Asset Management’s Jackie Robinson Moment

Foundation leaders on diversity in institutional investing—and lack thereof.

“When you think about where money is being managed, it’s like baseball in 1940,” said Ariel Investments CIO John Rogers, Jr. Thursday to a room full of foundation leaders, consultants, and asset managers.

When it comes to hiring portfolio managers, Rogers argued, many foundations and endowments still need a “Jackie Robinson moment”—a reference to the first African American to play in Major League Baseball when he debuted for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947.

“We know they exist, we know they’re out there, and we want to be a part of this.”Rogers was speaking at one of several panels at the Council for Foundations’ 2015 Endowments and Financial Services Summit in New York. Thursday, the first day of the two-day event, included sessions on topics ranging from the future of the economy to governance best practices to impact investing.

But a common thread throughout the day’s events was diversity, which was the topic of two of the day’s six panels, including the one Rogers headlined with three other minority asset managers. Rogers even went as far as to compare the state of the asset management industry to a “modern Jim Crow,” citing racial segregation laws in the US.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

Diversity was first brought up in the conference’s opening remarks and Q&A, when an attendee asked John S & James L Knight Foundation CFO Juan Martinez how his foundation grew its number of minority and women portfolio managers.

“I wish I could say there is a magic bullet or magic lever that we pull,” said Martinez. “The reality is we sat with our investment consultants and we said this is something we want to do and here are the criteria… We know they exist, we know they’re out there, and we want to be a part of this.”

Erica Davies, director of external affairs at the Association of Black Foundation Executives, discussed how to solve the lack of diversity in portfolio managers in a panel she moderated featuring the positive example of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF).

Some of the largest barriers, she said, are policies and practices that bar diverse candidates from consideration, such as a minimum number of years in the business or level of assets under management. Misperceptions of the riskiness of hiring minority and women managers add to the challenge. Limited access to diverse investing talent manifests through long-term relationships with non-diverse managers and via gate-keeping consultants who don’t make diversity a priority in their manager recommendations.

“We’re trying to make sure our sourcing is inclusive and that any qualified manager can have a crack at the business.”When the SVCF took on the mission of becoming more inclusive in its manager selection, Bert Feuss, senior vice president of investments, said the first thing the foundation did was address diversity goals with its consulting team. The consultants were asked to determine the total number of managers they looked at, how many of those were minority or women, what number of minority and women managers they recommended, and how many minority and women managers were hired.

The results confirmed Feuss’s suspicions: Diversity needed to be prioritized in the manager selection process. From 2013 to 2015, the SVCF increased its number of female and minority managers from three to eight, with assets managed by women and minorities growing from $52 million to $139 million from 2013 to 2014.

“We’re not working toward a specific number or a specific percentage,” Feuss said. “We’re trying to make sure our sourcing is inclusive and that any qualified manager can have a crack at the business.” 

Besides discussing diversity goals with consultants, Davies said foundations working to be more inclusive in their own manager selection should develop intentional and explicit diversity policies and connect diversity and inclusion efforts to performance appraisal. Additionally Davies recommended getting to know the diverse talent that’s out there, through minority organizations or conferences.

And why not cast a wider net, asked Thurman White, president and CEO of Progress Investment Management and a board member of the SVCF. “It’s making sure you’re not missing investment opportunities.”

“The talent has always been around,” White said. “What’s lacking is opportunity.”

Related: WhiteoutLifting the Lid on Asset Management’s Gender ProblemWomen in Alts Find No Favor Despite High Performance

PIMCO Hits Back at Gross Lawsuit

The Newport Beach investment giant has questioned the grounds of its former co-CIO’s $200 million legal complaint in its official response.

Bill Gross’ lawsuit against PIMCO, the firm he co-founded in 1971, is “a legally groundless and sad postscript” to his tenure, the company said in its official response to the filing.

PIMCO’s lawyers Boies, Schiller & Flexner filed a 20-page “demurrer” response to Gross’ complaint yesterday, asking the court to reject the case.

“The complaint suffers from two fatal flaws. First, the allegations are untrue. Second… the complaint fails to state any viable legal claim.” —PIMCO’s legal filingIn the document, PIMCO questioned the central claims made by the former bond king and challenged whether there was a case for the company to answer.

The document claimed parts of Gross’ complaint were “more like a screenplay than a court pleading”.

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

“The complaint suffers from two fatal flaws,” the response said. “First, the allegations are untrue. Second, even if every well-pled fact were assumed to be true, the complaint fails to state any viable legal claim.”

Bill Gross filed his lawsuit, claiming damages and costs of at least $200 million, at the Superior Court of California in Orange County last month—just over a year after his dramatic exit from the company he had led for more than 40 years.

Gross’ complaint detailed allegations that he had become “the target of a power struggle… that eventually led to his wrongful and illegal ouster” from PIMCO. The company also “wrongly and illegally denied [Gross] hundreds of millions of dollars in earned compensation”.

PIMCO declined to acknowledge many of Gross’ claims about the actions of individual members of staff—including former CEO and co-CIO Mohamed El-Erian and current CIO for fixed income Andrew Balls—referring to the allegations only as “irrelevant and false personal attacks” in its preliminary comments.

Profit-sharing

In his complaint, Gross had alleged that PIMCO had denied him a third-quarter bonus payment of $80 million, but the company’s response disputed this. Gross’ argument “misconstrues” the rules of the bonus pool, PIMCO claimed.

PIMCO set out details of the profit-sharing plan, of which Gross was a member. An extract from the plan’s rules said employees could only receive bonuses from a “partial covered quarter” in the event of disability or death. While he was paid his second quarter bonus, Gross resigned from PIMCO to join Janus Capital on September 26, 2014, “before he was eligible for a third quarter bonus”.

PIMCO also rejected Gross’ claim that he was entitled to a 20% share of the employees’ bonus pool, as the company’s compensation committee had the power to “determine the share for each participant on a quarter-by-quarter basis”.

Story continues…

The Departure

Bill Gross Janus CapitalBill Gross now runs the Janus Global Unconstrained Bond fund.Gross also claimed constructive termination, arguing that he had been “forced into a corner” by the actions of PIMCO CEO Douglas Hodge and other executives. He claimed that the company “overruled” an agreement Gross had made with parent company Allianz’s then-CEO Michael Diekmann, which would have allowed him to remain at PIMCO—albeit in a much reduced capacity.

However, PIMCO countered that Diekmann—who stepped down from Allianz in May this year—was not proven within Gross’ complaint to have the authority to make such an agreement. Gross also did not detail in his claim the exact promises PIMCO’s executives were alleged to have breached, the company said.

“PIMCO has moved forward since Mr Gross’ resignation. It is time for him to do the same.”In addition, as Gross had admitted that he was willing to take the reduced role purportedly promised by Diekmann, PIMCO argued that the circumstances leading up to his resignation could not have been “sufficiently extraordinary and egregious” to have forced him to quit.

In his filing, Gross also claimed he had been verbally promised a position on PIMCO’s executive committee for five years when he was re-elected as CIO in 2014. The written terms of Gross’ employment overruled any verbal agreements, PIMCO argued.

“PIMCO has moved forward since Mr Gross’ resignation,” the company said. “It is time for him to do the same, instead of treating this court as a forum to engage in the kind of reputational warfare embodied in his legally groundless complaint.”

Bill Gross and Janus Capital have yet to respond to a request for comment.

Related: Fade to Black

«