Investment Policy of Institutional Investors

Investment Policy of Institutional Investors

The Investment Policy Statement is the governing document for managers working with institutional investors, just as it is with individual investors. The IPS outlines the goals and objectives of the institution and serves as a guide that predetermines how the portfolio will be managed. Investment objectives flow from the organization's overall mission.

For banks and insurance companies, the investment objective is to maximize net present value by balancing:

  • The expected returns on assets.
  • The expected cost of liabilities.
  • The overall risks of assets and liabilities.
  • The economic relationships between and among assets and liabilities.

Investment objectives are typically simpler for other types of institutions, such as endowments or foundations, expressed as a desired return target over the medium-to-long term (which should be clearly specified) with an acceptable level of risk. In the case of a pension plan, these goals could be expressed as a desired funded status, say 100% +.

Investment objectives and return targets must be consistent with an organization's risk tolerance and other constraints. Risk tolerance can be expressed in different ways, such as:

Defined-benefit pension funds: Surplus volatility (standard deviation of asset returns in excess of liability returns);

Sovereign wealth funds: The probability of investment losses (or probability of not maintaining purchasing power) over a certain time period;

Endowments and foundations: Volatility of total returns (standard deviation of total returns); and

Banks and insurance companies: value at risk (VaR) or conditional VaR (CVaR) and comprehensive, scenario-based stress tests.

Once the investment objectives have been established, a strategic asset allocation or policy portfolio is created. The investment portfolio of an institutional investor is designed to meet its objectives and should reflect appropriate risk and liquidity considerations. While institutional investors each have unique liability characteristics, several investment approaches have emerged over the past couple of years. These can be grouped into four different approaches:

$$
\begin{array}{l|l}
\textbf{Investment Approach} & \textbf{Description} \\ \hline
\bf{\textit{Norway model}} & { \text{Features a 60/40 equity/fixed-income} \\ \text{allocation, few alternatives, mostly} \\ \text{passive investments, tight tracking} \\ \text{error limits, and benchmarks as a} \\ \text{starting position.}} \\ \hline
\bf{\textit{Endowment model}} & {\text{This model is defined by high} \\ \text{alternatives exposure, active} \\ \text{management, and outsourcing of asset} \\ \text{management.}} \\ \hline
\bf{\textit{Canada model}} & {\text{Characterized by high alternatives} \\ \text{exposure, active management, and} \\ \text{insourcing of asset management.}} \\ \hline
\bf{\textit{LDI model}} & {\text{Invests in fixed-income securities} \\ \text{with duration-matched exposure to} \\ \text{hedge liabilities and interest rate risk.} \\ \text{A growth component in the} \\ \text{return-generating portfolio is also} \\ \text{frequently used (except for bank and} \\ \text{insurance company portfolios).}}
\end{array} $$

The pros and cons for each model can be summarized as follows:

Norway model: Pros: Low costs, transparency, scalability of strategy, easy for board members to understand. Cons: Limited potential to beat market returns.

Endowment model: Pros: High potential to beat market returns. Cons: Not feasible for most sovereign wealth funds due to their large asset sizes and high costs.

Canada model: Pros: High potential to beat market returns and development of internal capabilities. Cons: Often expensive and difficult to manage.

LDI model: Pros: Carefully satisfies liabilities in a systematic way. Cons: Certain risks may not be hedged.

Question

A model characterized by 60%/40% equity and fixed-income allocation, with few alternatives, and a largely passive investment scheme can best be summarized as:

  1. The Endowment Model.
  2. The Canada Model.
  3. The Norway Model.

Solution

The correct answer is C.

The Norway model limits exposure to alternatives in favor of stocks and bonds. While this works well for large-scale implementation (higher levels of assets under management), it does reduce the potential to beat market returns as it is largely a passive approach.

A and B are incorrect. Both the Canada and the endowment model have a high allocation to alternative assets, which gives them their increased potential for value add.

Reading 10: Portfolio Management for Institutional Investors

Los 10 (f) Evaluate the investment policy statement of an institutional investor

Shop CFA® Exam Prep

Offered by AnalystPrep

Featured Shop FRM® Exam Prep Learn with Us

    Subscribe to our newsletter and keep up with the latest and greatest tips for success
    Shop Actuarial Exams Prep Shop Graduate Admission Exam Prep


    Daniel Glyn
    Daniel Glyn
    2021-03-24
    I have finished my FRM1 thanks to AnalystPrep. And now using AnalystPrep for my FRM2 preparation. Professor Forjan is brilliant. He gives such good explanations and analogies. And more than anything makes learning fun. A big thank you to Analystprep and Professor Forjan. 5 stars all the way!
    michael walshe
    michael walshe
    2021-03-18
    Professor James' videos are excellent for understanding the underlying theories behind financial engineering / financial analysis. The AnalystPrep videos were better than any of the others that I searched through on YouTube for providing a clear explanation of some concepts, such as Portfolio theory, CAPM, and Arbitrage Pricing theory. Watching these cleared up many of the unclarities I had in my head. Highly recommended.
    Nyka Smith
    Nyka Smith
    2021-02-18
    Every concept is very well explained by Nilay Arun. kudos to you man!
    Badr Moubile
    Badr Moubile
    2021-02-13
    Very helpfull!
    Agustin Olcese
    Agustin Olcese
    2021-01-27
    Excellent explantions, very clear!
    Jaak Jay
    Jaak Jay
    2021-01-14
    Awesome content, kudos to Prof.James Frojan
    sindhushree reddy
    sindhushree reddy
    2021-01-07
    Crisp and short ppt of Frm chapters and great explanation with examples.