Lessons From the 2023 Banking Crisis

I recently had an opportunity to discuss the recent bank closures and how in times of financial crisis, financial advisors have a singularly important role to play. As the dust continues to settle, many people are coming to terms with the realization that – despite the euphemism's connotations – "money in the bank" is only secure up to a certain amount. And those with cash holdings above the FDIC threshold ($250k for individuals and $500k for assets held in joint accounts) are wondering what they can do to protect the rest. Fortunately, there are some learnings they can take from what we all just experienced. 

Lesson 1: Stress-Test Your Assets 

Stress tests aren't just for multinational financial institutions anymore. Especially in dynamic market environments, any assumptions we might normally make about the relative safety and return of an investment should be continuously evaluated and re-evaluated. Cash is no exception: When you think about the money you've deposited in a savings account with a commercial bank, you'd do well to remember that it's essentially a loan. As we've just been reminded, given certain circumstances, even a bank can default on a loan. 

If you have a financial advisor, they should be running the "what-if" scenarios for you and advising you if certain investment holdings are too concentrated or somehow at risk in the current environment. You can also run your own scenarios in relation to your financial plans and how those might be impacted if certain holdings were suddenly depleted or taken off the table entirely. 

Lesson 2: Diversify, Diversify, Diversify 

Many investors are familiar with portfolio diversification and understand how a broad and varied equity and fixed income asset allocation can help smooth out what is often a bumpy investing journey through periods of cyclical and unpredictable volatility. But diversification isn't a strategy reserved for stocks and bonds: If you have a lot of cash, diversifying among multiple banks can help limit your losses should any one bank fail.

If you're a basketball fan, you may have read about the financial zone defense employed by Milwaukee Bucks star Giannis Antetokounmpo, who stashed his cash holdings with multiple banks to maximize FDIC protection (the limits apply to your holdings with a single institution, and there is no limit on how many different banks you can use). 

Milwaukee-based Baird employs a similar strategy for our clients' cash holdings. Our Cash Sweep Program automatically directs the cash allocation of your investment mix to up to five separate lending institutions. Doing so builds in the benefits of diversification and increases your FDIC protection from $250,000 to up to $1,250,000 ($2,500,000 for couples). Better still, because this is done automatically, our clients can receive this increased protection without having to open five different bank accounts themselves – plus they get a return on their cash investment many times greater than what a savings account at a bank is currently generating. 

Lesson 3: Good Financial Advice Is Worth Having 

The banking crisis also showed that even very successful people aren't always aware of how their assets are protected – and the limits of those protections – should the unanticipated happen. But for a financial advisor with a fiduciary responsibility to act in your best interests, such considerations have to be on their radar. A financial advisor can also evaluate the appropriateness of your cash holdings relative to other assets given current market conditions and can even recommend alternate ways to invest those holdings so they are working their hardest toward your financial goals. 

The counsel of a trusted financial advisor shouldn't be taken lightly. Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank were two of the largest banks to fail since the FDIC started keeping track in 1934 – and when they fell, they fell quickly, within two days of each other. When financial calamities happen, they tend to happen fast, giving investors and consumers little time to think, not to mention act, in a thoughtful, purposeful way. Having a trusted partner who understands "the rules of the road" and is invested in your success can prove invaluable. 

Are Buyback Taxes a Policy Mistake?

Buybacks: Much debated, increasingly in-focus and – perhaps – soon to be subject to new taxes. Corporate stock buybacks have been all over the financial news recently, capturing the attention of investors and decision-makers alike. Recently, President Biden highlighted a proposal in the State of the Union address to quadruple (to 4%) the 1% tax on buybacks imposed last year by the Inflation Reduction Act. We also saw Warren Buffet share an uncharacteristically salty quip in his annual letter:

"When you are told that all repurchases are harmful to shareholders or to the country, or particularly beneficial to CEOs, you are listening to either an economic illiterate or a silver-tongued demagogue (characters that are not mutually exclusive)."

And in recent days, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said companies that voluntarily give up buybacks for five years will be treated preferentially when the agency distributes $52 billion under the CHIPS and Science Act. 

Like many of the negative narratives around finance, skepticism of and criticism directed at buybacks has some basis in fact. There is no shortage of examples where buybacks have diminished, rather than enhanced, shareholder value. As Buffett has acknowledged, "when a company overpays for repurchases, the continuing shareholders lose." Furthermore, short-sighted executives using buybacks solely to engineer a boost in EPS to meet compensation targets is harmful to shareholders. 

But as columnist Peter Coy put it in the New York Times this week, "It's good for companies to give back money to their shareholders when they don't see productive uses for it. Are buybacks always good? No. Are they always bad? Also no."

Regrettably, policy proposals to discourage buybacks are surfacing at a time when cash flow distributed by companies to their shareholders is becoming, and will continue to be, an increasingly important part of the return stock market participants receive from investing their capital in productive enterprises. As macro research firm Strategas, a Baird company, wrote in a recent note, "During a period in which multiple expansion may be difficult to generate, shareholder yield – the combination of dividends and share buybacks as a percentage of net income – will likely be a significant source of the total return equity investors may expect to receive in the coming years."

We're talking big numbers. Even with dividends and buyback proceeds exceeding $1.5 trillion in 2022, cash on corporate balance sheets is still well above the long-term average – 5.3% vs. 3.8%, according to Strategas. In other words, there's plenty of dry powder to potentially distribute to shareholders. 

Among the key factors driving stock market volatility are the rising interest rates the U.S. Federal Reserve is imposing in an effort to reduce the post-pandemic inflation rate. Interest rates are a proxy for the discount rate investors us to value future cash flows from corporations. The higher the interest rate, the higher the discount rate, and the lower the multiple stocks will command. 

In this environment, so-called "low-duration stocks" – stocks of companies that distribute cash currently via dividends and buybacks – should offer something of a safer haven for investors. Discouraging buybacks leaves investors between a rock and a hard place. It would rob them of one of the few levers they have to navigate through elevated inflation and multiple/valuation-driven volatility on the other.

To use the kind of direct language Buffett might use – taxing stock buybacks is a policy mistake. 

Returns vs. Values: The Fiduciary Experience of the Catholic Church

While controversy over ESG investing and fiduciary duty has only recently reached a fevered pitch in the media and legislative and policy forums across the nation, the Catholic Church has been quietly and consistently practicing its own version of values-based investing for decades. Longstanding investment policy guidelines adopted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) cite two bedrock principles:

Does this mean the Catholic Church has solved the conundrum of return vs. values in its investing practices?

My colleagues Michael Swope and Kathryn Nusbaum, both in Baird's Institutional Consulting Services division, advise Catholic institutions on how to follow the principles articulated by the USCCB while optimizing investment portfolio return. I asked them for their insights: 

How long has the Catholic Church been formally practicing values-based investing as a matter of policy?

Michael: The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops first issued investment guidelines in 1991 – so formally for more than three decades. The guidelines were updated and expanded upon in 2003 and, more recently, in November 2021. The updates provide further clarity on investment policies that align with Catholic values (including expansion into broader areas such as the environment) and a "modernization" of the guidelines. 

The Vatican late last year also published Mensuram Bonam (which translates to "good measure") as its written principles for Catholic investors globally. In either doctrine, it is apparent that the guidelines are not intended to be hard-and-fast rules but rather a flexible framework that can be interpreted (within reason) and implemented based on different religious organizations' unique circumstances. 

Kathryn: When discussing values-based investing, it is important to remind our audiences that this is a broad umbrella term that encompasses different, and often personal, interpretations. Although the Catholic Church has been successful in defining a doctrine to assist in aligning investment implementation to Catholic values, given the personal interpretation of socially responsible investing, we have found most investors continue to struggle with identifying and implementing investment portfolios that align to a strict set of socially responsible and ESG investing guidelines. 

What can both sides in the "return vs. values" debate learn from the fiduciary experience of the Catholic Church in exercising the dual mandates of its investment policy guidelines?

Michael: I think there are multiple takeaways from this debate:

As someone who works with religious organizations, how do you help your Catholic clients address the dual return/values mandate of the USCCB guidelines?

Kathryn: We are laser-focused on helping our investment committees maximize long-term, risk-adjusted returns that achieve the investment objectives outlined in their investment policy statement. We do that by (1) ensuring their investments abide by their interpretation of USCCB's guidelines and (2) designing and implementing an investment strategy that optimizes returns within the committee's agreed-upon interpretation of stated value-investing guidelines. This includes implementing custom portfolios, using passively managed products and accentuating active management where alpha generations are viable long-term. 

What's the key ingredient to successfully implementing a balanced approach to the stewardship of financial assets?

Michael: The key ingredient to successful financial stewardship is a clear understanding of the client's desired outcome and goals. 

To achieve best outcomes, a disciplined approach combined with a best-effort mentality are critical. Defining the guidelines upfront and recording them into an investment policy statement results in a level of discipline around the intent and implementation. "Best-effort mentality" means understanding that there is a point at which an overly strict interpretation and implementation of the guidelines can be counterproductive and potentially compromise the investment integrity of the portfolio without significantly increasing the resulting "good" to its community. Materiality and nuance are important concepts here. 

Let's cut to the chase: From your experience working with Catholic values investing, is it possible to achieve the highest possible return within the constraints of social or moral values?

Michael: It would be disingenuous to convey conclusively that one does not have to give up return when implementing a "values-based" investment strategy or to claim that the Catholic values investors have proven that possible. I think this debate – like the one around active vs. passive investing – will be argued for a long time. 

Having said that, there are differences between Catholic values investing and ESG investing. It can be reasonably argued that ESG can add some underlying value-adding features to an investment thesis. But Catholic values investing is a bit more challenging, not least because it necessarily excludes large swaths of the market, specifically within pharmaceuticals. 

The concept of reasonableness applies here. After all, the USCCB guidelines call for "a reasonable rate of return," which is defined as "one that matches the level of the market or at least allows the [Church] to meet its fiduciary responsibilities and maintain its mission." Is it possible for a values-based investment strategy to do that? Absolutely.

It's Time to Corral Finance's Wild West

SEC Chairman Gary Gensler has come under fire recently for the pace and breadth of his aggressive regulatory agenda. But based on recent and recurring issues, regulation of crypto assets is one area where financial regulators, in the U.S. and elsewhere, aren't moving nearly fast enough. 

This is a critical investor trust and confidence issue that affects a broad base of participants in financial markets – particularly the 12% of Americans estimated by the U.S. Treasury Department to own crypto assets.

For one thing, outright criminality – fraud, theft, market manipulation and scams of all flavors – is rampant in the sector. While debates rage in the regulated part of the market over arcane points like whether a "fiduciary standard" or a "best interests standard" should apply to financial advisors, in the crypto world there are no standards. It truly is the finance equivalent of "the Wild West."

According to a recent whitepaper published by the U.S. Treasury Department, criminals stole $7.8 billion from crypto investors in 2021. Collectively, the FBI, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) received over 80,000 crypto-asset related complaints or fraud reports in 2021 and the first quarter of 2022. There are few protections available if a digital platform runs into trouble, which happens with alarming frequency. Only recently, Binance, one of the larger and more established platforms in digital finance, lost more than $100 million to hackers who infiltrated its Smart Chain blockchain network. Last May, a so-called "stablecoin," TerraUSD which purported to peg its value to the U.S. dollar using an algorithmic "game theory based economic system," imploded and lost nearly 100% of its value. Unlike bank deposits, TerraUSA and less dicey dollar-value products are not insured against loss. Investors there are not likely to recoup their money. Cred, Voyager, Three Arrows, Celsius – these are names of crypto enterprises that have declared bankruptcy in the past two years. 

Flawed design and misrepresentation of product features are common in the crypto space. Commenting on platforms that lend against crypto assets, the U.S. Treasury Department warns that some "may attract users by promising to pay returns that are far greater than those offered by traditional banks... and inappropriately use bank-like terms like 'savings account,' 'deposit' or 'annual percentage yield' and other promotional tactics that can obscure the associated risks." 

Unregulated crypto activities are also a growing source of systemic risk to the financial system, particularly as crypto platforms grew at one point to almost $3 trillion in value and as the number of points at which they intersect with the traditional financial institutions have increased. 

The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), a consortium of U.S. regulators created after the last financial crisis to scan for, spot and make recommendations about how to mitigate systemic risk, earlier in October stated, "The financial stability risks of crypto would be substantial if... the scale of crypto-asset activities and interconnectedness with the traditional financial system were to grow rapidly." As they have, even with the recent meltdown in crypto assets. 

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen recently warned, "As we have painfully learned from history, innovation without adequate regulation can result in significant disruption and harm to the financial system."

Lack of regulatory clarity and certainty ultimately makes it hard for investors, particularly retail investors, to access crypto assets, which is something that must occur if they are ever to evolve into an asset class whose properties can be quantified for the purpose of including them in portfolios in ways that improve investor outcomes. There are few products that track the price of crypto cleanly, and custodying crypto assets is onerous for traditional financial institutions (though not impossible, as firms including BNY Mellon, NASDAQ and Blackrock are endeavoring to prove).

It is high time for what SEC Chairman Gensler calls "one rule book" – "a market integrity rule book" for crypto assets. 

"The public deserves the same protection they get with other issues of securities," Gensler has said. "There's no reason to treat the crypto markets differently just because different technology is used."

There has been no shortage of pronouncements about the need for a coordinated approach to crypto regulation. For example, an Executive Order of Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets issued by President Biden in March. Reports by the FSOC, the international Financial Stability Board and by the U.S. Treasury Department, which cites "the need for urgent action" to address "the extensive risks associated with engagement in crypto-asset markets." But so far there has been very little tangible, concrete action on the part of regulators. (Although, to its credit, the SEC did put an end to abusive initial coin offerings and threatened to sue digital exchange Coinbase for lending against digital assets.) 

One of the challenges is that crypto refers to a broad range of products falling under the purview of multiple regulators in the U.S. – among them the SEC, Commodity Futures and Exchange Commission (CFTC) and banking regulators – which is setting the stage for a turf war over what types of products, all under whose jurisdiction. 

Principal among these is a tug of war between the SEC and the CFTC, which turns on the question of whether, and if so which, digital assets are securities and which are not. 

Congressional legislation providing role clarity and addressing gaps would be helpful, but probably isn't coming anytime soon. "Getting any piece of legislation through both houses of Congress is going to be a monumental task," opined one spokesperson for the Chamber of Digital Commerce trade group.

What we don't need from Congress are new regulations or a new crypto regulator. Coordination and cooperation among existing regulators who apply existing regulations will do the trick. But it needs to happen sooner rather than later, before more investors suffer irreversible harm. 

For those interested in learning more about this topic, I recommend the comprehensive and surprisingly readable U.S. Treasury Department white paper, Crypto-Assets: Implications for Consumers, Investors and Businesses. Among the nuggets contained in the report:

    • "Financial markets, products and services that use native crypto-assets... are generally speculative in nature." 
    • "To date, competing technologies, applications and paradigms... have produced a patchwork quilt of systems that have yet to deliver, separately or collectively, on many of the promised benefits for consumers, investors and businesses..."
    • Data from the Federal Reserve Board finds 29% of people who hold crypto-assets for investment purposes had an annual income of less than $50,000 and "available evidence suggests that... crypto-asset products may present increased risks to populations" vulnerable to disparate impacts, specifically, low income, BIPOC and elderly populations.


Baird does not currently recommend the purchase of or custody cryptocurrencies. 

Dusting off the Bear Market Playbook

In my book Stewardship, written just after the last Great Financial Crisis, I likened the market meltdown of 2008-09 to Capt. Chesley Sullenberger's "Miracle on the Hudson" US Airways flight that year – an emergency landing, not a crash landing. But one that nonetheless left its passengers standing on the airplane wings dazed and confused, if not outright traumatized. 

We haven't reached that point yet in this year's market correction. And hopefully we won't. The conditions underpinning the more than 20% and 15% declines, respectively, in stocks and bonds this year are very different from what they were in 2008-09, when the U.S. stock market declined peak to trough by 56%. But I thought it might be helpful to revisit what I offered back then as a playbook for dealing with extreme market volatility. 

Rule #1 in the playbook:
When in Doubt, Do Nothing. 

If you have worked with an advisor to put together an asset allocation plan that has set long term targets based on your individual risk and return preferences and your time horizon, the worst thing you can do is pull the plug on that plan mid-stream in favor of a more "conservative" approach. The research on market timing is irrefutable: most of the time you will make matters worse, not better. Financial markets "revert to the mean." Professionally constructed plans can generate more predictable returns, given time. 

Rule #2
When in Doubt, Do Something. 

There are several investment-related tactics you can execute to create long term value during a market decline. The first is to harvest any tax losses that might have resulted from a decline in the value of your individual securities holdings. These can be banked to shelter gains in future years. It is important to do this in a way that doesn't change your exposure to the markets in the short term – and it's important to get professional advice before you do so. 

The second tactic is to rebalance to the long-term targets in your asset allocation plan. It's rare that asset classes move in a synchronized way. Stocks behave differently than bonds (although this year, both have declined in value), as do large-cap stocks vs. small-cap stocks, growth stocks vs. value stocks. Rebalancing simply means selling the securities that have appreciated (or declined less) and using proceeds to buy those that have declined. 

Rule #3
Get Expert, Trusted, Dispassionate, Professional Guidance to Help You Tell The Difference Between #1 and #2.

During periods of significant volatility, emotionality can have a big impact on us. It can cause us to act precipitously or freeze us, keeping us from managing risk or taking advantage of investment opportunities. Talking with your financial advisor can provide much-needed perspective in a turbulent time. Connecting with others, putting words to emotions, seeking out seasoned professional guidance – these can all provide a measure of emotional relief, help us get our bearings and stand on solid ground... which is a necessary precondition to effective action and a good place to be when the earth seems to be shifting under everyone's feet. 

Should Politicians Decide How People's Assets Are Invested?

In the hyper-politicized battle over ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) investing, asset management firms are being demonized for sponsoring socially responsible, values based, ESG and impact investment strategies. For example, the Republican Attorney General of Arizona, Mark Brnovich, wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal that "[woke] asset managers... have joined with left-wing state pension funds to cram environmental, social and governance policies down the throats of American companies and employees..."

This summer, Texas Comptroller Glen Hegar published a "blacklist" of 10 financial firms and 350 open-end mutual funds and ETFs sponsored by other managers, charging they are part of "a perverse system in which some financial companies no longer focus on the best interests of their clients, but instead use their financial clout to push a social and political agenda shrouded in secrecy."

Indiana's Attorney General Todd Rokita issued an advisory opinion stating that investments by the Indiana Public Retirement System (INPRS) "may not, under state law, be based upon any so-called environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations. These are activist-driven agendas intended to achieve radical environmental and social policies."

"America is now a minefield for financial companies when it comes to ESG," writes Gillian Tett in the Financial Times. 

Advocates of ESG investing (most recently in a letter signed by 13 state treasurers and New York City's comptroller) counter that they are merely fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to consider all factors, not merely financial metrics, in evaluating which investments to make for the purpose of maximizing long term returns and minimizing risk; and that doing so has resulted in "long term positive outcomes." But they are missing the opportunity to make an even more fundamental point – namely, that most asset managers are offering socially responsible investment strategies because that is what a growing percentage of their clients have been demanding for years. Global inflows to sustainable funds increased from $30 billion in 2016 to $360 billion in 2020. While interest in sustainable investing in the U.S. has trailed other nations, particularly in Europe, assets under management in U.S. listed ESG ETFs grew from nearly $83 billion to more than $144 billion in 2021. Despite the turbulent market environment in 2022, which saw many investors retreat to more familiar large cap U.S. equities (traditional energy stocks have seen notable gains as gas prices have risen), sustainable funds still attracted a net $9 billion in inflows during the first six months of the year

By where they move their money, asset owners (the ultimate providers of capital) including sovereign wealth funds, corporate and public pension funds, foundations, endowments and individuals are signaling they want investment processes that consider ESG factors when evaluating risk and assessing return. Or investment strategies targeting specific ESG outcomes. Or both. 

Unlike banks, traditional asset management firms are not principals. They are generally not committing capital off their balance sheets. They are instead agents for those who control capital. And one of the foundational roles they play as agents is, and should be, to facilitate the deployment of capital based on asset owner preferences. "Anti-ESG crusaders," as Michael Bloomberg recently fired back, "are attempting to use government to block private firms from acting in the best interests of their clients." 

Writes Gillian Tett in the Financial Times, "...politicians do not need to ban ESG ideas to express dislike for them; they can simply choose not to use them."

I agree.

Alternative Investments: An Asset Class Whose Time Has Come?

Rising interest rates, heightened volatility and a nearly 14% drawdown in the S&P 500 so far in this year's "nowhere to hide" market have brought a new focus and urgency to the question of what role alternative investments should play in individual investor portfolios. 

Institutional investors, pioneered by Yale University's late chief investment officer David Swensen, have been increasing their allocations to private assets and other alternatives for decades. Currently, the largest university endowments have approximately 58% of their portfolios invested in alternatives, according to NACUBO data. As a result, assets under management in alternatives have nearly tripled over the past decade.

Source: Baird, Preqin data. 2020 figure is annualized based on data in October. 2021-2025 are Preqin's forecasted figures. 

Generally, what works for institutional investors eventually trickles down to high-net-worth individual investors. But there are challenges to investing in alternatives at the individual level, not the least of which are their complexity, limited access, increased risk and reduced liquidity. I asked Kathy Carey, head of Baird's wealth management research team, and teammates Nic Reisenbichler and Scott Osborne to share their thoughts on this topic. 

John: Kathy... Let's start with you. There's been a lot of discussion recently about the fact that the traditional 60%/40% allocation of stocks-to-bonds may no longer be optimal, and that alternative investments should play a bigger role in investors' portfolios. Do you agree with that? Has the TINA market ("There Is No Alternative") been replaced by the TARA market ("There is a Reasonable Alternative")?

Kathy Carey (KC): For decades, the bond portion of a traditional 60/40 allocation provided attractive returns even as interest rates dropped from 15% in the early 1980s to less than 1% in mid-2020. In addition, bonds generally provided capital preservation when stocks sold off. This year, it hasn't worked that way. Bonds haven't done what they're known for. Through June, the traditional 60/40 portfolio is down more than 11%.

Looking into the future, we're not expecting that the high returns we've experienced in the equity markets over the past decade are sustainable. On the fixed income side, while we've seen rates rise recently, we're still in an historically low interest rate environment. 

So yes, that might lead you to look elsewhere (besides bonds) to mitigate risk and provide income. 

John: Scott, would you recommend individuals rethink their portfolio allocations?

Scott Osborne (SO): It varies by investor. There's no question we're in a period where things have changed. And those two things are wreaking havoc on portfolios. I'm not sure I would say the 60/40 portfolio is dead. I would say it's "temporarily hindered." In the environment we're in, alternatives certainly present investors with opportunities. But there are risks and drawbacks. One of those is they're more complicated to understand. They may not be appropriate for investors in retirement or who don't understand a lot about investing

John: How would you describe alternative investments? 

KC: Generally, alternatives are anything other than a traditional investment in stocks, bonds or cash. 

Nic Reisenbichler (NR): There are two buckets in alternative investments: a liquid bucket and an illiquid bucket. The liquid bucket contains things like mutual funds and ETFs comprised of managed futures, market neutral, long/short equities or long/short credit strategies. In the illiquid bucket are things like private equity, private debt, private real estate and some types of hedge funds. There needs to be a combination, a balance, of these two buckets when you put together a portfolio for individual investors. 

For illiquid investments, you generally need to be a qualified purchaser or accredited investor to invest in them. But there are some more liquid investments such as an interval fund, that with a little extra education, clients can understand what they are investing in. Some of those may be appropriate on the margin for the individual investors. 

John: What are the major reasons individuals might consider investing in alternatives? 

SO: There are a few reasons:

  1. They can help diversify the risk of traditional portfolios, since alternatives do not generally move in sync with stocks and bonds. 
  2. They offer the potential for better risk-adjusted returns and can help offer investors more stable returns and a "smoother ride."
  3. They have the potential to offer more attractive yield or income.

The charts below illustrate the potential benefits of moving 10% or 20% of a traditional portfolio into alternative investments:

Source: Baird. Performance figures are for the 20-year period ending December 2019. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Stocks are represented by the S&P 500 Index. Bonds are represented by the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Index. Alternative Investments ("Alt Inv") include a one third allocation to Hedge Funds (HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index), one third to Managed Futures (Barclays CTA Index) and one third to Private Equity (Cambridge Associates LLC U.S. Private Equity Index®). See page 3 for a more detailed description of these indices. It is not possible to invest directly in an index. 

John: What are the drawbacks?

SO: Most alternatives offer only limited or periodic liquidity. This means you might only be able to exit your position once per quarter, or once a year, or perhaps not for a decade. They may be less transparent, which makes them harder to understand and to monitor. Illiquidity and leverage can add to investment risk. 

John: Are people looking for more income than getting from their bonds? Or are they looking for things that aren't correlated with equities? 

NR: Yes to both of the above... but with an emphasis on income, and as an income alternative to fixed income. But given their increased risk, they shouldn't be a replacement for your US Treasury bonds. Fixed income always has a place in investors' portfolios, because, as they say, "A bad year in the bond market is a bad day in the stock market."

KC: We are seeing more interest from financial advisors in alternatives. This is the first time in a long time that we're having conversations about this asset class. 

NR: Last year was a record year in terms of inflows into alternative investments at Baird. We've already surpassed that this year (in 2022). Private real estate has seen the most flows, along with private debt. And private equity is always popular. 

KC: It seems people think they can understand private equity and real estate. Maybe that's where the interest in those two types of assets come from. 

NR: We've also seen a big increase in managed futures. 

John: One of the issues smaller investors have had in the past is access. It's harder for them to invest in the suite of strategies that large institutions can invest in. Since dispersion of returns between the best managers and worst managers is wider in private markets than in public markets, that has in the past translated to reduced return opportunities for high-net-worth investors. Is lack of access still a problem?

SO: It used to be a major issue. It was hard for high-net-worth investors to get access to funds if they didn't have $5 million or $10 million to invest. 

Over time, platforms have been developed (like CAIS, which Baird uses) that allow individuals access to high quality managers across many different asset classes and product types. Also, product innovations like funds of funds or interval funds have allowed smaller investors to get access to top-tier managers. 

KC: Still, manager selection is very important. You need to make sure appropriate due diligence and monitoring are performed to help avoid picking a manager that produces disappointing returns. 

John: Is it fair to say there has been a "democratization" of alternatives over the past few years?

NR: Absolutely, because of platforms like CAIS or iCapital. 

KC: I'll admit that when we first started working with CAIS, I had some questions about why some of the best managers wanted to dip into the retail space. But from their standpoint it makes sense because they diversify their investor base and potentially get assets that are a bit more "sticky" than those associated with institutional clients. 

SO: There are more and more product types being offered to high-net-worth investors, so that's good news for those investors going forward. 

KC: Yes, more opportunities. But because alternative investments are complicated, investors need to be educated. Since there are so many different types of alternatives, investors need to think hard about what they are trying to achieve to narrow the list of choices. If you want higher yield and income, it's best to focus on private debt and private real estate. If you want protection from inflation and rising interest rates, focus on private debt, private real estate and managed futures. If you want equity-like returns with lower risk, look at equity-oriented hedge funds. 

Thank you, Kathy, Nic and Scott.


Past performance is not indicative of future results and diversification does not ensure a profit or protect against loss. All investments carry some level of risk, including loss of principal. An investment cannot be made directly in an index. 

Empathy and Allyship

Two years ago, shortly after George Floyd was murdered in my home city of Minneapolis, I was asked by Baird CEO Steve Booth to join my colleague Mary Ellen Stanek in co-chairing a newly formed Special Task Force, the purpose of which was to bring Baird's longstanding inclusion and diversity efforts to a new level of intensity and impact.

It was an honor to have been asked. More importantly, it has been a privilege to have served; because, as a result of that assignment, I am a different person today than I was two years ago. Different in terms of my understanding of and connection to issues of race in America. Different also in my heart. Perhaps most importantly, different in my commitment to deploy for the benefit of others the advantages into which I was born... by being a better ally to the diverse people in my life. 

I have served for decades on the boards of foundations and not-for-profits grappling in one way or another with issues of race-based disparities. But because of my service on Baird's Special Task Force I am more educated today than I have ever been on the history of race in America. Along with colleagues at Baird, I participated in listening sessions and in our Bridge Builders reverse mentoring program, attended training sessions on unconscious bias, participated in two Executive Committee retreats dedicated to inclusion and diversity and engaged in many hours of conversation, research, debate and discussion. 

When I'm asked why we should continue spending all the time and energy we are investing in inclusion and diversity or whether we're "overdoing it," I return to what's at the core of our commitment to inclusion and diversity: our associates' experience. Then I reflect that one of the most important ways that I, and others like me, can contribute to Baird's inclusion and diversity efforts is to be better, more intentional allies to and for our diverse colleagues. As Emmanuel Acho, former NFL player and a best-selling author, put it at Baird's Multicultural Conference in Nashville, "to use privilege for the benefit of those who don't have it."

A recent article in the Harvard Business Review titled "Be a Better Ally" suggests that allyship by an organization's senior leaders – "[promoting] equity in the workplace through supportive personal relationships and public acts of sponsorship and advocacy" – has become essential for firms who aspire to do inclusion and diversity well. 

What would make anyone want to be an ally? The answer, as former NBA basketball player and diversity advocate John Amaechi suggests, is empathy – an emotional connection to and a desire to help others. Empathy is developed through intentional social and professional interactions with people who are different from ourselves. Empathy starts with the head, but it ultimately resides in the heart. 

So, I encourage you to look around and work to be more aware of individuals who could benefit from the advantages and influence associated with your standing in society or your workplace. Challenge yourself to use those assets in ways that can help others achieve their own potential and fulfillment. As much as anything we can do, empathic allyship can help us advance on our collective inclusion and diversity journey. 

Pioneers in Planning

Following the recent closing of Baird's merger with Pittsburgh-based Hefren-Tillotson, I sat down with Hefren's CEO, Kim Fleming, to talk about her firm's unique history and commitment to planning as a core tenant of wealth management. I have known Kim for more than a decade through speaking engagements and through our mutual service on industry associations, and have always found her to be a passionate advocate for a planning-centric approach to meeting the needs of clients, and a deeply principled steward of the business her family founded and operated for the past 75 years. Here are excerpts from our conversation. 

I've always thought of your father, Williard ("Bill") Tillotson as a pioneer in financial planning. Would you agree with that?

Absolutely. Dad was visionary when it came to the importance of planning. He believed in it at a time, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the term "financial planning" wasn't even used, or at least not very commonly. 

He joined his father-in-law's firm, Arthur R. Hefren & Co. as it was known then, in 1958, which at the time was a traditional brokerage firm offering stock, bonds and mutual funds on a commission basis. Before that he was in the insurance business, where he saw and experienced the importance of gaining a full understanding of a client's financial situation. He did not feel comfortable talking to someone about their insurance needs without seeing the whole picture and he felt the same way about investments. That was the insight behind what he called "Masterplan" – getting all the information you could about a client or prospect before offering advice. 

When I joined Hefren-Tillotson in 1987, only about 40% of our advisors were regularly doing Masterplans. Many did not believe people would share so much personal information. My father felt strongly that they would when they understood why it would benefit them. 

What is "Masterplan" and how has it changed since your father developed it?

The core issues addressed by Masterplan really haven't changed much since the 1960s. It still starts with a net worth statement and goes through estate planning, insurance review and recommendations, education and college funding and of course retirement planning and investments. We also often provide guidance on charitable giving and business and succession planning. In the beginning (the b1960s), Masterplan was a written report produced on a typewriter, then a word processor. What has evolved is the ability to gather client information in a way that's easier for clients and more complete and efficient through the use of technology. We adopted state-of-the-art planning technology a few years ago but until then we were still producing Masterplans using our own custom spreadsheets and documents. We wanted to keep the plan focused on the main issues and provide specific recommendations. 

Of course, tax laws have changed over the years. Back in the 1960's, it was possible to show clients really meaningful savings just by retitling assets. 

I wasn't in financial services in the 1960s. But when I entered the business in the 1980s, it felt like "financial planners" were looked down on in some ways by brokers. They were viewed as a more pedestrian advice channel. Today of course, the inverse is true. Planning is integral to wealth management and fiduciary-quality advice and "brokers" are at the bottom of the business model table. Do you agree with that?

That's very true. 

Hefren-Tillotson's business model is unique. Can you talk about that?

Everybody talks about planning. But still a lot of firms don't fully embrace it or have the process in place to do it right. Or it isn't being widely used because there isn't an "all in" commitment to planning. Doing planning right requires total commitment. One of the things my brother, Craig Tillotson, says is "Lots of firms say they can do planning. But at Hefren-Tillotson, it's what we do."

The development of advisors through early experience in our planning department has been a major contributor to our growth. We hire college students between their junior and senior years as interns, then look for the best to hire into our planning department when they graduate. They typically work there for five years before moving into the role of financial advisor. These advisors understand that planning is foundational to the way we work with clients and it provides the basis for truly meaningful relationships. 

It's important to remember that planning – the initial Masterplan – is only the beginning step. It remains active and needs to be reviewed and updated. We incorporate this into client reviews every time we meet with clients. 

Our CEO, Steve Booth, says he believes your financial advisors are so effective because they have come out of your planning department with "a superpower" – their planning skills and expertise. Do you think that's true?

What I've always liked about planning is that it enables you to build close relationships with clients. The depth of client relationships that comes from working with someone in an intimate way during very significant life events. Becoming, truly, clients' most trusted advisors. It's a career that is really rewarding. And it doesn't happen in the same way if all you're talking to people about is their investments. Having a conversation about estate planning, for example, really allows you to learn about how clients feel about their families. It's fun to be part of those considerations and to offer practical advice. And sometimes it can be a prompt for important changes in how family members relate. For example, some clients never considered contributing to their grandchildren's education until they went through Masterplan. When they find out they can afford to give money to other family members, that can and does lead to very significant changes in family relationships. 

What do you see as the future of financial planning over the next, say, five years?

I think technology is going to continue to enhance our ability to get information, to aggregate that information and to present it in ways that are easy for clients to access and review interactively with us. We see the possibility for tax laws to change. If estate tax provisions sunset as scheduled in 2026, that's going to create a tremendous need to review and update plans for high-net-worth clients. There may be a need to develop new capabilities as our clients get older and have a need for services that can simplify their lives. 

The pandemic opened the door for us to have conversations with our clients without being together in person using various types of technology. These new capabilities make the possibility of developing a broader universe of clients and prospects even more likely. They also have made it easier to connect with the next generations of our clients' families when they are not local. We are very optimistic about the continued need for experienced, knowledgeable advice and the career opportunities in our industry. 

Thank you, Kim. Welcome to Baird. 

A Powerful Combination: Hefren-Tillotson and Baird

Podcast: Kim Fleming on HER View from Here

Et Tu, MSRB?

Defining ESG Disclosure in the Muni Market

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) took up all the oxygen in the proverbial financial regulatory room two weeks ago with its proposal to mandate climate disclosure for publicly reporting companies. (I will have more to say about that in a future blog.) But what went almost unnoticed was a parallel foray into climate disclosure by another financial regulator, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB), which earlier this year issued a request for information on environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices in the municipal bond market.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) and the American Securities Association (ASA), in both of which Baird is a member, filed comments letters with the MSRB that capture fairly comprehensively the issues raised by potential ESG disclosure regulation in the muni market. (SIFMA letter; ASA letter.)

Both the SEC's proposal and the MSRB's request raise the same critical and fundamental policy issue: What is the proper role of financial regulators when it comes to ESG disclosures? Do they have the legal authority to mandate ESG disclosures without explicit authority to do so delegated to them by Congress (which none of them have)?

In the muni market, the issue of prescriptive ESG disclosure is further complicated by a couple of additional factors. 

First, it would be enormously difficult to implement in an effective manner. That's because there are an approximately 50,000 state and local government entities, not including many not-for-profit or other obligors, that raise capital by issuing municipal bonds (as opposed to about 4,000 public companies) and a staggering one million bonds outstanding. There are widely varying risks and exposure considerations between different types of governmental units and geographies. As the Government Finance Officers Association wrote in a letter to the SEC, "the notion of developing a uniform set of metrics to evaluate risks is so impractical as to be virtually impossible."

Then, consistent with our country's foundational principle of federalism, there's the historical reluctance of Congress to regulate the activities of states and their political subdivisions. As officials from 23 states contended in a comment letter to the MSRB, the request for information "thwarts Congress's decision to leave states free from bureaucratic securities supervision." "The MSRB needs to stay out of this area," Utah State Treasurer Marlo Oaks told The Bond Buyer

The irony in this situation is that municipal bonds are the original socially responsible, green, ESG-focused securities. U.S. Treasury and IRS rules have long required tax-exempt municipal bonds to be issued for a public purpose. Municipal bonds finance parks and greenways, energy efficient improvements to schools and hospitals, mass transit development and water management systems, the environmental and social impacts of which are fairly obvious. 

Clear, factual disclosures by state and local government borrowers as to how bond proceeds are going to be used and the impact they are going to have on real people living in real communities in the real world, are far more important to investors than adding ESG labels without clarity or consistency as to what they mean.