Type: Article

Executive Summary

• Total Portfolio Approach (TPA) has become a focal point of portfolio construction discussions, as large institutional investors have recently adopted it.
• TPA advocates for a portfolio to be managed as a whole, setting a portfolio-level risk budget and allocating across the best ideas within any asset classes.
• This contrasts with a traditional Strategic Asset Allocation approach, which sets asset-class targets based on long-term return expectations and allocates within each asset class to achieve the target.
• While TPA has become the new darling of portfolio construction discussions, TIFF believes that TPA’s core tenets are just best practices of a robust investment program. Those tenets include the use of clear objectives and the incorporation of multiple risk factors in one’s allocation assessment.
• There are practical limitations of implementing TPA, too, such as the increased reliance on factor modeling, the flexibility (or inflexibility) of illiquid positions, and the need to shift decision-making towards the CIO.
• TIFF believes its investment process incorporates the best elements of both SAA and TPA: allocating capital based on clear objectives and the best marginal idea to the portfolio, grounded on today’s best information, with a long-term eye towards expected returns.

Where does TIFF stand on The Total Portfolio Approach?

There are always new and evolving ideas on portfolio construction theory. While Total Portfolio Approach (TPA) has been around for decades, it has been gaining increased exposure in the U.S., particularly since the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) — a pension fund behemoth controlling $600+ billion1 in assets — announced it will be implementing TPA effective July 1, 2026. Several high-profile, international mega-institutions, including Canada’s Pension Plan Investment Board, Singapore’s GIC, and Australia’s Future Fund, have espoused TPA as a more modern, flexible, and risk-aware way to manage complex portfolios than Strategic Asset Allocation (SAA).

However, many of the core beliefs of TPA are familiar to CIOs and capital allocators. TIFF believes that TPA’s core tenets are simply best practices of a robust investment program. At the same time, there are certain practical limitations of implementing TPA (and eliminating any SAA elements). In the process of examining the real-world pros and cons of TPA, TIFF discovered our program is already implementing the best elements of TPA, while maintaining a long-term eye on capital allocation through the SAA framework.

What is the Total Portfolio Approach?

TPA advocates for managing a portfolio as a single, integrated whole, rather than as a collection of independent asset-class sleeves. It reframes the allocation process so that capital and risk are allocated simultaneously against total portfolio objectives, or a single reference portfolio benchmark.

In practice, this often includes:

• Portfolio Objective & Risk Budget: Setting total portfolio objectives and a single portfolio reference benchmark (e.g., 65/35 MSCI ACWI/Bloomberg Aggregate).
• Unified Risk Management: Managing risk across the entire portfolio, using a single risk budget and considering various risk types (drawdown, liquidity, etc.) holistically.
• Factor-Based Investing: Focusing on broad economic factors (like inflation, geopolitics, climate) and their impact on returns, allowing for better positioning against future shocks, instead of just asset class dynamics.
• Marginal Portfolio Contribution / Competition for Capital: Evaluating investments based on their impact on total portfolio risk (“there are no buckets”) vs. how they fit within their own asset class portfolio and perform relative to asset class benchmarks.
• Dynamic Reallocation: Having the ability to dynamically shift investments to areas with the best risk-adjusted returns, not marginal asset class shifts each year.

Framework Comparison of TPA to SAA – A Spectrum of Implementation Approaches

TIFF’s Perspective: Useful Reminder of Best Practices, Not Revolutionary

TIFF’s view is that total portfolio thinking is fundamentally sound, but not new. Managing risk and capital at the portfolio level is simply good investment practice. In fact, experienced, top-tier investment teams have long considered cross-asset interactions, liquidity constraints, and marginal risk contributions when building portfolios, even if they did not label the process “TPA.”

TPA is a good reminder of portfolio construction best practices, regardless of title. When examining the real-world practices and implementation of TPA, TIFF found the best elements of TPA are already incorporated into our approach.

Limitations of TPA

In theory, TPA aims to be more dynamic and risk-aware than traditional SAA, but in practice it relies on a number of assumptions that don’t always hold up in real-world investing. These include: stable factor relationships, the ability to anticipate changes in volatility (timing the market), and the idea that illiquid positions can be managed with the same flexibility as liquid ones. Most large asset owners eventually find that the approach pushes decision-making away from true investment judgment and toward highly modeled, factor-driven processes that can look precise but are fragile in the face of regime shifts.

We also worry that approaches built around volatility-targeting or factor-optimization can inadvertently constrain returns or lead to many small “wins” followed by occasional large drawdowns, a pattern we’ve seen before in model-heavy frameworks.

Conclusion

The hype over the Total Portfolio Approach offers an important reminder: portfolios should be managed as integrated wholes, not as disconnected parts. TIFF agrees with this principle and practices it in substance. However, we remain skeptical of claims that TPA represents a fundamentally new or superior model that, on its own, delivers better performance.

In our view, TPA is best understood as common sense applied consistently, supported by strong governance, clear objectives, and experienced judgment. When used thoughtfully and pragmatically, total portfolio thinking can enhance decision-making. When treated as a cure-all or a rebranding exercise, it risks overselling what ultimately remains the same timeless challenge—building resilient portfolios that can meet long-term objectives across a wide range of market environments.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results and the opinions presented cannot be viewed as an indicator of future performance. There is no guarantee that any particular asset allocation or mix of strategies will meet your investment objectives.

The materials are being provided for informational purposes only and constitute neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. These materials also do not constitute investment, legal or tax advice. Opinions expressed herein are those of TIFF and are not a recommendation to buy or sell any securities.

These materials may contain forward-looking statements relating to future events. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” or “continue,” the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. Although TIFF believes the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, future results cannot be guaranteed.

Artificial Intelligence is transforming how nonprofits operate, communicate, and deliver services.

According to The State of AI in Nonprofits 2025 report by Tech Soup and Tapp Network, “85% of nonprofits have a high interest in tools like Generative AI and Predictive Analysis.” Adoption, however, is uneven. While many leaders see its potential, many organizations lack the staffing, funding, or policies necessary for thoughtful AI adoption.

Consider these realities, from The State of AI in Nonprofits 2025 report:

• 76% of nonprofits do not have an AI strategy
• 42% of nonprofits have one to two staff learning to use AI
• 43% of nonprofits rely on one staff member to make IT and AI decisions
• 80% of organizations do not have an AI-acceptable use policy

If this sounds familiar, you are not alone.

Join us on Wednesday, November 19 from 12:00 – 12:40 PM EST for the webinar, How to Adopt AI in Your Nonprofit with Real-World Lessons. Anne Duggan, Managing Director, Client CIO Group at TIFF will be joined by Ebonie Johnson Cooper, Faculty Director, Nonprofit Executive Education & Training, The Do Good Institute at the University of Maryland, Remy Reya, Director of AI & Thought Leadership of Compass Pro Bono, and Beverly Ross, Program Director, Compass Pro Bono. Drawing on the real experience of Compass Pro Bono’s own AI journey, you will learn what worked, what didn’t, and key insights to apply to your organization. With an emphasis on change management, this webinar will appeal to early adopters and skeptics alike.

This session will help you:

• Identify where AI can have the greatest impact in your operations
• Ask the right strategic questions to guide your team
• Build a roadmap that empowers your staff

Register today to take a proactive and responsible approach to integrating AI into your organization.

The materials are being provided for informational purposes only and constitute neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. These materials also do not constitute an offer or advertisement of TIFF’s investment advisory services or investment, legal or tax advice. Opinions expressed herein are those of TIFF and are not a recommendation to buy or sell any securities.

These materials may contain forward-looking statements relating to future events. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” or “continue,” the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. Although TIFF believes the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, future results cannot be guaranteed.

October is when the biggest university endowments − those with over $1B − share their annual investment results. From these early reports, we can glean what performance drivers we will see, ahead of the full NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments, which comes out in February 2026.

The average return of $1B+ university and college endowments that publicly announce is 11.5% vs. 12.7% for the 65% MSCI ACWI / 35% Bloomberg Agg. This represents the second consecutive year of double-digit gains, following an 11.2% average 1-year performance for all institutions in FY24, per the NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments. However, the trends of what drove performance have shifted in FY25.

FY25 Endowment Returns

What is driving the returns?

1. A return to long-term trends: top-performing endowments have large private equity allocations. Certain sub-asset classes like growth or pre-IPO private equity outperformed. Broadly, the return spread between the allocations appears to be narrowing with private equity and venture posting high single digit/low double digit returns vs. 15.2% for the S&P 500, a spread of only 300-500bp.
2. Strong absolute returns in an unusual year where both equities and bonds contributed positive returns. Both risk and diversifying assets performed well, highlighting broad macro and economic concerns despite strong equity returns.
3. AI continues to drive equity markets. Portfolios with exposure to AI-related themes like Nvidia outperformed.
4. Return of international performance. FY25 made the case for international diversification in equities, with MSCI ACWI ex US (17.7%) outperforming the S&P 500 (15.2%).
5. Broad performance in diversifying assets, including gold. Investors looked for and received performance in a swath of uncorrelated asset classes, including gold, hedge funds and traditional fixed income.

Finally, the Endowment Tax is coming. Multiple private universities commented on the forthcoming increase in tax rate in their FY25 annual reports and endowment return press releases. The increase in the Endowment Tax rates goes into effect for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025. For institutions with a fiscal year end of June 30, this means the new tax rate would apply starting July 1, 2026.

FY25 Asset Class Returns

How did individual endowments do?

When looking at individual returns, the Ivy League and other renowned private endowments returned slightly above the total group. The top three returns came from public universities, with University of Wisconsin-Madison the highest FY25 performer with 16.2%.

FY25 Returns Publicly Announced

Case study: private allocation of top performers

Looking at top performers’ asset allocation, it’s clear that the two-year trend of large private allocations being a detractor has come to a conclusion. Among the top performers that publicly release their asset allocation, each had approximately one-third or greater invested in private equity. A standout example on the strength in late-stage venture/growth is University of Michigan, which returned 15.5%. University of Michigan states that 28% of its portfolio is in venture capital with an additional 9% in private equity.

FY25 Top Returners Private Allocation

The materials are being provided for informational purposes only and constitute neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. These materials also do not constitute an offer or advertisement of TIFF’s investment advisory services or investment, legal or tax advice. Opinions expressed herein are those of TIFF and are not a recommendation to buy or sell any securities.

These materials may contain forward-looking statements relating to future events. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” or “continue,” the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. Although TIFF believes the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, future results cannot be guaranteed.

Executive Summary

• Economic uncertainty has resulted in an extremely strong year for gold, with the precious metal rallying ~30% as of early September
• As investors look for safe havens, a discussion has emerged about whether cryptocurrency—specifically bitcoin—could become “the new gold”
• While bitcoin has not yet achieved the safe-haven status gold enjoys, with time and continued acceptance, it could come to serve a similar role in financial markets
• There are several similarities between bitcoin and gold, including their scarcity and their role as stores of value. Despite the similarities, however, bitcoin lacks the legitimacy of gold’s 5,000-year history
• TIFF is cautiously optimistic about crypto’s future and has made small investments to capitalize on innovation in the space

So far, 2025 has been a year of uncertainty. Investors wait anxiously on news of potential tariffs, geopolitical risk remains elevated, and the market swings with each new announcement. It is not surprising, then, that investors are seeking safe havens such as gold. Gold has had a phenomenal year, returning over 30% as of early September. The last time gold saw gains of this magnitude was 15 years ago in 20101. Unlike 2010, however, investors are starting to see another potential safe haven to weather turbulent markets: cryptocurrencies.

It’s important to take a brief step back. Saying that cryptocurrency could be a safe-haven asset is too broad a statement. The crypto universe is incredibly diverse, with different cryptos serving distinct purposes and deriving value in different ways. For example, a stablecoin is different than a utility token. To be more specific, let’s focus primarily on bitcoin. Originally designed to function much like a currency, bitcoin is now the most widely accepted crypto asset, accounting for more than 55% of the total crypto market cap2. Given its primary use case as a store of value and its dominance in the market, we will focus the remainder of this paper on the comparison between gold and bitcoin.

Many have speculated whether bitcoin is or will become the new gold, gradually overtaking the precious metal as the premier safe haven. While it has not yet achieved the safe-haven status that gold enjoys, with time and continued acceptance, bitcoin could come to serve a similar role in financial markets.

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Why has the comparison between these assets been drawn? While there are notable differences between the two, gold and bitcoin share several similarities, beginning with scarcity.

Gold is unique among many major commodities in that it is not typically consumed. While it can be used in items like batteries, producers often substitute other metals due to gold’s high cost. Its supply also grows very slowly. A report from Goldman Sachs states that “new annual production adds just over 1% to the existing stock and is stable and price inelastic.”3 As a result, when demand grows, it is difficult (if not impossible) to quickly increase supply, as producers might with oil, to meet the increase in demand. This constraint ultimately helps drive up gold’s value.

Bitcoin is similar. It has a fixed supply, with the final bitcoin projected to be mined by 2140. In fact, bitcoin’s scarcity is now even greater than gold’s, as measured by its stock-to-flow ratio (the existing supply relative to annual production). In April 2024, bitcoin surpassed gold as the asset with the highest stock-to-flow ratio among liquid and easily tradable assets4.

One of the most important similarities is that both gold and bitcoin function as stores of value, meaning they are expected to preserve their worth over time. This quality is especially important for any asset to be considered a safe-haven. Investors seek assets they believe will protect their wealth during times of uncertainty. Gold acquired this characteristic because it was discovered to be both scarce and durable. Bitcoin, by contrast, was deliberately created as a store of value. Ultimately, however, both rely on shared trust to sustain their worth.

The Test of Time

It is in this need for “buy-in” and belief that we begin to see the key difference between bitcoin and gold. Gold has been considered a source of wealth for 5,000 years. The U.S. once operated under a literal “gold standard,” and even though that ended more than 50 years ago, the term still signifies the highest level of quality. There is no dispute that gold is valuable and will continue to be into the future. Bitcoin, by contrast, lacks that legacy.

This difference is reflected in the respective volatility of the two assets. Gold has a long-term volatility of approximately 15%. Bitcoin’s volatility, meanwhile, has decreased as it has gained greater legitimacy, but over the past five years it has still averaged approximately 40%—more than twice that of public equities. That level of volatility is hardly consistent with what one would expect from an asset used predominantly as a safe haven!

The good news for bitcoin is that it shouldn’t take 5,000 years for it to achieve the same level of legitimacy as gold. Adoption of new technologies and innovations occurs far more quickly now than in the past. As the number of bitcoin investors continues to grow, and if regulation remains favorable, bitcoin may begin to behave more like gold.

There are risks, however, that could change bitcoin’s trajectory. One of the most prominent is the advancement of quantum computing. This poses a significant risk to any digital technology that relies on the difficulty of prime number factorization. In theory, quantum computers can factor huge numbers exponentially faster than classical computers, which could render bitcoin’s mining methods obsolete.

Bitcoin miners and developers are aware of these risks, and upgrades could be implemented to mitigate quantum threats. Another risk is the possibility that a different store-of-value cryptocurrency could eventually supplant bitcoin. As the first cryptocurrency, bitcoin certainly holds a significant edge, but technological advances, regulatory shifts, or investor sentiment could change that.

Positioned for Possibility

Uncertainty notwithstanding, there may be growing validity in the idea that bitcoin is the new gold”—or that it could be in the future. The similarities between gold and bitcoin are evident. What bitcoin still lacks is the confidence in its value that gold has earned over centuries. With time, however, that confidence could still come.

In the interim, we at TIFF still believe it is prudent to have at least a small exposure to crypto in our portfolios. We do this through limited allocations to a relative value crypto strategy, a broad-based liquid crypto index fund, and a crypto-oriented VC strategy. Though the position is small, we believe meaningful innovation will emerge from the crypto ecosystem that ultimately drives genuine value. While we may not yet know what form that value will take, we are confident that when the opportunity becomes clear, we will be well positioned to capture it.

If you have a question about cryptocurrency, gold, or how TIFF can help you manage your portfolio through uncertain times more broadly, please do not hesitate to reach out.

The materials are being provided for informational purposes only and constitute neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. These materials also do not constitute an offer or advertisement of TIFF’s investment advisory services or investment, legal or tax advice. Opinions expressed herein are those of TIFF and are not a recommendation to buy or sell any securities.

These materials may contain forward-looking statements relating to future events. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” or “continue,” the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. Although TIFF believes the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, future results cannot be guaranteed.

TIFF Investment Management is proud to share that Jessica Portis, CFA, Chief Client Officer, has been recognized by Pensions & Investments as one of the 2025 Influential Women in Institutional Investing. This award celebrates the innovative leaders making an impact on the investment industry. Jessica is one of the key forces delivering exceptional service to TIFF clients, and her vision, expertise, and dedication have made her a true leader in the field.

As part of this honor, Jessica is featured in Pensions & Investments’ September 8th Special Report, highlighting women who are driving progress in the industry. Read more here ➝

Jessica also joined a select group of honorees at the Nasdaq Opening Bell Ceremony on September 8th at the MarketSite in Times Square, where a special tower display celebrates this year’s awardees.

Later this month, she will be honored at the Pensions & Investments Conference and Awards Dinner on September 18th in Chicago, IL.

We are thrilled to see Jessica’s contributions recognized on such a prominent stage—congratulations, Jessica!

The materials are being provided for informational purposes only and constitute neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. These materials also do not constitute an offer or advertisement of TIFF’s investment advisory services or investment, legal or tax advice. Opinions expressed herein are those of TIFF and are not a recommendation to buy or sell any securities.

These materials may contain forward-looking statements relating to future events. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” or “continue,” the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. Although TIFF believes the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, future results cannot be guaranteed.