How Public Funds are Delegating
Unless prohibited by law, public funds can delegate the authority to make investment decisions when prudent in their informed opinion. Delegation works best when roles and responsibilities, reporting requirements, thresholds, and expectations are clearly defined from the onset. The Investment Policy Statement (IPS) can include policy language regarding delegation, defining responsibilities for manager due diligence, selection, monitoring, and termination.
Whether the delegation is memorialized in the IPS or in a separate document, the delegation should be reviewed on a set frequency, such as annually or bi-annually, to ensure it continues to be prudent. This does not preclude the board from reviewing the appropriateness of the delegation any time the board desires while also ensuring that the monitoring is documented and fulfilled.
Monitoring options at the board level commonly include quarterly manager update reports, quarterly performance reports, and periodic asset class reviews. These reports can provide updates on manager additions, terminations, rebalancing, total fund performance, sub-portfolios/asset classes, and managers.
Public pension funds have varying levels of delegation. State plans, which tend to have sizable assets, often have large internal investment teams working with outside consulting firms to determine investment manager allocations. These plans also often have at least some degree of delegation of manager selection, most often to the internal investment team. Municipal plans, which have fewer assets, tend to also have smaller investment teams. Where delegation exists with these mid-size plans, it is more common for them to fully or partially use third-party advisors. A common delegation for mid-size plans is to a discretionary advisor for private market asset classes, such as private equity, which can be very resource intensive. Some plans use an Outsourced Chief Investment Officer (OCIO) model, which is when an outside firm is delegated discretionary responsibility for investment manager selection, among other operational duties (such as rebalancing). An OCIO model is more often used by plans with a lean investment team or plans with no dedicated investment team at all.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and the level of delegation largely depends on the comfort level with the delegating body and the processes and resources in place. Aon recommends selecting a model that works best for all constituents involved, ensuring transparency and buy-in on processes and procedures. An approach with clearly defined processes and parameters, and robust reporting requirements, can lead to a successful delegation model.
| Level of Delegation |
Delegation Option |
Description |
Final Approver |
Constraints |
| None |
Board retains full authority |
All manager selections are made directly by the board |
Board |
|
| Low |
Board delegates to investment committee |
Staff propose manager selections, subject to approval by the investment committee (not the full board) |
Investment committee - board adopts through consent agenda |
The board could pull the consent agenda for discussion if desired. |
| Medium |
Staff selects managers with external consultant concurrence |
Staff proposes selections, but decisions require agreement from an external consultant |
Staff with consultant concurrence |
Potential Restrictions:
Limited to some asset classes
Limited by a percentage or dollar-based threshold
Potential Rescission triggers:
Delegation rescinded if staffing levels fall below a threshold
Delegation rescinded if CIO, investment consultant, or third party advisor for particular asset class is replaced
Reviews:
Must be within approved pacing plans
Subject to annual review process and board approval
|
| High |
Staff or third party advisor selects managers independently |
Staff or third party advisor has full discretion over manager selection |
Investment team or third party advisor |