How it started vs. how it's going

August 9, 2021

12:30 am

There is this joke: There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning boys, how’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and says, “What the hell is water?”. – David Foster Wallace

 

Being aware of the water we swim in, the environment within which we are trying to be successful, is very important. Having become acutely aware of this, we needed to change the water we swam in.  At our new home RWC, the team has picked up where we left off, with the same philosophy and process we have always followed, and though much is the same on a day to day basis, the water could not be more different, more appropriate, more invigorating.


The most important change has been that of ownership. As a limited liability partnership, RWC is majority owned by its staff. At the team level, because of the revenue share structure, the team has become owners of our own business. This affects almost everything, from the corporate to the team level. It creates a common goal and genuinely aligns the success for clients with that of the company and the team. It establishes clear responsibility and simple transparency, which in turn influences decision-making and capital allocation.


For this thought piece, let’s focus just upon the team level effects.

At RWC we are now a discrete team. All the responsibility lies with the team, the complete process, the complete philosophy and obviously the outcome. We believe that, for a process to have a chance of success, it is imperative that it is applied consistently to each investment decision, that the whole team follow that same process, that the whole team aim for a common goal, and that the whole team share equally in the ownership of that process. Under this structure, cognitive diversity has the chance of success, as everyone is trying to solve the same problem (the common goal).

 

This in turns helps create an environment of team ownership and thus is able to remove the culture of blame. It allows for openness in debate and criticism, for one is critical of the process not an individual.  This is hugely important, as it allows for the whole team to be able to learn and evolve with the repetition of applying a consistent process within an emotional safe space.


By having this generalist approach, the team has greater insight into the connectivity of each element of the process. It provides a structure that allows for each idea to be compared to another on a like for like basis which better informs of the risks and opportunity costs of each decision.

 

 

Further, it is clear to the clients with whom they are placing their trust; with whom they hold responsible for the management of their monies. We feel that this clarity of responsibility is an important change and one that improves the likelihood of being able to replicate success into the future and to foster a client relationship based more upon a partnership rather than simple AUM.


Previously the flow of the water was to attempt to break down into ever smaller pieces every aspect of the team’s philosophy and process. The temptation when given the power of data is to try and measure everything on the assumption that everything is worth measuring. By breaking down each and every element of a process, one presupposes that each element is distinct and unrelated. For example: stock selection by multiple specialist sector analysts, ESG concerns governed by an independent team, risk in the portfolio governed by algorithms, quants and efficient frontiers. Each of these components can surely be fulfilled to their most successful, measured individually to provide complete accountability and transparency. The belief is that specialists in each and every element will logically deliver the very best outcome within each element and naturally therefore for the final complete outcome.

 

Then once such building blocks are complete, one can build many outcomes surely. This certainly becomes the economic imperative, so one can support the cost base of multiple specialists. Yet this introduces a further level of complexity. Tasking each specialist with multiple different approaches and desires, further dilutes the chance of the specialist being successful, and even begins to undermine whether they ultimately become a specialist in anything at all! For example, think of an analyst asked to find the best growth stock one month, then the best value stocks, then income and so on. A difficult ask we would argue.


With specialism, responsibility for each step of the process is disseminated to such a degree that it becomes difficult to determine who ultimately has the ownership. Who is responsible for comparing the ideas and how is that possible when so many are involved in the process? Who owns and controls the common goal when each distinct element has their own individual and different philosophy and process? How can there be a common goal when each has their own individual goal and how can these all be aligned with the interest of the client? Further by diluting responsibility, one ends up having to create structures of KPI’s in order to re-introduce accountability, to measure each specialist’s effectiveness and success. With so many individual elements and so many specialists, each ends up creating their own bespoke KPI’s.  These then become so prolific that the result is each individual indicator ends up meaning practically nothing, for no single KPI has any materiality to it anymore.


This structure is more likely to lead to a blame culture, as it lends itself to trying to attribute where things went wrong in isolation, at which specific step in the process and thus with whom that specific step lies. We believe that when one devolves responsibility, one is more likely to apportion blame. This culture makes it harder for such larger teams to learn from mistakes as honest criticism is hard to achieve in such a framework.


The client too is faced with the challenge of understanding who is ultimately responsible for their monies, their outcomes. This aspect becomes most pronounced at difficult times. Are those individual’s aligned philosophically with the objective of the client, or do they have multiple objectives to try and serve?


Certainly, this specialist approach can work, and nature provides incredible examples of such. The success of ant or bee colonies where each individual has a specific task to fulfil are obvious examples. Yet the reason for their success is the common goal they share. From an investment management approach, this is key if the route of specialism is to be effective. A single common goal, which achieves scale to be able to support the cost base of multiple specialists. Examples of such success exist in the investment management world certainly, but we do not believe that statistically this is easy to achieve.


So, we have changed the water in which we swim. One to where the structure and culture best support and nurture our generalist approach. An approached centred around a common goal, common to the whole team, common with our clients. We have taken on all of the responsibility of the successes and mistakes we will make, and that is invigorating. We are off to a good start and we look forward to building genuine partnerships with our clients for many years to come.
Unless otherwise stated, all opinions within this document are those of the RWC Global Equity Income team, as at 9th August 2021.
In case you missed it…

The term “RWC” may include any one or more RWC branded entities including RWC Partners Limited and RWC Asset Management LLP, each of which is authorised and regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority and, in the case of RWC Asset Management LLP, the US Securities and Exchange Commission; RWC Asset Advisors (US) LLC, which is registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission; and RWC Singapore (Pte) Limited, which is licensed as a Licensed Fund Management Company by the Monetary Authority of Singapore.


RWC may act as investment manager or adviser, or otherwise provide services, to more than one product pursuing a similar investment strategy or focus to the product detailed in this document. RWC seeks to minimise any conflicts of interest, and endeavours to act at all times in accordance with its legal and regulatory obligations as well as its own policies and codes of conduct.

This document is directed only at professional, institutional, wholesale or qualified investors. The services provided by RWC are available only to such persons. It is not intended for distribution to and should not be relied on by any person who would qualify as a retail or individual investor in any jurisdiction or for distribution to, or use by, any person or entity in any jurisdiction where such distribution or use would be contrary to local law or regulation.


This document has been prepared for general information purposes only and has not been delivered for registration in any jurisdiction nor has its content been reviewed or approved by any regulatory authority in any jurisdiction. The information contained herein does not constitute: (i) a binding legal agreement; (ii) legal, regulatory, tax, accounting or other advice; (iii) an offer, recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell shares in any fund, security, commodity, financial instrument or derivative linked to, or otherwise included in a portfolio managed or advised by RWC; or (iv) an offer to enter into any other transaction whatsoever (each a “Transaction”). No representations and/or warranties are made that the information contained herein is either up to date and/or accurate and is not intended to be used or relied upon by any counterparty, investor or any other third party.


RWC uses information from third party vendors, such as statistical and other data, that it believes to be reliable. However, the accuracy of this data, which may be used to calculate results or otherwise compile data that finds its way over time into RWC research data stored on its systems, is not guaranteed. If such information is not accurate, some of the conclusions reached or statements made may be adversely affected. RWC bears no responsibility for your investment research and/or investment decisions and you should consult your own lawyer, accountant, tax adviser or other professional adviser before entering into any Transaction. Any opinion expressed herein, which may be subjective in nature, may not be shared by all directors, officers, employees, or representatives of RWC and may be subject to change without notice. RWC is not liable for any decisions made or actions or inactions taken by you or others based on the contents of this document and neither RWC nor any of its directors, officers, employees, or representatives (including affiliates) accepts any liability whatsoever for any errors and/or omissions or for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential loss, damages, or expenses of any kind howsoever arising from the use of, or reliance on, any information contained herein.


Information contained in this document should not be viewed as indicative of future results. Past performance of any Transaction is not indicative of future results. The value of investments can go down as well as up. Certain assumptions and forward looking statements may have been made either for modelling purposes, to simplify the presentation and/or calculation of any projections or estimates contained herein and RWC does not represent that that any such assumptions or statements will reflect actual future events or that all assumptions have been considered or stated. Forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain, and changing factors such as those affecting the markets generally, or those affecting particular industries or issuers, may cause results to differ from those discussed. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that estimated returns or projections will be realised or that actual returns or performance results will not materially differ from those estimated herein. Some of the information contained in this document may be aggregated data of Transactions executed by RWC that has been compiled so as not to identify the underlying Transactions of any particular customer.


The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it has been given and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. In accepting receipt of the information transmitted you agree that you and/or your affiliates, partners, directors, officers and employees, as applicable, will keep all information strictly confidential. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information is prohibited. The information contained herein is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) to which this document has been provided. Any distribution or reproduction of this document is not authorised and is prohibited without the express written consent of RWC or any of its affiliates.

Changes in rates of exchange may cause the value of such investments to fluctuate. An investor may not be able to get back the amount invested and the loss on realisation may be very high and could result in a substantial or complete loss of the investment. In addition, an investor who realises their investment in a RWC-managed fund after a short period may not realise the amount originally invested as a result of charges made on the issue and/or redemption of such investment. The value of such interests for the purposes of purchases may differ from their value for the purpose of redemptions. No representations or warranties of any kind are intended or should be inferred with respect to the economic return from, or the tax consequences of, an investment in a RWC-managed fund. Current tax levels and reliefs may change. Depending on individual circumstances, this may affect investment returns. Nothing in this document constitutes advice on the merits of buying or selling a particular investment. This document expresses no views as to the suitability or appropriateness of the fund or any other investments described herein to the individual circumstances of any recipient.


AIFMD and Distribution in the European Economic Area (“EEA”)


The Alternative Fund Managers Directive (Directive 2011/61/EU) (“AIFMD”) is a regulatory regime which came into full effect in the EEA on 22 July 2014. RWC Asset Management LLP is an Alternative Investment Fund Manager (an “AIFM”) to certain funds managed by it (each an “AIF”). The AIFM is required to make available to investors certain prescribed information prior to their investment in an AIF. The majority of the prescribed information is contained in the latest Offering Document of the AIF. The remainder of the prescribed information is contained in the relevant AIF’s annual report and accounts. All of the information is provided in accordance with the AIFMD.


In relation to each member state of the EEA (each a “Member State”), this document may only be distributed and shares in a RWC fund (“Shares”) may only be offered and placed to the extent that (a) the relevant RWC fund is permitted to be marketed to professional investors in accordance with the AIFMD (as implemented into the local law/regulation of the relevant Member State); or (b) this document may otherwise be lawfully distributed and the Shares may lawfully offered or placed in that Member State (including at the initiative of the investor).


Information Required for Distribution of Foreign Collective Investment Schemes to Qualified Investors in Switzerland


The representative and paying agent of the RWC-managed funds in Switzerland (the “Representative in Switzerland”) is Société Générale, Paris, Zurich Branch, Talacker 50,

P.O. Box 5070, CH-8021 Zurich. In respect of the units of the RWC-managed funds distributed in Switzerland, the place of performance and jurisdiction is at the registered office of the Representative in Switzerland.

Ready to start talking?