State pension funds are often viewed as the “smart money” of the investment world.

They employ large internal investment staffs. They hire teams of consultants. They have access to private investments unavailable to most investors. They negotiate lower fees because of their enormous scale. They conduct deep due diligence on hedge funds, private equity managers, venture capital firms, and real estate partnerships.

In theory, if anyone should outperform a simple index portfolio, it should be them.

Yet the evidence tells a very different story.

A well-known paper by Jeffrey Hooke and John Walters, “Wall Street Fees and Investment Returns for 33 State Pension Funds,” examined the results of large public pension systems and compared them to low-cost passive benchmarks. The conclusion was striking: the median pension fund underperformed a basic indexed portfolio by roughly 1.6% annually over the study period.

That gap may not sound large at first glance, but compounded over decades, it becomes enormous.

More Complexity Did Not Lead to Better Results

Over the past two decades, many pension funds have dramatically increased their exposure to:

• Private equity
• Hedge funds
• Venture capital
• Tactical asset allocation
• Alternative credit
• Real assets
• “Opportunistic” strategies

These investments are often marketed as sophisticated tools capable of delivering higher returns, downside protection, or diversification benefits unavailable in public markets.

But despite all of the resources available to these institutions, the end results frequently disappointed.

Importantly, many of these pension portfolios were also taking more risk than a traditional 60/40 stock and bond portfolio. They often had:

• Higher equity exposure
• Significant leverage embedded in private investments
• Illiquid assets
• Increased credit risk
• More aggressive return assumptions

In other words, many pensions were not underperforming because they were conservative. They were underperforming despite taking greater risks and paying substantially higher fees.

The Cost of Chasing “What’s Next”

One of the most persistent themes in investing is the belief that there must always be a better answer somewhere else:

• A smarter manager
• A new asset class
• A more complicated strategy
• A niche product that can unlock hidden returns

But investing evidence has consistently shown that expected returns are driven primarily by exposure to compensated risks, not complexity.

Chasing fashionable investments or attempting to time markets often introduces:

• Higher fees
• Greater taxes
• More operational friction
• Behavioral mistakes
• Lower transparency
• Increased implementation challenges

And those costs compound quietly over time.

The pension fund experience is a powerful reminder that access alone does not create better outcomes.

Simplicity Is Often an Advantage

At Hill Investment Group, we believe investors are generally better served by focusing on:

• Broad diversification
• Evidence-based sources of expected return
• Low costs
• Tax efficiency
• Disciplined implementation
• Long-term behavior

This does not mean investors should avoid innovation or thoughtful portfolio design. But complexity should have a very high burden of proof.

The reality is that many of the world’s largest and most sophisticated institutions have struggled to outperform simple, low-cost indexed approaches, despite having every conceivable advantage.

For most investors, the lesson is not that investing is easy. It is that successful investing often requires resisting the constant pressure to make it unnecessarily complicated.

We are excited to share that the Longview Advantage Fixed Income ETF (LVIG) officially launched on March 9th. As of March 31st, the fund has already reached $90 million in assets, reflecting strong early interest from advisors and investors.

We recently sat down with Nasdaq’s Just for Funds to walk through the strategy, its origin, and how it works in practice. You can watch the full discussion here.

For advisors who follow our work, if LVIG could be relevant for your clients, we would welcome the conversation.

If 2025 reinforced anything, it is how quickly markets can test conviction and how costly it can be to react emotionally or narrowly. 

By April 8, the S&P 500 was down 15%, driven largely by Liberation Day and the sudden imposition of global tariffs. Volatility spiked, sentiment deteriorated, and the narrative quickly shifted toward protectionism and questions around US leadership.

Then, just one day later, markets delivered a stark reminder of how unpredictable short-term moves can be.

On April 9, the S&P 500 experienced one of the largest single-day rallies in history, with the S&P 500 rising 9.5% in a single session. Note: That one-day gain is larger than the average annual return of the S&P 500 since it’s existed. Investors who had de-risked or moved to the sidelines in response to the drawdown were not there to participate.

Despite being down double digits just three months into the year, the S&P 500 finished 2025 up nearly 18%, an outcome that few would have predicted during the spring selloff.

But the more important story was not just that markets recovered. It was where the returns came from. Global markets, as measured by the MSCI ACWI index were up 23%.

The Case for Global Diversification

2025 was a powerful reminder that returns rotate, often abruptly, and often away from what has worked most recently.

• US Market (S&P 500): +18%
• International Developed ex US (MSCI World ex US Index): +33%
• International small value (MSCI World ex US Small Value Index): +40%
• Emerging Markets (MSCI Emerging Markets Index): +34%

Investors who reduced international exposure or concentrated further into US equities, often justified by recent outperformance, materially underperformed what markets ultimately delivered.

International small value in particular was one of the strongest performers globally, with the ETF we use, the Avantis International Small Value ETF, returning 50% for 2025!

The Bigger Lesson

Markets do not reward confidence in narratives. They reward discipline. Investing in all types of markets and staying invested in all Markets.

Short term drawdowns are uncomfortable. Large single day rallies are unpredictable. The investors who captured 2025 returns were not those who timed exits or chased recent winners. They were those who stayed invested, stayed diversified, and allowed markets to do what they have historically done over time.

In years like 2025, the value of diversification is not theoretical. It is measurable.

And it is earned by maintaining exposure when doing so feels hardest.