Connect with us

Business

Private equity could transform your retirement, Wharton alternative investment experts say, but only if it adapts to protect savers

Published

on



With President Trump’s new executive order encouraging private market investments in defined contribution plans like 401(k)s, private equity stands at a pivotal moment. This shift could reshape how millions of Americans save for retirement.

Private equity may offer higher returns and diversification, but bringing it into retirement plans requires new rules and safeguards to protect savers.

Private equity has a compelling case for inclusion — but one that demands caution. Traditional retirement accounts still focus on public stocks and bonds, even as public markets represent a shrinking share of today’s economy. The number of publicly traded U.S. companies has nearly halved since the mid-1990s. Meanwhile, companies are staying private longer. As a result, retail investors are missing out on much of today’s economic growth, which is increasingly concentrated in private markets.

Private equity offers a way in, providing access to that private growth and the potential for higher returns. One of its core promises is the “illiquidity premium” – a higher potential return for agreeing to lock up your money for a longer period. Over the past 15 years, Preqin reports a 14.22% annualized net return for private equity, compared to 10.25% for the MSCI World Index.

Recent performance has softened. But still, private equity can play a meaningful role in retirement portfolios – not only as a potential return enhancer, but also as a diversification tool that gives exposure to parts of the economy otherwise out of reach.

The potential benefits come with risks that must be fully understood and responsibly managed. These investments are inherently complex, involving limited liquidity, higher fees, and valuation opaqueness. Without strong oversight and clear frameworks, this lack of transparency could undermine the very retirement security these plans are meant to ensure.

Protection over experimentation

If private equity is to play a role in retirement plans, plan sponsors, regulators, and fund managers must ensure it’s done with responsibility and transparency.

Plan sponsors — typically employers — have a fiduciary duty to act solely in the interest of plan participants. That means any inclusion of private equity must be supported by robust due diligence, clear communication, and ongoing oversight. The added complexity and costs demand nothing less.

For private equity managers, or General Partners (GPs), the opportunity is substantial. With over $12 trillion in defined contribution assets, 401(k) plans represent a new and relatively stable pool of long-term capital. As traditional institutional investors hit allocation ceilings, GPs are looking toward individual retirement accounts as their next major capital source.

Nonetheless, caution is warranted. Ensuring equal access to high-quality investment opportunities is critical to democratizing private markets. This will require GPs to embrace not only new fund structures, but a new mindset around disclosure and inclusivity.

Public pension funds illustrate this well. After a regulatory shift in 1979, many began allocating to private markets. Today, average exposure to private capital stands at over 13%, up from under 5% in 2000, according to the Equable Institute. These investments are overseen by experienced professionals with access to top-tier managers – resources most 401(k) savers don’t have. That’s why private equity in defined contribution plans must be delivered through pooled funds managed by professionals, with strong governance and professional oversight.

And finally, regulators must provide clear guidance and legal protection.

What must happen first

Any 401(k)-eligible private equity fund must offer clear liquidity protections. These could include maintaining buffers or containing partially liquid assets to ensure people can access their savings when needed. To strike a balance between opportunity and flexibility, private market allocations might reasonably be capped at around 15%, a threshold consistent with the SEC’s liquidity rule for mutual funds, which limits illiquid holdings to preserve redemption flexibility. Plan structures could also incorporate tools like liquidity lines to allow participants to liquidate under pre-determined conditions.

Sponsors also need legal clarity. Without it, fear of litigation could prevent innovation, even when it’s in participants’ best interest. Safe harbor provisions should be established to protect sponsors who follow well-defined, rigorous due diligence and oversight processes.

At the same time, private equity managers must meet a higher standard of transparency if they want access to retirement capital. Regulators should require clear, standardized disclosures on fees, investment performance, and valuation methodologies. Transparent reporting will empower investors, strengthen public trust in plan design, and significantly reduce fiduciary risks for sponsors and advisors. Fund-level reporting should be complemented by enhanced visibility into underlying holdings, particularly when a private equity fund is part of a publicly traded vehicle. In such cases, requiring audited financials for companies inside the fund would bring disclosure standards closer to public markets. There would be immense value in transparent private market data. Accessible data would enable rigorous academic research, improve market oversight, and support better policy decision-making.

Investor education is essential. Participants must understand the unique risks and opportunities associated with private equity. But education alone isn’t enough. Smart plan design should incorporate behavioral cues such as default allocations into diversified, professionally managed private equity sleeves, ensuring access while protecting participants from decision fatigue or missteps.

Private equity holds real potential for retirement savers. But without reform, we risk shifting unnecessary complexity and risk onto individuals. If private equity is coming to the 401(k), it must evolve to meet the moment.

The 401(k) is changing, and private equity must change, too.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Introducing the 2025 Fortune Global 500, the definitive ranking of the biggest companies in the world. Explore this year’s list.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Procurement execs often don’t understand the value of good design, experts say

Published

on



Behind every intricately designed hotel or restaurant is a symbiotic collaboration between designer and maker.

But in reality, firms want to build more with less—and even though visions are created by designers, they don’t always get to see them to fruition. Instead, intermediaries may be placed in charge of procurements and overseeing the financial costs of executing designs.

“The process is not often as linear as we [designers] would like it to be, and at times we even get slightly cut out, and something comes out on the other side that wasn’t really what we were expecting,” said Tina Norden, a partner and principal at design firm Conran and Partners, at the Fortune Brainstorm Design forum in Macau on Dec. 2.

“To have a better quality product, communication is very much needed,” added Daisuke Hironaka, the CEO of Stellar Works, a furniture company based in Shanghai. 

Yet those tasked with procurement are often “money people” who may not value good design—instead forsaking it to cut costs. More education on the business value of quality design is needed, Norden argued.

When one builds something, she said, there are both capital investment and a lifecycle cost. “If you’re spending a bit more money on good quality furniture, flooring, whatever it might be, arguably, it should last a lot longer, and so it’s much better value.”

Investing in well-designed products is also better for the environment, Norden added, as they don’t have to be replaced as quickly.

Attempts to cut costs may also backfire in the long run, said Hironaka, as business owners may have to foot higher maintenance bills if products are of poor design and make.

AI in interior and furniture design

Though designers have largely been slow adopters of AI, some luminaries like Daisuke are attempting to integrate it into their team’s workflow.

AI can help accelerate the process of designing bespoke furniture, Daisuke explained, especially for large-scale projects like hotels. 

A team may take a month to 45 days to create drawings for 200 pieces of custom-made furniture, the designer said, but AI can speed up this process. “We designed a lot in the past, and if AI can use these archives, study [them] and help to do the engineering, that makes it more helpful for designers.” 

Yet designers can rest easy as AI won’t ever be able to replace the human touch they bring, Norden said. 

“There is something about the human touch, and about understanding how we like to use our spaces, how we enjoy space, how we perceive spaces, that will always be there—but AI should be something that can assist us [in] getting to that point quicker.”

She added that creatives can instead view AI as a tool for tasks that are time-consuming but “don’t need ultimate creativity,” like researching and three-dimensionalizing designs.

“As designers, we like to procrastinate and think about things for a very long time to get them just right, [but] we can get some help in doing things faster.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Binance has been proudly nomadic for years. A new announcement suggests it’s chosen an HQ

Published

on



For years, Binance has dodged questions about where it plans to establish a corporate headquarters. On Monday, the world’s largest crypto exchange made an announcement that indicates it has chosen a location: Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.

In its announcement, Binance reported that it has secured three global financial licenses within Abu Dhabi Global Market, a special economic zone inside the Emirati city. The licenses regulate three different prongs of the exchange’s business: its exchange, clearinghouse, and broker dealer services. The three regulated entities are named Nest Exchange Limited, Nest Clearing and Custody Limited, and Nest Trading Limited, respectively.

Richard Teng, the co-CEO of Binance, declined to say whether Abu Dhabi is now Binance’s global headquarters. “But for all intents and purposes, if you look at the regulatory sphere, I think the global regulators are more concerned of where we are regulated on a global basis,” he said, adding that Abu Dhabi Global Market is where his crypto exchange’s “global platform” will be governed.

A company spokesperson declined to add more to Teng’s comments, but did not deny Fortune’s assertion that Binance appears to have chosen Abu Dhabai as its headquarters.

Corporate governance

The Abu Dhabi announcement suggests that Binance, which has for years taken pride in branding itself as a company with no fixed location, is bowing to the practical considerations that go with being a major financial firm—and the corporate governance obligations that entails.

When Changpeng Zhao, the cofounder and former CEO of Binance, launched the company in 2017, he initially established the exchange in Hong Kong. But, weeks after he registered Binance in the city, China banned cryptocurrency trading, and Zhao moved his nascent trading platform. Binance has since been itinerant. “Wherever I sit is going to be the Binance office,” Zhao said in 2020.

The location of a company’s headquarters impacts its tax obligations and what regulations it needs to follow. In 2023, after Binance reached a landmark $4.3 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, Zhao stepped down as CEO and pleaded guilty to failing to implement an effective anti-money laundering program.

Teng took over and promised to implement the corporate structures—like a board of directors—that are the norm for companies of Binance’s size. Teng, who now shares the CEO role with the newly appointed Yi He, oversaw the appointment of Binance’s first board in April 2024. And he’s repeatedly telegraphed that his crypto exchange is focused on regulatory compliance.

Binance already has a strong footprint in the Emirates. It has a crypto license in Dubai, received a $2 billion investment from an Emirati venture fund in March, and, that same month, said it employed 1,000 employees in the country. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Leaders in Congress outperform rank-and-file lawmakers on stock trades by up to 47% a year

Published

on



Stocks held by members of Congress have been beating the S&P 500 lately, but there’s a subset of lawmakers who crush their peers: leadership.

According to a recent working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, congressional leaders outperform back benchers by up to 47% a year.

Shang-Jin Wei from Columbia University and Columbia Business School along with Yifan Zhou from Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University looked at lawmakers who ascended to leadership posts, such as Speaker of the House as well as House and Senate floor leaders, whips, and conference/caucus chairs.

Between 1995 and 2021, there were 20 such leaders who made stock trades before and after rising to their posts. Wei and Zhou observed that lawmakers underperformed benchmarks before becoming leaders, then everything suddenly changed.

“Importantly, whilst we observe a huge improvement in leaders’ trading performance as they ascend to leadership roles, the matched ‘regular’ members’ stock trading performance does not improve much,” they wrote.

Leadership’s stock market edge stems in part from their ability to set the regulatory or legislation agenda, such as deciding if and when a particular bill will be put to a vote. Setting the agenda also gives leaders advanced knowledge of when certain actions will take place.

In fact, Wei and Zhou found that leaders demonstrate much better returns on stock trades that are made when their party controls their chamber.

In addition, being a leader also increases access to non-public information. The researchers said that while companies are reluctant to share such insider knowledge, they may prioritize revealing it to leaders over rank-and-file lawmakers.

Leaders earn higher returns on companies that contribute to their campaigns or are headquartered in their states, which Wei and Zhou said could be attributable to “privileged access to firm-specific information.”

The upper echelon also influences how other members of Congress vote, and the paper found that a leader’s party is much more likely to vote for bills that help firms whose stocks the leader held, or vote against bills that harmed them. And stocks owned by leadership tend to see increases in federal contract awards, especially sole-source contracts, over the following one to two years.

“These results suggest that congressional leaders may not only trade on privileged knowledge, but also shape policy outcomes to enrich themselves,” Wei and Zhou wrote.

Stock trades by congressional leaders are even predictive, forecasting higher occurrences of positive or negative corporate news over the following year, they added. In particular, stock sales predict the number of hearings and regulatory actions over the coming year, though purchases don’t.

Investors have long suspected that Washington has a special advantage on Wall Street. That’s given rise to more ETFs with political themes, including funds that track portfolios belonging to Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

And Paul Pelosi, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, even has a cult following among some investors who mimic his stock moves.

Congress has tried to crack down on members’ stock holdings. The STOCK Act of 2012 requires more timely disclosures, but some lawmakers want to ban trading completely.

A bipartisan group of House members is pushing legislation that would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, dependent children, and trustees from trading individual stocks, commodities, or futures.

And this past week, a discharge petition was put forth that would force a vote in the House if it gets enough signatures.

“If leadership wants to put forward a bill that would actually do that and end the corruption, we’re all for it,” said Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., on social media on Tuesday. “But we’re tired of the partisan games. This is the most bipartisan bipartisan thing in U.S. history, and it’s time that the House of Representatives listens to the American people.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.