Towers Watson’s alternative fee model for private equity

Dan Simpson

Towers Watson has revealed an alternative fee model for private equity which includes halving the base fee and a two-tiered performance-based fee linked to staff retention, earnings growth as well as returns.

In a presentation at the Sydney event of the Towers Watson Ideas Exchange, investment consultant Dan Simpson said conventional fee structures should be challenged.

A Towers Watson private equity fee model would see the management base fee as a cost of running the business, most likely to be 1 per cent or less of invested capital, as opposed to about 2 per cent now.

Transaction fees would be done away with, and performance fees would be based on a two-tier system.

The first tier would not be linked to returns but to staff retention, and measures of the underlying investments such as earnings growth. The second tier would be returns-based but paid on the wind-up of the fund and linked to a genuine hurdle such as a margin above equities.

“With this model, if the fund outperformed equities by 5 per cent, alpha would triple,” he said. “Investors need to make this happen. We need to get smart with alternatives.”

Sponsored Content

He outlined four factors for critical success in alternatives, without all of which investors should not be investing in alternatives at all. They are:

  1. linking strategy to the investors’ objectives
  2. achieving real diversity
  3. being clever not complex with implementation
  4. reducing fee drag

He advocated a “prime manager” model in private equity where investors had a closer relationship with service providers with customised portfolios.

“A lot of alternative investments are over-engineered and over-diversified,” he said.

The iX is a series of events held around the world to debate and discuss important issues for institutional investors, and is attended by all the senior global Towers Watson investment professionals including global head of investment content, Roger Urwin, and global practice director of investment, Carl Hess. The theme for this year’s event in Sydney was making better decisions.

Head of investment for Australia, Graeme Miller, said: “I can’t think of a time where making the right decision was more important.”

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

Academics and industry unite

The gargantuan impact of systemic risk in global financial markets has been corroborated by a consortium of industry and academics collaborating to provide independent quantitative research, insight and leadership on systemic risk. Driven by director of MIT’s Laboratory for Financial Engineering,  Andrew Lo, senior managing director at State Street Global Markets, Jessica Donohue, and managing

Rethink remuneration

Institutional investors around the world have been lobbying for the right to have a say on pay, a right to have an input into the remuneration of the executives in the companies they invest in. In June the UK’s business secretary, Vince Cable, laid out new plans that will give shareholders three-yearly votes on executive

Endowments fall
from grace

US college and university endowments have gone from pioneers in the adoption of socially responsible investing (SRI) to markedly trailing the rest of the investment industry in integrating environmental social and corporate governance (ESG), new research reveals. The Boston-based Tellus Institute, an independent not-for-profit think-tank, looked at 464 endowments and was damning in its findings,

Kay Review recommendations tackle short-termism

Co-head of responsible investment at the £32 billion Universities Superannuation Scheme, David Russell, says asset manager engagement with companies should move away from its “almost myopic focus on remuneration” to other issues that impact value and strategy. His comments come on the back of the final report of the Kay Review of the UK equity

POLL: Which strategy within emerging markets debt do you find the most compelling?

mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

CalPERS: “opaquely transparent”

A Columbia Business School case study on CalPERS has criticised the fund for being “opaquely transparent”, with a computation of investment expenses revealing the fund pays three-to-four times its peers in fees. Written by Columbia professor of business Andrew Ang and Columbia CaseWorks fellow, Jeremy Abrams, Californian dreamin’: The mess at CalPERS examines the political,

Previous