Endowment costs: The secret history

10 / 18 / 2017
by Charles Skorina | Comments are closed

Endowment costs: The secret history

In early 2016 certain Congressional committees sent letters to 65 major private universities asking for information about their endowments.  They supposedly had an urgent need for this data and gave the schools just 30 days to respond.

It was worded as a polite request, but it came from people who could, for instance, compel the endowments to adopt a strict spending rate (like private foundations) instead of the more flexible regime they currently enjoy as "charities."  Needless to say, the schools all coughed up the information forthwith.

Apparently, this data-dump just went into filing cabinets, and neither the schools nor Congress have been eager to share those reports with the general public.  Nevertheless, we scrounged up copies of 15 of the responding letters from various sources.  The other 50 schools have kept theirs out of sight.

We were especially curious to see what the schools had to say about endowment management costs, which has always been a cloudy issue for us.

Commonfund agrees.  In a 2015 study they opined that:

...unlike other factors that affect investment returns, such as asset allocation and the many types of operational and investment risk, costs are almost certainly the least well understood.

See: Commonfund Institute: Understanding the cost of Investment Management (October 2005).

As we said in our OCIO report, the perceived cost of managing the endowment is a major factor in the decision to outsource, or not to.

It's not the only factor, but a big one.  But how can a board make that decision if they don't know whether they're spending more or less than their peers?  And, whether outsourcing will actually save them any money?

Investment returns can be benchmarked to the second decimal place, but the costs of managing those investments are harder to come by.

NACUBO and Commonfund include questions about those costs in their annual NCSE survey, and report broad averages.  But there is almost no data on specific schools.  We also have suspected that the reported NCSE average costs are on the low side, but had no hard evidence one way or the other.

Recent 990 filings also require a dollar amount for "investment management fees," but we haven't had much confidence in that number.

So, we've attempted to do our own analysis of the cost data reported by those 15 schools.  It has some limitations, but we seem to be the only ones to have ransacked these letters.

The Nine "normal" endowments

Nine of the endowments offered plausible numbers (expressed as annual dollar amounts and/or percentages of AUM) for both their investment-office costs and fees paid to external money-managers for the three fiscal years 2013-2015.

Here's what we extracted from their responses.



Read More »

OCIO assets up over 21% in Skorina’s latest OCIO list!

09 / 20 / 2017
by Charles Skorina | Comments are closed

With 77 firms heard from, we’re now reporting $1.7 Trillion in full-discretion assets under management by outsourced chief investment officer firms.

That’s a year-over-year jump of $364 billion – or a little over twenty one percent – since September, 2016!

See last year’s report, here: http://www.charlesskorina.com/?p=3916

The number of reported RFPs is also rising as institutions seek better returns and broader investment options.  OCIO providers, in turn, are beefing up their resources to meet the needs of current and prospective clients.

For example: Alan Biller, Hirtle Callaghan, Goldman Sachs, and Cambridge Associates, among others, all continue to add headcount and expand capabilities.

Hirtle Callaghan is hiring senior client-centric investment professionals, Goldman and Cambridge continue to mobilize and deploy their deep internal resources, and Alan Biller continues to build for the future and consolidate their commanding position in the multi-employer pension space.

Where are CIOs to come from?

As a search-committee chairman remarked to me recently, there are very few Joe Montanas to be had among nonprofit CIOs.  The accomplished stars and no-brainer candidates are mostly immovable. 

That’s obviously true among the mega-endowments. Seth Alexander, Andrew Golden, and Scott Malpass are happy where they are.  Recent hires like Narv Narvekar and Britt Harris were well-known to Harvard and UTIMCO, respectively, for years.  And in each case that is probably the only move either would have considered.

But much the same problem exists at smaller funds.  Proven leaders are already well-paid; and/or they’re closer to the end than the beginning of their careers.

Paula Volent, for instance, has done a stellar job at the $1.3 billion AUM Bowdoin College endowment, and is still relatively young.  But her board is – wisely – taking very good care of her.  It’s unlikely that another fund that size could match what’s she’s making.

See: https://bowdoinorient.com/2017/09/15/volents-pay-jumps-930k/

Talent is still available at a reasonable price, lots of it.  But you have to look deeper and harder, and may need to move down to next-generation leaders who don’t have the long track-records that reassure nervous, picky boards.  Next-gen candidates bring less hands-on experience and must survive harder scrutiny.

Big Fortune 500 firms like GE spend years and millions of dollars training their leaders for top jobs.  Nonprofits don’t have the time or budget for that.

New CIOs must show up full-fledged ready to hit the ground running.

OCIO firms can offer the proven performance of those unobtainable super-stars at a reasonable price.  And they can replicate the entire investment office with the process and structure to cope with the complexity of modern portfolios and mounting operational and regulatory burdens.

An OCIO isn’t necessarily the best choice for your institution, but it’s an attractive proposition for many.  That’s why their AUM is still growing at that blistering pace.

Stay tuned for Part 2:

In our next newsletter, we will have more to say about the pros and cons of outsourcing, plus an extended analysis of endowment investment management costs, and conversations with some prominent outsourcing leaders.

For now, let’s just look at how the sector is doing and who’s available to take your call per our latest research.

On to the 2017 edition of Skorina’s Ultimate Outsourcer List!



Read More »

Top endowment chief investment officers and the road ahead

07 / 05 / 2017
by Charles Skorina | Comments are closed

This letter looks at the most recent five-year performance of over one hundred of the world’s best university endowment chief investment officers.

We rank their returns, review their performance, and reveal their strategies for the decade ahead.

Endowment chief investment officers (and other non-profit CIOs) have an infinite investment horizon, a global playing field, and can invest in anything anywhere - within the broad policy limits set by their institution.  They are the top guns of the institutional investment world.

We recruit these investment heads for endowments, foundations, family offices and institutional investment firms.  And, we (and many others) regard the CIOs at major American universities and foundations as the best of the best.

A CIO candidate may have a sterling character, a stunning intellect, and a winning smile.  Those things do count.  But will he or she make money for our clients?  Recruiting a high-profile investment executive is a complex process, but it starts with objective measurements.

We compile the information presented in this report for internal use to help us as recruiters, and we think it will be useful to boards, trustees, CEOs and all our readers.

Chief investment officers “make things happen.”  Security selection, manager selection, timing, and fees play an important role in investment performance - allocations don’t explain everything!

We also uncover the emergence of a new consensus around a 60/40 – alternatives/public markets – portfolio, even as we report on the embarrassing success of the old 60/40 stocks/bonds

This is our SEER report: Skorina's Enhanced Endowment Report.  The enhancements are the names and returns of individual CIOs (or OCIOs), data which are not readily available elsewhere.

If you need further information, or help with hiring decisions, please call on us anytime.

Now, on with the show:



Read More »

Britt Harris and the rise of the Aggies

06 / 20 / 2017
by Charles Skorina | Comments are closed

Britt Harris and the rise of the Aggies

Thomas "Britt" Harris is a highly-respected investment manager around the world.  But, more importantly, he is a highly-respected investment manager in Texas.  More important, still, he's an Aggie.  And, now he's been named CEO and CIO of UTIMCO effective August 1st.

Aggies are graduates of Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University.  They form a proud, but slightly aggrieved subtribe among Texans.  But, at UTIMCO, their stock seems to be soaring.

The nine-member UTIMCO board traditionally includes three appointees of the University of Texas System, but only two from Texas A&M System which has always rankled the folks from College Station.

See: Texas turmoil: UTIMCO reboots, http://www.charlesskorina.com/?p=4520

Last month, UT Chancellor McRaven, who had held an ex officio seat, graciously stepped down so that the Aggies could name another board member.  This month, they named Janet Handley to that seat.  Ms. Handley just retired as chief investment officer at the Texas A&M Foundation.  She's a very nice lady, and the performance of her fund is chronicled in our upcoming Top 100 CIOs report.  More important, she graduated summa cum laude from Texas A&M in 1975.

Then the UTIMCO board voted to rename their organization, which is now officially the University of Texas/Texas A&M Investment Management Co.  That's a bit ungainly, so the Aggies conceded that they could still call themselves UTIMCO.  That's a relief to us, because that other thing won't fit in our charts.

For the Aggies, having one of their own in the top spot is just icing on the cake.  (They're also pleased that ex-Governor Rick Perry, still another Aggie, is now U.S. Secretary of Energy.)

Oh, and by the way, the Aggies would want you to know that the Texas TRS retirement system under Mr. Harris has outperformed UTIMCO under ex-CEO/CIO Bruce Zimmerman.

Although Mr. Zimmerman is technically a Texan, he went to Harvard, which should speak for itself.



Read More »

Cambridge Associates: Leading the charge into OCIO battlespace

06 / 01 / 2017
by Charles Skorina | Comments are closed

Two Harvardians invent an industry

In 1973, two former Harvard roommates and budding entrepreneurs – Jim Bailey and Hunter Lewis – took on an assignment to review the investments held in their school’s endowment.

Things were very different back then.  A treasurer of the Harvard Corporation with the wonderfully Bostonian name of Paul Codman Cabot had managed the endowment from 1948 to 1965 as an account at his own firm, State Street Research & Management; charging the school $20,000 per annum for his services.

Mr. Cabot, one of the inventors of the modern mutual fund, had daringly shifted the Harvard portfolio from ultra-safe bonds into a more balanced stock-and-bond mix, catching the equities boom of the 50s and early 60s.  And in 1973, with the fund having risen to a then-colossal $1 billion, Treasurer George Putnam and President Derek Bok created the Harvard Management Company.

When Messrs. Bailey and Lewis began their consulting relationship with the Harvard endowment in 1973 and formally established Cambridge Associates, Mr. Bailey was still on campus, finishing his joint MBA/JD program, while Mr. Lewis was working at The Boston Company, an old-line merchant banking firm.  Forty-four years later, CA continues to count Harvard as a client.

A decade later, a young woman named Sandra Urie wangled a one-on-one job interview with Jim Bailey.  She was a product of Stanford and Yale (and development office head at Phillips Andover Academy, a CA client).  The scheduled 30-minute interview lasted 3 hours, and Mr. Bailey hired her.

As a divorced single mother, she was not the typical junior consultant of that era.  Yet, fifteen years later she was named CEO of Cambridge Associates, and subsequently chairman, stepping back to become Chairman emeritus in 2016 after thirty-two years with the firm.

Consulting and asset management: the rapidly blurring boundaries

Traditionally, institutional investment consulting – which Cambridge virtually invented – and asset management were distinct businesses run by different kinds of people, and the twain seldom met.

The barrier was as much cultural as institutional.  Consultants were seen (and saw themselves) as operating in a more disinterested, academic, and research-related environment.  Asset managers were closer to the Street: faster-paced, more competitive.  They were increasingly publicly-traded, and therefore relentlessly profit-driven.

An individual consultant who wanted a more hands-on job could always become an institutional CIO (and many CA alumni did just that).  Or, they could move over to a Wall Street asset manager.  CA consultants tend to have good contacts in both worlds.



Read More »