Uncertain market direction has challenged
Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.
View the original on the official releaseDocument text
Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.
11
Uncertain market direction has challenged
response to return gaps through asset allocation
Political change across developed markets challenges
high conviction geographic allocations outside a small
number of perceived ‘safe haven’ markets. Similarly,
the staggered shift to QT is creating uncertainty over
sovereign forecasts for asset class performance.
Additionally, in many cases allocations to illiquid
assets were approaching restrictions put in place by
investment boards, with little room to further tilt to
risk classes.
Such uncertainty over investment strategy means
that very few sovereigns are willing to adjust strategic
asset allocations, and internal restrictions are a
challenge to those that are seeking to change. This can
be seen in figure 6, in which an increasing number of
sovereigns state they have ‘frozen’ asset allocations
to traditional asset classes.
A focus on business model to drive implementation
efficiency and liquidity premium capture
As willingness to take active positions in geographic
and asset allocation decreases, the effects of the
return gap are compounded. Sovereigns are unable to
respond to growing shortfalls through asset allocation
alone, and are instead looking at how to evolve their
business models to drive more efficient realisation
against portfolio objectives, notably through
internalisation or investment partnerships to reduce
management cost and improve placement efficiency.
However, sovereigns acknowledged that any
changes to business models carried trade-offs against
execution and investment risk:
- Many respondents have struggled to reach target
alternative allocations and the shift to internalise
or move to co-investment or operating partnerships
may create further constraints
- Over-investing in privately listed assets puts
sovereigns at risk of future valuation adjustments
while utilisation of alternative deployment models
(working directly with operating partners) has
implications for governance processes and disclosure
- Reducing intermediation while potentially improving
line-of-sight to placement also reduces external
objective inputs to asset selection and valuation
- Finally, the tilt to internalisation may not be
consistent with geographic diversification objectives,
and there is some evidence of an increasing ‘home
market’ bias despite stated objectives to the contrary
While the motivation for business model changes
is clear and aligned, there is an acknowledgement
amongst participants that not all sovereigns will be
successful in executing, with the potential for risk or
investment shocks where execution is unsuccessful.
As willingness to take active positions in geographic
and asset allocations slows, sovereigns must engage
with investment boards to include consideration of
market conditions (as well as potential outflows) in
their return targets to continue to work towards their
long-term objectives.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026691
Have a question about what this document contains?
Ask the documents