Is Your Strategy Built to Win in a Total Portfolio World?
The rules of institutional capital allocation are changing. The funds that once evaluated your real estate strategy within a discrete asset class bucket now ask a harder question: what does it do for the whole portfolio? Most real estate managers do not yet have an answer.
The Total Portfolio Approach is not a new idea. Canada's CPP Investments has practiced it since 2006. New Zealand's Superannuation Fund, now managing NZ$85 billion, built its global reputation on a reference portfolio framework requiring every investment to beat a simple 80/20 global equity and bond baseline before it earns a commitment. In May 2024, NZ Super's portfolio team presented publicly on "real estate strategy, its fit within our total portfolio approach, and how we are positioning our real estate portfolio for the next economic cycle." Real estate has remained a meaningful allocation. But it has had to earn its place continuously, against every alternative available. British Columbia Investment Management Corporation, with C$295 billion in gross AUM, operates through the same lens, with wholly-owned QuadReal Property Group serving as its dedicated real estate execution platform.
In Canada, OPTrust began its TPA journey in 2015 and has run 16 consecutive fully funded years as a result. Across Europe, Denmark's ATP, the Netherlands' PGGM and the UK's RailPen have each built TPA frameworks suited to their governance structures and regulatory environments. In Australia, the Future Fund has operated under TPA since inception, and Aware Super announced a formal TPA operating model in March 2026. The Thinking Ahead Institute's Global Pension Assets Study 2026 concluded that TPA has reached a defining moment, moving from a frontier concept among a small group of asset owners into the mainstream. Twelve institutions managing a combined $4.3 trillion now operate under some form of TPA framework.
That is no longer a phenomenon confined to sovereign wealth funds and Canadian pension giants. In November 2025, CalPERS, the largest public pension fund in the U.S. at $556 billion, voted to adopt TPA, with implementation beginning July 1, 2026. The newly created North Carolina Investment Authority adopted a governing Investment Policy Statement on February 25, 2026 that explicitly names "competition for capital across and within asset classes" as a core operating principle. Two major U.S. public pension plans. Combined assets of $764 billion. Operational as of mid-2026.
Every real estate manager with a relationship at any of these funds, or who wants one, needs to understand what this means for how their strategy will be evaluated going forward.
12 Confirmed Institutions · ~$4.3 Trillion AUM
SAA vs. TPA: Two Frameworks, One Goal
Strategic asset allocation and the Total Portfolio Approach both start from a fund's long-term objective but translate it into a portfolio in different ways. SAA breaks the objective into fixed asset-class targets and delegates each to a specialist team measured against its own benchmark. TPA holds the objective at the total-fund level and lets every opportunity compete for capital within a single risk budget, with no predetermined buckets to fill.
SAA isolates each asset class behind its own benchmark. TPA pools every opportunity to compete for capital against a single reference portfolio and risk budget. Sources: Thinking Ahead Institute; PGIM; CAIA Association.
The Hidden Concentration Problem
Consider an investor holding public equity, private equity, venture capital, high yield credit and value-add real estate across five separate sleeves. By label, it appears well diversified. By risk factor, it is not: private equity is levered public equity, venture capital is high-beta equity, high yield credit behaves like equity in a downturn and value-add real estate is cyclical. The dominant exposure across all five is the same growth or equity-beta factor, so in a broad equity drawdown, they fall together. SAA's bucketed structure can obscure this entirely. TPA's factor lens is designed to identify it. Mercer calls this "stealth concentration risk," and it is the primary analytical problem a Total Portfolio Approach is built to solve.
Sources: Thinking Ahead Institute, 2019; Mercer, January 2026; CAIA Association
Six Reasons Institutional Investors Are Moving Toward TPA
Adoption is accelerating for reasons that are structural, not cyclical. Each driver below reflects a genuine limitation of the SAA framework that TPA is designed to address.
Closing the Ownership Gap
Under SAA, the asset mix is only a means to the fund's real objective, yet it tends to become the objective in practice. Teams are measured by hitting target weights and beating sleeve benchmarks, so attention shifts from whether the fund is on track to meet its goal toward whether the portfolio is tracking its policy mix. Because that mix is reset only every few years, markets can shift enough that the fixed allocation no longer serves the underlying goal, yet no one is actively responsible for noticing. TPA keeps the fund's actual objective as the live measure of success, reducing the inertia and governance drag that come from being anchored to a benchmark or peer group.
Faster, Better-Located Decision-Making
Decision rights move to those best positioned to exercise them, with the investment team managing exposures within board-set guardrails. This shortens approval cycles and lets the portfolio adapt as relative value shifts rather than waiting on a calendar-based review.
A Whole Portfolio View of Risk
Allocating against a single risk budget and a common factor lens, covering expected return, volatility, correlation and liquidity, exposes concentrations that asset-class labels can mask. It also lets the fund manage total risk deliberately rather than as the residual of independent silo decisions.
Elimination of Silos and a Unified Team
Replacing asset-class fiefdoms with one cross-functional investment team improves capital reallocation as conditions change and aligns incentives to the total fund rather than to the performance of any one sleeve.
Better Integration of Private and Illiquid Assets
With no fixed buckets to fill, illiquid investments are sized by their contribution to the whole portfolio rather than to hit a quota. This supports a more holistic view of liquidity, steadier pacing across vintages and greater flexibility through stressed environments and denominator effects.
Capture of Opportunities That Fall Between Categories
An SAA framed around a small number of asset classes, often fewer than 15, tends to ignore anything that does not fit a defined bucket, especially more esoteric strategies like litigation finance or music and media royalties. TPA pre-qualifies all opportunities on equal terms, widening the effective opportunity set.
Sources: Thinking Ahead Institute; PGIM; CAIA Association; KMAS.
North Carolina: The Newest Signal That U.S. Pension Governance Is Changing
The Setup. Led by Treasurer Brad Briner, a former CIO at Willett Advisors who managed Michael Bloomberg's family office, North Carolina created the NCIA in 2025 as a standalone investment authority with a single purpose: restructure how North Carolina's $208 billion in retirement assets is managed.
The NCIA IPS, adopted February 25, 2026, names "competition for capital across and within asset classes" as an explicit governance principle. The reference portfolio is 65% ACWI equity and 35% U.S. Treasury bonds. The Real Asset Equity allocation range is 3–18% with a 10% policy target.
NCIA IPS Table 3, 2026
NCIA IPS Table 3, 2026
NC Treasurer, 2026
NCIA-POL-1000, 2026
Five Questions Every Real Estate Manager Must Now Be Able to Answer
For managers with existing or target relationships at TPA-adopting institutions, the practical implications are immediate. A TPA investment committee does not evaluate your strategy in isolation. It evaluates your strategy in comparison to every other opportunity available within the same risk budget. These are the five questions that matter most.
What is your strategy's equity beta equivalent?
TPA investors do not ask whether you beat the NFI-ODCE. They ask how much equity market risk your strategy carries relative to the reference portfolio. A core real estate fund with a low equity beta may earn a place as a diversifier. A high-leverage value-add fund with an equity beta above 0.7 competes directly with private equity for the same risk budget. Most managers have never modeled this number explicitly. Building it is now baseline.
Ask yourself: if global equity markets fall 30%, what happens to the NAV of your portfolio? That is the question your TPA-adopting LPs are running.
What illiquidity premium are you delivering, and can you defend it?
TPA investors explicitly price liquidity as a risk factor. A commitment to your fund costs the investor optionality. You need to demonstrate that the expected return premium for accepting that illiquidity is positive and defensible relative to more liquid alternatives with similar factor exposure.
What liquid instrument could your LP buy to get similar factor exposure at lower cost and less governance burden? If you cannot answer this, your LP's risk committee can.
How does your strategy perform in the scenarios the reference portfolio performs worst?
The most compelling TPA argument for real estate is that it provides genuine diversification: returns that are high when the reference portfolio is struggling. Inflation regimes, credit dislocations and late-cycle equity drawdowns are the scenarios that matter most. Your data should show what your strategy has delivered in each.
TPA investors run scenario analysis across the whole fund. If you cannot show how your strategy behaves in these regimes, you cannot participate in that analysis.
What is your strategy's fee load relative to the return it generates above the reference portfolio?
Management fees and carried interest are not just a cost item. In a TPA framework they are measured as a drag on the active return above the reference portfolio. A 1.5% management fee plus 20% carry on a strategy generating 200bps above the reference portfolio leaves very little net value. The math matters and TPA investment committees run it.
Can you make the relative value argument against non-real estate alternatives?
This is the reference portfolio question. TPA investors are not comparing you to the NCREIF NFI-ODCE. They are comparing you to what they could earn passively, at near-zero cost, in the reference portfolio, and asking whether the complexity, illiquidity and fees your strategy requires are justified by the expected improvement in total fund risk-adjusted returns. Most real estate managers have never built this analysis. Building it is now a prerequisite for institutional capital from TPA adopters.
What is your net-of-fee active return above a passively managed reference portfolio equivalent? That is the number that justifies your strategy's existence in a TPA fund.
Case Study: Real Estate Credit in a Dislocated Lending Market
The mid-2020s offered a precise illustration of the opportunity, and the structural problem, that TPA is designed to address. Regional banks, historically the dominant source of commercial real estate lending, pulled back sharply amid balance-sheet pressure and a wall of maturing loans requiring refinancing at higher rates. The retreat of the traditional lender opened a financing gap. A private real estate credit manager could originate senior loans at conservative loan-to-value ratios of 55% to 65%, versus the 75% and higher common before 2022, at wider spreads with tighter structure and covenants. For a meaningful stretch of the cycle, investors were paid more to lend against real estate than to own it outright, with materially less downside.
The lesson is straightforward. The strategy's edge, lending into a gap left by constrained traditional lenders, is exactly the kind of cross-boundary opportunity that an asset-class-bucketed process is structurally disposed to miss, and a total-portfolio process is positioned to capture. For a GP, that is both the opportunity, access to capital that crosses old lines, and the discipline, since you must earn your place against the entire opportunity set continuously.
The fundraising implication is direct. TPA-oriented investors respond to managers who can frame a strategy in total-portfolio language covering equivalent equity exposure, contractual versus appreciation return, correlation and factor contribution, liquidity and downside, not just top-quartile performance versus a real estate debt benchmark. Alliance is already observing conversations shifting from real estate investment staff to the CIO level. The way managers speak about risk, relative value and opportunity will need to be tailored to the audience and to the asset allocation framework in a way that has not been observed universally.
Sources: CAIA Association; New Zealand Superannuation Fund; Willis Towers Watson.
Five Questions the Industry Has Not Yet Answered
TPA is reshaping capital allocation faster than institutions have resolved its structural implications. The questions below are not rhetorical. They represent genuine open problems that investment committees, real estate managers, consultants and plan sponsors are actively working through right now. Alliance raises them not because we have all the answers, but because the managers and funds who are thinking about them seriously will be better positioned than those who are not.
How Does Staffing and Internal Expertise Need to Change to Run a TPA Framework?
Under a traditional Strategic Asset Allocation model, institutional investors hire specialists. A real estate team. A private equity team. A fixed income team. Each operates within its own policy target, evaluated by its own benchmark. TPA dissolves the walls between those silos, and it demands a different kind of talent. The reference portfolio framework requires investment staff who can evaluate a core real estate fund, a corporate credit strategy and an infrastructure opportunity against the same set of factor exposures and risk budget parameters simultaneously. That is a cross-asset fluency that most real estate-only or fixed-income-only specialists do not currently possess. Mercer notes that the complexity of a TPA framework should not be understated. Potentially redefining roles, building new capabilities and overhauling infrastructure may require additional resources, specialist expertise and sustainable leadership commitment over a multi-year horizon. NZ Super and CPP Investments built internal teams with integrated investment capabilities over decades. CalPERS provided the clearest live evidence of the staffing transition in June 2026: it promoted Anton Orlich to a cross-asset Deputy CIO Private Markets role and hired Derek Walker, who spent 18 years at CPP Investments leading Total Fund Management, as Managing Director of Total Fund Portfolio Management. Simultaneously, CalPERS restructured executive compensation to phase in the reference portfolio as the primary performance benchmark over five years, raising outperformance thresholds fourfold effective July 1, 2026. The Thinking Ahead Institute identified compensation alignment as the weakest-scoring attribute across 18 global TPA practitioners. CalPERS just resolved it.
Managers who help their LP counterparts think through the answer, by bringing factor analysis, reference portfolio framing, relative value analysis comparing their strategy to other available strategies and cross-asset context to every meeting, will become partners in the transition rather than casualties of it. That is a differentiated positioning very few real estate GPs are pursuing today.
What Happens to Specialist Real Estate Consultants in a TPA World?
The institutional consulting model was built for a siloed allocation framework. General consultants set the strategic asset allocation. Specialist real estate consultants evaluated managers, underwrote funds and advised on portfolio construction within the real estate sleeve. TPA compresses that model. If every investment competes for the same risk budget, the distinction between the general consultant and the specialist consultant becomes structurally awkward. A general consultant at a TPA institution is now responsible for a comparison the specialty consultant has typically never been asked to make: is a core real estate fund a better use of the active risk budget than an infrastructure co-investment or an extended-maturity Treasury position? Firms like Meketa have explicitly built cross-asset capabilities to address this. But for the broader consulting community, this is an evolving tension. Specialist consultants who can reframe their expertise, moving from "real estate portfolio construction" to "real asset factor analysis and relative value assessment within a total portfolio," will remain relevant. Those who cannot risk being excluded from the TPA conversation entirely.
This evolution is already underway. The consultants who will define the next generation of the institutional real estate advisory business are those who combine deep property market expertise with cross-asset fluency. Managers who understand that dynamic, and bring it to consultant relationships, are positioned to benefit from the shift.
How Do Plans Manage Total Risk Parameters, and What Happens to the Strategic Plan for Real Estate When Allocations Are Meant to Be Flexible?
Under a fixed SAA, a real estate strategic plan is built around a policy target: 10% to real estate, with a 2-point range on either side. Under TPA, the allocation is no longer fixed. The NCIA's governing IPS authorizes real estate at a 3-18% range. A fund operating under that framework could theoretically hold 3% in real estate during a period when the risk-adjusted case for real estate is weak relative to alternatives, and 18% when private real estate is trading at a significant discount to intrinsic value and the entry point is compelling. That flexibility is TPA's most powerful feature. It is also its most disruptive one. A real estate strategic plan built for a fixed target becomes meaningless in a fully flexible allocation framework. What replaces it? The answer, in practice, is a total risk budget combined with a relative value discipline. The plan is no longer "how do we build and manage a 10% real estate portfolio?" The plan becomes "when does real estate earn the allocation, and how do we deploy capital quickly enough to capture cyclical entry points when conditions favor it?" That is a materially different planning exercise, and most institutional investment teams have never run it.
This is the question that most directly challenges the existing model for real estate investment at institutional funds. Managers who can help their LPs answer it, by building pacing frameworks, relative value dashboards and cyclical entry point analysis, add a dimension of value that is currently rare in the GP community.
Does the Role of Real Estate in an Institutional Portfolio Change, or Does It Remain the Same?
The early evidence from the longest-tenured TPA practitioners is instructive. CPP Investments has operated under TPA since 2006. As of its Annual Report 2026, real estate represents 29% of its Real Assets allocation, confirming that real assets and real estate within them remain a core and meaningful component of the total portfolio. NZ Super has run a reference portfolio framework for over 15 years, publishing explicitly on its real estate strategy and the role real assets play in delivering above-reference-portfolio returns over a full cycle. The funds that adopted TPA earliest have not exited real estate. They have redefined why they own it. Under SAA, real estate was held for diversification, to reduce correlation to public equities and fixed income within a policy target. Under TPA, real estate must earn its allocation by contributing measurably to total fund risk-adjusted returns above the reference portfolio baseline. That is a higher bar. But it is also a cleaner one. If real estate can make that argument, and it can, particularly in periods of dislocation between private and public valuations, or when the inflation-hedging attributes of real assets are undervalued by the reference portfolio, the allocation is not just retained. It is increased.
The Total Portfolio Approach does not necessarily disadvantage real estate. It clarifies the argument that real estate managers need to be making as to why and how their position fits in an overall portfolio allocation. The managers who succeed are those who understand that a compelling real estate strategy may not be sufficient on a stand-alone basis, that every position must provide relative value to the total portfolio.
How Do You Think About Debt and Risk Measures That Were Previously Defined by Property Type or Tactical Opportunity?
Under the traditional SAA framework, real estate debt was categorized by property type and position in the capital stack. Those metrics do not disappear under TPA. But they become inputs into a larger framework rather than the primary framework itself. Under TPA, a real estate debt strategy must answer the same cross-asset question that equity strategies face: what is its factor exposure? What portion of its return is genuinely credit-based, what portion is duration-based and what portion represents a real estate-specific risk premium that the reference portfolio cannot replicate? The practical implication for real estate debt managers is significant: spread alone is no longer the argument. The argument must address correlation to the total portfolio, the equity beta equivalent of the debt's underlying collateral and the interaction between property-type cyclicality and the fund's existing factor exposures.
Sectors that often get lost in the grey area, such as real estate debt and credit, property technology, data centers or certain segments of infrastructure, may benefit in a TPA framework that does not force strategies into buckets created in the 1970s and 1980s, when real estate was in its infancy. TPA's willingness to evaluate every investment on its own factor merits, rather than by the category label it was assigned a generation ago, may be its most quietly disruptive feature for real estate-adjacent strategies.
TPA is not an existential threat to real estate as an asset class. It is an identity challenge for real estate as a strategy. The managers who thrive will be those who can answer the harder question.
The Total Portfolio Approach does not necessarily disadvantage real estate. It clarifies the argument that real estate managers need to be making as to why and how their position fits in an overall portfolio allocation. The funds that adopted TPA earliest (CPP, NZ Super and GIC) have not reduced their real estate allocations. They have made the allocation to real estate more intentional, more defensible and more competitive. The managers who succeed in TPA environments are those who understand that a compelling real estate strategy may not be sufficient on a stand-alone basis, that every position must provide relative value to the total portfolio. Alliance was built to help managers make exactly that argument.
Built for the Total Portfolio World
Alliance Global Advisors advises institutional real estate managers across the full range of strategies: single-property-type specialists in senior housing, data centers and industrial; mid-market operators in multifamily and retail; global allocators deploying across equity and debt in multiple geographies. That breadth is not accidental. It is what gives Alliance the cross-asset perspective that is now essential for helping managers compete in a total portfolio world.
Understanding how a self-storage specialist compares to a global core fund on an equity beta equivalent basis. Knowing when real estate credit outperforms real estate equity on a risk-adjusted basis in the current rate environment. Being able to articulate how a value-add multifamily strategy positions relative to infrastructure or natural resources within a real assets bucket. These are not academic questions. They are the questions TPA investment committees are asking right now, and they are the questions Alliance helps its clients answer.
Factor Exposure Analysis
We help managers understand and articulate their strategy's factor exposures, including equity beta, interest rate sensitivity, inflation linkage and credit spread exposure, in the language that TPA investment committees use. Most managers have never built this analysis. We have.
Relative Value Positioning
We map a manager's strategy against the full spectrum of real assets alternatives, including public REITs, private equity, real estate credit and infrastructure, and help them build a compelling case for why their strategy deserves the allocation at this specific point in the market cycle. Timing the argument is as important as making it.
Reference Portfolio Benchmarking
We help managers construct the analysis that TPA investors require: how does this strategy improve expected risk-adjusted returns relative to the reference portfolio over a 10-year horizon? That question has a specific, defensible answer, and we help clients find it and present it credibly.
LP Relationship Intelligence
Alliance maintains direct relationships with institutional investors at TPA-adopting funds. We understand how their internal frameworks are evolving, what questions their investment committees are prioritizing and what presentation formats and analytical frameworks give managers the best chance of winning a commitment in a competition-for-capital environment.
Is Your Strategy Ready for a Total Portfolio World?
Alliance helps institutional real estate managers build the analysis, the language and the relationships needed to compete in a competition-for-capital environment. Connect with the Alliance team to discuss how your strategy positions in a total portfolio context.
Connect to Learn MoreFounded in 2020, Alliance Global Advisors is a women-owned consulting firm focused on developing strategic growth solutions for real asset investment managers. Advising clients with over $1.5 trillion in assets under management, Alliance partners with organizations to provide an informed, independent perspective, continued education and innovative guidance on structuring investment products to attract evolving sources of capital in a competitive environment. Through this work, Alliance helps senior management teams strengthen decision-making, enhance institutional readiness and position their platforms for long-term value creation and performance.
Disclaimer: This blog was originally published in July 2026 and will be updated periodically to reflect changes in the industry. The content may contain or cite personal and/or professional opinions that differ from the views of Alliance Global Advisors.
- Thinking Ahead Institute. Global Pension Assets Study 2026. February 2026. thinkingaheadinstitute.org
- Thinking Ahead Institute. Total Portfolio Approach Discussion Deck. April 2025. Names ATP, PGGM, CalPERS, RailPen, CPP, NZ Super, Future Fund, AP1, USS, OPTrust, ART, REST as TPA practitioners or in active TPA transition.
- Thinking Ahead Institute. "Total Portfolio Approach: A Global Asset Owner Study." Willis Towers Watson, 2019.
- PGGM Vermogensbeheer BV. Annual Report 2024. "From 2025 onwards, PGGM Investments will invest for PFZW using a Total Portfolio Approach." PGGM Annual Report 2025 confirms EUR254B AUM and 3D Total Portfolio Engine. pggm.nl
- OPTrust. "How We Invest." OPTrust.com, 2025. TPA implementation began under CIO James Davis, 2015. 16th consecutive fully funded year, 2024. Markets Group, January 19, 2026.
- Aware Super. Formal TPA operating model announced March 2026. Super Review, March 4, 2026.
- ATP (Arbejdsmarkedets Tillaegspension). Named as self-identified TPA practitioner: Thinking Ahead Institute, 2019. AUM ~DKK 1 trillion (~$140B USD).
- RailPen. Director of Total Portfolio Investments role confirmed: ICPM, icpmnetwork.com, 2022. TAI TPA Discussion Deck, April 2025.
- Benham, Frank and Colin Bebee. "The Total Portfolio Approach for US Institutional Investors." Meketa Investment Group, April 2026. meketa.com
- Elkamhi, Redouane and Jacky S.H. Lee. "What Is Total Portfolio Approach? A Practitioner Summary." HOOPP / University of Toronto, May 22, 2025. Journal of Portfolio Management. Lee title confirmed: Senior Managing Director and Head of the Total Portfolio Group, HOOPP. hoopp.com/investments/investment-leadership/jacky-lee
- North Carolina Investment Authority. Investment Policy Statement for North Carolina Retirement Systems. NCIA-POL-1000, February 25, 2026.
- CalPERS Board of Directors. Investment Committee Agenda Item 5a, Attachment 1. November 2025. Implementation of TPA beginning July 1, 2026.
- Gilmore, Stephen (CalPERS CIO). Quoted in: Jacobius, Arleen. "CalPERS CIO Stephen Gilmore Looks to Import the Total Portfolio Approach." Pensions & Investments, November 19, 2024.
- CalPERS. Incentive compensation restructuring. Pensions & Investments, June 2026. 40/80bps outperformance thresholds; 5-year reference portfolio phase-in; effective July 1, 2026.
- Markets Group. "CalPERS Promotes Orlich to Deputy CIO, Hires Walker for Total Portfolio Leadership Role." June 12, 2026.
- Briner, Brad (NC Treasurer). "Former Bloomberg Family Office CIO Says North Carolina's Pensions Need an Overhaul." Institutional Investor, February 20, 2024.
- British Columbia Investment Management Corporation. "Beyond Market Concentration: BCI's Total Portfolio Approach." BCI Insights, November 2025. bci.ca. QuadReal RE equity AUM $51.8B confirmed from bci.ca. BCI gross AUM C$295B as of March 31, 2025.
- Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation. Annual Report 2025. NZ$85.05 billion. FY2024/25 return 11.84%. NZ Super Stakeholder Update, May 2024 (Sian Orr panel).
- CPP Investments. Annual Report 2026. Real Assets section, p. 66. Real estate represents 29% of Real Assets allocation. cppinvestments.com
- GIC. Report on the Management of the Government's Portfolio for the Year 2024/25. AUM ~$936B per Global SWF (Top1000funds.com, July 25, 2025). Real Assets 23%; 65/35 reference portfolio; real estate 13% per GIC Annual Report 2023/24.
- Mercer. "The Total Portfolio Approach: Managing Capital in a Complex World." Mercer Insights, May 2026. mercer.com/insights/investments/portfolio-strategies/total-portfolio-approach/
- Forestner, Mike and Niall O'Sullivan. "The Future of Private Markets." Mercer, January 2026.
- Texas Teachers Retirement System. "Special Topic: Total Portfolio Approach." February 2026. Quoted in Meketa, April 2026.
- NCREIF NFI-ODCE returns: 4Q25 Industry Insights Report, Alliance Global Advisors ACE Quarterly, 2025.
- Monk, Ashby. Interview with Ted Seides. Capital Allocators, Episode 480, June 10, 2026.
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Alliance Global Advisors does not manage capital and does not operate as a registered placement agent. Third-party sources are cited as independent research. Their views do not represent the views of Alliance Global Advisors.