Investment & Actuarial Consulting, Controlling and Research. www.ppcmetrics.ch
Investment Consulting The Illiquidity Premium Revisited Can Pension Funds Access this? EPFIF PPCmetrics AG Dr. Diego Liechti, Senior Investment Consultant Benelux Zeist, February 13, 2018
Introduction Illiquid Asset Investing A Clear Cut Case? American investors, particularly those with long time horizons, pay far too much for liquidity. David F. Swensen, CIO Yale Endowment Source: Economist (2000) Source: http://investments.yale.edu 2
Introduction Illiquid Asset? Illiquid vs. liquid assets Diagrammtitel 6,000 5,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 Source: Bloomberg, own calculations 3
Introduction Illiquid Asset? Illiquid vs. liquid assets Diagrammtitel 6,000 5,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 MSCI World daily vs. yearly reported 1,000 Source: Bloomberg, own calculations 4
Introduction Definition of Illiquid Assets Illiquid refers to the state of a security or other asset that cannot easily be sold or exchanged for cash without a substantial loss in value. Illiquid assets may also be hard to sell quickly because of a lack of ready and willing investors or speculators to purchase the asset. Source: http://www.investopedia.com As a consequence, investors demand an illiquidity premium. What s it s size? Is it time-varying? How can pension funds harvest this premium? Is the illiquidity premium beside the obvious illiquidity a free lunch? 5
Illiquidity Premium Across Asset Classes Source: Illmanen (2011) 6
01.1968 01.1970 01.1972 01.1974 01.1976 01.1978 01.1980 01.1982 01.1984 01.1986 01.1988 01.1990 01.1992 01.1994 01.1996 01.1998 01.2000 01.2002 01.2004 01.2006 01.2008 01.2010 01.2012 01.2014 01.2016 Illiquidity Premium Within an Asset Class Cumulative traded liquidity return, i.e., return of 10% most Traded illiquid Liquidity vs. the return von 10% most liquid shares (31.12.1967 = 100) 1'200 1'000 800 600 400 200 0 Source: Data from Pastor s Website, own calculations 7
12.1968 03.1970 06.1971 09.1972 12.1973 03.1975 06.1976 09.1977 12.1978 03.1980 06.1981 09.1982 12.1983 03.1985 06.1986 09.1987 12.1988 03.1990 06.1991 09.1992 12.1993 03.1995 06.1996 09.1997 12.1998 03.2000 06.2001 09.2002 12.2003 03.2005 06.2006 09.2007 12.2008 03.2010 06.2011 09.2012 12.2013 03.2015 06.2016 Illiquidity Premium Time-Varying Yearly Return on Traded Liquidity Diagrammtitel 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% 12-month 36-month Median Source: Data from Pastor s Website, own calculations 8
Illiquidity Premium Capturing the Premium There are three ways for pension funds to harvest illiquidity premiums: 1. Strategic allocation to illiquid assets (e.g., real estate, private equity) 2. Security Selection: Invest in more illiquid assets within an asset class (e.g., small cap equity, corporate bonds with small issue sizes) 3. Dynamic strategies (e.g., counter-cyclical rebalancing providing liquidity during stress periods) Usually, pension funds deliberately use option 1), but are exposed the other two options. 9
Watch Out Potential Problems Legacy for successor Performance measurement and benchmarking Fee transparency Less flexibility (tactics!) Patience and long breath Problems with rebalancing Run for illiquid investments reduces premium Governance risks Measurement problems (i.e., returns, volatility, correlations) 10
01.2000 07.2000 01.2001 07.2001 01.2002 07.2002 01.2003 07.2003 01.2004 07.2004 01.2005 07.2005 01.2006 07.2006 01.2007 07.2007 01.2008 07.2008 01.2009 07.2009 01.2010 07.2010 01.2011 07.2011 01.2012 07.2012 01.2013 07.2013 01.2014 07.2014 01.2015 07.2015 01.2016 07.2016 01.2017 07.2017 Price Index Watch Out Measurement Problems S&P/Case-Shiller Index Diagrammtitel 250 200 150-34.5% vs. -49.2% 100 50 s smoothed = 3.9% p.a. vs. s unsmoothed = 18.6% p.a. 0 S&P/Case-Shiller Composite-20 Home Price Index Not Seasonally Adjusted S&P/Case-Shiller Composite-20 Home Price Index Not Seasonally Adjusted (unsmoothed) Source: Bloomberg, own calculations 11
Watch Out Problem of Self-Selection e.g., Self-Reporting Overestimation of Alpha Underestimation of Risks Source: Ang (2011) 12
Watch Out IRR Marketing Have you ever met a private equity manager that is not in the top quartile? 77% can claim this when GP are free to creatively choosing: The data source (Preqin, Cambridge, ), The vintage year (ambiguity) IRR as a performance measure does not take into account: Market performance Risk Not comparable with other asset classes (even hard to compare funds) Does not distinguish between borrowing and lending. Source: Peracs (2013) 13
Watch Out Risk vs. Return «We add value through leverage»: Example PE fund buys a company for EUR 500 million, Cost of debt = 5%. After a year, the fund can sell it for 600 million (good scenario) or 510 million (bad scenario). Each scenario has equal probability. Equity Soruce: Phalippou (2011) Debt Leverage Ratio (D/E) Good Scenario Bad Scenario Return Mean Volatility 500 0 0% 20.0% 2.0% 11.0% 12.7% 400 100 25% 23.8% 1.3% 12.5% 15.9% 300 200 67% 30.0% 0.0% 15.0% 21.2% 200 300 150% 42.5% -2.5% 20.0% 31.8% 100 400 400% 80.0% -10.0% 35.0% 63.6% 50 450 900% 155.0% -25.0% 65.0% 127.3% 20 480 2400% 380% -70.0% 155.0% 318.2% 14
Watch Out Return Interpretation Problems What was the best private equity investment? Year Equity Cash Flows Return PE I PE II PE III 1-20 -20-20 2-34.1% -20-20 -20 3 23.2% -20-20 -20 4 2.9% 90 60 120 5-7.7% 0 0 0 6 17.7% 0 0 0 7 24.6% 0 50 100 IRR 21.7% 20.7% 52.6% MIRR@0% 14.5% 10.63% 24.18% TVPI 1.50 1.83 3.67 PME 1.00 1.44 1.55 3.09 Hint: PE III equals PE II with double leverage (without cost of debt). 15
Watch Out Strategic Asset Allocation with Illiquid Assets Things to keep in mind for strategic asset allocation with illiquid assets: 1. Difficult to calculate risk and return characteristics (even more uncertainty) Potential solution: Factor models, unsmoothing, and correction for sample selection 2. Determine the optimum and maximum amount of illiquid assets 1. Structure of liabilities 2. Rebalancing problems Potential solution: Simulation to set-up optimal strategy 3. No tactics or limited tactics possible Potential solution: Acceptance 16
Watch Out Agency Problems Management of illiquid assets is delegated to managers, which arises agency problems. Importance of optimal contracts Optimal contract design is still work in progress, but why are contracts so complicated (and still far from optimal)? why investors do not have much control over the investment? why is investment reporting not so helpful (e.g., interpretation of IRR)? why are travel expenses funded by the fund? why are fees so intransparent, so high, so complicated, and arise even more agency problems (e.g., fees on commitments, performance fees)? 17
Watch Out Agency Problem Example: (Intransparent) Fee Structure Example: Catch-up in private equity Return of 12% p.a. (after management fee) Carried interest 20% after a hurdle rate of 8% 100% Catch-up No Catch-up LPs GP LPs GP First 8% 8% 8% Next 2% 2% 1.6% 0.4% Remaining 2% 1.6% 0.4% 1.6% 0.4% Total 9.6% 2.4% 11.2% 0.8% Fees can be much higher depending on «small» details such as a catch-up. 1 * In this example roughly 60%, assuming a management fee of 2% 18
Case Study: Liquidating Harvard Performance Source: Ang (2014) 19
Case Study: Liquidating Harvard What happend? Harvard Endowment lost -22% between July 1 and October 31, 2008 USD 8 billon 1 The «real» performance was even worse due to a large stakes in illiquid assets («mark-to-model»). In need of cash, they tried to sell part of its private equity portfolio, but discounts to NAV were huge. Since Harvard relied on endowment earnings (roughly 30%), it had to cut cost. However, mostly they borrowed money to cover their cost. So has the «endowment» model failed? No, but Harvard Endowment Fund failed with its asset and liability management (especially with illiquid assets). Even more important for pension funds 1 Allocation 2008: 55% in hedge funds, private equity, and real assets, 30% in developed market equity as well as bonds, residual in EM equity and high yield bonds. (see Ang (2013)). 20
Take-Aways 1. There is an illiquidity premium. However, it is time-varying and ex post it can be negative over some investment horizon. The higher the demand for illiquid assets, the smaller the illiquidity premium. 2. There might be a higher potential for alpha (Swensen and Ellis (2000)). 3. There are several possibilities to harvest an illiquidity premium. 4. Evaluation of illiquid assets should be done with much care. 5. Be critical and avoid major pitfalls. 21
Appendix Differences to Liquid Assets Liquid Assets Mostly traded in centralized markets Easy accessible Small transaction costs Objective and real time value through market pricing Short term investment horizon possible Contracts are standardized and transparent Illiquid Assets Traded OTC Difficult to trade Medium to large transaction costs Valuation is subjective and infrequent Long term investment horizon needed Contracts are often complex and unique 22
We publish more than 40 articles on various topics per year. Our experts share their knowledge and opinions with the public. Videos Experience our conferences, which we organize several times per year. Publications Conferences PPCmetrics AG Investment & Actuarial Consulting, Controlling, and Research. Read more Webseite