How an iterative strategy shapes success at Baylor university endowment
The investment team at the $2.2 billion endowment for Baylor University in Waco, Texas disagreed with the mid-2022 investment consensus that a US recession was looming into view. Instead, they took the endowment’s 5 per cent target allocation to fixed income to zero and bought as much equity exposure as possible.
Coming into 2024, Baylor accurately predicted the Federal Reserve would cut rates by 50bps, and the team now forecast another 100bps cut over the next six to nine months. With this in mind, they believe the rewards will be most keenly felt in small cap equities and that financials will also benefit from a steeper yield curve.
Other opportunistic strategies and tilts that don’t trip Baylor’s strategic ranges include staying long energy (particularly natural gas) due to the Middle East conflict, low global storage levels, and an expectation of continued economic growth going forward. Drilling down to a more granular level, Baylor is also invested in helium.
“We’ve been involved with helium for a while and are quite involved in developing powered data centers,” chief investment officer David Morehead tells Top1000Funds.com.
Morehead sums up the guiding ethos shaping investment strategy at the endowment which distributed $91 million to the university last year to support students, professors, and academic programs in one word: iterative. The team is happy to try out new managers (it has around 80 global managers on the roster, including a growing cohort of emerging managers) strategies, approaches and asset classes and push into them when they work.
But will also withdraw from areas where it is not successful.
“If we discover we are not good at something, we will simply stop doing it but if we are seeing positive contributions from an approach, we’ll continuously tweak it to increase our returns from this segment of the portfolio.”
He adds that one of the most challenging elements of this approach is ensuring the team maintain the intellectual honesty to recognise when something isn’t working and the time is right to pull back.
Morehead made co-CIO in 2020 and chief investment officer in 2021 when his predecessor Brian Webb retired. The endowment’s five-year annualised return is 12.2 per cent versus a strategic benchmark of 9 per cent and a typical stock bond portfolio of 8.1 per cent.
But all iteration is capped by the endowment’s robust topdown investment strategy that he believes ensures the most effective risk management. It checks emotion at the door; keeps managing risk front of mind and stops any tendency to follow the crowd.
A top-down approach whereby the team determine in advance how to array chips on the board avoids group think, opens unique opportunities and leads to a more cohesive portfolio, he continues.
Still, and like many other endowments, it didn’t protect Baylor from being over allocated to private markets going into the GFC. Morehead joined Baylor in its aftermath in 2011, and spent his early years buried deep in developing fresh foundational underpinnings to the now 45 per cent allocation to illiquid investments. He says that side of the portfolio didn’t get back onto the front foot until 2015 and it has taken even longer for the effort to finally pay off in strong, consistent returns finally visible in 2019-2023.
Does that mean mimicking Yale, MIT and Stanford is a bad idea?
“No, one just needs to allocate to private markets in a disciplined manner, consistently, over time, and it takes a long time to build out.”
Funds-of-One
With private markets back on track, he has spent much of the last two years restructuring the 20 per cent allocation to marketable alternatives that comprises long short stocks, hedged credit and distressed debt. Key to the change is four additional funds-of-one which he says are already showing extraordinary promise.
Around half the marketable portfolio has been turned over, not because there was anything particularly wrong with it as it was, but because funds-of-one have offered a new strategic way forward.
In another nod to that top-down ethos, the structure allows Baylor to fashion a particular exposure that best fits its own portfolio needs rather than allocate to a commingled strategy that fits the greatest number of investors.
“The asset management industry is largely predicated on finding a series of large-market-products to offer. Doing so enables assets under management to swell and provide extraordinary profits to the manager. By definition, these products cater to the average of what investors are interested in. That average may or may not meet what Baylor needs at a point in time.”
He has also recently tweaked the endowment’s approach to diversification, deliberately reducing it. The rationale, he explains, is to reduce the risk of diversifying away the positive alpha Baylor’s managers generate. A few years ago Baylor had exposure to over 700 stocks, frequently muting the beneficial impact of any positive earnings results or merger, he says.
“We don’t want to pay for good returns and then not have enough money behind the successful strategies,” he says.
It leads him to conclude that diversification is like most things in life – best in moderation.
“Academic studies demonstrate that one only needs 10-15 stocks to eliminate the systemic risk of the market. Obviously, we and every other endowment in the world is far more diversified than that. So, the real question is, can we be too diversified? The longer I’m in this space, the more I think the answer is ‘yes.’”
He qualifies that Baylor’s approach to diversification is only on the margins. The investor “owns everything under the sun” from sports drinks, to makeup, to publicly listed stocks, to aircraft leases and oil and gas production.
It’s just overall he believes in reducing the degree of diversification in the book, not expanding it.
Artificial intelligence is, at its core, a technology for making predictions. The trick to making it work productively is to frame the things it is asked to do as prediction problems: given what has already happened, what is the next most likely thing to happen, and how do we prepare for that?
That’s why it potentially lends itself well to an investment setting. Investing, at its core, is also about making predictions – and the faster and the more accurate the better.
The specific roles AI is best cut-out to play inside an investment business depend heavily on how particular businesses work. Quantitative investors, for example, may make greater use of AI sooner than traditional, fundamental stock-pickers.
Co-head of Quest, quantitative business strategy at Pictet Asset Management (Pictet AM), David Wright, says that if artificial intelligence were a human being, then at its current stage of development and capabilities it would probably be hired into his quant team at a graduate level, producing research and identifying trading signals for review and implementation by human portfolio managers.
“That is a pretty good question,” Wright says.
“It depends on the type of AI being utilised. Let me give you two examples here.
“My own team, the quant team, have been playing around with the recent ChatGPT rollout. I want to make it very clear, this is not something we’re using, we’re not using large language models, it was just one or two of them playing around with it,” he says
“My head of investments basically set it a number of tasks that we would have given to a graduate quant, and he said this recent iteration was good enough to answer the questions in a way that they’d have passed the bar on that stage of the testing to bring them in as a grad in the team.”
Wright says Pictet AM has built a quant stock selection that understands better which data sources are more relevant for making productions. In this scenario, one could equate the use of AI not to replacing a portfolio manager per se, because a portfolio manager is still there but involved in a different element of the process, but “you could say that the tool is being used for something that they would have historically done”.
Clear use cases
Technology moves quickly. As new applications for AI’s predictive powers are conceived and as access to compute becomes cheaper, asset owners are constantly investigating new ways to use it. But they’re also proceeding deliberately and setting out clear use cases before taking the plunge.
OPTrust director of total fund completion portfolio strategies Jacky Chen says the implementation of AI in OPTrust’s $24 billion investment operations continues to steadily develop its AI capacities, and he’s confident it’s on the right track.
“We view AI implementation as an ongoing journey rather than a one-time project,” Chen says.
“During this period, we have continued to explore and deploy high-value use cases within the organisation and provide user training.”
Around 12 months ago, Chen told top1000funds.com that AI was initially used within OPTrust’s investment operations to manage risk, playing to its strengths of being able to analyse very large volumes of data very rapidly. A year ago it was utilising machine learning and data science in its public market strategies.
“We are now leveraging generative AI for tasks such as synthesising large amounts of information and providing coding assistance,” Chen says.
“These initiatives require time to develop, and we are continually learning and improving our processes.”
Other asset owners take a similarly measured approach. A spokesperson for the $500 billion California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) says the fund uses “some generative AI and machine learning tools, largely through our standard investment business subscriptions, and to inform and augment decision-making”.
“That said, these tools do not replace human judgement,” the spokesperson says.
“Also, this is an area of ongoing change, and we continue to explore and monitor its usefulness for our business and its impact on the portfolio companies we own.”
Decision trees
Pictet AM’s Wright says the asset manager uses AI in a quant setting to generate return forecasts, “and then we use that within an optimisation to build a portfolio.”
“Historically, you would have generated the forecast by testing a number of signals and then combining them together with weights that were defined by the portfolio manager,” he says.
“The model that we’ve just described there had to be trained on those signals in the data historically, so it understands the relationships between them.
“But within the framework of that machine learning, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of individual decisions that had to be made, from a macro level about what type of machine learning that you use, to a micro level – and we’re going to get a bit more technical here – like once you’re using a decision tree-type process, how many layers of the tree – different branches – do you allow? How many runs do you do of it? All these different parameters. These are all chosen by the person developing the system.”
Teacher Retirement System of Texas senior managing director of multi-asset strategies group Mohan Balachandran told the top1000funds.com Fiduciary Investors Symposium at Stanford University in September that the greatest use of AI for the $200 billion organisation is in creating decision trees.
“That’s exactly what we use to pick signals in the equity portfolios,” he said.
“It used to take a long time to update your models, because people would do univariate regressions, and things like that. But once we started using [AI], it’s just become a very quick and fast turnaround, so much so that now instead of like global models, we’re more focused on sector models and country models.”
Balachandran said the efficiency the asset owner has achieved “has been tremendous”.
“And plus, all these things are open source, so the cost and the barriers to entry has been greatly reduced for us,” he said.
“The cost is now really on the data side, so that’s where we’ve been focused on.”
Pictet AM’s Wright says the trick to training an AI is to strike a balance between having enough data and keeping it relevant to the task.
“It’s still better if they’re really large [datasets], but really large and focused is better than absolutely massive and unfocused,” Wright says.
“You still need a minimum kind of level. Say you’re building something that it’s going to do financial natural language processing. You want to train it on every earnings call transcript that you can find, you want to train it on every 10k filing that you can find, you probably want to train it on news flow; but you don’t need to train it on Wikipedia, for example.”
Not yet replacing people
In some settings, AI is assuming roles and carrying out tasks previously done by people. But even then, there is human review of the outputs – a sanity-check, of sorts.
Wright says that in the specialised environment that he manages, AI is making stock selection decisions.
“That is essentially what’s happening,” Wright says.
“A quant investment process, you kind of think of it as three steps. There is bringing in the data; cleaning the data; and then turning that data into signals that are going to tell you something about stocks in the cross section.
“And then at the end, there is something that I mentioned earlier, like an optimisation of a big algorithm that essentially takes return forecasts, cost, risk estimates, lots of constraints and has an optimisation function to build a set of portfolio holdings.”
In between, Wright says, is a stock forecasting model that might incorporate as many as 50 weighted signals to come up with a decision.
“The output of that is a model that you then feed into the optimisation and you trade on it,” he says.
“In the machine learn world you’re just creating those return forecasts in the middle in a more sophisticated way; but in quant in general, to go back to your original question, you trade the output of a model. It is a model creating the return forecast, and then once you put that into an optimisation, the optimiser is choosing the positions to take in the portfolio.”
Chen says OPTrust does not regard AI as directly comparable to a human employee, “because there are many aspects of a job that require human judgment, creativity, and interpersonal skills”.
“While Generative AI is becoming proficient at specific tasks such as writing and coding, it is not capable of performing an entire job that a human can,” Chen says.
“Instead, we see AI as a technology that assists humans by streamlining certain portions of their work. For example, AI can handle data analysis, automate routine tasks, and provide coding assistance, allowing our team members to focus on higher-value activities that require human insight and decision-making.
“Therefore, rather than thinking of AI as a graduate-level ‘employee’, we consider it a powerful technology that enhances our team’s capabilities and efficiency.
“While AI is promising, we adhere to the principle that humans are ultimately accountable for the work product. We ensure that humans remain in the loop, with AI serving as a co-pilot to our people. This approach helps us maintain a balance between leveraging AI’s capabilities and ensuring responsible oversight.”
Staying in control
A characteristic of machine learning is that the way it arrives at decisions or outputs changes over time as it “learns” or assimilates new data. It could pose an issue if an asset owner is not constantly on top of what its AI is doing, and how it’s doing it.
HESTA head of portfolio design Dianne Sandoval told the Stanford FIS event the A$90 billion ($60 billion) asset owner runs a quantitative strategy team, along with some economists that use quantitative models and AI models to determine fair value across asset classes.
“And then the way that we implement it, I think, is a bit unique, because we take a very total portfolio approach,” she said.
HESTA’s Sandoval said it’s vital that asset owners understand what their AIs are doing and how they do it in the interests of transparency in reporting to members and beneficiaries, meeting regulatory requirements and complying with audits.
“The thing that’s really important for us, we’re a highly regulated industry,” Sandoval told FIS.
“In Australia the super industry is highly regulated, and it’s a competitive industry, because our members can get up and leave. So, we have to be really careful about ensuring that we have KPIs and audits.
“It’s really important that we can be really clear as to what the model is telling us, why the model is behaving the way it’s behaving, and that if we get audited or the regulator comes in, we can explain the behaviour of that model [and] that it’s not a black box.”
AI is also proving useful in cases where asset owners outsource investment management – in whole or in part – to third-party asset managers. CPP Investments managing director and head of strategy execution and relationship management Judy Wade told the FIS event at Stanford that there’s a vast amount of knowledge and insight “in our $650 billion in assets and 1000 investors’ heads and our partners’ [heads]”.
“That knowledge is really a key strategic competitive advantage for us,” Wade said.
She said the role of AI currently is to “accelerate our investors’ ability to make investment decisions”, and that the aim is not to replace investors or partners.
CPP fundamentally believes that “it is our data combined with large language models that provides us with proprietary insights, and that is, again, our data [and] our partners’ data”, Wade said.
She said that because the AI system has full information source-attribution at its core, it is a “near zero-hallucination environment”.
“Things aren’t being made up, which is really, really critical for our investors.”
Pictet AM’s Wright says that “when an asset owner uses outside managers, and again, I’m thinking specifically for some of their equity allocations here, they want to have a return that is beating the benchmark, delivering them some active return”.
“Say that a traditional quant model, on average, is able to outperform the index for them by 1 per cent, and maybe this next-generation approach is able to outperform by one and a half to 2 per cent for them, that additional unit of return, compounded over 20 or 30 years, can be quite significant,” he says.
Saving time, solving problems
Also at FIS, Matthew Shellenberger, senior manager of asset allocation and risk management at the WK Kellogg Foundation, said AI helps smaller asset owners such as the foundation – with 11 individuals in its investment team – to free-up time to focus on higher value-adding activities.
“There’s a time savings component,” Shellenberger said.
“There’s a faster processing component. And I would also say that for us, it’s also around idea elevation, which I think is for a group like ours, with a smaller team [means] being able to digest materials from [more than] 100 relationships, and actually be able to cultivate our own portfolio and our own tilts.
“The time savings one is readily noticeable for anyone who’s used any of these tools in any sort of administrative capacity. I think that also frees up your time to be more innovative in other areas of your portfolio and actually focus on the work that really does drive either active risk, and hopefully active return.”
OPTrust’s Chen says that 12 months further down the track of working with AI, the deployment has lived up to expectations.
“We have been integrating machine learning and data science into our strategies for the past six years, and over the past 18 months, we have been exploring Generative AI,” he says.
Chen says that 12 months ago “most AI applications focused on solving single-step problems, such as coding for specific calculations”.
“These applications were not good at handling tasks requiring multi-step problem-solving,” he says.
“Since then, we have seen advancements in AI’s ability to tackle more complex, multi-step problems, often referred to as agentic AI. This type of AI can assist portfolio managers in completing more intricate tasks, such as comprehensive data analysis.”
Published in partnership with Pictet Asset Management
Ben Thornley, co-founder at Tideline, looks at how value creation practices bring a manager’s impact credentials into sharper focus, the strong positive correlation between impact and financial performance, and the role of allocators in incentivizing and enabling managers to deliver impact value.
As the impact investing market matures, with over $1 trillion in capital, many of its distinguishing characteristics are becoming more widely understood.
Specifically, the two pillars of impact “intentionality” and “measurement” are relatively self-evident and form the backbone of asset owner diligence practices and emerging regulations. In the words of the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, “the key attributes of the impact category are theory of change and measurability”.
By contrast, the third and final pillar of impact investing has remained more obscured: “contribution”.
This is understandable. Contribution as a concept can feel esoteric, with impact defined as a change that would not have occurred, but for the actions (i.e., contributions) of an investor. As a result, the industry has created frameworks that run the risk of over-engineering efforts to calculate investor “additionality” – a term often used interchangeably with contribution.
Yet it’s also a missed opportunity. Contribution can and should be described in simpler terms – as an investor’s active and differentiated role to create the impact they seek to deliver. And in the same way a raison d’etre of traditional diligence is isolating a manager’s differentiated financial value proposition, contribution is uniquely revealing of the skills and capabilities of impact investors.
That’s why, one year ago, Tideline and Impact Capital Managers (ICM) set about investigating a cornerstone of contribution: the investment holding period in private capital markets, when all investors put their expertise, resources, and networks on the line to create value and optimize an asset’s performance.
With that goal in mind, we believed that by zeroing in on the distinct ways in which impact investors are creating value, we could deepen our understanding of a few key questions that help provide more clarity on the contribution pillar:
First, what are impact investors doing differently?
Second, what are the skills and capabilities needed for impact value creation?
And third, how are efforts to optimize for impact projected to directly enhance financial performance? In other words, how is impact financially material?
Here are a few of our biggest takeaways.
Impact value creation
When talking about impact, it’s important to first clarify the three overlapping ways in which positive social or environmental outcomes are generated through investment, since value creation strategies will differ depending on the modality in question.
Most impact investors focus on “growth” as the pathway to impact, by scaling inherently impactful products, solutions, and business models (83 per cent of the 12 managers we studied in detail).
Many investors (50 per cent) also create impact through a “systems” pathway, focused on systematic interventions affecting a company’s operations, workforce, or value chains, often with a broader objective of shifting industry norms.
Finally, we have the “transformation” pathway (16 per cent). Transformation is about pivoting an impact-agnostic business to be impact-aligned, often with the goal of catalyzing or accelerating such transition in the market.
With the goal, then, of either growing, systematizing, or transforming their assets, impact investors are taking active steps during the holding period to create impact value, using their role as owners or lenders to enhance the social or environmental performance of an investment.
But how?
We discovered seven key impact value creation levers that repeated over and over, through the 12 case studies, dialogue at ICM’s annual conference, interviews with market experts, and the results from a survey of over 30 of ICM’s members.
> Impact positioning to strengthen the market presence of an asset
> Product/service development to enhance user/consumer experience
> Market building to expand the addressable market
> Workforce initiatives to support employee productivity and commitment
> Impact incentives to integrate impact goals into performance
> Access to aligned capital, with mission-driven investors complementing commercial sources of capital
> Impact risk management to avoid unintended consequences
Importantly, the levers to create impact value were almost always deployed with the goal of driving a commensurate improvement in the financial return of an investment – a linkage we detailed in our research.
ESG vs impact
While some of the seven levers build on traditional and ESG-driven value creation approaches and capabilities, they constitute an especially hands-on investment approach and, in theory, create an additional layer of competitive advantage unique to impact investors.
Traditional value creation strategies like cost transformation and buy-and-build optimize for cash flow and valuation multiples, while ESG-driven value creation strategies like managing regulatory risk and improving an asset’s resource efficiency address broad stakeholder risks and opportunities. Distinctly, impact-led value creation is infused in an asset’s business and operating model and directly influences the core drivers of financial value, including revenue growth, operating margin, long-term productivity, and valuation.
Asset owner implications
Although it would be a stretch to claim we have definitive proof of the financial materiality of impact, the research convinced Tideline and ICM of the strong, positive correlation between impact and financial performance. As a result, we believe it would be unwise for allocators to risk not digging deeper into the unique capabilities that make impact value creation possible. These include the extent to which impact is part of a manager’s DNA and investment process, their heightened awareness of diverse stakeholder perspectives, and their access to unique networks, data, and expertise.
Unsurprisingly, asset managers are strongly influenced by the expectations and preferences of their investors, particularly as they are expressed throughout the diligence process. As contribution is increasingly recognized as a differentiating factor in driving impact and financial performance, investor demand for fund managers who demonstrate these capabilities will continue to grow.
Our book concludes that impact investors have perhaps the most privileged window into larger economic mega-trends, where financial, social, and environmental performance intertwine, and therefore have much to teach all investors.
With some of the most difficult-to-access insights into impact investing coming into sharper focus – in this case, the pillar of contribution – allocators are being armed with information that will be critical to ensuring sustainable financial performance for decades to come.
What remains, however, is for allocators to turn the spotlight on their own role enhancing the returns of underlying investments, asking what they can do to incentivize, better enable, or even directly support managers to deliver impact value.
Ben Thornley is managing partner and co-founder at Tideline, a specialist consulting firm advising institutional allocators and managers in impact investing. Since its founding more than a decade ago, Tideline has supported investors deploying over $200 billion of impact capital.
In the latest development of its private market portfolio, Swiss pension fund PUBLICA is investing in infrastructure equity in a partnership with three other Swiss pension funds and Dutch pension investor APG.
Private markets now account for 30 per cent of PUBLICA’s CHF40.5 billion ($46.6 billion) portfolio in an allocation that has been steadily built out since 2015 when the pension fund’s only real asset was an allocation to Swiss real estate.
Since then, risk has been added incrementally via an allocation to investment grade long-term private debt and foreign real estate. A 3 per cent allocation to infrastructure equity was added in 2022 to boost returns and add diversification divided equally between three open ended funds – and the latest allocation via partnerships.
“As we progressed through private asset classes we have added risk,” explains Dominique Gilgen, who joined the pension fund in 2015 to help build up private markets and now oversees a team of three in line with the portfolio’s growth. “At the same time, we have developed our experience, competence and confidence with these asset classes and vehicles.”
Although infrastructure equity brings higher risk, Gilgen believes in volatile markets it will be relatively stable given its long-term cash flows and the fact it sits in a more conservative space than equity. He also likes the inflation protection and ability to integrate ESG.
“Infrastructure equity has attractive characteristics from a sustainability point of view. It fits well with PUBLICA’s responsible investment approach and positive selection criteria are easier to integrate.”
Private equity remains notably absent from the real asset allocation. Equity risk, explains Gilgen, has always been the biggest risk in the portfolio (the listed equity allocation is 32 per cent of AUM) and the fund has been reluctant to go into an illiquid asset class with a risk factor that will build on existing risk.
Other concerns include how to efficiency implement private equity and high fees. He lists transparency, investor influence and the possible misalignment of interests as other issues.
“It is more difficult to access private equity and get compensated for the additional risk. For us, whether or not private equity can deliver risk premia after fees remains a question.” In 2023 PUBLICA’s total asset management expenses were 0.22 per cent.
Partnership in action
PUBLICA’s partnership with Swiss funds City of Zurich, Kanton Aargau, and Credit Suisse together with Dutch pension investor APG targets an initial commitment of €1 billion to jointly gain access to global infrastructure in the private market space. The quintet, hailing the collaboration as a benchmark for cross-border pension fund partnerships emphasize stability, transparency, and a long-term vision and hope to make the first investment “in the coming months”.
PUBLICA’s previous experience of partnerships includes collaborating with US insurance companies in private debt where stakes include real estate debt, infrastructure debt and corporate private placements. US insurance companies act as both asset manager and co-investor, typically contributing over 50 per cent of the investment, he explains. Gilgen particularly likes the alignment of interest in the active allocation that such a partnership brings.
He hopes the partnership with APG, which has a long track record of investing in private infrastructure and an experienced, large team, will bring another opportunity to learn. “We are partnering with someone who has vast experience in this area and capability to do this investment,” he says.
The partnership has been structured to incorporate differences between Swiss and Dutch legal and tax frameworks. He says the investors share many similarities including values and philosophies.
“The relationship was strong before we started. Although we are five distinct pension funds we have a common understanding that has helped bring such a project to a successful start.”
It’s often said that one cause of anti-ESG sentiment at some US public pension funds can be traced to external managers and proxy advisory firms pushing climate and social goals in the investment strategy without buy-in from beneficiaries.
In contrast on the other side of the pond, both literally and metaphorically, a unique endeavour to ensure participant buy-in and trust at Dutch pension fund Detailhandel is under way. The results from three beneficiary forums conducted earlier in the year to seek out participants’ ESG opinions and values are now being woven into investment strategy. [See also Dutch fund commits to member preferences.]
Critics of such an approach argue that boards abdicates their responsibility by asking members what they want. But Louise Kranenburg, Detailhandel’s responsible investment manager, is adamant the process has rooted the next leg of the pension fund’s bold responsible investment strategy in trust and credibility to support long term performance.
“ESG also involves values and we need to know what participants’ preferences are and what topics are important,” she says
Detailhandel has already written the importance of beneficiary preferences into its investment beliefs and regularly surveys its membership: in 2019 it used beneficiary preferences to shape a new equity index, for example.
But now a new qualitative process has embellished the binary yes/no questions of a survey to garner context and unearth beneficiaries own preferences. In February and March Detailhandel brought a representative group of 50 of its 1.2 million beneficiaries together in person to deliberate on complex questions, learn from each other and come together as a collective to present recommendations to the board.
It takes participant engagement to a new level – even by standards in the Netherlands where mandatory membership of a sectoral or company pension fund means engagement with participants is already pervasive.
“We didn’t want a group that was all sustainability-minded, and we didn’t want to just attract people who are vocal and have the time,” says Kranenburg. “We don’t know what our beneficiaries all feel and this model has allowed us to bring all their opinions together and make sure they come to a common ground.”
Ring in the changes
A suite of new initiative has emerged from the process.
The pension fund already under and over-weights companies in the index according to human rights but will now toughen its stance and remove companies that violate human rights and labour rights, tightening its divestment policy in line with participants’ wishes.
“Participants feel very strongly about these topics, which made the board decide to also formulate minimum thresholds for companies and introduce more strict norms than we currently have.”
She says the process will take time because the team will have to see how it impacts the risk profile.
In another indication of the 10-person board’s commitment to the issue, they have all agreed to undergo human rights training to better understand investors’ responsibilities and international frameworks
Participant engagement has also resulted in the pension fund seeking to invest more in affordable housing. Currently, 41 per cent of the allocation to housing within the real estate portfolio is invested in affordable housing. “We will have to investigate what is feasible,” she says.
The pension fund is also exploring whether to increase the allocation to impact, currently at 1 per cent. The next step in the process will involve drilling down into the extent to which participants are prepared to trade impact for returns and in what topics and themes they want to focus.
Detailhandel is a mostly passive investor (around 90 per cent of assets are in listed strategies) but uses custom indexes to shape what the market gives to its own preferences. The only exception is the allocation to long duration sovereign debt which doesn’t have an ESG custom index, but does have a sustainable bond objective.
“A custom SDG-index did not make sense because we invest in only a few European countries that score pretty similar on ESG-considerations. So under-/overweighting based on these countries’ ESG-characteristics did not achieve its goal.”
Another project in the pipeline includes integrating forward looking climate data in the custom-built equity index for developed markets.
“We have just started doing the first simulations.”
Private market strategies include allocations to real estate, mortgages, private debt and impact.
Understanding the trade off
Kranenburg explains that during the forums the investment team articulated the trade off and dilemmas around risk and return that come with investment, particularly responsible investment.
“We know from practice that things aren’t black and white; if you are positive on one thing it will affect something else.”
Moreover, she says Detailhandel’s board don’t agreed to all participant demands. In some cases, the board unanimously agrees to the idea, in others they have said it is something they are already doing, and may increase their ambition. Often they say this is not something the pension fund is in a position to solve.
The process has also given the investment team more confidence to divest. Beneficiaries said they prefer engagement but they are prepared to divest if companies don’t respond. Detailhandel is already well versed at engagement, escalation and collaboration. But she says divestment is always a more difficult decision.
“The last step of divestment is a struggle for the board, and this gives us as a pension fund more confidence that we can step up and beneficiaries will support it.”
A model for others
Kranenburg says no other Dutch funds have offered their beneficiaries a similar forum experience, but she reports lots of interest and growing efforts at inclusion.
In many ways it is now just a question of whether the board can keep up. Participants have requested a similar forum experience in two years time.
“This is ambitious because it will take us two years to complete all these actions,” she says.
University of Texas Investment Management Co (UTIMCO) the $75.5 billion asset manager and one of the largest public endowments in the US, believes a rise in small cap valuations could be on the horizon.
History tells us that equity markets always do well after a rate cut, said Richard Hall, UTIMCO’s president, chief executive and chief investment officer speaking to the investment committee in the September board meeting at the fund’s Austin headquarters.
But he flagged a noticeable lag in small caps relative to the rise in the S&P500, up roughly 50 per cent of the main index.
“We are starting to see some research that small caps have lagged,” said Hall. He suggested this could be an area of opportunity for investors going forward, particularly because small caps might rally off the back of positive earnings expectations.
“S&P500 earnings are expected to grow by about 11 per cent in 2025 over 2024, but small caps in the S&P500 are expected to grow at double that rate.”
He linked this to the fact small caps are heavily impacted by moves in interest rates – for example, when rates fell in 2022, small caps noticeably underperformed compared to large caps.
He said that rate cuts flow through to small cap profits to drive investor returns because small caps have a much higher portion of floating rate debt. It means when rates climb, it is punishing but when they fall it provides welcome relief.
“As rates go down small caps rally, we saw this in early 2020 and the flow through to free cash flow is extensive. It’s why the market is talking about small caps.”
Despite his positive telegraphing of a spike in returns for smaller companies, Hall cautioned that small cap valuations have not spiked following September’s rate cut.
Hall also flagged risks in the wider equity landscape despite the prospect of more rate cuts. On average, the year coming up to rate cuts shows equity markets typically climb 9 per cent. Last year the S&P500 was up 21 per cent, raising the prospect that markets and investors have pulled returns forward, and offset returns over the next couple of years.
Returns look bright in public equity, but he warned that private equity remains challenged.
Capital calls from private equity managers have dropped off, and the lower quality companies in UTIMCO’s buyout allocation are struggling, resulting in longer hold periods. Although this degrades the IRR, he said it probably wouldn’t degrade the multiple of return over time.
On the venture side the landscape is even more challenging.
“Things have slowed down a lot,” he said.
However, he forecast that strong venture businesses will increasingly emerge, promising the “next crop” of winners. For investors, this involves staying the course and continuing to plant new seeds in venture today to harvest tomorrow.
He said the big risk in private equity remains ensuring enough liquidity on hand to meet distributions. UTIMCO revisits its commitment models and proactively looks at how any extension on the average hold period of a company from three-to-four years to five-to-six years flows back through the system. This ensures the investor doesn’t get out of its bounds on unfunded commitments relative to the total endowment value.
Asset allocation at the endowment is neutral relative to targets, apart from a 1 per cent overweight to equities. The fund has 29.1 per cent in public equity, 6.1 per cent in directional hedge funds and 26.2 per cent in private equity. Cash, long treasurers and stable value hedge funds account for around 17 per cent. Inflation linked bonds (0.2 per cent) natural resources (3.3. per cent) infrastructure (4.5 per cent) and real estate (8.4 per cent) make up the rest.
Hall said returns have been driven by public markets with public equity providing the standout performance by returning 21 per cent with a 2.2 per cent outperformance. The hedge fund allocation has been a “consistent performer,” but private equity has been challenged by venture and real estate has also struggled.
He said UTIMCO is the “envy of peers” because it is supported by oil and gas royalties. The fund received $1.9 billion from oil and gas royalties last year.
Share This Article
Login
Create an account for a more personalised experience. You'll be able to save content to a reading list for later, update your interests so we understand what content and events you'll love, and update your preferences and contact information.
Login via LinkedIn
Use your LinkedIn account to accelerate the process. We'll source your details from your LinkedIn profile.