This article is sponsored by The Wharton School.
With market uncertainties growing, many investors and their advisors are taking a closer look at private equity. In fact, this asset class is now attracting a sizeable segment of the economy, and it has an ecosystem that includes not only private equity firms, but banks that cover their debt, individual investors, and companies looking to sell or being approached for a sale.
“No one needed to understand private equity 30 years ago,” says Wharton finance professor and director of the school’s Alternative Investments Initiative Bilge Yilmaz. “But today, you can no longer ignore it. Private equity has evolved from deal-making by the ultra-wealthy to an investment option for individuals.” Yilmaz says that with so many people now involved, the bidding can be intense — and the chance of making a costly mistake is great. “You need to be able to see value where others can’t, and understand how a deal is put together. If you’re an investor, you will inevitably have to compete with others, so your ability to do good sourcing and due diligence is key.”
Yilmaz has been teaching private equity to Wharton MBA students for many years, providing them an edge that they can put to use in their first deal. Now, he is bringing the same innovative curriculum to an open-enrollment course for business executives in the four-day program Private Equity: Investing and Creating Value.
“We will help participants gain exposure to the strategies that private equity firms use to structure and finance a deal and create value for their investors. They will understand the key drivers in private equity and gain confidence in evaluating investment opportunities,” he says. In addition to best practices in and tools for structuring a deal, sessions on due diligence, debt negotiations, and exit strategies will show participants how to get maximum value from their investments.
“You need to experience the life of a deal to appreciate the knowledge and strategies that go into it.” Bilge Yilmaz, PhD, Wharton Private Equity Professor, Professor of Finance, The Wharton School
Yilmaz will be joined by other finance faculty and Wharton alumni who are leaders in many areas of the private equity industry. They will share their experiences and discuss their views on the private equity landscape. Outside the classroom, participants will work on deal proposals in small groups, applying what they have learned, using as reference a recent private equity deal. They will apply the tools that private equity firms use to structure and finance a deal, and show how it will create value. “This is the best way to learn,” says Yilmaz. “You need to experience the life of a deal to appreciate the knowledge and strategies that go into it. I want participants to be able to articulate why they want to own this business.”
A deal proposal will be presented to a panel of faculty and alumni who will provide real-time feedback at the end of the program. “This is not just an exercise,” say Yilmaz. “It’s a reality check on what you have learned in the program, how well you can apply it, and what you can do to improve.”
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
4 weeks ago
Saudi PIF Reveals Advisory Board
4 weeks ago
GIC Seeks to Sell 50% Stake in Chifley Tower
3 weeks ago
Central Bank of Brazil Intervenes As Real Crashes Near Record Lows
2 weeks ago
Principal Global Investors Names Pat Halter as CEO
3 weeks ago
KIA Contemplates Global Power Generation Purchase
3 weeks ago
Tarhouna Milita Group Advances in Tripoli
3 weeks ago
Hassad Food Nearing Major Sales Deal on Australian Farmlands
3 weeks ago
BLOOMBERG: President Trump Threatens to Leave WTO if it Doesn’t Shape Up