This article is sponsored by The Wharton School.
Today, when sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) put assets into alternative investments, they are more likely to be direct, rather than passive, investors. One of Canada’s largest pension funds recently bought a significant minority stake in Allflex Group, the global leader in animal monitoring technology, joining Allflex’s leading shareholder, private equity firm BC Partners. In India, a growing number of SWFs are reportedly interested in acquiring investment stakes in infrastructure companies that are expanding the nation’s roads and airports. The New York Times recently described SWFs as part of the group of so-called emerging buyers who bought about 17 percent of the assets sold by private equity firms since 2015, up from 2 percent almost a decade ago.
“Sovereign funds have been showing great interest in private equity,” says Bilge Yilmaz, Wharton Private Equity Professor and director of the Wharton School’s Alternative Investments Initiative. “But as these recent deals highlight, many of them are changing the way they are investing — buying in as private equity partners.”
Yilmaz is leading Wharton’s new four-day executive education program, Private Equity: Investing and Creating Value, which is for industry professionals interested in a deep dive into private equity. He notes that through this highly technical program, SWFs can acquire the know-how and skills to invest directly. As limited partners in the PE field, they need to understand the asset class and its risks if they choose this route. “Sovereign wealth fund managers will receive training on due diligence, how to structure a PE deal, and how to think like private equity firms,” he says. “This will give them an advantage when partnering or even competing with PE firms. We hope that SWFs will see this program as a smart investment.”
“Companies looking to SWFs want intelligent partners who have local know-how. SWF managers need to be prepared to take on that role,” says Professor Bilge Yilmaz of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
SWFs who are limited partners are expected to participate directly in the managing of the company to make it more valuable. That means understanding their business model and strategic objectives, communicating well with senior leaders and other board members, and offering the knowledge and wisdom to help guide their growth. “Companies looking to SWFs want intelligent partners who have local know-how. SWF managers need to be prepared to take on that role,” says Yilmaz.
The Wharton program was designed to bridge the knowledge and skills gap. Taught by world-renowned Wharton finance faculty and distinguished alumni working in the private equity sector, it helps participants gain a thorough understanding of the most current concepts, tools, and best practices used by private equity managers today.
“This is a unique opportunity to make an investment in your skills,” notes Yilmaz. “You will tap into the expertise of some of the top senior partners in leading investment organizations, who will not only share the latest trends, but also evaluate deals that participants put together. You will learn how they add and create value, and how the private equity business model varies because of regulations and market forces in different countries and regions. SWF managers in particular, as they increasingly move toward direct investments, need this kind of knowledge now.”
How Do Public Pension Funds Invest?
This article is sponsored by State Street.
Public Pension Funds (PPFs) are highly idiosyncratic and distinct from other types of institutional investors. The universe of investors that fall within our definition of a PPF is numerous and varied. We count 115 institutions in 70 jurisdictions, diverse in geography and economic development. For the purposes of our study, we examined the top 16 funds whose assets constitute just over two-thirds of the total universe. Despite all the idiosyncrasies of PPFs, we have found some shared characteristics in the evolution of their asset allocation over the past decade.
According to our definition, PPFs held around $5.9 trillion in total assets of 2016 and over 4% of all publicly traded assets, making them a significant global investor group. In particular, given their preferences for specific asset classes, their share is disproportionate in some segments. For example, we estimate that by year-end 2016, PPFs owned over 7% of global tradeable fixed income assets (including 8% government bonds and over 13% of inflation-linked bonds) and over 3% of listed public equities.
Similar to other asset owners, PPFs have undertaken a major reallocation of assets over the past decade. However, the motivating driver has not only been the low yield environment, but also changing regulatory and macro policy settings, which either permitted or encouraged greater diversification along asset classes and geographical exposure.
In detail, the most dominant trend has been the move away from holding domestic (local currency) bonds; in their place, PPFs have redeployed assets towards equities and alternatives, with a small share also diverted into foreign bonds. These allocation trends have been almost universal despite a huge diversity of geography and economic development.
It is important to acknowledge how much this investor group has changed over the past decade, with the asset pool growing by over 40% in dollar terms, and even more if measured in local currencies. While some funds are still predominantly captive buyers of government debt, the bulk of PPFs have been transforming into financial institutions with independent firepower and income-generating capacity. The long-term trend towards more diversified fixed income portfolios is likely to continue, as is the shift towards taking on more risk via equity allocations, subject as ever to changes in market cycles. In this context, we expect most PPFs to not only continue taking on more risk overall, but to further internationalise their portfolios.
Finally, one consideration is that maturing funds catering for aging populations will have to make further adjustments to their asset allocations to account for changing cash flow directions and seek greater contributions and investment returns to bridge any funding gaps.
All information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. There is no representation or warranty as to the current accuracy, reliability or completeness of, nor liability for, decisions based on such information and it should not be relied on as such.
This document may contain certain statements deemed to be forward-looking statements. All statements, other than historical facts, contained within this document that address activities, events or developments that SSGA expects, believes or anticipates will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and that actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements.
Tracking Code: 2172159.1.1.GBL.RTL
By clicking on the link to view the report, you acknowledge you are an institutional investor or other accredited investor.
Elliot Hentov, Ph.D. Head of Policy and Research, Official Institutions Group Elliot_Hentov@ssga.com
Alexander Petrov Policy and Research, Official Institutions Group Alexander_Petrov@ssga.com
Sejal Odedra Business Analyst, Client Strategy, Official Institutions Group Sejal_Odedra@ssga.com
The Slings and Arrows of Passive Fortune
This article is sponsored by S&P DJI.
If a tale were to be written regaling us with the popular exploits of the modern day active manager in his quest for alpha across the many peaks and valleys of the financial world, passive investment would likely feature prominently in the telling. Passively managed assets have grown tremendously since their introduction in the 1970s to command some 20% of the U.S. stock’s market total-float adjusted capitalization, drawing a deluge of criticism in recent years from proponents of a more traditional, active approach who charge indexers with all manner of supposed ills – from encouraging collusive behavior and exacerbating pricing inefficiencies, to indifference on matters of corporate governance.
But are passive assets and their purveyors really the threat to markets that active management makes them out to be? Or are the problems attributed to their rise merely a reflection of the market forces all participants must face? These are the questions posed by Anu Ganti and Craig Lazzara at S&P Dow Jones Indices (S&P DJI) in their new paper, titled “The Slings and Arrows of Passive Fortune,” which seeks to unravel some of the most pervasive myths surrounding the growing role of index funds, highlight the immense value they bring to asset owners, and posits a future of asymmetric equilibrium between the old and the new that puts each in their proper place based on relative – rather than absolute – performance.
Nobody – including the paper’s authors – denies that index-based investment has made life more challenging for active managers, who count alpha as their very lifeblood; but so too would it be foolish to argue its advancement as one of the most important developments in modern financial history is without merit, or somehow Thucydidean in nature. If anything, active management can and should expect its portion of the pie (which, it must be pointed out, constitutes the majority of assets by a wide margin) to remain subject to nibbles from their passive counterparts – nibbles that may, with time, diminish. The market always has room for more players at the table, after all, and we all play by its rules.
As Director and Managing Director of index investment strategy team at S&P DJI, Ganti and Lazzara provide research and commentary on the firm’s entire product set – covering U.S. and global equities, commodities, fixed income, and economic indices. Both are chartered financial analysts and regular contributors to Indexology, S&P DJI’s appropriately named blog covering developments in the world of indexing.
Battea: 2017 Securities Class Action Industry Lookback and Observations
This article is sponsored by Battea.
There has been incredible growth in securities and antitrust class action litigations and settlements, particularly as they have unfolded in 2016 and 2017. The number of new cases and settlements from traditional securities litigation to antitrust rate rigging, spread inflation and other forms of collusion are at an all time high and shows no signs of slowing down.
With several multi-billion dollar litigations related to Libor, Euribor and Tibor rates, and spread manipulations, the securities, foreign exchange and antitrust class and collective actions litigation space rose exponentially in 2017.
View Whitepaper Here
2 weeks ago
Principal Global Investors Names Pat Halter as CEO
3 weeks ago
Tarhouna Milita Group Advances in Tripoli
3 weeks ago
Hassad Food Nearing Major Sales Deal on Australian Farmlands
2 weeks ago
QIA Participates in Investment in OncoResponse
3 weeks ago
Is Irish Pension Reform on the Horizon?
3 weeks ago
Alibaba Sees Opportunities in Russia
3 weeks ago
Sovereign Funds Spent Another Year Hunting for Payment Fintech Plays
2 weeks ago
China-Africa Development Fund Gets More Attention from Chinese President Xi Jinping