The claim that a single publication standardizes the understanding of portfolio construction is a viewpoint that ignores the inherent complexity of markets.
The noise generated by these claims is constant, but reality shows that many factors remain uncontrollable.
The mandates of Canadian institutional pension funds, for example, are often focused on illiquid alternative assets with long-term horizons, making the universal applicability of a single model questionable.
Their investment strategy is shaped by provincial regulations and local resource dynamics, not solely by a theory.
Relying solely on a theory without considering these market specificities would lead to suboptimal investment posture.

Who benefits? This idea that allocating tickets solely based on the quality of transactions could simply "mitigate negative impacts" seems an overly convenient simplification.
The motive behind such a statement could be to hide the fact that quality is often subjective, and that decisions are influenced by media hype or relationships, not just pure analysis.
Even the best opportunities are subject to market volatility; a Canadian fund must deal with exogenous shocks like commodity cycles, which affect liquidity.
This is a dangerous generalization that neglects the market incentives and the complexity of valuations.
For example, a Canadian institutional investor knows that a "good transaction" can fail if financing or market demand evaporates, regardless of initial quality.