Establishment Series: The Who's Who, ESG Investing Edition

From aiCIO Magazine's Summer Issue: Environmental, social, and governance investing has gained traction, yet it is still not exactly mainstream.

To see this article in digital magazine format, click here.

Environmental, social, and governance investing—ESG, for short—is no longer just the purview of Bohemian freethinkers, but it’s not exactly mainstream either. The idea that a company can be measured not by pure short-term profitability, but by the way it manages its ESG exposures—the core belief of the ESG movement circa 2011—is not something stressed in business school. Concomitant with this, acceptance, especially within the borders of America, has been torpid in the asset-owning community. Yes, some, like the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS) have allocated a small percentage of their portfolios to ESG investments but, in an absolute sense, it has failed to catch on: Of all the asset owners in the world, only 233 have signed their names to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investing (UNPRI). “As institutional investors, we have a duty to act in the best long-term interests of our beneficiaries,” the UNPRI code begins. “In this fiduciary role, we believe that environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) issues can affect the performance of investment portfolios.” If this last statement is true, it is far from universally embraced.

This is the group that believes it—and is acting accordingly. Of course, few if any asset owners currently overlay their entire portfolio with an ESG screen, as some proponents suggest. Few, if any, asset managers only execute ESG strategies. Few consultants specialize in this space alone—but it’s a start. To highlight their work, we’ve chosen representatives from all three sides of the investment triangle—asset owner, asset manager, and consultant—to be included in this edition of the Establishment Series.

ESTABLISHMENT
Global Insurance Funds

Switzerland & the United States

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

Of all the asset-owning silos, insurance funds can be considered the first movers in the ESG space. It is not surprising: Long before it became fashionable, risk management was at the forefront of their thinking, driven by both regulation and culture. As a result, ESG-focused investments are more common in this area than anywhere else in the institutional world, with foundations as the only possible exception. Switzerland-based Swiss Re—and, specifically, former Head of Research & Analysis Beat Luthi—earn a special mention in this group: As far back as 1996, the group had established a sustainability portfolio via its Group Sustainability Management Unit, which gives “ecological criteria…equal weight to economic criteria in evaluating prospective investments.”

ESTABLISHMENT
United Nations Principles for Responsible Investing (UNPRI)

New York, New York

All discussions of ESG investing inevitably lead back to the UNPRI. A treatise meant to encourage shareholders to engage more actively with companies they have stakes in, it is slowly but surely gathering signatories. “If your goal is to improve corporate behavior, shareholder engagement is far more effective,” the organization’s Executive Director, James Gifford, told aiCIO in 2010. “Not owning something is a very poor way of effecting change.” As for institutional pickup, Gifford had this to say: “Some people just get that as obvious and intuitive; others find it really hard.” Launched in 2006 with $4 trillion of signatory assets signed up, it now boasts more than $20 trillion. While heavier on asset management than asset owner members, Gifford is hoping that momentum—and friendly peer pressure, frankly—makes the UNPRI a must-have for institutional capital going forward.

ESTABLISHMENT
The European Pension Giants
Denmark, Netherlands, Norway

Two-thirds of European pension funds have ESG policies in place, putting them at the forefront of their peers. A result of culture and a less skeptical view of global warming science, they are far ahead of their American counterparts in introducing such programs. However, it is unhelpful to view the European market as monolithic: According to a recent report from Aberdeen Asset Management, Norway- and Denmark-based funds are the European leaders in both having ESG programs and signing the UNPRI, with Italy and Spain lagging far behind in both categories. Perhaps most importantly, due to its size and clout within the European equity markets, Norway’s Government Pension Fund (Global)—which has upward of US$525 billion in assets—moved in 2009 to incorporate environmental and social factors, as well as good corporate governance, into decisionmaking across all aspects of the fund’s management.

NEW ESTABLISHMENT
The Californian Giants
Sacramento, California

American pension funds, by and large, have not embraced the ESG movement. Public funds are more active than their corporate peers and, understandably, funds located in more liberal states—namely, California—are the most active. Enter CalPERS and CalSTRS, which together possess more than $300 billion in public capital, a moderate sliver of which is earmarked for ESG-focused investments. However, both funds recently announced that all external manager performance reviews would include discussions about how ESG factors are being incorporated into investment-making decisions. It’s not a huge advance, but combining this development with their dedicated ESG portfolios makes CalPERS and CalSTRS American leaders in this space. Look for other funds—slowly, for sure—eventually to follow suit.

NEW ESTABLISHMENT
Generation Investment Management

London, England

He didn’t invent ESG investing either—but former Vice-President Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management, founded in 2004 with former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood, is going a long way to advancing its cause. With nearly $1 billion in assets under management, the ESG-focused firm is using the street cred of its founding member to gain market share—and possibly, as some fringe groups claim, enrich the founders via Gore’s ability to affect policy changes in Washington and beyond. Regardless of such controversies, manufactured or not, Generation is consistent in focusing on issues of climate change, poverty, water scarcity, urbanizations, and a swath of other ESG-related aspects. If investors continue to care about such factors, look for Generation and its stable of political heavyweights to continue to thrive.

NEW ESTABLISHMENT
American Foundations
Everywhere, USA

Foundations are seen as the most natural adopters of ESG investing due to the fact that their explicit mission is almost always one of humanitarianism. Still, acceptance has been more moderate than aggressive: As of 2010, the $2.5 billion Annie E. Casey Foundation dedicated $125 million to mission investing, a subsector of ESG. The $600 million Meyer Memorial Trust allocated $200 million toward the cause. The F.B. Heron Foundation— considered a leader in the field—put 50% of its $330 million into mission investments. As aiCIO wrote last year: “Hundreds of millions is nothing to scoff at, of course, but you wouldn’t be out of line if, upon viewing these figures, a little voice of doubt asked: Is that all?” Frankly, we may have been a bit harsh. It’s a start—and one that few other asset owners, and no asset silos as a whole, are taking on to anything like this degree.

NEW ESTABLISHMENT
Harvard Center for Responsible Investing

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Academically, Harvard University’s Center for Responsible Investing is gaining steam and clout. Founded in 2003 under the auspices of Boston College, it moved to Harvard in 2010, where it acts as a “platform for dialogue” (go ahead, make fun of it now, Red States) for responsible investing. “There is a self-affirming machismo with alpha seeking,” David Wood, the Initiative’s Director, told aiCIO in 2010. “Many investors look at [ESG] through a gendered lens: ‘Big Men’ search for alpha, ‘Little Girls’ focus on this stuff.” Ivory tower stuff it may be—but Wood and the Center are not shy about promoting the ESG and responsible investing agenda.



<none>

Consultant Corner: Investment Outsourcing

From aiCIO Magazine's Summer Issue: Is investment outsourcing by consultants a conflict of interest, confusion of responsibility —- or neither?

To see this article in digital magazine format, click here. 

In February 2010, consultancy Hewitt EnnisKnupp’s proposal to be the outsourced chief investment officer for California’s Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association (VCERA) was rejected, with the plan’s board citing cost and conflicts of interest—specifically, that Hewitt EnnisKnupp was the fund’s consultant.

Investment outsourcing has been an issue attracting much debate within the institutional investor world, creating concerns over conflicts of interest, confusion about roles, and worries over cost. On one side, when investment consultants move into this area, pension funds such as VCERA often raise concerns about the conflict between neutral advice and implemented investment decisions. On the other side, the pure consultant industry—as of now, a largely unsatisfactory, low-margin, and litigious business—is all too keen to move into what is perceived as a significantly better business model, where fees are asset-based. Critics assert that consultants suffer from a lack of competence as portfolio managers, and that their experience with the administration of a fund is nonexistent. Yet, with public pension funds’ hands tied by growing financial constraints, schemes increasingly are being pressured to hand over the reins of some or all of their portfolios to such third parties.

At VCERA, Hewitt EnnisKnupp had been the fund’s investment consultant for a decade. The bid on the position followed the departure of the praised Tim Thonis, who worked at VCERA as both CIO and CEO; when Thonis resigned, the board refused to pay the firm the amount they were demanding to assume the CIO function, claiming that the role was already the consultant’s implied responsibility. EnnisKnupp disagreed, asserting that their position as a consultant was purely one of asset-allocation advice. A more resource-demanding role, the firm claimed, was outside its purview and, thus, an extra fee was justified. “When a fund loses a CIO, the fund says the consultant should fill that [role] because they had been working with the CIO all along,” according to VCERA Chairman Tracy Towner, a senior district attorney investigator. “I think that’s what caught us off guard—we thought the CIO was taking direction from Hewitt Ennis-Knupp and vice versa.” The California public pension is still without a CIO.

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

The outsourcing of a fund’s CIO function is just one of many potential conflicts within the space. According to Lee Partridge, San Diego County Employees Retirement Association’s (SDCERA) outsourced portfolio strategist and CIO at Salient Partners, the perceived conflict that arises when outsourcing to a consultant comes from a consultant’s blurred roles at a fund. “If a consultant has a hedge fund-of-funds product but also charges a i% management fee, it becomes problematic when they have an extra layer of fees accompanying their recommendation. They lose their objectivity because they have a product they have incentive to sell to the client.” Partridge draws attention to the question that many industry observers raise over consultants partaking in outsourcing: How can you consult neutrally with someone if you are actively trying to be the de facto asset manager?

At public funds, there is still a general uneasiness about moving to an outsourced model. “Funds like having their own staff who only work for and are only accountable to them,” Partridge says, adding that the current compensation structures at public funds just aren’t working. “At the Texas Teacher Retirement System, it was a real wake-up call when Jim Hille, the fund’s previous CIO, left the $110 billion pension system in 2005 to work at a much smaller endowment. One might speculate as to the exact motivations, but I suspect compensation and politics played into his decision,” Partridge notes. (VCERA’s Towner reinforced Partridge’s claim, asserting that “Tim Thonis was doing an outstanding job. Politics hindered our ability to retain someone like Thonis…[and] now, Tim’s at the Orange County Employees Retirement Association making a lot more money than he made here.”)

Amid efforts by consultants to be and appear neutral when expanding into the outsourcing space, some investment heads have an all-or-nothing approach to avoid potential tension. Eastman Kodak’s Director of Pension Investments Worldwide Timothy Barrett, who worked previously at the San Bernardino County Employees’ Retirement Association (SBCERA) for nearly 15 years, a majority of which was as the fund’s Executive Director and CIO, says: “The decision to outsource should be a decision to outsource fully, or not at all. Any attempt to develop a hybrid approach to outsourcing, where the primary decisionmaker is outsourced and internal employees are left behind to implement, creates conflict,” he says. “That conflict ultimately will result in failure without a top-tier manager constantly overseeing the process. The internal staff have no incentive to assist in the success of the external adviser as they view themselves as competition to the external adviser.”

Despite the range of issues that arise over outsourcing, New York-based management consultant firm Casey Quirk’s Kevin Quirk says that a number of investment consultants have done a good job transi-tioning their businesses toward outsourcing without damaging their consulting businesses or reputations. “I have found that investors are looking for firms to best navigate the waters. They don’t care if it comes from an investment consultant, a money manager, a broad fund of funds, or a dedicated outsourcing platform,” he says. “My view is that there likely will be investment consultants who will orient their business entirely around the business of independent outsourcing going forward.”

From the perspective of the consultant industry, firms as varied as Hewitt EnnisKnupp, Cambridge Associates, and Rogerscasey defend their presence in the space. Without commenting specifically on the relationship with VCERA, Clinton Cary, a Principal at Hewitt EnnisKnupp, says: “With everything we do in our outsourcing business, we’re independent with the advice we deliver. Our structures operate using a compliance function. So, we don’t have compensation structures that change with our advice. Our compensation is neutral.” Looking ahead, Cary believes, consultants increasingly will take over the CIO function at public funds.

Christopher Ailman, the Chief Investment Officer of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), echoes that assertion. In regard to relying on external help, Ailman supports the outsourcing model, mainly for smaller funds that lack internal expertise. “It gets down to a question of economics. When you look at anything we do, whether it’s hiring a lawyer or a doctor, we all want the best doctor we can afford. The outsourcing CIO function is a model—it makes sense. I actually like the fact that it prices my services. It’s a new industry, we’re going to see some positives and negatives, and it will continue to grow,” he says, adding that outsourcing the CIO function at public funds will suffer the same deleterious effect many outsourced services do, in that the third party will not be 100% focused on that client and instead will be spread over multiple relationships. “At some point, funds may want that personalized direct service,” Ailman says.

In the case of Ventura, it is understandable why Hewitt EnnisKnupp wants to go from general consultant to outsourced chief investment officer: the fees. It will help ensure their survival as a business; it will possibly compensate them rightly for taking on additional services. However, VCERA’s rejection of their bid highlights the opposite side of that coin: How can a consultant provide neutral advice when it is bidding on more business from the fund?

This is a secular trend, not a cyclical one. The consultant industry has been seeking, and will continue to search for, additional revenue streams and, as a group, has hit upon the outsourced CIO role as a major source of future growth. Whether or not they succeed will depend in large part on whether they can manage these conflicts—and whether pension plans believe they can. —Paula Vasan 



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Paula Vasan at <a href='mailto:pvasan@assetinternational.com'>pvasan@assetinternational.com</a>; 646-308-2742

«