JOB Building IN-HOUSE Investment Capabilities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AN INSIDE Building IN-HOUSE Investment JOB Capabilities Wafra Investment Advisory Group, Inc. Q4 2016 AN INSIDE JOB: BUILDING IN-HOUSE INVESTMENT CAPABILITIES Recent years have seen sovereign wealth funds (“SWFs”) in- creasingly moving away from asset managers in order to build out their own internal investment teams. The billions of dollars in outflows from external asset managers may save investors on fee payments, but building the internal capabili- ties to perform like external managers creates a host of challenges for sovereign investors. These challenges may include new governance models, institutional commitment, replicating best-in-class performance and the ability to source and compensate appropriate talent. Many sovereign and institutional investors are currently building out their internal capabilities, and this strategic change has coincided with the rise of institutional partnerships and platform investing. Leading institutions, like the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (“OMERS”), Singapore’s GIC, Kuwait Investment Authority and Canada’s Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec (“CDPQ”) are using various types of investment platforms to share and leverage expertise, while seeking to minimize fees. From the initial decision through the final implementation, deve- loping in-house investment teams requires asset owners to assess which amount of investment independence is approp- riate for their institution. Partnerships and platform in- vesting constitute important — and potentially valuable — investment strategies for institutional investors. 2 WHY BRING INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES IN-HOUSE? As a first step towards developing in-house investment capabi- lities, SWFs need to develop clearly defined goals regarding what they hope to gain by investing directly. There are numerous potential benefits to developing internal invest- ment capabilities, which increase as an institution disinter- mediates external managers. Higher Net-of-Fees Returns Moving away from third-party asset managers may provide grea- ter returns for SWFs. Private asset managers have come to be known for their hefty fees, which have recently resulted in billions of dollars’ worth of SWF outflows.1 Even if gross performance is below that of external managers, the absence 1 “Sovereign Wealth Funds Pull at Least of fees may produce greater net returns. $46 billion from Asset Managers.” Financial Times, The State of Wisconsin Investment Board recently began to de- 20 February 2016. crease its reliance on external managers and saved about 2 “Low Returns, Fee Scrutiny Drive $63 million in fees in 2015, while the Michigan Department Rise of Pension of Treasury, Bureau of Investments, has reported annual Fund Insourcing.” Pensions & Invest- 2 savings of $20-30 million by in-housing 35% of its portfolio. ments, 13 June 2016. 3 Why Bring Investment Activities In-House? Greater Alignment by Reducing Principal-Agent Conflicts Moving investment operations in-house can increase alignment of the investment teams with the needs of SWFs. For example, it may remove the incentive to simply increase investment size (and therefore management fees) in cases where that may not be in the institution’s interests. Australia’s FutureFund has outlined further principal-agent risks, including the temptation of external managers to over-diver- sify their portfolios in an effort to avoid risk and protect their interests, despite the investor’s strategic asset allocation necessitating such risks.3 To mitigate this misalignment, asset owners must develop the internal capabilities to under- stand the underlying investment strategies and clearly voice their preferences to external managers. Greater Access to Certain Assets As SWFs seek direct investments, they may be able to gain access to deals that would not otherwise be available to third-party managers. Consortia of SWFs and other public institutional investors like pension funds are increasing in number and acquiring assets like airports, which may otherwise be too expensive for third-party managers to access. 3 “Reshaping the Institutional Investment In early 2016, a consortium of OMERS, the Kuwait Investment Industry: The Role of Sovereign Wealth Funds Authority and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan acquired and Other Asset Owners.” the company that owns and operates London City Airport for Australia FutureFund, about $2.8 billion.4 The sheer size of this single transaction 30 September 2015. 4 “London City Airport eliminated the vast majority of external investment man- Acquired by Kuwait SWF and agers from contention, perhaps resulting in added value for Canadian Pensions.” Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute, the SWF consortium. 26 February 2016. 4 Why Bring Investment Activities In-House? Greater Bargaining Power The development of internal capabilities could increase bargaining power with third-party managers, as SWFs could have cre- dible internal alternatives to externally managed accounts. As co-investments with external managers may incur man- agement fees of 1% and a carry of 10% — and no fees for direct investments — institutional investors are often able to negotiate lower fees, greater control and/or demand for higher targeted performance from external managers. 5 “Pension Fund Designs Deal to Avoid Private- Dutch pension fund PGGM built out its in-house private equity Equity Fees.” The Wall Street Journal, 24 July 2015; capabilities and has publicly sought to gather other asset “PGGM Calls Out Money Ma- owners to push private equity managers for lower fees, nagement Fees.” 5 Pensions & Investments, specifically designing deals to avoid private equity fees. 6 August 2015. Fund Manager's Perceived Fund Manager's Perceived BENEFITS of Offering DISADVANTAGES of Offering Investors Co-Investment Rights Investors Co-Investment Rights Builds a Stronger 82 % 44 Relationship with Investors Additional Costs/Resource % Access to Additional Capital 71 % for Deals Slows Deals Process 41 % Improves the Chance of 49 % Successful Fundraise Differences in the Terms or Rights of Co-Investors 39 % Opportunity to 37 % Better Manage Risk Co-Investors Have More Control 39 over the Investment % Opportunity to Enhance 15 % Product Differentiation Negative Impact on Relationships 20 with Other Investors % Benefits the Asset 15 % Other 7 % Other 2 % None 15 % None 6 % 0% 20%40% 60%80% 100% 0% 10%20% 30%40% 50% Proportion of Respondents Proportion of Respondents Source: Preqin Fund Manager Survey, H2 2015 5 Why Bring Investment Activities In-House? New Insights that Can Improve Overall Investment Decisions Growing internal investment activities may lead to insights across other industries and asset classes. For example, how might investing in a VC opportunity in the automated car space lead to insights about specific real estate markets, from par- king facilities to shipping and logistics to suburban housing? More Responsive Portfolio Developing internal capabilities that have deep institutional knowledge may provide a more responsive portfolio that is a better match with liabilities and market conditions. More institutional independence allows for greater agility in investment decisions and strategies, which naturally evolve with an institution’s needs. For example, GIC has developed a Risk and Performance Manage- ment Department (“RPMD”) that ensures the investment risks undertaken by GIC’s internal investment teams are in line with its overall mandate. The RPMD regularly monitors investment strategies, assessing their respective risk pro- files, ensuring consistency with funding assumptions, and providing timely feedback to senior investment pro- fessionals who can make any necessary adjustments. 6 LEVELS OF INDEPENDENCE HIGHER RELIANCE ON THIRD PARTIES LOWER EXTERNAL CO-INVEST with PARTNERSHIPS with Fully Managers External Managers OTHER ASSET OWNERS IN-HOUSE The potential benefits of developing in-house capabilities at SWFs are clear; however, institutions must still decide on what level of independence they hope to achieve — and which would be optimal. There are several levels of investment inde- pendence, including complete reliance on external managers, co-investments with external managers, partnerships with other asset owners, and fully in-house investment teams. Models of Direct Investing SELECTION ONGOING SOURCING INVESTMENT ASSET ASSET SALE RESEARCH & DUE DECISION FINANCING MANAGE- OR EXIT DILIGENCE MENT HIGHER SOLO Internal Internal Internal Internal Internal Internal INVESTMENT PARTNER- Internal Internal Internal Internal Internal SHIPS* or delegated or delegated or shared or shared or shared Internal CO-INVEST- Delegated Delegated Delegated MENT* or Internal Delegated Internal Internal or Internal or Internal Asset owner engagement TRADITIONAL DELEGATED Delegated Delegated Delegated Delegated Delegated Delegated LOWER MODEL * Note: Varying levels of asset owner involvement/discretion observed in these models Source: Oliver Wyman 7 Why Bring Investment Activities In-House? It is important to note that the different levels of direct investment are not mutually exclusive, and an organization can have full in-house investment teams while seeking to partner with other asset owners and managers. Generally, however, SWFs that are completely reliant on third-party managers at present must gradually pass through each investment model in order to fully develop their in-house capabilities. Overview of How an Institution’s Experience with Direct Investing Might Evolve MATURITY • Asset owner optimizes how to access the assett