search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Stoneport Pensions – Industry view UK public equities


Overseas public equities Unquoted/private equity Hedge funds Property


Total return seeking


39% 47% 2% 3%


10% 100% 8%


44% 11% 21% 15%


100%


Richard Jones is chief executive of Stoneport Pensions


SMALL SCHEMES STRUGGLE TO JOIN THE SHIFT TO DIVERSIFICATION


Nobel Prize winner Harry Markowitz, one of the grandfathers of modern portfolio theory, is often attributed with the expres- sion “diversification is the only free lunch in investing”. This expression is designed to illustrate a key tenet of modern portfo- lio theory,


that diversification in your


return seeking assets will enhance the return you can achieve for each unit of risk (or indeed you can get the same return at a lower level of risk). UK defined benefit (DB) pension schemes typically have had limited diversification in their return-seeking assets but, since the introduction of the Pension Protec- tion Fund and its regular update on the industry through the Purple Book, we can see a dramatic shift in how schemes aim to generate their excess returns. As shown in the table at the top of the page, in 2009, public equities dominated the return-seeking portfolios of schemes, with UK equities particularly prominent at 39% of return seeking assets, despite making up only around 5% of the global market capitalisation of stock-markets.


By 2020 we can see that schemes in aggregate have sold down their UK public equities dramatically. This money has not been reinvested in global public equities but, in aggregate, moved to diversify assets with unquoted and private equity holdings increasing by 5%, and hedge funds going from a minor player to pro- viding a fifth of all return seeking assets across the industry. Property investments have also increased their weight in return seeking portfolios. Such widely diversified strategies can pre- sent significant governance issues. Large schemes can work with their investment consultants to walk through the complex issues of allocation between the various asset classes and select the best-in-class managers for each component of the strategy.


Smaller schemes have found this level of oversight and governance of their invest- ment strategy to be somewhat impracti- cal. Thus, many schemes that bought into diversification and had faith in their investment consultant, decided to dele- gate the implementation of a diversified strategy to their investment consultant through fiduciary management. Fiduciary management is something of a compromise at a governance level, allow- ing the trustees to focus on the overall package of risk and return rather than the individual components of the strategy.


Moreover, if the fiduciary manager selects all the underlying managers, some of the benefits of diversification can be lost. The recent CMA findings on fiduciary management have introduced some fur- ther governance requirements for trus- tees wishing to delegate the individual asset allocation and manager selection choices to a third party, with competitive tendering now required on a regular basis.


Current options for ensuring trustee over- sight of the individual asset allocation choices and manager selections before they happen, rather than reviewing the performance implications of these choices in a rear-view mirror, are extremely limited for smaller schemes. Diversification is good; but oversight of a diversified strategy is hard for all but the largest schemes.


Design and production Portfolio Verlag


Printed in the UK by Stephens & George


Subscription rates UK £222 (9 issues), Single issue price: £27.50 Overseas €270 (9 issues), Single issue price: €33.50


Enquiries +44 (0)20 7822 8522 j.waterson@portfolio-institutional.co.uk


© Copyright portfolio Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without the prior permission of the publisher. Although the publishers have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication, neither portfolio Verlagsgesellschaft mbH or any contributing author can accept any legal responsibility whatsoever for any consequences that may arise from errors or omissions contained in the publication


ISSN: 2045-3833 Issue 102 | April 2021 | portfolio institutional | 13


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56