Road to Stock Market Rebound Was Rocky

When Markets Are Recovering, Don't Ignore Volatility

TEXPERS Board Member Billy Samuel Has Died

Fort Worth Retired Police Officer Was Being Treated for COVID-19

Texas Legislative Session Starts Today

COVID-19 Health Measures You Need to Know Before Visiting the State Capitol

Affordability is Key with Renters

How job loss and wage stagnation are creating demand for multifamily housing

An Uneven Road Ahead for Infrastructure

Pandemic impacts infrastructure sectors differently

Pandemic Didn’t Change Nature of Intangible Assets

Intangible assets provide tangible defenses for equities

State House Health and Safety Ruels

Masks required, COVID-19 testing encouraged to visit Texas House of Representatives 

Global Mining

A New Era and Renewed Relevance

Commercial Mortgage Loans

An Under-appreciated Private Debt Opportunity

Seeking Opportunity in Light of COVID-19

Where Can Pension Funds Find Value Across Real Estate?

Shelter in Place

What Are People Doing at Home? Watching Netflix, Riding Peloton, Eating Beyond Meat Burgers and ... Trading Stocks!

5 Year Return Forecasts

COVID-19 Challenges Investment Portfolios

Has COVID-19 Made Sustainable Investing More – or Less – Important?

Photo courtesy of Macquarie Group LTD.

By BARRY GLADSTEIN/Macquarie Investment Management

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing has drawn considerable investor attention in recent years. Morningstar[1] reported that 2019 represented a record year of flows into ESG-related funds in both Europe and the United States. Along with this increased interest, Macquarie Investment Management has continued its commitment to sustainability such as through new ESG analytical and performance measurement tools for investment teams to integrate into their process. Yet, as the world continues to seek effective ways to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, investors have questioned if there has been a shift in the relative importance of ESG issues when assessing investments. In other words, has ESG lost some of its relevance during the pandemic – or does the crisis make it even more important.

There are currently two schools of thoughts on this subject. One is that with the considerable toll that the pandemic has taken from both a societal and economic standpoint, seemingly more distant and lower priority issues such as climate change will take a back seat, especially as financial assets needed to make changes appear more scarce.

The other thought is that people have been ignoring warnings about a global pandemic for quite some time and the resulting lack of preparedness is a critical problem the world now faces. The same logic can be applied to longer-tail issues such as climate risk, where a potential crisis may similarly be lessened with nearer-term action.

An eye to the long term 

Macquarie Investment Management’s view on the relative importance of ESG in the investment process has not changed as the result of the pandemic. As Lotte Beck, ESG manager for Macquarie’s Luxembourg-based ValueInvest team, put it, “Our approach to ESG has always been to look at it as a stamp of quality. Stable, quality companies usually also have a higher level of ESG management and vice versa.”

The majority of our investment teams employ a fundamental approach toward identifying and assessing securities. Inherent to their investment process is an in-depth analysis of economic, competitive, and other factors that may influence future revenues and earnings of the issuer of the securities, including factors that have been identified as material from an ESG perspective.

Parsing out “E,” “S,” and “G”

This emphasis on materiality may result in a shift in focus regarding ESG factor consideration when evaluating potential investments. In the past few years, the “E” in ESG – environmental – has taken on ever increasing importance as investors have assessed the risks of climate change and its potential effect on a company’s future revenue and expenses. An example of this is the impact of global warming on the future crop supply for food processors and other industries that rely on these vital raw materials. In a 2019 report, the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service found that if greenhouse gasses are allowed to continue to increase, US production of corn and soybeans could decline as much as 80% over the next 60 years.

Of a more immediate nature are the dramatic increase in wildfires in recent years that many attribute to climate change. Barry Klein, utilities analyst on Macquarie’s Global Listed Infrastructure team, has regularly traveled to California to gain insights into the impact of utility-caused wildfires, assess the response of utilities, and meet with legislators, regulators, and management teams. “It’s important, from both an investment and an environmental responsibility perspective, that we gain a full understanding of the response of the different parties, and how seriously they are taking this growing issue,” Klein said.

While environmental factors remain important risks to consider, “S”, or social factors, are also taking on increasing importance as investors assess the risks of COVID-19 on individual companies. Workplace health and safety is a social factor that the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) has identified as being important to many industries. Adrian David, senior credit analyst on Macquarie’s Fixed Income Global Credit Research team, pointed out that workplace safety has historically been a big focus for riskier industries such as mining or energy, Now, challenged by the rapid spread of the virus, more companies outside these sectors are considering how they can operate while providing a safe environment for their staff.

The “G”, or governance aspect of ESG, has always been an important area of focus for investors and will continue to be in the current environment. Steven Catricks, senior portfolio manager on Macquarie’s US Small Mid Cap Value Equity team, noted “how companies address governance issues such as executive compensation will be an important determinant of management quality. Share buyback and dividend policy will also take on greater relevance as stakeholders assess managements’ ability to be effective stewards of capital.”

ESG only a subset of fundamental analysis

The above-mentioned issues are some of the many on which our investment teams focus and reinforce our ongoing message – that ESG analysis and integration present just a subset of overall thorough fundamental analysis. Investors appear to agree that ESG issues remain paramount even in the face of the global pandemic. Morningstar reported that sustainable funds globally attracted an estimated $45.7 billion in net flows during the first quarter of 2020 even as the overall fund universe suffered $384.7 billion in outflows.[2] Summarizing the impact of the pandemic on ESG, Åsa Annerstedt, a portfolio manager on the International Value Equity team, said, “COVID-19 shone the light on the importance of ESG. It will change industries for good, if humanity is wise enough to learn and adapt.”

Macquarie Investment Management is an Associate Member of TEXPERS.The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily Macquarie Investment Management nor TEXPERS.

Sources

[1] Morningstar, Jan. 10, 2020, “Sustainable Fund Flows in 2019 Smash Previous Records.”
[2] Morningstar, May 14, 2020, “There’s Ample Room for Sustainable Investing to Grow in the U.S.”

About the Author

Barry Gladstein, CFA, leads Macquarie Investment Management’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) efforts.

Defined Contribution Retirement Plan Fees: Lawsuits, Leveling and Lessons Learned

Ensure Money Saved by Plan Participants is Maximized Toward Their Investments

On the Horizon: Preparing for a Weaker Dollar Era

Image by Thomas Breher from Pixabay 

By ROBERT M. DALY/Glenmede

Profound shifts in the macro economic, competitive and political environment are converging to create a potentially long-lasting period of weakness for the world’s reserve currency. While many analysts and investors have been debating the potential for a short-term crash of the U.S. dollar (USD), in our view investors should be considering how to prepare for the possibility of a long-term period of dollar weakness.

Recent Depreciation Highlights that Issues are Likely to Linger

After bouncing back from an early March low caused by COVID-19 concerns, the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY) has resumed its slide, dipping approximately ten percent from its mid-March peak and moving toward two-year lows. An analysis of the drivers for this decline shows a multitude of reasons for this trend, including macro conditions, monetary and fiscal policy, trading fundamentals and a structural shift in how the dollar works within the global investment framework. When examining the major U.S. dollar pairs[1], we see four key issues behind the shift in the dollar’s valuation:

Source: Bloomberg. Click chart to enlarge.

1. The 2008 Dollar Shortage no Longer Exists

A myriad of issues makes it hard to argue that the U.S. dollar shortage continues to be an issue, as detailed in a recent GaveKal research report (GaveKal Research: “The US Dollar Starts to Break Down” July 22, 2020). In 2008, the U.S. dollar was the world’s overarching currency, and the United States was one of the only major economies with positive interest rates. During that time, the U.S. current account deficit was between 4-6 percent of gross domestic product. Plus, foreign-domiciled U.S. dollar debt was a legitimate concern during the great recession. In contrast, today interest rates are hovering near the zero lower bound, the current account deficit is widening, and U.S. money supply (M2) is growing at 24.5 percent per year. Additionally, the U.S. Federal Reserve has also opened up swap lines with 14 other central banks. GaveKal Research: “The US Dollar Starts to Break Down” July 22, 2020).

Source: Bloomberg, Bank of Canada, Bank of England and European Central Bank. Click chart to enlarge. 

2. Competition Across the Globe 

A credible alternative to the U.S. dollar may be emerging as the European Union appears to be regaining strength, making it attractive to investors again. In a demonstration of solidarity that Alexander Hamilton would envy, EU members’ decision to jointly issue up to 750 billion euros for the EU’s historic stimulus plan signals reassuring unity for the euro. However, the real question will be whether the European experiment provides a lasting stable fiscal foundation. Overall, we believe the EU developments can change how reserve managers and asset allocators think about their options around the world.

Source: Bloomberg. Click chart to enlarge.

3. Interest Rate Divergence Between China and the United States

China is not monetizing the COVID-19 crisis, while the United States pursues a policy of debt monetization. This difference in monetary policy has the potential to create a stark divergence in long-term interest rates between the countries.

4. The Unpredictable U.S. Political Backdrop

A chaotic U.S. political environment is making a very uncertain construct for the dollar. A divided government, a seeming inability to effectively address the COVID-19 pandemic, tax implications from the stimulus packages, election-year political dynamics and heightened Sino-U.S. tensions are just some of the concerns complicating monetary policy.

In short, we are now in a period of ample liquidity provisioned by the major world’s central banks combined with an uncertain U.S. domestic situation. The investment environment has changed markedly and in ways that are likely to continue for quite some time. 

Broader Implications for Investors

Given these significant and potentially long-term shifts, investors have a number of potential considerations as they map their asset allocation and investing strategies:

1. Inflation Dynamics

The decline in real interest rates against nominal rates completely bounded by the U.S. Federal Reserve has caused U.S. breakevens to rise significantly. While this would suggest a deflationary environment, there is real concern that persistent debt build up coupled with a depreciation in the dollar could create a higher likelihood of inflation as we move into 2021. According to Goldman Sachs (Gold Views: In search of a new reserve currency), the United States’ expanded balance sheet and vast money creation could heighten fears about the value of the dollar. The outcome likely would then be higher inflation but at a surmountable level. We are do not currently projecting anything similar to a 1970s scenario.

2. Gold and Metals

Gold can be a very good hedge in portfolios specifically against inflation. We believe that with real interest rates at all-time lows, an appropriate allocation to gold, as well as other metals such as silver, could make sense for investors.

3. Emerging Markets

A weaker dollar is good for external global growth. We believe that the current dollar dynamic may be a predictor of better returns in emerging markets.

Thinking More Broadly for the Longer Term

The current dynamics may lead to a very different investment environment than we have seen recently. Monetary trends today are supportive to treasury inflation-protected securities, metals such as gold and silver, and emerging markets. Going forward, investors may need to consider a more global construct, looking well beyond the U.S. domestic focus that has dominated the past decade.

While we think about the dollar’s decline and the inflationary scenario that the market is worried about, we don’t perceive these as fundamentally problematic at this time. Real interest rates are the narrative. The driver pushing risk assets is the continued low interest real rate environment. As real interest rates continue to drop, and the dollar declines, risk assets persist as attractive opportunities.

Source: Bloomberg. Click chart to enlarge.

Glenmede Investment Management, LP, is an Associate Member of TEXPERS.The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily Glenmede Investment Management nor TEXPERS.

Sources:

[1] The major pairs are the four most heavily traded currency pairs in the forex market. The four major pairs are the EUR/USD, USD/JPY, GBP/USD, USD/CHF.

About the Author: 

Robert Daly is Director of Fixed Income for The Glenmede Trust Company, N.A. and Glenmede Investment Management LP. He is responsible for the management of over $4 billion of tax-exempt and taxable fixed income strategies for institutions, consultants and private clients. Daly works closely with a team of traders, portfolio managers, credit analysts and other professionals to broaden exposure to GIM’s fixed income suite. He also serves as a member of GTC’s Investment Policy Committee. 

Prior to joining Glenmede, Daly served as a Senior Portfolio Manager for U.S. and global fixed income strategies at BlackRock in New York. In this role, he was instrumental in establishing and managing a team responsible for asset allocation development, portfolio construction, risk budgeting and formulating investment process. Previously, Daly managed multi- sector and investment grade credit fixed income portfolios for institutional clients. 

Daly earned a Master of Business Administration degree in finance and accounting from Columbia University and his Bachelor of Arts degree in government from Dartmouth College.

Pandemic Reshapes the Outlook for Farmland Investments

Image by Pexels from Pixabay

By SALLY HASKINS/Callan

There may never be another global event akin to the COVID-19 pandemic in our lifetimes that more clearly tests the investment thesis for farmland as a component of a diversified institutional investment portfolio. Investors make strategic allocations to farmland for its diversification potential, low correlation to more traditional asset classes, and inflation-hedging properties. These benefits derive from the unique drivers of farmland: the need for food security, global population growth, and an emerging middle class with an increasing demand for animal protein, to name a few.

Click chart to enlarge.

The pandemic has highlighted critical vulnerabilities in our food supply infrastructure. Many U.S. consumers experienced significant disruptions getting their groceries as stores have struggled to keep shelves stocked under surging demand for essential items. Sales at grocery stores can be expected to stay at levels well in excess of historical norms for the foreseeable future, but demand from restaurants and other food service providers will likely continue to be significantly affected by closures or reduced operations, leading to disruptions in the associated supply chain. The loss of demand from food service providers leaves some agricultural producers in a difficult position. Because they cannot easily shift to distributing products into the retail supply chain as a result of labeling and packaging limitations, many farmers have been saddled with excess inventory. 

Other dislocations have arisen at different rungs of the value chain as a result of the virus. Closures at meat processors, for instance, sent prices on products like ground beef surging on anticipation of a looming shortage. Additionally, the implementation of additional safety measures necessary to protect workers has, in some instances, reduced productivity.

It will take time to fully assess the impact of COVID-19 on the supply chain and the effectiveness of these protective measures.

Click chart to enlarge.

The opportunity for farmland investment remains attractive, particularly within strategies focusing on asset-level value enhancements. Low commodity prices and rising input costs have been headwinds for farmers in recent years, limiting their ability to scale up operations or make farm-level improvements, thus providing opportunities for value-add investors. The upheaval in food consumption patterns, the supply chain, and associated infrastructure may also generate additional opportunities for patient investors.

Over the near term, Callan does not anticipate COVID-19 will impact farmland valuations. Cash rents for farmland assets are generally paid in one or two installments over the course of the year, with the first usually coming due around March 1. Many farmers had already paid their rent for the year before concerns over the coronavirus fully materialized in mid- to late March. Valuations over the long term will depend on how a number of factors play out over the next several months; however, the asset class has historically held its value through periods of economic downturn or uncertainty.

As investors find a renewed interest in safe-haven investments in response to current market conditions, farmland is worth a closer look.

Callan is a Consultant Member of TEXPERS.The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily Callan nor TEXPERS.

About the Author: 

Sally Haskins is a senior vice president and co-manager of Callan's Real Assets Consulting group. She has overall responsibility for real assets consulting services, and oversees research and implementation of real estate, timber, infrastructure, and agricultural asset classes. She also oversees all investment due diligence for real assets. She is responsible for strategic planning, implementation, and performance oversight of plan sponsor clients' real assets portfolios. Haskins is a member of Callan’s Alternatives Review and Management committees. She is also a member of the Pension Real Estate Association Board of Directors.

U.S. Public Pension Underfunding — Don't Make the Same Mistake Thrice

Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

By CHARLES E. F. MILLARD/Amundi Pioneer

We are in unprecedented times. Coronavirus. Life and death health threats. Market upheaval. Economic shutdown. And now: talk of states potentially filing for bankruptcy. But whatever happens with bankruptcy proposals, public pensions will still have to be paid, and state and municipal governments should continue making their pension contributions.

When the dust begins to settle after current market turmoil, public pensions’ funded status will come into view. In some cases, it will likely be quite disturbing. A hypothetical pension portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds would be down -8.4% since January 31, 2020. If that pension had been 70% funded then, it was approximately 64% funded through April 23.

Surely there will be criticisms by political leaders and policymakers: Why wasn’t the investment staff more conservative? Didn’t they know a crash was coming? Weren’t we supposed to rebalance? How did we get so heavily weighted to equities? Why do we have so much in the stock market anyway? This is for retirees — shouldn’t it be safe?

 

But the real problem in U.S. public pension underfunding is not related to investments — as long term investors, pensions have actually done pretty well. The real problem in public pension underfunding is the failure of governments (the plan sponsors) to make the necessary contributions to the pension plan in the first place. Going forward, pension funding status will depend as much on state and local governments’ meeting funding obligations as it will on investment performance.

Unfortunately, in the current economic environment, state and local governments will be tempted to cut back on pension contributions. With funded status as low as it is now, that could put enormous strain on already vulnerable systems.

Underfunding is not caused by investment performance

 

When the dot-com bubble and the 2008-09 financial crisis hit, pensions’ funded status fell dramatically — from 102% in 2001 to 89% in 2003, and from 84% in 2008 to 75% in 2010. Interestingly, the states that kept up their contributions during those difficult times are among the best-funded plans today.

Click chart to enlarge.

In the years following these crises, investment performance was relatively strong. After the dot-com bubble burst, the average public pension investment return for fiscal years 2003-2005 was 11.5%. And public plans averaged 11.3% in the three years that followed the Global Financial Crisis, based on data from the Pew Charitable Trusts. In fact, pensions truly are long-term investors. Their median annualized performance over the last thirty years is about 8.3%, according to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.

Click chart to enlarge.

Unfortunately, in the years following these crises, at the worst time, state and local governments pulled back significantly on pension funding. That is the danger they must avoid today.

 

Underfunding is actually caused by ... well, underfunding. Under the guidelines of the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB), the governments that sponsor pension plans are supposed to make necessary contributions to the plan each year. These contributions have traditionally been known as the Annual Required Contribution (the ARC). Unfortunately, the problem with the Annual Required Contribution is that the word “Required” is just a word. In reality, governments are not required to follow GASB guidelines and, unfortunately, many have failed to do so.

 

In the years after the markets tumbled, many states and cities fell short on pension contributions, and pensions’ funded status has not recovered. States missed their ARCs by significant percentages and dollar amounts. The weighted average contribution was about 89% of the ARC in 2003, 87% in 2004, 84% in 2005, and 83% in 2006. The total value of those missing ARC payments was $27.7 billion. That is money that could have been growing in those plans all this time.

 

The situation declined even more after the Global Financial Crisis. The weighted average contribution was about 81% of the ARC in 2010, 80% in 2011, 78% in 2012, and 82% in 2013. The total value of those ARC shortfalls was $68.5 billion.

Not only must political leaders make the full ARC, they must also calculate the ARC responsibly. They must choose shorter time horizons to amortize liabilities. For a plan with a $10 billion unfunded liability, the difference in total dollars contributed between a 15-year amortization and a 30-year timeframe would be over $7 billion. They should never roll their amortization periods into new ones, and they must never allow negative amortization — the equivalent of capitalizing interest on a mortgage.

These three methodologies invariably make near-term contributions lower and long-term liabilities higher. Making a “full” ARC with these methods is not really making the full ARC. The chief investment officer of one public fund told me that my using those kinds of methods, “my state legislature is ripping me off by $2 billion a year!” And that was before the current market turmoil.

One of the arguments in favor of the current huge Federal rescue legislation is that the companies are not at fault and that this is a crisis. Similarly, the workers are not at fault and the public pension system in some states is in crisis. So even though it will surely be difficult to do so, states and cities must make the proper contributions and not let their funding practices put their pensions in further peril.

Amundi Pioneer Asset Management is an Associate Member of TEXPERS.The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily Amundi Pioneer Asset Management nor TEXPERS.

About the Author:

Charles E. F. Millard is a Senior Advisor at Amundi Pioneer. He advises the institutional

team and clients on topics related to pension strategy, pension fund regulation, and the
growing interest in Responsible Investing. He is a frequent speaker, writer, and advisor on pension-related issues. Millard has appeared numerous times on CNBC and been published in The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Financial Times and elsewhere on a variety of pension topics. 

In addition to working with the institutional team and clients, he works with the marketing team to strategize on speaking opportunities and editorial content. Millard was appointed by President George W. Bush to be the Director of the United States Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. He was the first Director to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate and carried the rank of Under Secretary.

Subsequently, he was Managing Director and Head of Pension Relations with Citigroup. He also taught pensions and public policy at the Yale School of Management, served as a Senior Advisor for McKinsey, and held various senior roles in the private sector. Earlier in his career, Charles served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, and as a member of the New York City Council representing the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

Millard is a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Retirement and the Advisory Board of the Georgetown University Center for Retirement Research. He holds a B.A. from the College of the Holy Cross and a J.D. from Columbia Law School.

Capturing the Ups and Downs in Coronavirus Equity Markets

Image by ChristianChan from iStock.

By KENT HARGIS, SAMMY SUZUKI & JILLIAN GELIEBTER/Alliance Bernstein

Several equity factors diverged significantly from their typical performance patterns during the COVID-19 crisis. By understanding how factor returns behaved in this market correction relative to their historic norms, investors can not only prepare for future volatility but also take advantage of short-term market dislocations.

Challenges to Safety Stocks

Factors, groups of stocks that target specific drivers of return across an index or market, had startling performance results during the coronavirus market disruption. Minimum Volatility (Min Vol) stocks outperformed the MSCI World Index in the sell-off though their downside protection was not as strong as usual, and their upside capture was lower than expected in the subsequent market rally. Value stocks fell further than expected and then failed to outperform during the rebound—as they typically do.

WHAT IT MEANS: The MSCI World Index is a broad global equity index that represents large and mid-cap equity performance across all 23 developed markets countries.

But Growth stocks delivered the most surprising results. This was the only factor to protect much better than expected during the downturn, and then also outperform in the bounce off the bottom.

Investors can evaluate these patterns by looking at upside/downside capture. Upside capture measures how much the factor increased relative to a rising broad market. Downside capture measures how much the factor declines relative to the falling market.

By combining these measures—upside capture minus downside capture—we can evaluate total market capture as a spread. A positive spread means the factor collects more good times than bad times, which may lead to outperformance over time. Likewise, a negative spread means the factor accumulates more bad times than good, a result that often leads to underperformance.

Comparing the spread between the upside/downside capture ratio this year to historic norms shows just how different recent performance patterns have been.

For both Min Vol and Value, the upside/downside capture spread was roughly 30% worse than average. For Min Vol stocks, the performance during the downturn was particularly surprising, as these stocks usually provide protection in a falling market. In contrast, Growth stocks posted a positive spread of 29% over average.

Click chart to enlarge.

Unusual Circumstances Create Unusual Opportunities

COVID-19 shutdowns created an unconventional cause for the correction and may have played a hand in the unlikely sector performance results.

This time around, investors didn’t flock to the traditional relative safety of low-volatility sectors like utilities and real estate during the sell-off. Instead, they congregated in growth companies like online retail, at-home media and technology hardware and equipment—industries that benefited from the health crisis and lockdowns. The performance of the industries, both favored and slighted, contributed to the uncharacteristic upside/downside captures for the factors shown above.

No Norm Here, New or Not

Will these patterns be the new norm? Too hard to say. But the distortions may provide opportunities for investors to rebalance portfolios. Since 2013, Min Vol stocks have not been this cheap, and Growth has not been more expensive.

However, not all Growth stocks are created or valued equally. There are a wide variety of growth businesses with wildly differing valuations, so selectivity is key. And quality defensive investments currently offer some of the best risk-adjusted return potential, in our view.

The world remains an uncertain place. COVID-19 cases continue to increase, US-China tensions are high, economic ambiguity persists, not to mention the upcoming US election. Over the long term, we believe a dynamic defensive strategy can help fuel an offense during volatile market episodes.

The types of stocks that provide protection in a crisis are always changing. By finding select high-quality defensive stocks for a given crisis at reasonable prices, investors can reduce losses in a sell-off, which makes it easier to recover when markets rebound.

Alliance Bernstein is an Associate Member of TEXPERS.The views expressed herein do not constitute research, investment advice or trade recommendations and do not necessarily represent the views of all AB portfolio-management teams or TEXPERS and are subject to revision over time. MSCI makes no express or implied warranties or representations and shall have no liability whatsoever with respect to any MSCI data contained herein.

About the Authors: 

Kent Hargis, Co-chief Investment Officer, Strategi Core Equities

Kent Hargis was promoted to Co-Chief Investment Officer of Strategic Core Equities at AB in 2018. He has been managing the Global, International and US portfolios since their inception in September 2011, and the Emerging Markets Strategic Core portfolio since January 2015. Hargis was named Head of Quantitative Research for Equities in 2009, with responsibility for overseeing the research and application of risk and return models across the firm’s equity portfolios. He joined the firm in October 2003 as a senior quantitative strategist. 

Sammy Suzuki, CFA, Co-chief Investment Officer, Strategi Core Equities

Sammy Suzuki was promoted to Co-Chief Investment Officer of Strategic Core Equities in 2018. He has been managing the Emerging Markets Strategic Core portfolio since its inception in July 2012, and the global, international and US portfolios since 2015. Suzuki has managed portfolios for well over a decade. From 2010 to 2012, he also held the role of director of Fundamental Value Research, where he managed 50 fundamental analysts globally. Prior to managing portfolios, Suzuki spent a decade as a research analyst. He joined AB in 1994 as a research associate covering the capital equipment industry, and then became an analyst covering the technology industry. 

Jillian Geliebter, CAIA, Director, Equities

Jillian Geliebter is a Director of AB’s Equities business. In this role, she works with the firm’s research and portfolio-management teams, as well as with clients around the world. Previously, Geliebter was a senior RFP writer for AB’s Equities services. She has been with the firm since 2009.

Investment industry association to host virtual conversation with NCPER’s Hank Kim

STAFF REPORT

TEXPERS investments industry members might want to check out an upcoming webinar providing insights on the impact of COVID-19 on investment strategies and allocations as well as how diverse managers fit into it.

Industry Insights: A Virtual Conversation is hosted by the National Association of Investment Companies as part of the group’s NAIC Insights Series. Hank Kim, executive director and counsel at the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems will lead the live streaming event set for 1 p.m. CDT on Tuesday, Aug. 4. 

As executive director of NCPERS, Kim oversees the operations of the largest public pension trade association in the U.S. During the live stream, Kim will discuss the association’s role in the public pension industry; its advocacy, research, and education initiatives; as well as provide insight for investors and general partners.

> REGISTRATION: RSVP for the online event

Individuals who register for the free program will receive an email in advance of the event with a link to view the YouTube live stream. The president and CEO of NAIC Robert “Bob” L. Greene, is hosting the event. The association is a professional network of diverse-owned private equity firms and hedge funds. The association’s NAIC Insights Series gathers the industry’s thought leaders through virtual programming to share their perspectives on market news and trends, its impact on diverse-owned firms, and other industry topics.