Due to their monopolistic and conservative nature, pension funds punish deviation from the peer group. Innovating is a career risk, as it requires justification for being different. Consequently, significant change rarely happens proactively; instead, it is forced upon these institutions by external market crises.

Related Insights

Corporate creativity follows a bell curve. Early-stage companies and those facing catastrophic failure (the tails) are forced to innovate. Most established companies exist in the middle, where repeating proven playbooks and playing it safe stifles true risk-taking.

When introducing a disruptive model, potential partners are hesitant to be the first adopter due to perceived risk. The strategy is to start with small, persistent efforts, normalizing the behavior until the advantages become undeniable. Innovation requires a patient strategy to overcome initial industry inertia.

The primary decision-makers for mass-market 401(k) plans are often HR or finance teams, not investors. To shield their companies from employee lawsuits, they have historically prioritized funds with the lowest fees, creating a massive structural barrier for higher-fee alternative investments to gain traction.

A regulator who approves a new technology that fails faces immense public backlash and career ruin. Conversely, they receive little glory for a success. This asymmetric risk profile creates a powerful incentive to deny or delay new innovations, preserving the status quo regardless of potential benefits.

Great investment ideas are often idiosyncratic and contrary to conventional wisdom. A committee structure, which inherently seeks consensus and avoids career risk, is structurally incapable of approving such unconventional bets. To achieve superior results, talented investors must be freed from bureaucratic constraints that favor conformity.

Zillow enjoyed a decade of market dominance with little pressure to innovate. The mere threat of Google entering the real estate market created an immediate sense of urgency that internal strategy sessions could not. This shows that true competition is the most potent driver of product improvement and innovation.

Product managers at large AI labs are incentivized to ship safe, incremental features rather than risky, opinionated products. This structural aversion to risk creates a permanent market opportunity for startups to build bold, niche applications that incumbents are organizationally unable to pursue.

Being the de facto industry standard removes the external pressure to innovate. Dominant companies often resist internal change agents who want to 'rock the boat,' fostering complacency. This creates an opening for more agile competitors to gain a foothold and disrupt the market.

In risk-averse sectors like law, AI's ability to automate core, revenue-generating tasks (e.g., writing) acts as the primary driver for innovation. The threat of being made obsolete forces legacy players to embrace technology and new business models they would otherwise ignore or resist.

High-stakes industries like finance have a 'moral statute' that raises the bar for innovation. This deters many well-intentioned actors, leaving the field to those with either no moral compass or founders like Jack Bogle who possess extreme, near-prophetic conviction in their ideas.

At Pension Funds, Innovation Gets You Fired, Making Market Crises the Only Catalyst for Change | RiffOn