Long-horizon premium: up to 1.5%

A premium for long-horizon investing has been quantified for the first time. A study from the Thinking Ahead Institute’s long-horizon investing working group puts a figure on the value add of eight building blocks of long-horizon investing and highlights the importance of governance in harvesting that premium.

The group’s study report, The search for a long-term premium, states that there is a net premium available by accessing return opportunities and limiting the drag on returns. The five strategies that provide opportunities for long-horizon investors are active ownership and investing in long-term oriented companies, liquidity provision, capturing systematic mispricing, illiquidity premium and thematic investing. The three that lead to lower costs are avoiding buying high and selling low, avoiding forced sales, and lowering transaction costs.

The report argues that depending on an investor’s size and governance arrangements, a premium of between 0.5 per cent and 1.5 per cent a year is available via these building blocks.

Tim Hodgson, head of the Thinking Ahead Group 2.0 at Willis Towers Watson and co-author of the report, says the premium exists but is hard to achieve.

“The key reason investors are not harvesting the long-term premium is because their governance is not up to it,” Hodgson says. “It requires a change in mindset and skill set.”

Worth the costs

Sponsored Content

For most investors, there will be some incremental governance costs required to implement these eight strategies. The group identified these costs as 15 basis points for a smaller asset owner and about 8 basis points for larger owners. However, the return gain for these actions is larger – estimated at 65 basis points for smaller asset owners and 161 basis points for larger owners.

“Asset owners will need to spend money, but it’s more than worth it,” Hodgson says. “This paper needs to survive public scrutiny so we have been cautious in our assumptions. If it becomes generally accepted there’s a long-term premium, then any investor with a fiduciary duty will have to consider it.”

The paper outlines the actions and costs of two funds – a small fund and a large one – in harvesting the eight building blocks of long-term value creation.
The smaller fund’s focus was on avoiding costs and mistakes; for example, by reducing manager turnover, avoiding chasing performance and forced sales, and moving some of the passive exposure to smart beta.

The example of the larger fund shows the advantage of having the governance and financial resources to consider all available options for capturing the premiums, including active ownership, investments in thematic exposures and setting aside cash to exploit forced selling.

The paper raises a number of questions regarding how investors would access the building blocks of value creation, and the working group will release a second paper outlining what investors require to implement them. This second paper will also include an examination of the beliefs needed to adopt this strategy.

Hodgson says some of the negatives that have a drag on returns, such as high turnover of managers and excessive costs, are explained in part by behavioural aspects.

The group deliberately does not define what “long horizon” or “long term” is, but it does attempt to say what it is not.

“It’s not having a minimum holding period, it’s not buy and hold; you’re allowed to sell,” Hodgson explains. “My personal definition is a long ‘look-up’ window, so for any decision an investor is making today, they should ask, ‘How will this pan out in 10 years?’ ”

The paper can be accessed here

The-search-for-a-long-term-premium

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

Tail risk parity, V 1.0

Just when you thought you were safe, the next reiteration of risk parity has arrived. AllianceBernstein’s tail risk parity takes the concept of risk parity, reallocating assets uniformly according to risk, but it uses tail risk, not volatility, as the core measure. The concept of risk parity is a portfolio diversified according to risk, rather

Retirement: a cause worth working on

There are two things that drive the newly appointed global chief operating officer of State Street Global Advisors, Greg Ehret, in his bid to improve the client experience: the retirement business is a cause worth working on and the clients are the reason the business exists. Ehret was appointed to the new position at SSgA,

Pension funds, where banks no longer go?

There continues to be potential for pension capital appearing where bank lending no longer wants to go. Commentators in the UK and continental Europe have heightened expectations that pension funds will step in to help fill the continent’s bank financing gap. Societe Generale, for instance, recently predicted further “disintermediation” by investors sidestepping banks and looking

Building consensus for investment beliefs at CalPERS

An investment-beliefs workshop for the CalPERS board, held in April, revealed five areas, including active management, where the views of the board and staff lacked consensus. The contentious, or unsettled, topics for discussion were active management, private asset classes, sustainability (environmental, social and governance), investment performance targets and stakeholder considerations. At the board workshop, Janine

Behind PGGM’s ESG index

In 2010 PGGM conducted a study to see if it was possible to reduce the number of companies it invested in from 4000 to 400, based on its environmental, social and governance leanings, and still maintain it’s beta risk/return profile. The idea was that the €133-billion ($174-billion) fund would better know and understand what it

Holland’s hybrid: defined ambition

Jan Tamerus, actuary director at PGGM, was instrumental in developing the new Dutch pension defined-ambition structure. Back in 2006, he was involved in looking at the sustainability of the defined benefit system and in concluding it was not in fact sustainable, the idea of defined ambition evolved. One of the key reasons for not going

Previous