Investment Management Best Practices For Nonprofit Foundations & Endowments Scott A. Schropp, CIMA, CAP, CTFA The Iles Wealth Management Group & Paul DeRoche, CIMA, CFP, MBA The DP Group M errill Lynch February 2008 Presented to: Michigan Hospital Association
What we will cover during today’s call:
New: Uniform Prudent Management of Institutions Fund Act (UPMIFA) expected to be adopted by Michigan in 2008
UMIFA verses UPMIFA
Investment Policy Statement (IPS) Audit Issues
Addendums to IPS
Allocation Trends for Foundations
Due Diligence Issues
UMIFA vs. UPMIFA
Updates a 1972 law and theory governing endowments.
Initiates the era of modern portfolio theory.
Allowed all classes of investments, pooling of investments and delegation of investment management to professionals.
UPMIFA updates the experience learned over 35 years and addresses issues such as:
Investment costs and fees
Effects of inflation
Total portfolio level decision making
Outlines risk and return strategies
Updates modern portfolio theory standards and practices
Trends in Foundation Investment Practices
UPMIFA changes the landscape of former “best practices” utilized.
Scope is “all encompassing” not just “charitable organizations” in general.
Heightened awareness now from Sarbanes-Oxley spills over on Audits.
Three main components of UPMIFA:
Expenditures of Funds
Delegation of Investment Management
Express duty of loyalty
Express cost management obligation
Whole portfolio management standard of performance
Portfolio balancing required: (calendar, market or liquidity event)
Special skills standard of performance
Historical Snapshot of Asset Class Returns Worst Best Annual Total Returns of Key Asset Classes (1985 to 2007) Ranked In Order of Performance (Best to Worst) Large Stocks are represented by the S&P ®500 Large Growth Stocks are represented by the S&P ®500/CITI Growth Index* Large Value Stocks are represented by the S&P ®500/CITI Value Index* Small Stocks are represented by the Russell 2000 ® Index Small Growth Stocks are represented by the Russell 2000 ® Growth Index Small Value Stocks are represented by the Russell 2000 ® Value Index International stocks are represented by the MSCI ® EAFE® Index Bonds are represented by the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index The Iles Group of Merrill Lynch (989)791-8401 or (888) 835-3192
There are four major investment categories of alternative investments:
The Universe of Alternative Investments Hedge Funds Managed Futures Funds Private Equity Exchange Funds A hedge fund is a private pool of assets that may invest in a diverse array of investments, from basic stocks and bonds to complex derivatives. A managed futures fund is a professionally managed portfolio typically trading in a wide range of markets via futures, forward and options contracts through a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA). Private equity funds are pools of actively managed capital organized to invest in privately held and certain public companies. These funds share the common goal of supporting companies as they create value and, ultimately, deliver substantial returns to investors. Exchange funds are limited partnerships that provide the opportunity to “exchange” a large, highly appreciated single-stock position for shares in a diversified private fund while deferring capital gains taxes.
Hedge Fund Styles Market Exposure High Arbitrage Directional / Tactical Event Driven Low Convertible Arbitrage Fixed Income Arbitrage Equity Market Neutral Source: Standard & Poor’s Special Situations Distressed Securities Merger Arbitrage Long/Short Equity Managed Futures Macro There are three broad categories of hedge funds (and 9 sub-strategies) that provide varying levels of market exposure.
Easily found in the prospectus
Cover portfolio research and management
Easily found in the prospectus
Cover marketing expenses of the fund
Hard to find – in Statement of Additional Information
Variable trading costs in addition to the management fee
Advisory fees (in some cases)
Additional fees charged for Advisory/Consulting Services
Fee Components becoming critical
PRICE IS FRIGHT Annual costs of running the average U.S. stock fund Source : “Scale Effects in Mutual Fund Performance: The Role of Trading Costs”
Expenditure of Funds
Express prudent total return standard, 7 factors:
1. Fund duration
2. Fund purpose
3. General economic conditions
4. Effects of inflation/deflation
5. Expected total return
6. Other resources
7. Investment policy statements
Optional: over 7% of total return presumed imprudent
Spending Policy – 3 types
Spending policy-foundations : 5% required at minimum.
Cash Flow and Spending for a Public Support Organization :
IRS Reg. 1.509(A) – “substantially all of its income” policy. This means 100% interest income + dividend income + 85% of short-term capital gains. Can be set to max out at 4% or 5% of annual portfolio value.
Rolling/Moving Average spending policy : most common
3 year moving average of quarterly portfolio market values.
Calculated one-year prior to distribution date.
12 quarters X spending rule of 4% or 5%
Provides more consistency & predictability on spending and allows the Board to design allocations to be more aggressive than if just based on the annual performance of the portfolio.
Spending Policy Examples: NACUBO 2006
Clark University : Moving Average Policy: 5% of a 20-quarters moving average of market values.
California State University : Prudent Total Return Policy: UMIFA allows “total return” concept. Income to projects, capital appreciation to special needs. No cap.
Stanford University : Smoothing Rule Spending Policy: a model based on 4.75% of expected return or budget needs.
Yale University : Smoothing Rule Spending Policy: long-term spending at 4.75% to reduce volatility. Spending equal to 30% of the long-term spending rate of 5% of current endowment values plus 70% of spending in the previous year adjusted for inflation.
Wellesley College : Wide Range Spending Policy: spending shall be between 4.5% and 6% of moving average of endowment market value.
Northwestern University : CPIU Spending Policy: spend last year’s total increased by the Consumer Price Index, unless that exceeds 6%, or less than 3.5% of a three year moving average of the portfolio.
Harvard University : The None of Your Business Spending Policy.
Delegation of Investment Management
Prudent delegation in good faith, care standard of prudent person
Agent has duty of reasonable care
Agent subject to court jurisdiction
Delegation to committees, officers or employees as authorized by other law
Investment Policy Statements are required to satisfy this requirement of delegation of investment management. Does your IPS accomplish this?
Professional Money Managers
Investment Policy Development For Foundations: The IPS Audit
Identifying IPS Gaps in the following :
Investment Duration, liquidity needs & events
Return and Volatility Ranges: allocation modeling
Asset Class & Style Allocation Parameters
Social, Religious & Legal Restrictions
Investment criteria including active or passive guidance, investment selection/replacement process, implementation & monitoring
Reporting/Review Frequency & Rebalancing regimen
Detect Gaps & Remedy Variance, if any, in IPS and Current Allocation
IPS Audit Issues
Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act and Revised Uniform Prudent Investors Act heightened due to Sarbanes-Oxley trends.
Complexity of Global Capital Markets and complicated investment programs impact on the traditional IPS
Major accounting firms introduce new audit programs for IPS included in annual financial audits for tax exempt qualifications
AICPA issues Audit Section AU 9328 Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure and AU 9332 Derivative Instruments, Hedging Activities and Investment in Securities where readily determinable fair value does not exist: Alternative Investments
IPS Audit Issues
Auditors are suggesting several key recommendations:
Confirmation from Foundation’s money manager on valuation of manager’s fund is insufficient evidence for certification of a funds value.
The Foundation is responsible for making the fair value measurement and disclosures in financial statements.
Auditor must understand the Foundation’s valuation methodology and conform to GAAP and test the valuation measurements and disclosures.
If auditor is unable to qualify these issues, auditor should consider the qualifying opinion in the form of a “scope limitation” suggesting the auditor cannot claim comfort with financial statements relating to AI.
Critical Issues for IPS
Nonprofit audits now requesting IPS evaluations: risk analysis at security level and measuring Ratings and BETA.
Increased difficulty meeting client objectives in a lower return economic environment: Behavioral finance impacts IPS and radical changes.
Market trends toward absolute return alternative investment programs. Due diligence, increased costs, manager talent & accessibility, offerings & participation and historical performance vs. forward looking estimates.
Market trends toward more dynamic asset allocation modeling: traditional allocations, tactical allocations and allocations with alternative investments.
More sophisticated analytical tools available: Monte Carlo probabilities and cash-flow simulations on spending policy.
IPS Structure (17 Components)
Main body of the IPS adopted by the Board:
Mission & Purpose
Scope of Investment Policy
Delegation of Authority
General Investment Principals
Goals of Institution
Attitudes toward Gifts
Definitions: risk, volatility, liquidity and marketability
Guidelines on Restricted and Unrestricted Assets
Selection of Alternative Investments
Asset Allocation Guidelines
Investment Manager Selection, Evaluation and Removal
Policy Monitoring and Frequency
Investment Decision History
Fees and Operating Costs
Investment Policy Review: frequency
IPS Addendums vs. Amendments
Addendums can be structured so the Investment Committee can amend and approve changes to the IPS through the use of Addendums without the need for full Board of Trustees formal action.
Greenwich Associates study of 1,113 Endowments/Foundations shows:
* Increasing allocation to Private Equity (9.8%) Real Estate (6%) and Hedge Fund (15%) in Foundation asset allocations
* Expected Increases next 3 yrs. in P.Equity (41% of Foundations) Hedge (33%) R.Estate (30%) and expected Decreases in U.S Equity (23%) and Bonds (14%)
* International stocks/Intl. bond allocations up
* Alpha-hungry Single Manager Hedge Funds up vs Fund of Funds
* Actively managed, high conviction styles are being included
* Heavily concentrated, non-correlated styles are being added
* Strategic mix of indexing for Beta with active mgmt. for Alpha
Greenwich & NACUBO Studies point to increased AI by Foundations
Typical Roadblocks To Adopting AI By Foundations
* Too much money chasing too few opportunities (30% of Foundations)
* Poor credibility, transparency and reporting of AI sources (27%)
* Does not fit Investment Policy risk mandates (23%)
* Boards uncomfortable with Risk (22%)
* High Leverage (21%)
* Illiquidity, & insufficient regulation (14%)
* Short track records (13%)
Source: Greenwich Associates
Foundations Should Embrace AI for Creating “Generational Equity”
Generational Equity = future purchasing power of the foundation’s spending funded by portfolio growth plus inflows minus annual spending
* Foundations’ Average spending rate was 5% approx last 5 years
* Mean expected return next five years U.S stocks (7.3%) and actively managed bonds (4.6%) alone without AI exposure may be ‘tight’ in creating generational equity after a 5% spending rate.
* Mean expected return of other alpha sources-P.Equity (10.5%), H.Funds (8.4%), Real Estate (8%) and Int’l equity (8%) may be needed.
A Strategic Allocation Model for Foundations
* Understanding the mandates of the Investment Policy Statement (IPS)
* Determining variances between mandates and actual portfolio
* Reconciling the Foundation’s IPS with Best Practices
* Getting Investment Committee’s buy-in to new Best Practices by partnering with Foundation’s Investment Team
* Creating different Asset Allocation scenarios combining traditional and alternative asset classes
* Testing allocation scenarios with two-prong deterministic (standard deviation & expected returns) and probabilistic (Monte Carlo simulation) tools
* Populating selected allocation with investments after extensive Due Diligence
Due Diligence & Portfolio Construction For Foundations Sleeve or Whole Portfolio? New or Replace? Manager Due Diligence: Qualified Candidates Sleeve/Portfolio Construction Monitoring
Quantitative Due Diligence For Foundations
Total Return: Peer universe & benchmark comps
Risk: SD, Beta, Worst Performance Period
Efficiency: Sharpe, Treynor & Information Ratios
Consistency: Tracking Error, R squared, Bat Avg.
Symmetry: Up & Down market capture ratios
Attribution: Returns, Holdings, Multi-factor
Confirmation from multiple and divergent sources increases accuracy of judgment
Qualitative Due Diligence For Foundations Resources Firm
Breadth of products
Key decision makers
Clear game plan
Risk mgmt process
Consistent w/ process
Performance vs. risk
Customizing Portfolio Construction For Foundations
One size does not fit all!
* Understanding the Foundations spending rates and inflow projections
* Allocating a combination of beta sources for funding liabilities and alpha sources for “generational equity’
* Adjusting to Foundation peculiarities like stock concentration issues in the allocation mix
* Factoring in cultural, regulatory, social and religious restrictions, if any, in portfolio construction.
* Implementing, quarterly reviewing and systematic rebalancing to be consistent with IPS mandates
On behalf of MHA and The Iles Group & DP Group Thank You
This presentation contains information on wealth management principles and is for informational purposes only. It should not be construed as investment advice and is not intended to be a specific offer by Merrill Lynch to sell or provide, or a specific invitation to apply for, any particular product or service that may be available through the Merrill Lynch. In particular, this presentation is not intended as a recommendation that any investor pursue investment strategies involving listed options, high-yield bonds or alternative investments. All investment recommendations are made by Merrill Lynch Financial Advisors only after individual consultation and in consideration of an individual client's financial goals, investment objectives and risk tolerance .
Diversification does not assure a profit or protect against a loss in declining markets.