Perfect score sees Norway take out top spot on transparency
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, Government Pension Fund Global, has topped the list of the most transparent funds according to the Global Pension Transparency Benchmark’s 2024 findings, scoring a perfect 100 out of 100.
In the four years the GPTB has been measuring transparency of global funds, the Government Pension Fund Global has improved its score by 27 points from 73 in 2020 to 100 in 2024.
Executive leadership at the Government Pension Fund Global have put transparency front and centre over the past few years and the improvements in the score reflect that dedication. [See Why transparency is strategic initiative for Norway’s SWF]
The GPTB, a collaboration between Top1000funds.com and CEM Benchmarking aimed at measuring the transparency of disclosures across cost, governance, performance and responsible investment in a bid to improve the industry transparency, asks binary questions: does a fund disclose something, or not.
Edsart Heuberger, CEM Benchmarking’s product lead for transparency benchmarking, says the GPTB measures the completeness of the disclosure, but not necessarily the quality.
“Mind you, in our experience, the leading funds clearly have higher quality disclosures, and the Government Pension Fund Global has best-in-class reporting. Their materials are a joy to read,” he says.
“Addressing gaps in reporting isn’t always trivial. In some cases, the data needs to be sourced internally or by third parties. We understand the Government Pension Fund Global had to lobby the Ministry of Finance this year to provide more transparency on governance to achieve their new score.”
Like last year, CPP Investments was ranked second, only narrowly beaten by Government Pension Fund Global. CPP Investments, which topped the benchmark in the first and second editions, improved its score from 88 last year to 96 in 2024.
CalPERS was in third spot this year, jumping from fourth in 2023 and displacing AustralianSuper, which slipped to equal seventh.
This year the top 10 funds globally were particularly competitive, with an average score improvement of 10 points. So, while AustralianSuper scored two points higher than it did last year, it was leapfrogged by others with greater improvements.
The fourth edition of the GPTB again reveals that increased scrutiny on public disclosures is driving measurable transparency improvements. Last year, 77 per cent of the reviewed organisations improved their total transparency scores, while this year 69 per cent of funds scored higher.
In 2024, the average fund scored 63 out of 100, versus 60 last year, and 55 in 2022. The funds at the top of the rankings continue to improve the most.
This year 19 funds scored over 80, compared to nine last year, and six scored over 90. Further, nine of the top 10 most-transparent funds scored the same or higher than the most-transparent fund last year.
“For leading funds, the GPTB methodology has become a roadmap for improving transparency. These funds have addressed the gaps in their score,” Heuberger says.
But while there have been huge improvements in transparency at the top end of the fund rankings, there remains a big gap between the leaders and the laggards. The lowest-ranked fund scored only 14 overall.
“Surprisingly, we continue to see few improvements from funds that were laggards in the first edition of this benchmark,” Heuberger says.
“The laggards then are still the laggards now. The gap between the best and the laggard funds is increasing, which is unusual for most benchmarks.”
For the fourth year running, Canada is number one in the country rankings of the Global Pension Transparency Benchmark, according to the 2024 results. Each of the five Canadian funds in the benchmark are ranked in the top 11 funds globally.
Not only was Canada nine points clear of the second-placed Australia, but it had the narrowest margin between its top- and bottom-ranked funds (scores ranging from 87 to 96).
Canada dominated in transparency of disclosures in governance, performance and responsible investment, taking top spot in all three; while The Netherlands took out the top spot in cost disclosures.
While Canadian funds score well across all four factors, they are particularly strong in governance. Three of the five funds that earned a perfect score on the governance factor are Canadian and all Canadian funds scored 97 or higher.
“Strong, independent governance is perhaps the most important element of the Canadian model,” according to Edsart Heuberger, CEM Benchmarking’s product lead for transparency benchmarking.
“Clearly, transparency on governance matters to them, too.”
Heurberger says for leading funds, the GPTB methodology has become a roadmap for improving transparency.
“These funds have addressed the gaps in their score. Governance, as an example, is an area where funds typically own all the data that is required to achieve a score of 100 – they just need to disclose.”
Australia ranked second in the country scores this year, moving up from fourth four years ago, when the benchmark was launched.
The Netherlands ranks third, and the Dutch funds continue to provide the best public disclosures on costs.
Heurberger also acknowledged the Nordic funds, which continue to improve transparency scores on the back of great responsible investing reporting.
The GPTB, a collaboration between Top1000funds.com and CEM Benchmarking, measures the transparency of disclosures across cost, governance, performance and responsible investment for 75 funds across 15 countries, with the aim of improving industry transparency.
The fourth edition of the GPTB reveals again that increased scrutiny on public disclosures is driving measurable improvements. Last year, 77 per cent of the reviewed organisations improved their total transparency scores. This year 69 per cent of funds scored higher.
In 2024, the average fund scored 63 out of 100, versus 60 last year, and 55 in 2022. The funds at the top of the rankings continue to improve the most.
This year, the survey was updated with three goals in mind: removing or improving overly interpretative questions; keeping the responsible investment survey current; and keeping the cost disclosure requirements consistent with reporting best practice as set out by CEM’s Global Reporting Principles. The change in methodology hasn’t materially impacted fund or country rankings. [See the full questionnaire here]
The progress of the best performing funds combined with the improved transparency of responsible investing and governance disclosures are driving funds to record heights according to the results of the 2024 Global Pension Transparency Benchmark.
The GPTB, a collaboration between Top1000funds.com and CEM Benchmarking, measures the transparency of disclosures across cost, governance, performance and responsible investment factors for 75 funds across 15 countries, with the aim of improving industry transparency.
The fourth edition of the GPTB reveals again that increased scrutiny on public disclosures is driving measurable transparency improvements.
In 2024, the average fund scored 63 out of 100, versus 60 last year, and 55 in 2022.
The 2024 results reveal that for the second year in a row the overall quality of pension fund disclosures jumped, with 69 per cent of funds making improvements in their scores on the back of 77 per cent of funds improving scores in 2023.
This year’s average country score on responsible investing was 67 out of 100, up from 59 in last year’s review, marking the biggest relative improvement of any of the four factors.
The average country score on governance was 74 out of a possible 100, an increase of three points on last year’s average score of 71.
In total there were 11 perfect scores across different funds and factors.
Edsart Heuberger, CEM Benchmarking’s product lead for transparency benchmarking, says it is heartening to see that the Global Pension Transparency Benchmark has driven organisations globally to improve transparency in the last four years.
“For leading funds, the GPTB methodology has become a roadmap for improving transparency,” he says.
“These funds have addressed the gaps in their score. Governance, as an example, is an area where funds typically own all the data that is required to achieve a score of 100 – they just need to disclose it. It has become a norm for more funds to disclose executive and board remediation, or to contrast actual board member competencies against desired competencies.”
Cost
Cost scores were based on 29 questions across three components common to all, plus eight questions focused on member services.
There are barriers to comparing fund costs across the globe. Differences in tax treatment, organisation/plan types, and accounting and regulatory standards mean that it is difficult to find common ground for assessment. Thus, the review is not meant to be a comprehensive review of all cost disclosure elements, as they vary from region to region and even from fund to fund. Rather, it is focused on the material areas common to most funds.
The average country cost factor score was 49, down slightly from last year’s review score of 51. Individual fund scores ranged from a low of four to a perfect 100.
Completeness of external management fees is the lowest-scoring cost component, followed by detailed asset-class cost disclosure.
As the dispersion in scores suggests, completeness of cost disclosures varied considerably. Quality ranged widely as well, though qualitative factors were out of scope. Disclosures were better when the pension fund (defined benefit or defined contribution) was a single-purpose entity rather than a silo of a larger organisation, such as a wealth management company or a government department.
The Netherlands continued to lead the way, with the highest country score of 89. The top three cost factor scores were held by The Netherlands, Canada and Australia. The primary distinguishing factor of these countries is a strict regulatory environment.
Governance
Organisations were scored based on 35 questions across four components. The average country score of 74 out of a possible 100 represented an increase of three from last year’s average score of 71.
The biggest Canadian public funds continued to be the leaders in governance disclosures, consistent with their reputation for excellent governance. Australia, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland improved scores significantly as they made changes to improve governance disclosures.
Last year’s review noted that governance scores were most closely correlated with the overall score and posited that as good governance produces positive results, it creates greater incentive (or perhaps less disincentive) to be transparent with stakeholders. There is evidence of a relationship between responsible investing and governance scores: good governance allows funds to move beyond simply managing assets and towards addressing wider environmental and social issues.
Performance
Performance scores were based on up to 44 questions across seven components common to all, and two (member services and funded status) that were only applicable for some organisations. The overall average score of 63 was down one from 64 last year, and the third highest scoring factor after governance and responsible investing. Individual fund scores ranged from 19 to 100.
Current-year disclosures were generally comprehensive at the total fund or investment option level. In contrast, reporting on longer time periods and asset class results were more often minimal or missing, although more funds were observed disclosing intermediate (that is, three to seven year) performance figures.
Components with the highest scores continued to include asset mix and portfolio composition, and risk policy and measures. Similarly, the lowest scores were seen for asset class returns, and value added and benchmark disclosures.
Canadian and American funds now lead the way, with an average country score of 89 for the performance factor.
Responsible investing
Funds were scored based on 48 questions across three major components. The average country score was 67 out of 100, up from 59 in last year’s review, once again marking the biggest relative improvement among any of the four factors. Improvements to disclosures were evident across all components and most countries.
RI continued to exhibit the widest dispersion of scores, reflecting that countries are at different stages of implementing RI within their investing framework. Average country scores ranged from 0 to 100.
Canada ranks in first place, with a score of 96. The Dutch and Swedish funds were not far behind, scoring 92 and 89 points respectively. Both countries deomstrated improved disclosures over the past year. The Nordic countries – Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway – as a region continued to do very well on RI, with all receiving scores above the overall average.
survey improvements
This year, the survey was updated with three goals in mind: removing or improving overly interpretativequestions; keeping the responsible investment survey current; and keeping cost disclosure requirements consistent with reporting best practice as set out by CEM’s Global Reporting Principles. The change in methodology hasn’t materially impacted fund or country rankings.
“The survey has become less interpretative, which is critical for this benchmarking exercise,” Heuberger says.
“The responsible investing survey was also changed to be more standard-agnostic, and therefore more flexible and likely to remain current. There are still steps to take to improve the survey further. We continue to look for ways to assess readability. Transparency also means information is easy to find.”
The investment team at the $2.2 billion endowment for Baylor University in Waco, Texas disagreed with the mid-2022 investment consensus that a US recession was looming into view. Instead, they took the endowment’s 5 per cent target allocation to fixed income to zero and bought as much equity exposure as possible.
Coming into 2024, Baylor accurately predicted the Federal Reserve would cut rates by 50bps, and the team now forecast another 100bps cut over the next six to nine months. With this in mind, they believe the rewards will be most keenly felt in small cap equities and that financials will also benefit from a steeper yield curve.
Other opportunistic strategies and tilts that don’t trip Baylor’s strategic ranges include staying long energy (particularly natural gas) due to the Middle East conflict, low global storage levels, and an expectation of continued economic growth going forward. Drilling down to a more granular level, Baylor is also invested in helium.
“We’ve been involved with helium for a while and are quite involved in developing powered data centers,” chief investment officer David Morehead tells Top1000Funds.com.
Morehead sums up the guiding ethos shaping investment strategy at the endowment which distributed $91 million to the university last year to support students, professors, and academic programs in one word: iterative. The team is happy to try out new managers (it has around 80 global managers on the roster, including a growing cohort of emerging managers) strategies, approaches and asset classes and push into them when they work.
But will also withdraw from areas where it is not successful.
“If we discover we are not good at something, we will simply stop doing it but if we are seeing positive contributions from an approach, we’ll continuously tweak it to increase our returns from this segment of the portfolio.”
He adds that one of the most challenging elements of this approach is ensuring the team maintain the intellectual honesty to recognise when something isn’t working and the time is right to pull back.
Morehead made co-CIO in 2020 and chief investment officer in 2021 when his predecessor Brian Webb retired. The endowment’s five-year annualised return is 12.2 per cent versus a strategic benchmark of 9 per cent and a typical stock bond portfolio of 8.1 per cent.
But all iteration is capped by the endowment’s robust topdown investment strategy that he believes ensures the most effective risk management. It checks emotion at the door; keeps managing risk front of mind and stops any tendency to follow the crowd.
A top-down approach whereby the team determine in advance how to array chips on the board avoids group think, opens unique opportunities and leads to a more cohesive portfolio, he continues.
Still, and like many other endowments, it didn’t protect Baylor from being over allocated to private markets going into the GFC. Morehead joined Baylor in its aftermath in 2011, and spent his early years buried deep in developing fresh foundational underpinnings to the now 45 per cent allocation to illiquid investments. He says that side of the portfolio didn’t get back onto the front foot until 2015 and it has taken even longer for the effort to finally pay off in strong, consistent returns finally visible in 2019-2023.
Does that mean mimicking Yale, MIT and Stanford is a bad idea?
“No, one just needs to allocate to private markets in a disciplined manner, consistently, over time, and it takes a long time to build out.”
Funds-of-One
With private markets back on track, he has spent much of the last two years restructuring the 20 per cent allocation to marketable alternatives that comprises long short stocks, hedged credit and distressed debt. Key to the change is four additional funds-of-one which he says are already showing extraordinary promise.
Around half the marketable portfolio has been turned over, not because there was anything particularly wrong with it as it was, but because funds-of-one have offered a new strategic way forward.
In another nod to that top-down ethos, the structure allows Baylor to fashion a particular exposure that best fits its own portfolio needs rather than allocate to a commingled strategy that fits the greatest number of investors.
“The asset management industry is largely predicated on finding a series of large-market-products to offer. Doing so enables assets under management to swell and provide extraordinary profits to the manager. By definition, these products cater to the average of what investors are interested in. That average may or may not meet what Baylor needs at a point in time.”
He has also recently tweaked the endowment’s approach to diversification, deliberately reducing it. The rationale, he explains, is to reduce the risk of diversifying away the positive alpha Baylor’s managers generate. A few years ago Baylor had exposure to over 700 stocks, frequently muting the beneficial impact of any positive earnings results or merger, he says.
“We don’t want to pay for good returns and then not have enough money behind the successful strategies,” he says.
It leads him to conclude that diversification is like most things in life – best in moderation.
“Academic studies demonstrate that one only needs 10-15 stocks to eliminate the systemic risk of the market. Obviously, we and every other endowment in the world is far more diversified than that. So, the real question is, can we be too diversified? The longer I’m in this space, the more I think the answer is ‘yes.’”
He qualifies that Baylor’s approach to diversification is only on the margins. The investor “owns everything under the sun” from sports drinks, to makeup, to publicly listed stocks, to aircraft leases and oil and gas production.
It’s just overall he believes in reducing the degree of diversification in the book, not expanding it.
Artificial intelligence is, at its core, a technology for making predictions. The trick to making it work productively is to frame the things it is asked to do as prediction problems: given what has already happened, what is the next most likely thing to happen, and how do we prepare for that?
That’s why it potentially lends itself well to an investment setting. Investing, at its core, is also about making predictions – and the faster and the more accurate the better.
The specific roles AI is best cut-out to play inside an investment business depend heavily on how particular businesses work. Quantitative investors, for example, may make greater use of AI sooner than traditional, fundamental stock-pickers.
Co-head of Quest, quantitative business strategy at Pictet Asset Management (Pictet AM), David Wright, says that if artificial intelligence were a human being, then at its current stage of development and capabilities it would probably be hired into his quant team at a graduate level, producing research and identifying trading signals for review and implementation by human portfolio managers.
“That is a pretty good question,” Wright says.
“It depends on the type of AI being utilised. Let me give you two examples here.
David Wright
“My own team, the quant team, have been playing around with the recent ChatGPT rollout. I want to make it very clear, this is not something we’re using, we’re not using large language models, it was just one or two of them playing around with it,” he says
“My head of investments basically set it a number of tasks that we would have given to a graduate quant, and he said this recent iteration was good enough to answer the questions in a way that they’d have passed the bar on that stage of the testing to bring them in as a grad in the team.”
Wright says Pictet AM has built a quant stock selection that understands better which data sources are more relevant for making productions. In this scenario, one could equate the use of AI not to replacing a portfolio manager per se, because a portfolio manager is still there but involved in a different element of the process, but “you could say that the tool is being used for something that they would have historically done”.
Clear use cases
Technology moves quickly. As new applications for AI’s predictive powers are conceived and as access to compute becomes cheaper, asset owners are constantly investigating new ways to use it. But they’re also proceeding deliberately and setting out clear use cases before taking the plunge.
OPTrust director of total fund completion portfolio strategies Jacky Chen says the implementation of AI in OPTrust’s $24 billion investment operations continues to steadily develop its AI capacities, and he’s confident it’s on the right track.
“We view AI implementation as an ongoing journey rather than a one-time project,” Chen says.
“During this period, we have continued to explore and deploy high-value use cases within the organisation and provide user training.”
Around 12 months ago, Chen told top1000funds.com that AI was initially used within OPTrust’s investment operations to manage risk, playing to its strengths of being able to analyse very large volumes of data very rapidly. A year ago it was utilising machine learning and data science in its public market strategies.
“We are now leveraging generative AI for tasks such as synthesising large amounts of information and providing coding assistance,” Chen says.
“These initiatives require time to develop, and we are continually learning and improving our processes.”
Other asset owners take a similarly measured approach. A spokesperson for the $500 billion California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) says the fund uses “some generative AI and machine learning tools, largely through our standard investment business subscriptions, and to inform and augment decision-making”.
“That said, these tools do not replace human judgement,” the spokesperson says.
“Also, this is an area of ongoing change, and we continue to explore and monitor its usefulness for our business and its impact on the portfolio companies we own.”
Decision trees
Pictet AM’s Wright says the asset manager uses AI in a quant setting to generate return forecasts, “and then we use that within an optimisation to build a portfolio.”
“Historically, you would have generated the forecast by testing a number of signals and then combining them together with weights that were defined by the portfolio manager,” he says.
“The model that we’ve just described there had to be trained on those signals in the data historically, so it understands the relationships between them.
“But within the framework of that machine learning, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of individual decisions that had to be made, from a macro level about what type of machine learning that you use, to a micro level – and we’re going to get a bit more technical here – like once you’re using a decision tree-type process, how many layers of the tree – different branches – do you allow? How many runs do you do of it? All these different parameters. These are all chosen by the person developing the system.”
Teacher Retirement System of Texas senior managing director of multi-asset strategies group Mohan Balachandran told the top1000funds.com Fiduciary Investors Symposium at Stanford University in September that the greatest use of AI for the $200 billion organisation is in creating decision trees.
Mohan Balachandran
“That’s exactly what we use to pick signals in the equity portfolios,” he said.
“It used to take a long time to update your models, because people would do univariate regressions, and things like that. But once we started using [AI], it’s just become a very quick and fast turnaround, so much so that now instead of like global models, we’re more focused on sector models and country models.”
Balachandran said the efficiency the asset owner has achieved “has been tremendous”.
“And plus, all these things are open source, so the cost and the barriers to entry has been greatly reduced for us,” he said.
“The cost is now really on the data side, so that’s where we’ve been focused on.”
Pictet AM’s Wright says the trick to training an AI is to strike a balance between having enough data and keeping it relevant to the task.
“It’s still better if they’re really large [datasets], but really large and focused is better than absolutely massive and unfocused,” Wright says.
“You still need a minimum kind of level. Say you’re building something that it’s going to do financial natural language processing. You want to train it on every earnings call transcript that you can find, you want to train it on every 10k filing that you can find, you probably want to train it on news flow; but you don’t need to train it on Wikipedia, for example.”
Not yet replacing people
In some settings, AI is assuming roles and carrying out tasks previously done by people. But even then, there is human review of the outputs – a sanity-check, of sorts.
Wright says that in the specialised environment that he manages, AI is making stock selection decisions.
“That is essentially what’s happening,” Wright says.
“A quant investment process, you kind of think of it as three steps. There is bringing in the data; cleaning the data; and then turning that data into signals that are going to tell you something about stocks in the cross section.
“And then at the end, there is something that I mentioned earlier, like an optimisation of a big algorithm that essentially takes return forecasts, cost, risk estimates, lots of constraints and has an optimisation function to build a set of portfolio holdings.”
In between, Wright says, is a stock forecasting model that might incorporate as many as 50 weighted signals to come up with a decision.
“The output of that is a model that you then feed into the optimisation and you trade on it,” he says.
“In the machine learn world you’re just creating those return forecasts in the middle in a more sophisticated way; but in quant in general, to go back to your original question, you trade the output of a model. It is a model creating the return forecast, and then once you put that into an optimisation, the optimiser is choosing the positions to take in the portfolio.”
Chen says OPTrust does not regard AI as directly comparable to a human employee, “because there are many aspects of a job that require human judgment, creativity, and interpersonal skills”.
“While Generative AI is becoming proficient at specific tasks such as writing and coding, it is not capable of performing an entire job that a human can,” Chen says.
Jacky Chen
“Instead, we see AI as a technology that assists humans by streamlining certain portions of their work. For example, AI can handle data analysis, automate routine tasks, and provide coding assistance, allowing our team members to focus on higher-value activities that require human insight and decision-making.
“Therefore, rather than thinking of AI as a graduate-level ‘employee’, we consider it a powerful technology that enhances our team’s capabilities and efficiency.
“While AI is promising, we adhere to the principle that humans are ultimately accountable for the work product. We ensure that humans remain in the loop, with AI serving as a co-pilot to our people. This approach helps us maintain a balance between leveraging AI’s capabilities and ensuring responsible oversight.”
Staying in control
A characteristic of machine learning is that the way it arrives at decisions or outputs changes over time as it “learns” or assimilates new data. It could pose an issue if an asset owner is not constantly on top of what its AI is doing, and how it’s doing it.
HESTA head of portfolio design Dianne Sandoval told the Stanford FIS event the A$90 billion ($60 billion) asset owner runs a quantitative strategy team, along with some economists that use quantitative models and AI models to determine fair value across asset classes.
“And then the way that we implement it, I think, is a bit unique, because we take a very total portfolio approach,” she said.
HESTA’s Sandoval said it’s vital that asset owners understand what their AIs are doing and how they do it in the interests of transparency in reporting to members and beneficiaries, meeting regulatory requirements and complying with audits.
“The thing that’s really important for us, we’re a highly regulated industry,” Sandoval told FIS.
“In Australia the super industry is highly regulated, and it’s a competitive industry, because our members can get up and leave. So, we have to be really careful about ensuring that we have KPIs and audits.
“It’s really important that we can be really clear as to what the model is telling us, why the model is behaving the way it’s behaving, and that if we get audited or the regulator comes in, we can explain the behaviour of that model [and] that it’s not a black box.”
AI is also proving useful in cases where asset owners outsource investment management – in whole or in part – to third-party asset managers. CPP Investments managing director and head of strategy execution and relationship management Judy Wade told the FIS event at Stanford that there’s a vast amount of knowledge and insight “in our $650 billion in assets and 1000 investors’ heads and our partners’ [heads]”.
“That knowledge is really a key strategic competitive advantage for us,” Wade said.
She said the role of AI currently is to “accelerate our investors’ ability to make investment decisions”, and that the aim is not to replace investors or partners.
Judy Wade
CPP fundamentally believes that “it is our data combined with large language models that provides us with proprietary insights, and that is, again, our data [and] our partners’ data”, Wade said.
She said that because the AI system has full information source-attribution at its core, it is a “near zero-hallucination environment”.
“Things aren’t being made up, which is really, really critical for our investors.”
Pictet AM’s Wright says that “when an asset owner uses outside managers, and again, I’m thinking specifically for some of their equity allocations here, they want to have a return that is beating the benchmark, delivering them some active return”.
“Say that a traditional quant model, on average, is able to outperform the index for them by 1 per cent, and maybe this next-generation approach is able to outperform by one and a half to 2 per cent for them, that additional unit of return, compounded over 20 or 30 years, can be quite significant,” he says.
Saving time, solving problems
Also at FIS, Matthew Shellenberger, senior manager of asset allocation and risk management at the WK Kellogg Foundation, said AI helps smaller asset owners such as the foundation – with 11 individuals in its investment team – to free-up time to focus on higher value-adding activities.
“There’s a time savings component,” Shellenberger said.
“There’s a faster processing component. And I would also say that for us, it’s also around idea elevation, which I think is for a group like ours, with a smaller team [means] being able to digest materials from [more than] 100 relationships, and actually be able to cultivate our own portfolio and our own tilts.
“The time savings one is readily noticeable for anyone who’s used any of these tools in any sort of administrative capacity. I think that also frees up your time to be more innovative in other areas of your portfolio and actually focus on the work that really does drive either active risk, and hopefully active return.”
OPTrust’s Chen says that 12 months further down the track of working with AI, the deployment has lived up to expectations.
“We have been integrating machine learning and data science into our strategies for the past six years, and over the past 18 months, we have been exploring Generative AI,” he says.
Chen says that 12 months ago “most AI applications focused on solving single-step problems, such as coding for specific calculations”.
“These applications were not good at handling tasks requiring multi-step problem-solving,” he says.
“Since then, we have seen advancements in AI’s ability to tackle more complex, multi-step problems, often referred to as agentic AI. This type of AI can assist portfolio managers in completing more intricate tasks, such as comprehensive data analysis.”
Published in partnership with Pictet Asset Management
Ben Thornley, co-founder at Tideline, looks at how value creation practices bring a manager’s impact credentials into sharper focus, the strong positive correlation between impact and financial performance, and the role of allocators in incentivizing and enabling managers to deliver impact value.
As the impact investing market matures, with over $1 trillion in capital, many of its distinguishing characteristics are becoming more widely understood.
Specifically, the two pillars of impact “intentionality” and “measurement” are relatively self-evident and form the backbone of asset owner diligence practices and emerging regulations. In the words of the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, “the key attributes of the impact category are theory of change and measurability”.
By contrast, the third and final pillar of impact investing has remained more obscured: “contribution”.
This is understandable. Contribution as a concept can feel esoteric, with impact defined as a change that would not have occurred, but for the actions (i.e., contributions) of an investor. As a result, the industry has created frameworks that run the risk of over-engineering efforts to calculate investor “additionality” – a term often used interchangeably with contribution.
Yet it’s also a missed opportunity. Contribution can and should be described in simpler terms – as an investor’s active and differentiated role to create the impact they seek to deliver. And in the same way a raison d’etre of traditional diligence is isolating a manager’s differentiated financial value proposition, contribution is uniquely revealing of the skills and capabilities of impact investors.
That’s why, one year ago, Tideline and Impact Capital Managers (ICM) set about investigating a cornerstone of contribution: the investment holding period in private capital markets, when all investors put their expertise, resources, and networks on the line to create value and optimize an asset’s performance.
With that goal in mind, we believed that by zeroing in on the distinct ways in which impact investors are creating value, we could deepen our understanding of a few key questions that help provide more clarity on the contribution pillar:
First, what are impact investors doing differently?
Second, what are the skills and capabilities needed for impact value creation?
And third, how are efforts to optimize for impact projected to directly enhance financial performance? In other words, how is impact financially material?
Here are a few of our biggest takeaways.
Impact value creation
When talking about impact, it’s important to first clarify the three overlapping ways in which positive social or environmental outcomes are generated through investment, since value creation strategies will differ depending on the modality in question.
Most impact investors focus on “growth” as the pathway to impact, by scaling inherently impactful products, solutions, and business models (83 per cent of the 12 managers we studied in detail).
Many investors (50 per cent) also create impact through a “systems” pathway, focused on systematic interventions affecting a company’s operations, workforce, or value chains, often with a broader objective of shifting industry norms.
Finally, we have the “transformation” pathway (16 per cent). Transformation is about pivoting an impact-agnostic business to be impact-aligned, often with the goal of catalyzing or accelerating such transition in the market.
With the goal, then, of either growing, systematizing, or transforming their assets, impact investors are taking active steps during the holding period to create impact value, using their role as owners or lenders to enhance the social or environmental performance of an investment.
But how?
We discovered seven key impact value creation levers that repeated over and over, through the 12 case studies, dialogue at ICM’s annual conference, interviews with market experts, and the results from a survey of over 30 of ICM’s members.
> Impact positioning to strengthen the market presence of an asset
> Product/service development to enhance user/consumer experience
> Market building to expand the addressable market
> Workforce initiatives to support employee productivity and commitment
> Impact incentives to integrate impact goals into performance
> Access to aligned capital, with mission-driven investors complementing commercial sources of capital
> Impact risk management to avoid unintended consequences
Importantly, the levers to create impact value were almost always deployed with the goal of driving a commensurate improvement in the financial return of an investment – a linkage we detailed in our research.
ESG vs impact
While some of the seven levers build on traditional and ESG-driven value creation approaches and capabilities, they constitute an especially hands-on investment approach and, in theory, create an additional layer of competitive advantage unique to impact investors.
Traditional value creation strategies like cost transformation and buy-and-build optimize for cash flow and valuation multiples, while ESG-driven value creation strategies like managing regulatory risk and improving an asset’s resource efficiency address broad stakeholder risks and opportunities. Distinctly, impact-led value creation is infused in an asset’s business and operating model and directly influences the core drivers of financial value, including revenue growth, operating margin, long-term productivity, and valuation.
Asset owner implications
Although it would be a stretch to claim we have definitive proof of the financial materiality of impact, the research convinced Tideline and ICM of the strong, positive correlation between impact and financial performance. As a result, we believe it would be unwise for allocators to risk not digging deeper into the unique capabilities that make impact value creation possible. These include the extent to which impact is part of a manager’s DNA and investment process, their heightened awareness of diverse stakeholder perspectives, and their access to unique networks, data, and expertise.
Unsurprisingly, asset managers are strongly influenced by the expectations and preferences of their investors, particularly as they are expressed throughout the diligence process. As contribution is increasingly recognized as a differentiating factor in driving impact and financial performance, investor demand for fund managers who demonstrate these capabilities will continue to grow.
Our book concludes that impact investors have perhaps the most privileged window into larger economic mega-trends, where financial, social, and environmental performance intertwine, and therefore have much to teach all investors.
With some of the most difficult-to-access insights into impact investing coming into sharper focus – in this case, the pillar of contribution – allocators are being armed with information that will be critical to ensuring sustainable financial performance for decades to come.
What remains, however, is for allocators to turn the spotlight on their own role enhancing the returns of underlying investments, asking what they can do to incentivize, better enable, or even directly support managers to deliver impact value.
Ben Thornley is managing partner and co-founder at Tideline, a specialist consulting firm advising institutional allocators and managers in impact investing. Since its founding more than a decade ago, Tideline has supported investors deploying over $200 billion of impact capital.
Share This Article
Login
Create an account for a more personalised experience. You'll be able to save content to a reading list for later, update your interests so we understand what content and events you'll love, and update your preferences and contact information.
Login via LinkedIn
Use your LinkedIn account to accelerate the process. We'll source your details from your LinkedIn profile.