{
  "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b637-0e41e604268c",
  "docSlug": "48bf645da462e4e2",
  "documentTitle": "2022 Global Alternative Fund Survey",
  "authorId": "EY",
  "authorName": "EY",
  "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck",
  "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck",
  "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting",
  "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting",
  "presentationDate": null,
  "orientation": "landscape",
  "aspectRatio": 1.778,
  "pageNumber": 46,
  "pageCount": 53,
  "prevPage": 45,
  "nextPage": 47,
  "slideType": "key_takeaways",
  "function": "summarize",
  "density": "dense",
  "nDataPoints": 6,
  "notes": null,
  "elementsJson": [
    "headline_text",
    "photo",
    "paragraph",
    "donut_chart"
  ],
  "metadataConfidence": 1,
  "imagePath": null,
  "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b637-0e41e604268c/46",
  "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b637-0e41e604268c",
  "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b637-0e41e604268c.json",
  "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b637-0e41e604268c#slide-46",
  "components": [
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "callout",
      "text": "Fifty percent of managers believe that these requirements have increased pressure from investors. This pressure is a bit more pronounced among private equity managers than hedge fund managers, with 58% and 42%, respectively, reporting it.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": "Visual emphasis",
      "toolSlug": "visual-emphasis",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd951-c23d-70a9-9ea9-0d8c9643c279",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.35,
        "w": 0.55,
        "x": 0.379,
        "y": 0.4
      },
      "kind": "chart",
      "text": "Total, Hedge fund, and Private equity survey responses regarding investor pressure.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "donut",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "6a5d6f5d-2fc8-4d60-847e-cb49663cc5d9",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.03,
        "w": 0.45,
        "x": 0.42,
        "y": 0.74
      },
      "kind": "legend",
      "text": "Yes, No",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "9285b0a0-f30a-4432-8a04-8baca9dd36bc",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "metric",
      "text": "Investor pressure: 58%",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "primary",
      "toolName": "Quantification",
      "toolSlug": "quantification",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd951-c23d-70a9-9ea9-1114ed3c16c2",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.4,
        "w": 0.26,
        "x": 0.063,
        "y": 0.445
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "One of the most discussed regulations has been the increased climate disclosure requirements for public companies. The existence of these regulations and proposals has contributed to an overall trend of increased investor scrutiny of managers’ corporate ESG policies. Fifty percent of managers believe that these requirements have increased pressure from investors. This pressure is a bit more pronounced among private equity managers than hedge fund managers, with 58% and 42%, respectively, reporting it. Although climate, and ESG more broadly, has become a global priority, there is disparity in the depth of regulations in the various jurisdictions. For managers with a global footprint, navigating the various frameworks will continue to add operational complexity and costs. In addition, this also creates the potential for an expectation gap among investors from different jurisdictions. What may be standard policies for a North American investor may fall short of the expectations of European or Asia-Pacific investors.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "41a623fb-1365-49da-9d3e-3a4eac1a110d",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.05,
        "w": 0.55,
        "x": 0.379,
        "y": 0.148
      },
      "kind": "title",
      "text": "ESG-focused regulations are more likely to result in action from private equity managers",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "headline",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "96bc078d-6c1c-4628-9868-f2aa3c091e6f",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "metrics": [
    {
      "metricRaw": "Investor pressure",
      "numberRaw": "58%",
      "numberKind": "percent",
      "actionTitle": "ESG-focused regulations are more likely to result in action from private equity managers",
      "calloutText": "Fifty percent of managers believe that these requirements have increased pressure from investors. This pressure is a bit more pronounced among private equity managers than hedge fund managers, with 58% and 42%, respectively, reporting it.",
      "numberScale": null,
      "numberValue": 58,
      "metricFamily": "other",
      "numberCurrency": null
    }
  ],
  "tools": [
    {
      "name": "Action Titles",
      "slug": "action-titles",
      "agent": "Architect",
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "019de8c2-8d9b-714d-94bf-51dcf7b1c2bf",
      "evidence": "title 'ESG-focused regulations more likely to result in action from PE'",
      "confidence": 80
    },
    {
      "name": "Small Multiples",
      "slug": "small-multiples",
      "agent": "Designer",
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "019de8c2-8dbc-74ea-b3fe-50144e67fe1c",
      "evidence": "three donut charts: total / hedge fund / private equity",
      "confidence": 80
    }
  ],
  "frameworks": [],
  "arcBeats": [
    {
      "to": 48,
      "from": 42,
      "beatId": "019de8c2-7d9f-70ae-a131-bcf4b5b73abc",
      "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit",
      "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit",
      "beatName": "Evidence & Proof",
      "beatSlug": null,
      "evidence": "Regulatory readiness data, ESG policy adoption rates",
      "position": 4,
      "confidence": 60,
      "parentBeatName": null,
      "parentBeatSlug": null
    },
    {
      "to": 48,
      "from": 42,
      "beatId": "019de8c2-7e46-7008-98fc-a3371bdc3cb6",
      "arcName": "The Triple Take",
      "arcSlug": "triple-take",
      "beatName": "The Action (Now What)",
      "beatSlug": null,
      "evidence": "Regulatory and ESG sections frame manager response actions",
      "position": 3,
      "confidence": 55,
      "parentBeatName": null,
      "parentBeatSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "loops": [
    {
      "to": 48,
      "from": 42,
      "name": "Tale Two Worlds",
      "slug": "04-tale-two-worlds",
      "bestFor": "Competitive analysis, benchmarking, case for change",
      "matchId": "019de8c2-7f0f-7480-8d8e-363777cecfc1",
      "evidence": "Regulatory cost framing (p43-45) vs increasing manager ESG adoption and investor pressure (p46-48)",
      "position": 6,
      "objective": "Contrast regulatory burden with industry's emerging ESG response",
      "structure": "Current State -> Desired State / Benchmark -> The Gap & Implication",
      "confidence": 65,
      "description": "Show the gap between two states to drive urgency or highlight opportunity"
    }
  ],
  "imagePathAlt": null,
  "thumbSrc": null,
  "thumbSrcAlt": null,
  "locked": true
}