Alternative Strategies Important for Pensions

Alternative strategies have been successful in increasing the portfolio returns of institutions, as well as reducing investment risk, over the past 20 years.

“Private equity and venture capital have provided returns well above public market equities,” says Verne O. Sedlacek, president and CEO of Commonfund. “And hedge funds have provided alpha across market cycles and protection in down markets.”

Sedlacek is author of the recent paper, “Alternatives Reality: What to Expect from Future Allocations.” 

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Long-term asset pools, such as pension funds, have not been able to maintain their purchasing power and spending by allocating to just a mix of passively managed investments, Sedlacek adds. “Active management of long-only strategies will bridge only part of that gap. Significant allocations to alternative strategies are necessary to preserve intergenerational equity and thus fulfill the long-term obligations of institutional investors.”

In the paper, Sedlacek outlines key factors driving the success of alternative strategies:

  • Once considered exotic, alternative strategies are now seen as mainstream by investors. Over the past 30 years, endowments have increased allocations to equities and decreased allocations to fixed-income strategies.
  • Investors have been adequately compensated with higher risk adjusted returns compared to traditional strategies. Institutions that allocate capital to alternatives exhibit higher performance in comparison to those that allocate solely to traditional assets. Thoughtfully constructed portfolios including allocations to alternative investment strategies are well-positioned to continue to outperform the “traditional” 60/40 benchmark.
  • Nonprofits of all types and size have significant allocations to alternatives. Today, the largest educational endowments allocate on average more than half of their portfolios to alternative investment strategies. Pension funds, while at much lower allocations, have likewise shifted assets toward alternatives in an effort to boost investment performance and dampen volatility.

According to the paper, investment manager selection is critical. There is a wide dispersion of returns in alternative investments, making manager access and selection key determinants of returns. The paper also argues that allocations to alternatives should be used only by investors that can access top-tier managers, since the distribution of returns among alternative managers is far greater than it is among traditional managers.

The paper concludes that the fundamental principles and drivers of investment performance that have propelled returns for alternatives over the last two decades are largely unchanged. The paper also concludes that significant allocations to alternative strategies need to be “thoughtfully constructed and [overseen by] top-tier managers.”

The full text of the white paper can be found here.

Commonfund is a provider of fund management and investment services for long-term investors such as nonprofit institutions, corporate pension plans and family offices.

Texas Adviser Settles with SEC for Wrongful Fees

Jim Poe and Associates Inc. received $637,843 from nonqualified clients, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 

The advisory firm has been registered with the SEC as an investment adviser since September 15, 2010, but received improperly charged fees to some of the investors in the three funds that it formed in 2010 and 2011. Almost none of subscription agreements submitted by investors in the funds had completed the qualified client section.

According to a statement from the SEC, under section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act, registered investment advisers cannot enter into an advisory contract or provide advisory services under contracts that provide compensation based on a share of capital gains or upon capital appreciation of the assets or any portion of the assets of a client. These are known as performance fees. However, if the client is a “qualified client,” the provisions do not apply under rule 205-3 of the Advisers Act.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

The definition of qualified client was revised as required by Dodd-Frank, and now qualified clients must have at least $1 million of assets under management with the adviser, up from $750,000, or a net worth of at least $2 million, up from $1.5 million.

When the advisory contract was established, Jim Poe and Associates failed to determine whether any investors satisfied the requirements of Advisers Act Rule 205-3. That is, whether any investors were “qualified clients.” As a result, the firm charged all investors in its funds, including those who were non-qualified clients, a performance fee. Between 2009 and 2012, Jim Poe and Associates received $637,843 in performance fees from investors who were not qualified clients.

The SEC instituted cease-and-desist proceedings against the Fort Worth, Texas, firm on December 24, 2013, for section violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In response, Jim Poe and Associates offered a settlement that the SEC accepted, and the firm reimbursed all nonqualified clients the amount in performance fees each one improperly paid. The firm was also ordered to pay $35,000 to the Treasure Department in civil penalties. 

«