Swagger : Alpha

A Swiss bank account? A house in Nantucket? A Rolex watch? These managers may have all the swagger, but how much alpha can they deliver?

“Patrón and soda, please… No Patrón?” The Canadian pension executive, persuaded by the late hour, settled for Herradura Silver. Among the ragtag crowd at the least ambitious bar in a very ambitious neighborhood—New York City’s West Village—he’d be tops in swagger. If there was a nicer tie than his in the room, it had long since been pulled off and stuffed into a jacket pocket. Over the consolation tequila, he began to explain a theory he’d been harboring to the two rapt young women drinking cocktails on either side.

“Asset managers’ swagger-to-alpha ratio, in my experience, is a pretty strong indicator of whether or not they’re worth hiring,” he said. “The higher the aggregate ratio, the more wary I become.” Though it’s tough to picture this asset owner saying the phrase aloud—Canadian pension, remember?—the term Michael Lewis revealed in Liar’s Poker for rainmakers at Salomon Brothers sums up the type: Big Swinging Dicks. In gentlemen’s terms, swagger is a posture of superiority. According to the asset owner, who has been in the game long enough to see plenty of it, it’s a disdain for those lesser beings with the nerve to play at the same profession.

Like any good financier, he can quantify the metric. An asset manager has a Swiss bank account? Two swagger points. Does he (and it’s nearly always a “he”) own a vacation home on an island? One point, plus a bonus if it’s Martha’s Vineyard, a Hampton, or Nantucket. Five points for St.-Tropez. Employees of Goldman Sachs earn two points, or one each for funds named after dark colors, geological matter, or Greek letters. “Do you donate more money every year to your kid’s private school than you pay in tuition—because otherwise they’d never get in? Swagger. Does your sports car have more suede in the interior than leather? Right again.” Designer neckwear earns one point, but Rolexes, apparently, are poor indicators. He sighed. “I’ve thought about it, but everyone seems to have a big ugly watch.” The trappings of swagger seemed less off-putting to his companions.

CIO614_SH1_Story

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

For asset owners, the trouble with swagger isn’t that it makes manager visits unpleasant—although it does—but that it’s correlated with unreliable alpha. A senior managing director may not have picked worthwhile investments in years, but he certainly knows how to pick the inputs that keep his track record shining. “The archetype of a high-ratio manager would be the guy who made some stellar bets early in his career and has been coasting on them since then. He beats up on the junior analysts and dismisses information that doesn’t support his thesis,” the allocator lamented. “It’s that age-old stance: ‘Research came up with all the losers, and I, the precious portfolio manager, came up with all the winners.’” Time for another drink—Patrón be damned.

This was no jealous rant. Institutional investors north of the 49th parallel don’t face the same paradox as their American counterparts: The larger the checks you get to sign, the smaller the ones you take home. This asset owner, as his top-shelf habit and fancy tie suggest, has the means to rival his managers in swagger points, but not the temperament for it.

“Low swagger-to-alpha investors are, to me, inspirational,” he said, eager to balance the Wolf of Wall Street side of the discussion. “It’s not that they don’t have emotion. What they care for is the quality of their work and the treatment of their clients’ assets. Prolonged, consistent, and meaningful alpha is rare—it can speak for itself just fine. Luck always plays a role, and this group is quick to give credit to their analysts and partners, claim some luck, and remind themselves of their tougher years. And we all need a little inspiration now and then, reminders that however great our success may feel, our results are the combination of an amazing number of inputs and actions, many of them—maybe most—beyond our control. We are never as good as our best numbers, just as we’re never as bad as our worst.”

“Asset managers’ swagger-to-alpha ratio, in my experience, is a pretty strong indicator of whether or not they’re worth hiring. The higher the aggregate ratio, the more wary I become.”

In a freezing cold office in Japan, he found the lowest swagger-to-alpha managers he’s yet come across. This small clutch of older British men lived the philosophy that great performance speaks for itself. Indeed, according to the asset owner, they hardly acknowledged the presence of some of the world’s largest allocators in their darkened building. “It was after the Fukushima meltdown, so power was scarce. They had bicycle helmets stacked in the corner of the conference room and wore these threadbare tweedy jackets. I’m not sure they were using a lot of toothpaste. It looked like we were the first potential clients they’d seen in about a decade. But they didn’t pay too much attention to us—we were more like an oddity. That’s real money management.”

Before midnight, with the ratio of bleary-eyed to sober-ish patrons hitting about 10:1, the asset owner departed, still crisp in his Ermenegildo Zegna silk tie. (One point.)

Leanna Orr

The Cynics Have Their Say

Asset owners and other Chief Investment Officer readers give their opinion on asset management buzzwords—and whether they are here to stay.

“It’s a clever name, if nothing else, right?” Joe Nankof, co-founder and partner of consulting firm Rocaton, says.

Since the end of the financial crisis, myriad trends have taken over the asset management industry—some of which may permanently change the game, and others that are simply buzzwords fated to be “overused and with murky meanings at best.” Asking which was which appealed to Nankof, and to many others.

In an informal online survey conducted by Chief Investment Officer (CIO), asset owners, managers, consultants, and other industry experts were asked to share their thoughts on 10 primary trends that seem to permeate not only the language, but also the direction, of institutional asset management.

CIO614-ST_chart 

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

The results were striking, yet not entirely surprising. Asset owners, compared with other respondents, were more pessimistic towards the big trends. Only three were voted secular shifts, two split down the middle, and five qualified as passing fads. Asset managers, consultants, and other service providers were evenly divided—five permanent changes and five transient “solutions.”

Despite such discrepancies, both asset owners and managers agreed on three major secular shifts in the institutional investing realm—all of which happen to be within the pension space—in the past five years: the transition from defined benefit (DB) to defined contribution (DC) plans, liability-driven investing (LDI), and pension-risk transfer (PRT).

“DC plans are becoming the primary source for retirement income,” Scott Brooks, head of DC at SEI, says. “It’s been a long-term trend that began more than two decades ago when DC plans were offered to provide supplemental retirement income, but it’s definitely taken a stronger hold more recently.” According to the firm’s data, less than half of 285 corporate plan sponsors surveyed still operate a DB plan—and more than half of those organizations have closed their DB plans to new hires. In addition, 34% said they have taken steps to freeze benefit accruals for existing participants as a preparation for termination. As such, 82% of asset owners and 96% of asset managers said the shift from DB to DC plans is here to stay.

On the other end of the spectrum, for fiduciaries of open DB plans the paradigm has now swung to de-risking, liability control, and an abundance of endgame options and service providers. “The nature of the management of pension assets is now more tied to liabilities,” Nankof says. “Investment committees are more focused on strategic de-risking goals, undoubtedly using LDI as a dynamic component to asset allocation.” The data agreed: Close to 95% of asset owners surveyed by CIO said LDI is an integral part of corporate pension investing strategies; asset managers and consultants followed suit with 92% in agreement.

Nankof and the data are not alone in this opinion. “If you grant that we can turn the burners down on risk exposure and have a commensurate effect on lowering funded-state volatility, there is a flexibility that is maintained in a LDI portfolio,” Jess Yawitz, CEO at NISA Investment Advisors, told CIO last year.

There exists another—and newer—option for plan sponsors to take risk off their balance sheets. Pension-risk transfer, prominently brought to the industry’s attention through mega-deals by General Motors and Verizon in 2012, could be an interesting strategy to watch, Nankof says. “It hasn’t taken up momentum just yet. I think currently, PRT is where LDI was five or seven years ago. There’s a lot of discussion, but not a lot of movement. It’s market-dependent. Corporate plans, especially at the edge of full funding, are questioning today’s rate environment. It may not be the best time for an annuity purchase with lower interest rates. When rates rise and plans are fully funded, I think we may see a slow trickle of plan sponsors taking the PRT approach.” Instead, lump-sum payouts have begun to take hold as a popular de-risking strategy, Nankof says, as plan sponsors pay out in an attempt to beat out mortality table changes due in 2016, which may add 5% to 10% to lump-sum valuations. 

Disagreements

Surveyed asset owners and managers were split on the issue of investment outsourcing. More than half of asset owners voted outsourced-CIO (OCIO) as a passing fad, while a staggering 79% of asset managers and consultants named it a permanent game-changer. “I’m surprised to see that OCIO was viewed as a fad,” Craig Russell, head of institutional business at Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), says. “From the asset management perspective, we think that OCIOs offer their clients a breadth of insight of managers.”

SEI’s Brooks agrees: “I like to think of OCIOs as the Henry Fords of asset management. They take something complex and are able to offer efficiency and specialization by breaking it down. Perhaps because of the trend of smaller to intermediate-sized investment committees closing shop and going to an OCIO, asset owners may feel their job securities are in trouble and hoping OCIOs are a fad.” Of course, both men’s businesses depend on them being correct—just as asset owners who label OCIO a fad have an incentive not to see their roles outsourced to the likes of GSAM or SEI. 

“It’s a clever name, if nothing else, right? Maybe if you don’t adopt smart beta, it implies that you’re not… smart.”

Opinions on strategic partnerships were evenly split, at least for asset owners. Asset managers and consultants leaned towards a secular shift. However, Rocaton’s Nankof is skeptical. “It’s something we talk about regularly, every five to seven years. In my memory of fiduciaries that have engaged in strategic partnerships, none have succeeded or lasted. And when it fails, the topic is taken off the table until another conversation seven years on. It’s really not that popular.” The consultant says the reason why strategic partnerships have failed to take hold in the industry is their tendency to concentrate responsibility with one firm for manifold asset classes—a task only a few can master. As for other value-add services a strategic partner offers to its clients, Nankof says any consultant or manager can act as a sounding board of ideas without being designated that role. “The objectives of a strategic partnership become murky as mandates expand. Fiduciaries become more and more unsure of what they are looking for the managers to do.” As with OCIO, of course, Nankof has an interest in seeing consultants—not strategic partners—as the continued go-to for ideas.

Murky objectives and definitions proved key to identifying fads among a variety of other industry trends. Smart beta, a “solution” with a clever name, is one that has been on the lips of asset owners and managers. “Honestly, I’m at a loss as to what smart beta really means,” Nankof says. Whether it’s confusion or disinterest, the industry seems to agree with his cynicism: Asset owners, managers, and consultants were all in agreement that smart beta was a passing fad. Only 25% had voted it a secular change.

And yet, words and deeds may not entirely match here: According to a Towers Watson client survey, institutional investors allocated more than double the amount of assets to smart beta strategies in 2013 than the year before—$11 billion across 180 portfolios. “It’s not really a fad,” Lynn Blake, CIO of global equity beta solutions at State Street, said in February. “Investors have been disappointed with active managers’ performance since the financial crisis, and [are] discovering great value in advanced beta’s transparency and its ability to help them achieve long-term goals.”

Nankof argues that the terminology of smart beta doesn’t quite make sense. “Essentially, every exposure you have in a portfolio is either a beta or a manager exposure we may call alpha, and I’m not sure if there is any beta that is smarter than any other beta. Maybe some people are guilted into trying it. Maybe if you don’t adopt smart beta, it implies that you’re not… smart.”

—Sage Um

«