Should Retail Investors Have Access to Alternative Assets?
One of the most debated topics among investment professionals and regulators is whether retail investors should have access to a wide range of alternative assets. The argument often revolves around the concept of liquidity and how it is perceived as a measure of safety. However, the assumption that more liquid assets are inherently safer may not hold true.
It is interesting to note that many retail investors, especially the newer Generation Z investors, are drawn to speculative assets like binary options and cryptocurrencies, even though they are liquid but highly risky. In contrast, private credit, private equity, venture capital, real estate, and hedge funds – which are illiquid – are often restricted from retail investors. This begs the question of whether liquidity is the sole determinant of safety.
Insights from Behavioral Finance: The Illusion of Control
Traditional finance theories suggest that illiquidity should come with a premium to compensate for the higher risk. However, in reality, many investors, regardless of their income levels, tend to believe they can time the market and engage in frequent buying and selling of public equities. This behavior often leads to losses, as market timing is a challenging and inconsistent strategy.
In 2021, the rise in day trading was attributed to factors like free commissions and boredom, rather than sound investment principles. Retail investors’ overconfidence in their ability to beat the market is a dangerous delusion, especially when pitted against institutional investors with sophisticated resources.
While there may be a case for restricting lower-income investors from day trading and speculative assets, those with sufficient wealth and knowledge should consider alternative investments that offer long-term opportunities and may shield them from impulsive market moves driven by behavioral biases.
The Illiquidity Premium: A Valuable Opportunity
Studies have shown that illiquid private market investments can offer a premium over public markets, with buyout funds and venture capital funds yielding significant returns. This illiquidity premium underscores the potential benefits of venturing into alternative assets that may not be readily available to retail investors.
The question arises – should there be open access to these opportunities for all investors, or are there other factors to consider beyond liquidity? Investment professionals, investors, and regulators need to weigh the risks and rewards of illiquid assets in a nuanced manner to ensure a balanced approach.
Liquidity Constraints and Accreditation
The current regulatory landscape often restricts retail investors from accessing illiquid products based on a combination of wealth and education criteria. This approach raises questions about the inconsistency in allowing access to highly speculative, liquid investments while limiting exposure to professionally managed, illiquid alternatives.
It is worth considering whether the focus should be on the overall risk profile and the investor’s understanding of financial products, rather than solely on liquidity. The alignment of interests between investors and managers, where managers invest their own capital alongside clients, can enhance trust and ease concerns about illiquidity.
Lifting Barriers to Access: An Example
The European Union’s approach with Regulation 2015/760 and the introduction of the European Long-Term Investment Fund (ELTIF) aimed to democratize access to private market investments. Recent modifications to the regulation, known as ELTIF 2.0, have removed certain restrictions and aligned eligibility criteria to ensure investors have a threshold of understanding.
With these regulatory changes, the EU is paving the way for increased access to alternative assets for retail investors, potentially leading to significant growth in the alternative assets market.
A Challenging, Nuanced Reality
As the debate on illiquidity in alternative investments continues, it challenges the traditional notion that liquidity equates to safety. The ease of trading in liquid assets can tempt investors to make impulsive decisions, while illiquid assets offer a disciplined approach that promotes long-term strategic investments.
Ultimately, rather than shying away from illiquidity, a balanced approach that considers the potential benefits of alternative assets is essential for investment professionals, investors, and regulators. By focusing on factors beyond liquidity and ensuring investors have a thorough understanding of the products they are investing in, a more nuanced and informed investment landscape can emerge.
Related Content: The Finfluencer Appeal: Investing in the Age of Social Media