

Fremont Group managing director of quantitative analytics and risk Joseph Saénz told the symposium that it is typical for neurodivergent individuals to learn about their own neurodivergence through their children.

“The reason that neurodivergence is so important to me is through my son, as is the method for many that I started to meet, I started to find out that I myself was neurodivergent, and then eventually I also found out that the specific type of neurodivergence that I had was I’m actually autistic,” Saénz said, courageously revealing that for the first time in public.

Working in collaboration with Monk, Saénz said that “what I’m hoping to do is by identifying how neurodivergent individuals can assist in the in the investment arena, we can identify how we can accommodate so that they can better find that alpha”.

Monk said the objective of the research is to work out how organisations can find and bring in neurodivergent individuals and “give them safe spaces to innovate and create”. In the case of pension funds, that goal is to “meet target returns and pay pensions; it is about performance”.

Saénz said a key lesson is that “built different builds different”.

“At the heart of this is, new perspectives can come up with innovative stuff,” he said.

“I hire differently, and I have, as a result, a bunch of people that come up with fresh ideas all the time, and they bring them to me, and we try to put them in an arena that’s well hemmed in so that these ideas can create a strong portfolio that can withstand drawdowns but can also produce alpha.

“Folks can build their portfolios individually from the bottoms up, but as I said, it’s hemmed in from around the sides. It’s innovation, but with control. It’s a new approach, but with all the same people in the room allowing to say, ‘Well, have you thought of this? Have you thought of that?’ It’s new perspectives.”

Saénz said organisations must develop specific capabilities to recruit and retain neurodiverse professionals.

“I hire based on intellectual horsepower,” he said, but the exact metrics are “different with each and every candidate”. In one case a candidate claimed to have achieved a 1000 per cent return trading Pokémon cards.

“He buys rare Pokémon cards, holds onto them for a little while, and then flips them in Japan,” Saénz said.

“I told him that a 1000 per cent return is a terrible metric, and to come back to me with an IRR. So, he came back to me with an IRR, and then I hired him.”

Saénz described this sort of criteria as “non-standard information”.

“I used to say they’re going to at least need a graduate degree, to get into the quantitative group, because everybody else in the organization needs one less degree, and the quantitative group needs more math than everybody else,” he said. “Every time that a new person comes on, all of the problems that the last person came on to solve have been solved, so the newer problems are harder than the previous problems. The math is going to be harder.

“I need people with strong math skills, but they were too expensive. I recognised that I had to teach everybody that was coming, no matter what. I had to look at the cheaper end of the spectrum, which means I had to get more creative with the data that I was looking at.”

Only two months into the job and presenting to the board for only the second time, CalPERS new chief investment officer Stephen Gilmore has outlined his plans to overhaul talent and culture in the investment office, putting people and their development at the heart of his leadership.

Gilmore, who has taken the reins of the $502 billion portfolio following Nicole Musicco’s abrupt decision to leave this time last year after less than 18 months, said his focus on talent development is rooted in his belief that getting “the people, processes and portfolio right,” will ultimately support a strong performance.

Signs of change are manifest in an internal initiative called the Culture Club, set up seven months ago but enthusiastically embraced by Gilmore. It is focused on nurturing fresh values in the investment team around engagement, developing talent and sharing ideas across the office to create an atmosphere that allows innovation to flourish and breaks down silos to share skills and knowledge.

New talent has already arrived into the investment team witnessed in the presence of Stanford fellows linked to a partnership created by Ashby Monk, senior research engineer in the School of Engineering at Stanford University and executive and research director of the Stanford Research Initiative on Long-Term Investing set up three months ago. Elsewhere, the investment office now hosts a rebooted internship program and formalised mentoring program.

New arrivals joining the investment office can look forward to a more formal and improved onboarding process; their suggestions being welcomed, and everyone being given the education, development and opportunity to further their careers. Above all, Gilmore seeks to oversee an investment team where everyone knows what each other is working on – and  an office that is known and celebrated throughout the wider organisation.

Gilmore said that talent didn’t only manifest in formal qualifications among the investment staff. He aims to build a team that has a breadth of skills and perspectives, better equipped to solve today’s complex problems. Yes, gaps in the team would be filled by external training, but on-the-job learning and recognising the aspirations of team members to fill those gaps will also come to the fore.

And talent development will go beyond a focus in finance and economics to value other skills too.

As well as cutting the number of weekly investment team meetings, Gilmore has slashed the number of strategic initiatives from nine to four. The smaller number of initiatives – still based on innovation and resiliency themes – are now run by a tag team of individuals who will be able to work together to get results.

The four initiatives that have dropped away, including private market innovation and private debt strategies, have been integrated into the standard operating processes of the investment office.

Drawing on his vast experience at the Future Fund and New Zealand Super. Gilmore said the investment office will be run in accordance with four key themes: people, process, portfolio and performance. Overhauling talent and culture (people) will be followed by new processes around how CalPERS integrates data and technology to support efficiency and reduce risk; portfolio resilience and sustainability, and how to better measure performance of the dollar value add of the portfolio and any improvement in the funded status.

Over the next 18 months, Gilmore will spend much of his time coming to understand the liabilities and assets in a deep dive ALM study.

“We have to have to design portfolio that [can] reduce the unfunded gap as we go forward,” he said.

He added that CalPERS has invested less in data and technology compared to peers, and new IT systems will enable the team to conduct more analysis, increase efficiency, reduce risk and innovate. His priority will be taking user-focused technology off the shelf rather than introducing bespoke processes.

Gilmore wants to enable CalPERS’ investment team to draw more on their vast internal knowledge.

“We touch so many parts of the economy and market, we should be able to collect that information to help us invest,” he said.

He also wants to improve stakeholder engagement. A unit within the investment office is now charged with engaging with stakeholders in a new formalised process. When a member of the public comes before the board with a big issue, the investment team have a process to engage and track stakeholder reactions.

This article was edited on October 4 to correct the date of CalPERS’ partnership with the Stanford Research Initiative on Long-Term Investing, the establishment of the Culture Club internal initiative and the fact Stephen Gilmore’s comments were made in a presentation to the board.

Published in partnership with Pictet Asset Management

Only a fraction of all the water on earth can be used by humans. Not only is water both scarce and finite, but the United Nations (UN) also describes it as “vital to the functioning of the global economy”.

How water resources are managed and conserved as populations and economies continue to grow is a critical issue facing every nation on earth – developed, as well as developing.

Environmental reporting not-for-profit organisation CDP says less than 1.2 per cent of all the water on earth is useful to humans. Its very scarcity, and the need to manage it carefully, presents opportunities to invest in businesses or industries whose supply chain includes water – this includes agriculture, perhaps most obviously; in businesses that can reshape their processes to use less; in companies developing new ways to conserve fresh water and recycle used water; and in projects to clean up waterways and oceans.

There are reasons beyond simple risk and return issues and maximising pensions for beneficiaries as to why investing in water is such an important issue. Critically, investing in the better stewardship of water resources is also seen as fundamental to addressing climate change and ensuring the long-term health of the environment.

Fresh water is one of the nine so-called Planetary Boundaries (PB) framework (below) that the Stockholm Resilience Centre says are “processes that regulate the stability and resilience of the Earth’s system, and “within which humanity can continue to develop and thrive for generations to come”.

Planetary boundaries
Planetary Boundaries Framework. Source: Azote for Stockholm Resilience Centre, based on analysis in Richardson et al 2023. Click on the image to enlarge.

However, the centre notes that six of those nine boundaries have already been crossed – including freshwater use – which “increases the risk of generating large-scale abrupt or irreversible environmental changes”.

“Drastic changes will not necessarily happen overnight, but together the boundaries mark a critical threshold for increasing risks to people and the ecosystems we are part of,” it says.

In addition, the United Nations addresses access to clean water and sanitation in its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN says that by 2030 there will be a global water availability shortfall approaching 40 per cent – so using what there is much better than it’s being used now isn’t optional.

Pictet Asset Management’s (Pictet AM) investment manager of active thematic equities, Charlie Carnegie says an investment strategy focused on water is “very much tied up in SDG 6 – this is access to clean drinking water and sanitation”.

“Water is now defined by the UN as a human right, and quite amazingly, over 40 per cent of the world still lacks access to this basic infrastructure,” he says.

“That’s something that we have no reason not to be able to provide going forward.

Investing in solutions

Carnegie says Pictet AM’s approach to water as an investment thematic is “really about investing in the solution providers to the water challenges that we face. We believe this represents around $1.4 trillion in annual revenues and is growing above GDP”.

Pictet AM has worked with strategic consultancies, academics and business leaders to devise a framework that tracks both the evolution and industry effects of 21 megatrends, which form six clusters: technology and science; environment; global governance; demography; economy; and society. Where megatrends intersect, Pictet AM believes investment themes emerge. The investment theme behind the water strategy comes from the intersection of the economic megatrends of commercialisation and economic growth; the demographic megatrend of urbanisation; the society megatrend of a focus on health; and the environment megatrends of environmental quality, climate change and resource scarcity.

“[Water] touches us all the way from human health, through to industrial activity and through to agriculture and our food systems,” Carnegie says. “Within that we have various constraints and human impairments on the water cycle that require intervention and investment to resolve.

Charlie Carnegie.

“Our water strategy is playing at that intersection between the challenges and the solutions.”

Carnegie says a critical but sometimes overlooked aspect of investing in water is “not investing in certain parts of it”.

“We don’t, for example, invest in bottled water,” he says.

“That’s water, but it’s not a solution provider to a problem or a challenge that the water cycle faces. Ultimately, it’s a convenience product, that tends to come with significant environmental costs associated with it. So, we don’t consider bottled water a thematic growth opportunity.

“We also don’t focus on water users, the customers of the water cycle. We’re looking at the people who are providing solutions to them. You have big industrial users of water, whether it’s textiles, chemicals, the oil and gas industry; they need a lot of advanced capital goods to support their processes. We’re looking for companies that are providing that. Not stewards of water, so to speak, but more the ultimate solution providers.”

Some investors view opportunities to invest in better use and management of water as part-and-parcel of an approach to tackling climate change. Peter Cashion, managing director of sustainable investments at the $500 billion CalPERS told the Top1000funds.com Fiduciary Investors Symposium at Stanford University there are two elements addressing climate change.

The first is the sheer scale of the required energy transition, Cashion said.

“In 2023, $1.7 trillion was spent on transition, up from $900 billion in 2019, so there’s really been a considerable increase, and that’s only going to grow,” he said.

Peter Cashion

“The second element is the importance of resource efficiency…so whether that’s water, power, energy efficiency – just inputs in general – that’s going to translate into lower costs, higher profitability and higher valuations.

“We’ve really seen, particularly in public equity, those strategies have really outperformed over the last years that are resource-specific measures.”

Not without risks

But despite the apparently compelling big picture, in practice investing in water isn’t without risks. Some pension funds have learned the hard way that they must pay as much attention to how utilities are regulated ans trsuctered as they pay to the fundamentals of water as an investment theme.

For example, the $100 billion University Superannuation Scheme (USS), the largest private pension scheme in the UK, revealed in its latest annual report that losses on an investment in the troubled UK utility Thames Water had led it to a “serious reflection” on investment in regulated assets in the future.

“Economically regulated assets should be a good fit for long-term patient investors like USS, particularly where, as with infrastructure, they require long-term investment to address historical challenges,” said Simon Pilcher, chief executive of USS Investment Management.

Pilcher noted that success is dependent on similarly long-term, consistent regulation that recognises the need for that investment and strikes a fair balance between risk and returns over the long term.

Pension fund investors have stepped-up investment in water-related assets and infrastructure, albeit from a very low base half a dozen or so years ago. A White Paper published by the World Water Council estimated that in 2018 that just 1 per cent of pension funds globally were invested in infrastructure overall, most of that was in transport and renewable energy, and hardly any in water-related opportunities.

But increasingly, funds are now recognising that the better use of water is a key plank in the sustainability of the businesses and industries they invest in, and is integral to the environmental health of the planet.

Norges Bank Investment Management, manager of the $1.78 trillion Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global sets out clear expectations of the companies and industries it invests in, including those with “operations or value chains in sectors with high water dependency and in regions exposed to water scarcity, water pollution and other water-associated risks”.

“Companies can seek guidance from relevant international principles, guidelines or industry initiatives, and UN Sustainable Development Goal 6 – Clean Water and Sanitation,” it says.

“Unilateral water management has limitations and may present companies with dilemmas. Collective impact assessments and action from multiple water users in a basin may play an important role in reducing risks.

“As an investor, we expect companies to be transparent about the topics raised in this document. For selected companies, we use such information to assess their water risk exposure, management and performance.”

While infrastructure and industrial companies tend to be at the core of Pictet AM’s strategy, Carnegie says a focus on impairments to the water cycle means the breadth of investment opportunities can be quite wide, and includes consumer-product companies, such as manufacturers of water-efficient home appliances and filtration systems; healthcare, where you find manufacturers of advanced analytical instruments for analysing water pollution; and even IT, “where we are finding a growing range of software providers building tools to help model and manage complex water infrastructure”.

Carnegie says investors in water solutions can choose between unlisted or private assets, and publicly listed assets. The route taken depends on the investor’s return requirements and risk appetite. Carnegie says Pictet AM’s water strategy invests solely in listed equity.

“Publicly listed equity gives us the necessary liquidity, transparency, disclosure and scale to tackle the sizeable opportunities ahead,” Carnegie says.

“We think it gives us a very good, clean route to the market. We’re not saying it’s the only one, to be clear; but it’s certainly the one that’s delivered very interesting, solid, compounding returns since inception in 2000.”

A lower-risk alternative

It’s also possible to participate as a fixed income investor with the intention of improving water quality while generating comparable investment returns to alternative opportunities that don’t share the same environmental objectives.

Ulrika Linden, senior portfolio manager, fixed income and green bonds, at the $84 billion Swedish AP7, says the fund invests in programs aimed at cleaning up oceans, which it participates in by buying blue bonds – these are bonds that comply with green bond principles, but which have a specific focus on water-related issues.

The World Bank defines a blue bond as “a debt instrument issued by governments, development banks or others to raise capital from impact investors to finance marine and ocean-based projects that have positive environmental, economic and climate benefits”.

“What the blue bonds does is actually not only sanitation water, or what you would say would go to SDG 6, giving clean water to households, but it’s more like saving oceans programs,” Linden says.

“We’re not able to do things for charity, because we are managing pensioners’ money, so we’re not allowed to give money away. We need to get an investment return that equals what we would have been given otherwise.”

Ulrika Linden

Linden says a “big advantage with green bonds from the start” is that the risk for investors is considerably lower than for equity investors. For a fund like AP7 that is restricted in the credit rating of the bonds it can buy, investing only in the highest-rated securities, it might otherwise be precluded from taking part in such projects because of the associated risks.

“We have big development banks that come in and take the risk that we would not be able to bear in cleaning up an ocean in a [location outside Sweden], because we only have to be very low risk,” she says.

“We have this development bank, like the Asian Development Bank or World Bank, to go in and take the risk.”

Linden says the motivation for investing in blue green bonds is as much environmental as it is financial – but with the important caveat that the returns must be competitive.

“That’s a purpose with it, when it’s from the fixed income part, that you actually have some environmental benefit from it, because otherwise you can get that investment return elsewhere,” Linden says.

“So when you’re a fixed income investor, it’s kind of that you get to do these good things, but not lose money on the way, and then you’re very happy if you get to do this project, but still have the same return as if you were investing in something that didn’t do anything for the ocean or for the sea.”

One of the major issues faced by fixed income investors is the credit risk of the bond issuer, but Linden says this is mitigated to a significant degree by the involvement of the World Bank or the ADB. Provided the bond is held to maturity, the capital risk is minimised.

Private infrastructure

For investors such as pension funds with very long-time investment horizons and risk appetites to match, “there are interesting private infrastructure assets, for example, that are out there”, Carnegie says.

“When you get down into infrastructure assets, a lot of them are unlisted, but they tend to be lower growth, low volatility, lower returns,” he saus.

“It’s just a slightly different profile.”

Investing in clean water distribution and sanitation might seem like it would be a bigger issue in developing economies than in developed economies, but Carnegie says investment in water management is required right around the world.

“Even in the developed world we still see a lot of interesting opportunities, in particular where you’re seeing significant urbanisation,” he says.

“Even in an advanced economy, we’re seeing urban population growth at almost 2 per cent annually, and obviously that creates a lot of pressure on the urban drinking water and wastewater systems. There, we see the need to invest incrementally.”

Carnegie says substantial investment is also needed to upgrade existing infrastructure, because in places such as the east coast of the US and in Europe a lot of the water network was built a century or longer ago, “which will provide a lot of opportunity to the water utility supply chain, and also the utilities themselves, as they make that investment with a guaranteed return through their water rates”.

There’s also the issue of polluted waterways and complying with growing regulatory demands to clean them up and maintain safe drinking water.

“The EU in 2020 dialled-up its requirements on water quality through the Drinking Water Directive, and they set a requirement on member states to comply by 2026,” Carnegie says.

“In the US, we’ve recently seen a pretty seismic ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency, setting an incredibly strict minimum contaminant limit on what’s called ‘forever chemicals’, and that’s going to drive tens of billions of dollars of investment over the coming five or six years, as water utility companies are forced to comply with this.”

US public pension funds should stop wasting precious time on thinly veiled political activism like vilifying the oil giant Exxon, ditch the ESG conference circuit, a sanctimonious echo chamber that does little to address the looming climate emergency, and repurpose most of their sustainability staff, says John Skjervem, CIO of Utah Retirement Systems (URS) which oversees $55 billion of assets on behalf of the US state’s public sector employees.

They should instead focus on putting capital to work in proven energy investments that generate returns to pay current retiree benefits and finance new transition technologies.

These new technologies will then power future returns for beneficiaries, decarbonize the world economy and hopefully stave off catastrophic global warming, Skjervem says.

The URS alternative energy portfolio

URS is building a portfolio of alternative energy investments with the dual focus of hedging its commitments in oil and gas while also positioning the fund to support and profit from a decarbonized future.

“We know decarbonization will happen, but we aren’t smart enough to predict with any precision exactly how or when,” says Skjervem, speaking to Top1000funds.com from the fund’s Salt Lake City office, explaining how URS is assembling a diversified basket of alternative energy investments so it has exposure across multiple transition scenarios.

“We started with fusion which of course is the holy grail, but are now working backwards, filling in the transition spectrum with intermediate to nearer-term strategies that utilize hydrogen, ammonia, and fission-based technologies.”

Rather than participate in ESG conferences, the URS investment team attends events sponsored by the US Government’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) where it gleans insight into potentially breakthrough energy transition strategies. These events are more important than ever, says Skjervem, now that financial support from the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act is available.

“If institutional fiduciaries are serious about climate change as a threat to securing future retirement benefits, why aren’t they here?” he asks, adding that for the third year in a row, URS was the only large, institutional asset owner attending a recent ARPA-E event.

Utah’s commitments to alternative energy are often in the form of direct investments, a higher-risk approach that makes up a small but growing portion of the fund’s 5 per cent real assets allocation.

“The incubation and development period for these transition technologies might be measured in decades,” says Skjervem, “so the investments don’t always comport well with a typical closed end fund structure.”

Importantly, 60-70 per cent of the fund’s real assets allocation is currently comprised of oil and gas holdings, many of which URS acquired in the wake of other investors’ retreat from fossil fuels. Moreover, several of these stakes are held independent of private equity funds enabling URS to retain long-term ownership in high-yielding assets at reduced fee levels.

“My predecessor, Bruce Cundick and the rest of the URS team adroitly capitalized on the oil patch exodus by investing consistently through the financing void that began in 2015” he says.

Both/And

As an alternative to the either/or paradigm that forces investors to divest from fossil fuels (bad) in favour of renewables (good), Skjervem’s guiding mantra is both/and which allows fossil fuels to jostle alongside renewables and alternative energy strategies like fusion.

“As investors, and as a society, we won’t be successful if we remain anchored in either/or thinking. If we can make a profitable investment that moves energy production from coal to oil, that’s good. If we can make a profitable investment that replaces oil with natural gas, that’s better. And if we can make a profitable investment that displaces Russian gas with domestic renewables, that’s terrific! But too often we see activists, politicians and even some high-profile institutional investors reject profitable, environmentally sensible investments due to the tyranny of either/or thinking.”

Skjervem offers methane as an example.

“In terms of total greenhouse gases, methane is much worse than CO2,” he says, arguing that in stark contrast to production in countries like Russia, Venezuela, Iran and Turkmenistan, home to the notorious Darvaza gas crater, US oil and gas production has among the world’s lowest methane emissions due to increasingly stringent regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency.

“Why wouldn’t you ‘Drill Baby Drill’ when US methane emissions are lower than other producers? Do you think Vladimir Putin or the Ayatollahs give a you-know-what about their respective methane emissions?”

It leads him to reflect on the paradox that finding solutions to complex problems requires both/and thinking but the political dynamic now affecting many funds’ governance encourages either/or decision making. Yet by supporting domestic oil and gas production he says “we can create jobs, fortify US geopolitical security and, at the margin, reduce aggregate, global methane levels. It’s a trifecta!”

Do Something Useful

Skjervem knows it’s possible one, more, or perhaps all these transition technologies won’t work and accepts that he and his team will make mistakes in the still nascent alternative energy sector. But he also views the URS alternative energy allocation as a responsible and rational hedge against inevitable decarbonization.

“With a big chunk of our real assets portfolio in the ground in Texas, our alternative energy efforts are just portfolio construction 101.”

He also says these efforts symbolise everything he believes investors should be doing to tackle “the biggest challenge facing mankind.” Specifically, he’d rather do the hard work of “committing time, energy, and real money to decarbonization strategies” than add “yet another vapid voice” to what he calls the already shrill and counterproductive ESG cacophony.

This approach also reflects his belief that adverse climate change outcomes should be addressed separately from today’s myriad of sustainability initiatives. A self-proclaimed sustainability O.G., Skjervem joined the Investor Advisory Group (IAG) of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) over a decade ago, and still serves in that role for SASB’s successor organization, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).

Under founder Dr. Jean Rogers, SASB pioneered the idea of evolving modern accounting practices to better measure and assess the materiality of corporate externalities. ISSB continues that effort by promulgating accounting and reporting standards that capture and present sustainability factors in a decision-useful framework.

“I’m proud of my long tenure in sustainability and convinced the empirical approach developed by SASB and continued forcefully under ISSB auspices will advance capitalism by improving corporate accountability across an expanded list of operating and impact criteria,” he says. “But climate change is a 5-alarm fire that requires immediate action separate and apart from the methodological approach needed to evolve global accounting standards.”

Skjervem has other advice too. Investing in energy transition technologies is difficult and will require new and different skills. Successful investors will need more engineers who understand energy physics and fewer of the political science majors he says now populate the ESG scene.

He urges other institutions to invest in these technical skillsets rather than continue to pour resources into still more ESG grandstanding.

“You only need one, maybe two sustainability analysts to engage effectively with ISSB and help keep its good momentum going. You sure don’t need 12.”

 

See also 

Utah Retirement Systems: Why ESG is a waste of time