Is Your OCIO Provider Doing a Good Job?

Determining an OCIO provider’s “success” is tricky business, Russell Investments argues.

How do you measure success in the subjective world of outsourced-CIO (OCIO)? It’s easier said than done, according to Russell Investments’ Bob Collie and Peter Corippo. 

Many elements—such as the quality of administrative and operations teams, the ability to suggest “ongoing enhancements,” the proactive identification of evolving issues, and the ability to work within each client’s culture—can only be evaluated subjectively, the pair wrote.

“‘Did we achieve our desired outcome?’ is not the same question as ‘Did the OCIO provider do a good job?’.”Collie, Russell’s chief research strategist, and OCIO Senior Strategist Corippo added that it can be difficult to assign responsibility for decision making, as the investor and the OCIO provider often jointly make important decisions. Assessing the success or failure of strategic asset allocation is also “less straightforward” than a single asset class’ performance, the duo continued.

“While OCIO often looks past a market benchmark to the investor’s end objectives, ‘Did we achieve our desired outcome?’ is not the same question as ‘Did the OCIO provider do a good job?’,” Collie and Corippo said. 

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

For these reasons, the authors argued that comparisons across OCIO providers aren’t strictly apples-to-apples, and difficult to encompass in league tables.

Instead, comparisons and evaluations should be multidimensional, focusing on “measures that fall within the OCIO provider’s control,” Collie and Corippo said.

Investors could also implement secondary objectives to assess more subjective elements beyond strictly quantitative performance benchmarks, and whether the OCIO helped the fund get closer to its end goals.

Russell emphasized that these quantitative and qualitative metrics should be agreed up front, and built into the OCIO provider’s reporting processes.

Russell is one of the largest OCIO providers, with more than $100 billion in outsourcing assets under management across 375 clients, according to CIO’s most recent survey of the sector. 

Russell OCIO Evaluation Metrics1Source: Russell Investments

Related: 2016 Outsourced-Chief Investment Officer Survey & 2016 Outsourced-Chief Investment Officer Vendor Ratings

Smart Beta Indexes Fall Short of Factor Investing

Research shows popular smart beta indexes fail to fully capture factor exposures.

Smart beta indexes may not provide true exposure to factors, according to research from Robeco Asset Management.

While the amount of exposure indexes provide differs “considerably,” none of the most popular strategies “unlock the full potential offered by factor premiums,” argued David Blitz, head of quantitative equity research at Robeco.

“Many smart beta strategies do not offer maximum factor exposure, but still contain a significant amount of market index exposure as well, or some unexpected exposures to other factors,” he wrote.

“Many smart beta strategies… still contain a significant amount of market index exposure as well, or some unexpected exposures to other factors.”For the study, Blitz compared value, momentum, low-volatility, profitability, and investment factor portfolios with corresponding Russell, S&P, and MSCI smart beta indexes. Though most of the indexes were “quite suitable” for obtaining factor exposure, they “fall short of offering maximum exposure to these factors,” he wrote.

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

The Russell 1000 Value index, for example, carried only a 36% exposure to the value factor. Meanwhile, it was exposed 23% to the market, 21% to the investment factor, and 20% to the low-volatility factor.

“The Russell 1000 Value index provides highly diffuse factor exposures, and that is not very suitable for investors seeking pure and sizeable exposure to the value factor,” Blitz argued.

MSCI’s value-weighted index, on the other hand, offered more pure value exposure than its Russell counterpart—but its market exposure was 60%.

Even momentum and low-volatility indexes from MSCI and S&P, respectively, which offered among the highest exposures to their designated factors, remained more correlated to the market than pure factor portfolios.

“Altogether, these results imply that smart beta indexes may be used to harvest generic factor premiums, but also that it is crucial to properly understand the characteristics of these indexes in order to get the intended factor exposures,” Blitz concluded.

Read the full paper, “Factor Investing with Smart Beta Indices”.

Related: Smart Beta vs. the Monkeys

«