OCIO’s upmarket expansion is driven by larger, more complex institutions seeking customized, governance-focused partnerships. U.S. OCIO assets now exceed $3 trillion, reflecting a move from standardized outsourcing to strategic integration. Institutions face inflation uncertainty, geopolitical complexity, and resource constraints—raising expectations for scale, transparency, and institutional-grade execution.
Stacey Bro
Co-Head of OCIO
Kevin Turner
Co-Head of OCIO
Key takeaways
- Larger, more complex institutions are setting new expectations for customization, governance, and transparency in OCIO partnerships.
Implementation and integrated risk oversight have become core differentiators.
Senior expertise and specialized knowledge are emerging as decisive factors in earning institutional trust.
As OCIO (outsourced chief investment officer) adoption grows and continues to expand upmarket, the industry is confronting a new set of expectations defined by larger, more complex asset owners.
For many organizations, the question is no longer whether to outsource, but how outsourced solutions can ensure their investment programs are structured to navigate a landscape defined by constrained resources, technological acceleration, and geopolitical complexity. Structural forces such as AI-driven productivity shifts, inflation uncertainty, and a less synchronized global order are raising the stakes for every portfolio decision.
At the same time, organizations face operational and administrative pressures to protect their core businesses, reallocate resources, and maintain fiduciary discipline. Together, these dynamics are fueling a surge of upmarket growth in OCIO as institutions look for partners built for customization, flexibility, and scale.
OCIO assets have more than tripled over the past decade, surpassing $3 trillion in the U.S.1 and signaling a clear shift from standardized outsourcing to a highly customized extension of internal staff, with deeper expectations around investment skill, implementation, and governance.
Our 2026 OCIO Outlook highlights five major implications of this upmarket evolution by exploring how larger investors are redefining expectations and reshaping the OCIO landscape.
1. Rising Demand for Customization
One major implication of OCIO’s upmarket expansion is the increase in customization. As institutions opting to outsource grow in size and complexity, they require investment solutions that reflect their unique objectives and liquidity needs. Yesterday’s OCIO solution and service models can no longer address the nuances of diverse organizations, complex legacy investment portfolios, or multi-tiered liquidity requirements.
Upmarket asset owners are setting the tone: they want frameworks that adapt to their governance cadence and risk tolerance, not one-size-fits-all models. Large corporations, nonprofits, insurers, and other asset owners are seeking full integration between policy and execution.
What’s different today is how far this customization extends. It’s not just about asset allocation—it’s about enterprise integration. For healthcare systems, it might mean more deeply aligning investment pools with working-capital needs. For corporate plan sponsors, it could involve tailoring glidepaths and hedge strategies. For endowments, it’s about connecting private-market pacing with predictable spending.
Customization now extends across every element of portfolio construction. Large institutions managing mature or unexpectedly illiquid portfolios increasingly expect OCIO partners to recalibrate exposure and manage operational complexity with precision.
As larger institutions push OCIO providers toward bespoke design, mid-market clients are benefiting as well—gaining access to the same tailored approaches once reserved for larger asset pools. The upmarket momentum is redefining customization as the foundation of modern OCIO partnerships.
The takeaway
Upmarket asset owners are setting the tone: they want frameworks that adapt to their governance cadence and risk tolerance, not one-size-fits-all models.
2. Elevated Governance and Transparency Standards
Another result of OCIO’s expansion upstream is the rise in expectations around governance and transparency. Larger asset owners bring sophisticated procurement and fiduciary oversight processes and requirements, setting new expectations for disclosure, independence, and accountability.
Open architecture is now viewed as a governance priority, not merely a design preference. Institutions expect full visibility into portfolio construction and manager selection decisions, as well as an understanding of total solution economics. For institutional investors, proprietary products are no seen longer as the default option—they must be justified as demonstrably beneficial to client outcomes in order to be used.
Independence in manager selection has become a critical differentiator. As portfolios expand across public and private markets, institutions demand clear separation between research, advice, and product manufacturing. OCIOs must show that manager and product selection decisions are grounded in merit and aligned with fiduciary duty.
This shift is also reshaping how institutions evaluate cost. The focus has moved beyond a narrow focus on OCIO provider fees to total cost of ownership. This encompasses leverage over underlying manager expenses and platform charges. Clients also expect pricing structures that are easy to understand, and they’re scrutinizing any costs that don’t show clear benefit.
Many upmarket investors want OCIO partners who operate with transparency, clarity, and accountability at every stage of the relationship. That means clear documentation, accessible reporting, and open communication about how investment decisions are made.
In this environment, governance is as much about partnership as it is about oversight. Providers that demonstrate independence, openness, and fiduciary discipline are best positioned to earn institutional trust in a market where credibility matters as much as capability.
The takeaway
Institutions expect full visibility into portfolio construction and manager selection decisions, as well as an understanding of total solution economics.
3. Increased Focus on Robust Implementation Capabilities
As OCIO expands to larger institutions, investors are placing an increasing emphasis on implementation. As portfolios become more complex—with rising private-market allocations, derivative overlays, and multi-pool structures—execution quality has become a direct driver of performance and risk control.
Our research suggests institutions now favor OCIOs with integrated, in-house execution capabilities that can manage trading, transitions, and liquidity seamlessly. “Outsourcing the outsourcing” no longer meets the needs of scale-oriented investors. Sophisticated operational infrastructure enables real-time rebalancing, risk-controlled asset transfers, and efficient funding of private-market commitments.
Cash-flow precision has also become essential as capital calls and distributions grow more frequent. OCIOs must model pacing, coordinate flows, and manage liquidity tiers to maintain strategic alignment. For taxable entities such as VEBAs and captive insurers, tax efficiency is another layer of execution quality—covering gain deferral, loss harvesting, and cross-account optimization.
Transition planning is now a standard expectation. Transitions have become more frequent moments of operational risk that require project planning, detailed cost and risk analysis, pre-emptive control, and disciplined benchmarking. Overlay management is also expanding, from downside-risk strategies in public plans to LDI overlays in corporate pensions.
The upmarket expansion has also raised expectations for communication and coordination. Implementation teams are now expected to speak the language of both finance leaders and board members, translating trading and liquidity decisions into strategic outcomes. That shift reflects a broader truth: execution can no longer be separate from strategy—it’s how strategy gets delivered.
Ultimately, execution capability—backed by technology, scale, and governance—is becoming one of the most visible hallmarks of institutional-grade OCIO partnership.
The takeaway
Our research suggests institutions now favor OCIOs with integrated, in-house execution capabilities that can manage trading, transitions, and liquidity seamlessly.
4. Heightened Expectations for Comprehensive Risk Management
OCIO’s expansion into the upper institutional market also carries major implications for risk management. Larger, more complex clients are redefining what the delivery of robust oversight looks like. In particular, they’re demanding enterprise-level visibility, private-market integration, and proactive stress testing that reflects real-world uncertainty.
Traditional risk models, built on historical correlation patterns, are proving insufficient in a world of shifting regimes and multipolar dynamics. Inflation volatility, geopolitical fragmentation, and supply-chain realignment have made forward-looking risk assessment essential.
Boards now expect holistic frameworks that monitor liquidity tiers, scenario exposures, and potential stress points across both public and private assets. Institutions want early warning systems that capture emerging risks rather than post-event analyses that arrive too late.
Private markets introduce additional complexity—from extended valuation cycles to cash-flow variability and manager concentration. These require new methods for pacing, monitoring, and governance to avoid liquidity mismatches and ensure spending or liability coverage remains intact.
Risk frameworks are also segment-tailored. Healthcare systems manage dual objectives—operational liquidity and investment growth. Endowments and foundations require insight into private-asset pacing and drawdown resilience. Many corporate plans, meanwhile, focus on interest-rate exposure and transition risk as they derisk or approach buyouts.
As OCIO relationships expand upmarket, institutions want continuous risk oversight—not something revisited once a quarter. They’re looking for partners who can spot issues early, explain what’s driving them, and adjust portfolios before small problems become big ones. This shift demands that risk management is not a reporting task, but an active part of day-to-day portfolio management.
The takeaway
Asset owners are demanding enterprise-level visibility, private-market integration, and proactive stress testing that reflects real-world uncertainty.
5. Greater Emphasis on Depth, Seniority, and Specialization
Finally, OCIO’s expansion carries significant implications for talent, leadership, and client engagement. As relationships become larger and more complex, institutions expect to engage with senior professionals who bring deep expertise and investment-committee-level credibility.
These relationships now demand domain specialization across every client segment. Defined benefit plans, for instance, need liability-driven investing (LDI) and asset-liability management (ALM) fluency. Meanwhile, insurers require balance sheet and regulatory insight. Healthcare systems depend on enterprise risk management and liquidity management expertise. And, last but not least, large nonprofits expect advanced understanding of spending policies and illiquid allocations.
Upmarket OCIO partnerships typically involve multiple stakeholders—from internal staff and finance leaders to risk officers and HR and legal teams, as well as boards and fiduciary committees. Navigating these dynamics requires experience, diplomacy, and fluency in institutional governance.
Hybrid and co-sourced models amplify these demands. Many institutions may retain strategic control while delegating execution, oversight, and risk management. This structure requires OCIO teams that can function as extensions of internal stakeholders, capable of operating seamlessly within established governance frameworks.
Even as AI and automation transform operational efficiency, senior judgment remains irreplaceable. Technology accelerates analytics, but human interaction drives comfort and guides the decisions that matter. What investors increasingly value is not just responsiveness but perspective—the ability to connect market developments to enterprise goals and communicate them clearly.
As OCIO relationships expand further upmarket, institutions are prioritizing providers who combine deep technical knowledge with the ability to build trust and confidence. Ultimately, what sets OCIO providers apart isn’t just their platform—it’s also the experience and judgment of their team.
The takeaway
Institutions expect to engage with senior professionals who bring deep expertise, experience, and investment-committee-level credibility.
The Bottom Line
OCIO’s expansion into larger institutional asset owners is reshaping the industry’s foundation. As clients bring greater complexity and higher expectations, the model is shifting toward deeper customization, stronger governance, integrated implementation, broader risk oversight, and senior-level specialization.
The takeaway is clear: in a more complex world, the strength of an OCIO partnership can increasingly influence the quality of results. We believe those who work with providers built for depth, transparency, and scale will be best positioned to achieve durable success.
1 Source: The Cerulli Report, 2025
Frequently asked questions
Customization now extends beyond asset allocation to full enterprise alignment. Institutions expect portfolios tailored to liquidity tiers, spending needs, private-market pacing, and governance frameworks. Generic models are no longer sufficient. Modern OCIO partnerships integrate policy, execution, and reporting into a structure designed around each organization’s mission and long-term obligations.
Upmarket institutions demand open architecture, independent manager selection, and full fee transparency. The focus has shifted from headline fees to total cost of ownership, including underlying manager expenses. Governance today requires documented decision processes, fiduciary discipline, and clear communication—ensuring accountability and alignment with institutional oversight standards.
Execution has become a performance driver. Larger portfolios require precise liquidity management, private-market pacing, transition oversight, and overlay coordination. Research suggests institutions favor OCIO providers with integrated execution capabilities that connect trading, risk control, and strategy—ensuring portfolios remain aligned amid market volatility and operational complexity.
Institutions now expect continuous, enterprise-level risk oversight across public and private assets. Forward-looking stress testing, liquidity monitoring, and segment-specific expertise are essential. Senior professionals with board-level credibility provide judgment and governance fluency—helping institutions navigate complexity while maintaining fiduciary discipline.