Being joined-up: Why it’s so important

Being joined-up is an interesting phrase. Its use grew up in government where it was a beacon to draw on best practices and behaviours in coordination between wings of government, collaboration between key members of government and coherence of thinking in the policy setting process.

All fine aspirations. All devilishly difficult. In the main, joined-up government is an oxymoron.

In this article, we apply those three C’s to the investment industry and specifically the asset owners. We suggest the joined-up term involves getting the fullest benefits from coordination, combinations and coherence across people, teams, organisations and ideas. The investment enterprise at its core has a mission to add value to capital by combining the efforts of separate groups of people in the pursuit of return. Monk and Rook in their investor identity paper put it this way: ‘All investors produce returns in the same general way: they take capital, people, processes and information as inputs and combine them to generate investment returns, which increases financial capital’.

The complexity of the investment industry is clear from just how many groups of people make up the ecosystem of an asset owner – board, executive team, support teams, asset managers, other providers, investee entities, regulators, end investors – these make up most of it, but there are more, the ripples carry on.

So, are there some general conclusions about how to optimise these combinations and bring greater value creation to the asset owner? Essentially, can the asset owner become better joined-up?

It turns out that there are several ways to produce larger combinatorial benefits, but they all involve the deployment of the soft and subtle organisational alpha that is generated from a mosaic of governance, culture, talent, and technology.

Sponsored Content

The key piece of this mosaic is the alignment of the organisation to one set of specific goals. In this area the approach that secures alignment is one where improvements to the total portfolio is the arbiter of success. This is not the traditional way things are done – the strategic asset allocation (SAA) approach with its policy benchmark introduces biases and the drag from tracking errors. Instead, you need a common framework best described as the total portfolio approach (TPA) that has all investments and groups compete for capital with their best ideas for the total portfolio.

Securing the best organisational alpha for asset owners will depend heavily on four combinations:

  • the board and executive management combination
  • the combination within the asset owner of specialist teams (asset classes, strategy, risk, etc) and support functions working in full alignment
  • the asset owner and asset manager combinations
  • the asset owner and asset manager combination with investee entities employing stewardship and engagement activities.

Each of these areas is difficult. Combinations require significant levels of trust, co-operation, and shared understanding of goals. The organisational incentives may pull in another direction away from the goals. Organisations tend towards one dominant in-group and multiple out-groups and silo behaviours are widespread as a result.

This is accentuated when the out-groups have intrinsic alignment differences as commonly occurs. We also see cognitive errors in how asset owners see collaboration with its merits under-recognised. Some of the blind spots comes from the difficulties in measuring and attributing the outcomes of collaborative actions.

Joined-up in sustainability

But when something is hard it is often very rewarding to do it well. This turns out to be the case with being joined-up, and particularly in how sustainability can be joined-up.

First, there is the rightsizing of sustainability ambition with commitments to the primary goal of maximising returns per unit of risk. Being joined-up here involves the shared vision of the materiality of sustainability factors to financial outcomes.

Secondly, there is the step-up in ambition that some asset owners choose in employing universal ownership strategies where having impact on the wider ecosystem is instrumental to better long-term financial outcomes. We refer to this as 3D investing in which risk, return and real-world impact are joined-up in a competition for capital that integrates sustainability impacts across the SDGs.

The challenge with this is that we have “super wicked” problems needing holistic thinking and cross-agency coordination to tackle the complexity and apparent intractability of the many pressing societal issues captured in the SDGs and most significantly in dealing with climate change.

Joined-up in climate

Notwithstanding this challenge, being joined-up works well with climate.

The first leg is the net zero investing strategy that reduces real-world emissions. Allocation of primary capital to climate solutions plays a part. Stewardship and engagement with higher emissions companies also plays a part in helping accelerate the energy system shift. Systemic stewardship and engagement – across high-emitting industries and on public policy – plays a particular part in guiding collective action.

The second leg is linking the climate impacts with the financial outcomes over time. The returns asset owners need can only come from a system that works and the theory of change thesis is that this allocation and engagement strategy will mitigate the considerable risks to the financial system from a changing climate system. The beauty of this is that this sustainability impact strategy has fiduciary integrity by being instrumental to better financial outcomes.

Climate change is the mother of all super-wicked problems. Finding any decent contributions to a solution is a cause for celebration.

We have an understandable desire in our ecosystem to see simple causes and effects, but the interconnectedness of all things makes that unrealistic. Hence this need to be hyper joined-up in thinking and action. OK, I’ve made things more complicated in seeing our world through an ecosystem lens. But if we can simplify this and progress this to the point where our whole industry frames things using this mindset our anxiety-laden future should not be so chequered after all.

 

Leave a Comment

GIC evolves TPA in investment framework overhaul centred on economic drivers and flexibility

GIC evolves TPA in investment framework overhaul centred on economic drivers and flexibility

GIC has further refined its total portfolio approach by moving to a strategic portfolio focused on underlying factors that drive returns. Split between equities, fixed income and real assets, the revision means the fund can move more easily between private and public exposures and nimbly between asset classes.

Sort content by

Pension funds confront the question of who owns AI

As the use of AI within asset owners evolves, organisations are grappling with the governance question of where the strategy and accountability sit. Darcy Song looks at the treatment of AI organisationally within a number of high-profile funds, including OTPP, AustralianSuper, CPP and Norges Bank.

URS bets on nuclear to power AI and lower emissions

Next-generation nuclear energy, and the money pouring into it, will truly change the world, according to CIO of Utah Retirement System John Skjervem. It’s a lonely position as the CIO of a public pension fund but one Utah is embracing as it builds out early-stage investments in nuclear energy as part of its alternative energy portfolio. He speaks to Sarah Rundell in an exclusive interview about how investing in transformational energy technologies can be part of prudent investment management.

Managing volatility and inflation: Constant rebalancing shores up UK’s lifeboat fund

A keen focus on rebalancing, and best in class systems, allows the UK’s £31.2 billion Pension Protection Fund to effectively implement a dynamic hedging strategy for one of the UK's biggest LDI portfolios. Sarah Rundell reports.

Velliv reset: More Danish funds lean into low cost DC model

In Denmark’s fiercely competitive commercial pension industry, Velliv was quick to take action with a root-and-branch overhaul of its pension provision when it experienced a drop in returns in the first half of 2024. It sacked its active equity managers, scaling up internal active strategies and low-cost, index-based investments instead, and stopped allocating to its $4.3 billion alternatives allocation. Thor Schultz Christensen, deputy chief investment officer at Velliv, unpacks the change.

Ohio sounds warning bells on PE liquidity logjam

Farouki Majeed, chief investment officer of the $23 billion Ohio School Employees Retirement System, has highlighted worrying signs in private equity that resulted from a backlog of exits, including industry murmurs that some GPs are having to borrow money to operate their business because LP fees are drying up. In an interview with Top1000funds.com, Majeed unpacks why its 12 per cent PE allocation is shielded from the rout.

Temasek likely to miss 2030 climate target dragged by aviation, energy investments

Temasek chief executive Dilhan Pillay says the sovereign investor is likely to miss its 2030 interim climate target, as exposures to the aviation and power generation sectors are crimping the investor’s ability to reduce portfolio target emissions. But the $339 billion fund is sticking to its net zero by 2050 goal, stressing the slower decarbonisation pace "reflects the realities of the broader global economy."

Previous