Tim McEnery

Tim is a partner in Cerity Partners and a member of the firm’s institutional investment consulting practice. He advises endowments, foundations, public pension funds and other institutional investors on portfolio strategy, asset allocation, governance and investment implementation. Prior to joining Cerity Partners, Tim served as managing director and senior consultant at Verus, a leading institutional investment advisory firm that merged with Cerity Partners in 2026. At Verus, he chaired the firm’s investment committee, overseeing the research agenda, and served on the management committee, helping to shape the firm’s strategic direction. Earlier in his career, Tim spent 15 years with Aon.

CIO: Given the outsized market valuation of a small group of mega-cap technology companies, how should institutional investors think about equity concentration risk and the opportunities created by the growth of AI and related sectors, including electricity infrastructure?

McEnery: Institutional investors need to recognize that both the concentration risk and the artificial intelligence opportunity are real, and that most portfolios today are meaningfully exposed to both, whether they intended to be or not. When a small group of mega-cap tech companies drive a disproportionate share of market returns, even a passive U.S. equity allocation becomes an implicit active bet on AI and continued tech leadership. The more important conversation is not whether to participate, but whether that participation is appropriately sized and balanced with overall portfolio diversification. In recent discussions with clients, this has led to a broader view of where AI-driven opportunities may emerge. Some of the most compelling opportunities today sit beyond the tech sector itself (e.g., electricity generation and transmission, data center infrastructure, industrial suppliers supporting rising power demand). In many cases, these areas still sit at attractive valuations despite their increasingly visible long-term demand drivers.

CIO: What is one principle from your career that has proven especially relevant in today’s environment, and how have you applied it recently?

McEnery: One principle I have come back to throughout my career is that strong governance leads to better investment outcomes. Markets are always uncertain, but institutional investors with disciplined governance structures are generally better positioned to stay focused and make thoughtful long-term decisions during periods of market stress and volatility. Over time, I have become increasingly convinced that outcomes are often less driven by having the perfect market view and more by having a decisionmaking framework that allows an organization to act consistently and efficiently. That has become especially relevant in today’s environment, where opportunities evolve quickly and stakeholders are being asked to process increasingly complex information in shortened timeframes. Many of my conversations recently have touched on governance, including clarifying delegation authority, establishing risk tolerance and simplifying portfolio structures where appropriate. I have helped some clients move more day-to-day implementation decisions to internal investment teams or investment sub-committees, allowing investment committees to remain focused on long-term policy and portfolio oversight. Strong governance does not eliminate uncertainty, but it does improve an institution’s ability to navigate it more effectively.

CIO: How has the role of the institutional generalist consultant evolved in the past five years, particularly with respect to OCIO adoption, data/analytics, and governance—and how do you see it changing going forward?

McEnery: In my experience, the role of institutional consultants has become much broader over the past five years. Historically, the focus was heavily centered on asset allocation and manager selection. Today, clients increasingly expect their consultants to help with implementation as well. The growth of outsourced CIOs has accelerated that shift, but I would push back gently on the framing that the choice is OCIO or advisory. In practice, most of our clients land somewhere in between, retaining strategic control while delegating implementation in the areas where speed and operational depth matter most (e.g., private markets). The other shift is on the analytics side. There is more information available than ever before, and clients now expect deeper scenario analysis and stress-testing and more timely insights into portfolio risks and trade-offs. Ironically, I think that has increased the importance of communication and judgment. The value of the consultant increasingly comes from helping boards and investment committees simplify complexity, focus on what matters most and maintain long-term discipline.