Institutional Investors Being Forced into 'Risk' Assets

Investors are feeling the impact of weak investment returns and the prolonged low-interest-rate environment.

According to new research from Cerulli Associates, institutions that were once able to meet their target returns by investing in mostly long-only equity or fixed income are being forced more into “risk assets.”

In particular, “alternative” investment classes are playing an increasingly important role in the effort to meet necessary portfolio returns, Cerulli finds.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

“Across the U.S. institutional landscape, investors are feeling the impact of weak investment returns and the prolonged low-interest-rate environment,” Cerulli reports. “As the pressure to meet assumed return targets continues for all types of institutional asset owners, many investors have been forced to look at different options in an attempt to reach their desired objectives.”

According to Cerulli, institutions have at the same time “begun exploring a variety of ways to make their portfolios more efficient.” Chris Mason, senior analyst at Cerulli, suggests much of the focus has been on ways to reduce administrative costs as well as investment management costs, including the fees paid to third-party managers.

“Insourcing is one of the ways in which some institutions have attempted to reduce their investment management costs,” Cerulli researchers explain. “Institutions choose to bring investment management responsibilities in-house for a portion of the investment portfolio to save on costs of external management, particularly in traditional equity, fixed income, and derivatives instruments.”

Of course, there are additional expenses to consider with this model, such as technology upgrades, as well as systems to handle portfolio management and administrative capabilities.

“Insourcing is considered most common for larger institutional investors, but there is no minimum size necessary,” says Mason.

NEXT: Cost cutting can be complicated 

The Cerulli report goes on to argue that insourcing and outsourcing both have important applications for different types of institutional investors.

“One of the major advantages of outsourcing investment responsibilities is a faster decision-making process and the transfer of monitoring responsibility that can free up time for professionals to focus on their organizations," adds Mason. “Despite the many benefits of outsourcing, providers and investors still have a variety of concerns, such as potential conflicts of interest for firms that offer proprietary products or strategies.”

Another popular way that institutions have tried to mitigate investment management fees is through passive investing, the Cerulli report shows. Although many institutional asset managers indicate that competition with passive management is “very challenging” to growing institutional assets, Cerulli believes the use of passive investments compared to active investments is “not the either/or proposition it has become among individual investors and retirement plans.”

In fact, after several years of strong inflows, recent data suggests institutional demand for passive strategies may be easing, Cerulli concludes.

These findings are from Cerulli's latest report, “U.S. Institutional Markets 2016: Reassessing Opportunities for Growth Across Multiple Institutional Asset Pools.” More information is available here

(b)lines Ask the Experts – Roth Conversion Without Qualifying for Distribution

I am a participant in a 403(b) plan.

“I wanted to convert my 403(b) balance to a Roth, but my benefits person informed me that, since I did not qualify for a distribution under the plan, I could not complete a Roth conversion. Is this true?” 

David Powell, with Groom Law Group, answers:  

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

This is an example of a question where the answer may have changed because there was a change in the law. 

It is true that for some time in-plan Roth conversions where not permissible unless the participant was eligible for a distribution under the terms of the plan (which is often not before age 59 and 1/2 or normal retirement age), but that rule was changed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 effective for conversions of vested amounts after 2012. 

However, it is still not possible to do such an in-plan Roth conversion if the plan document does not permit them, or if ongoing Roth contributions are not permissible. The plan could be amended to permit such Roth conversions, but not all plan sponsors have done so—some out of inertia, but sometimes for other reasons, such as not to complicate administration. But you could ask your employer to consider making the change.

Thank you for your question!

 

NOTE: This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice.  

Do YOU have a question for the Experts? If so, we would love to hear from you! Simply forward your question to Rebecca.Moore@strategic-i.com with Subject: Ask the Experts, and the Experts will do their best to answer your question in a future Ask the Experts column.

«