Institutional investors may be warming to approaches beyond traditional asset class-based allocation regimes, with many also turning to factor or objective-based alternative investment models, according to a survey commissioned by State Street Global Advisors.Conducted in the second half of last year, the survey was of senior executives with asset allocation responsibilities at 400 large institutional investors from around the world.It focused on investors’ objectives, their approach to asset allocation and their framework for measuring success.According to State Street, the survey shows investors are “reassessing strategic asset allocation models and turning to objective and factor-based approaches to better achieve investment objectives in a low-return environment”. Respondents’ long-term return expectations were generally elevated across most asset classes, raising the question of whether these were overly ambitious, State Street said.For example, they are looking for a return of 10.9% on the long-term performance of their portfolio, 10.9% in real estate, 8.1% in commodities, 10% in equities and 5.5% in bonds.More than half – and in some cases more than 75% – of respondents said their return expectations were being met (plus or minus 1%) for the overall portfolio and in different asset classes.However, nearly one-quarter of respondents (20%) said their long-term return expectations were not being met, with only 13% saying that, on average, their expectations were being exceeded (State Street pointed out that the survey was conducted before the significant market downturn at the start of this year).For Rick Lacaille, CIO at State Street Global Advisors, the survey shows institutional investors are “beginning to question whether they can achieve objectives through traditional investment models in the current lower-for-longer return environment”.He added: “Not only does this challenge traditional, strategic asset allocation models by forcing greater consideration of risk, but it also confronts investors with a need to focus from a top-down perspective on the drivers of returns in their underlying asset class choices.”Investors, State Street noted, have traditionally viewed their total portfolios through the lens of asset classes, and 41% of respondents said this was the most important asset classification method – simplicity was one of the reasons cited.However, the survey revealed the “significant adoption by many investors of an additional layer of factor-based classification (or by assets’ exposure to different types of risk)”, according to the asset manager.Although 30% indicated their primary method was to classify assets by factors or exposures to types of risk, 65% said they applied this method in addition to others.A further 55% also classified according to assets’ contribution to their portfolios’ overall objectives, such as growth or income.“This may be evidence of a warming to approaches beyond rigid asset allocation regimes,” said State Street.A breakdown by investor type is not provided in the report, although pension funds are described as being most traditional in their approach, with nearly half of respondents saying they focused on asset class-based categorisation.This compares with two-thirds of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) indicating that factor exposures and contribution to objectives served as the primary method for classifying assets.For those respondents whose overall portfolio was performing below expectations, the most popular change in approach identified was to increase the allocation to alternative investments – SWFs (42%) and pension funds (24%) were more likely to feature this approach as their most preferred, according to State Street.“Other popular tactical changes included the introduction, or increased use, of objective-based investing (selected by 63% of respondents), and an increased use of active managers (selected by 59% of respondents),” said the asset manager.However, the survey also showed investors feel they face significant barriers to adopting new approaches, according to State Street.These include limited or slow peer-group adoption of strategies such as smart beta (60% of respondents), difficulties obtaining board buy-in (46%) and a lack of in-house expertise (46%).
BATESVILLE, Ark. (March 25-26) – Another early-season special at Batesville Motor Speedway brought out the best in Jeff Taylor.Taylor swept $1,000 to win Xtreme Motor Sports IMCA Modified main events on Friday and Saturday during the Arkansas Spring Nationals lidlifter.He’d brought the broom to Batesville as recently as 2014, winning all three season-starting special main events that spring as well.“I was really comfortable with my car,” said Taylor, coming off an IMCA career-best 14 feature wins in 2015 and already on the ballot for the upcoming Fast Shafts All-Star Invitational. “I’ve been racing here since 1996. I don’t know how many laps I’ve got here but I learned from the best. My car could do anything this weekend.”Taylor started Friday’s 30-lapper from inside the second row and led most of the way, holding off Tyler Droste after getting into lapped traffic.Droste got a look inside Taylor once but wasn’t able to get by and settled for second. Richie Tosh, Robby Arnold and Brint Hartwick completed the top five.Arnold, Tosh, Hartwick and Droste finished in that order behind Taylor in the Saturday main event pared to 25 laps after a multi-car incident.Taylor had started fifth and passed brother Peyton for the front spot on lap 11.Feature ResultsMarch 25 – 1. Jeff Taylor; 2. Tyler Droste; 3. Richie Tosh; 4. Robby Arnold; 5. Brint Hartwick; 6. Clay Norris; 7. Mark Norris; 8. Brandon Smith; 9. Bennett Johnson; 10. Daryl Hay; 11. Rick Engles; 12. Chris Junkersfeld; 13. Peyton Taylor; 14. Mike Bowers; 15. Drew Armstrong; 16. Tyson Franks; 17. Timothy Culp; 18. Buck Reid; 19. Kris Lloyd; 20. Heath Grizzle; 21. Travis Mosley; 22. Jeremy Tharp; 23. Mikey Bell; 24. Brian Ritchie.March 26 – 1. Jeff Taylor; 2. Arnold; 3. Tosh; 4. Hartwick; 5. Droste; 6. Mosley; 7. Mark Norris; 8. Bowers; 9. Armstrong; 10. Clay Norris; 11. Engles; 12. Brandon Smith; 13. Johnson; 14. Bell; 15. Hay; 16. Tyler Newcom; 17. Lloyd; 18. Gage Raines; 19. Blake Smith; 20. Junkersfeld; 21. Tommy Burkhead; 22. Ritchie; 23. Chadd Avery; 24. Peyton Taylor; 25. Daniel Roe.
Associated Press ___For more AP college basketball coverage: https://apnews.com/Collegebasketball and http://twitter.com/AP_Top25___This was generated by Automated Insights, http://www.automatedinsights.com/ap, using data from STATS LLC, https://www.stats.com February 26, 2020 SAVVY SENIORS: Towson’s Brian Fobbs, Nakye Sanders and Dennis Tunstall have collectively accounted for 41 percent of the team’s scoring this season, including 50 percent of all Tigers points over the last five games.FUELING THE OFFENSE: Desure Buie has been directly responsible for 61 percent of all Hofstra field goals over the last three games. The senior guard has 24 field goals and 22 assists in those games.WINLESS WHEN: Towson is 0-6 when scoring fewer than 60 points and 17-6 when scoring at least 60.UNBEATEN WHEN: The Pride are 18-0 when they score at least 72 points and 4-7 when they fall shy of that total. The Tigers are 5-0 when recording at least 15 offensive rebounds and 12-12 when they fall short of that total.DID YOU KNOW: Hofstra is ranked first among CAA teams with an average of 76.8 points per game. Hofstra looks to extend streak vs Towson Share This StoryFacebookTwitteremailPrintLinkedinRedditTowson (17-12, 10-6) vs. Hofstra (22-7, 13-3)Mack Sports Complex, Hempstead, New York; Thursday, 7 p.m. ESTBOTTOM LINE: Hofstra looks for its sixth straight win in the head-to-head series over Towson. In its last five wins against the Tigers, Hofstra has won by an average of 10 points. Towson’s last win in the series came on Feb. 9, 2017, a 69-65 victory.
I’m not a huge NBA fan. Before moving to Los Angeles, I never lived in a state with a team, and the Big-12 filled all of my basketball needs during the winter and spring. So I’m never particularly tuned into the world of professional basketball unless I’m trying to tease my associate managing editor Eric He on the rare occasion that his beloved Golden State Warriors lose. But this weekend, the New York Knicks did something that caught my eye.The Knicks don’t have a lot going for them, with a 26-38 record setting the tone for another disappointing season for faithful fans. But on Sunday, they hit the right note in their first half against the Warriors.No, they didn’t knock off theso-called Best Team in America. But the Knicks made the decision to cut out all the antics that are so typical of the NBA — the T-shirt cannons and loud music and constant egging on from the loudspeakers. It was refreshing, a break from the showmanship of the league to focus on the game that actually mattered.On the same day, I attended my first NBA game at the Staples Center. It wasn’t a bad game, ending with a scrappy comeback by the Los Angeles Lakers and a tight finish by the New Orleans Pelicans. But after three hours of witnessing “NBA magic,” I was exhausted by all of the extracurriculars that came with the game.As the Lakers’ introductions began, the lights dropped and spotlights spun around the haphazard crowd in the Staples Center. In the course of the Lakers’ 105-97 loss to New Orleans, the program ran its crowd through a gamut of flashy song-and-dance routines, complete with everything from kiss cams to Star Wars sound effects during free throws.Yet the most genuine — and the loudest — moments of crowd interaction came without any artificial prompting at all. No spotlights, no announcer, no cheesy organ playing or early-2000s hip hop music were required to get the crowd rowdy when the game called for it. The fans roared when their players slammed down a hammer dunk in the first quarter and shook the backboard with a ferocious block in the second. They booed fiercely whenever DeMarcus Cousins took to the free throw line and slung heartfelt insults at the referees whenever a call went against the Lakers.It wasn’t the loudest crowd I’ve ever heard — that would be the Kansas Jayhawks in their third overtime against Oklahoma last season — and it wasn’t the most involved, either. But that’s to be expected when a team is sitting at the bottom of their conference with a 19-43 record. And for a team with that record and those prospects, those fans were doing their very best.That’s the thing about fans. They don’t need fancy lights or over-the-top intros. They know their role — chant taunts after an airball, hold their breaths during free throws and holler at the referees after every call. There are many things that fans want, including winning seasons and championship rings, but they really only need some heart, a voice and a pair of hands to slap together to fulfill their main purpose on the sidelines.That’s one of the reasons I adore college ball so much. I come from the Midwest, where college teams are just as big of a deal as their professional counterparts. Earlier this season, half of my high school classmates helped to break a Guinness record for sound produced by a crowd at a Kansas basketball game. Those games don’t need anything but a band and 16,000 rowdy fans to create the type of intimidating atmosphere that sends opposing teams packing. So why should NBA games be any different?There isn’t necessarily a need to cut all of the antics out of the NBA — I’ll never begrudge a team its chance to launch free T-shirts into the crowd or kill time during halftime with a fan 3-point shooting contest. But the Lakers could learn something from the Knicks, and from the wild world of college ball — killing some of the effects and letting their fans do the talking. They might find out that the crowd is stronger than they expected.Julia Poe is a sophomore studying print and digital journalism. She is also the sports editor of the Daily Trojan. Her column, Poe’s Perspective, runs on Wednesdays.