Riti Samanta, Global Co-Head Fixed Income, Systematic Fixed Income Portfolio Manager, at Russell Investments, brings nearly 25 years of experience blending quantitative rigor with portfolio management. In a conversation with Traders Magazine, she discusses how Russell Investments approaches portfolio resilience, the practical application of systematic methods in fixed income, and why the convergence of AI-driven financing and blurring public-private credit markets represents one of the most significant developments ahead.

As Co-Head of North America Fixed Income at Russell Investments, how do you approach building resilient portfolios in the current macroeconomic landscape?

The main approach I take in this environment starts at the top of the fixed income portfolio. Any broad fixed income portfolio has three major risks: interest rate or duration, credit risk and liquidity risk. When we construct a portfolio, one key question we always ask is: What is the overall relationship between interest rate duration and credit risk? Those remain two significant risks in fixed income, and all the macroeconomic uncertainty like tariffs, the path of rates, growth, inflation, and labor market data filters through that lens of interest rate and credit spread risk. Liquidity is another major one that is always in the background and that we have to manage regularly as market conditions or events impact liquidity conditions.

So resilience, in practice, comes from understanding how these three primary risks are evolving. We keep a close eye on the level of diversification especially between duration and credit risk and monitor the factors driving their correlation so the portfolio can hold up across different macroeconomic outcomes.

Can you walk us through how your team integrates systematic strategies into fixed income management at Russell Investments?

We integrate systematic strategies in two main ways: through systematic methods used in portfolio construction and through factor-based strategies in managing specific sectors of fixed income. On the construction side, using systematic approaches means evaluating the trade-offs between different potential exposures and bringing those into a mean-variance-optimized framework. It’s a scientific way of weighing risks and potential returns across components.

A big focus for us is ensuring these approaches aren’t a black box. Systematic methods shouldn’t work only under one objective function or only in certain market environments. We’re very aware that the relationship between credit and interest rate risk can shift, including periods when the correlation turns positive. Because portfolio outcomes are judged over short, medium, and long horizons, we stress-test our systematic process across many objective functions, time periods, and regions.

The second way we apply systematic approaches is in managing exposures such as credit. We run relative-value active strategies across investment-grade, high yield, global credit, and both short- and long-duration credit. We rely on factors that we believe have a consistent risk premium and extract them using systematic portfolio construction methods applied to the bond universe. The advantage is that we can tightly control risks and ensure exposures remain within defined tolerance bands relative to the benchmark, enabling a very risk-aware and disciplined credit portfolio.

What differentiates Russell Investments’ fixed income philosophy from others in the industry, particularly in the North American market?

One of the biggest differentiators at Russell Investments is our open-architecture approach. Having worked at two other organizations, I can appreciate how powerful it is to access the entire global landscape of managers, styles, and internal strategies when building portfolios to meet client outcomes. Fixed income is a complex space, and deep expertise often sits in highly specialized subcultures within organizations, so having access to that level of talent is really powerful.

Another key point of differentiation is how we approach clients. Because of Russell’s consulting background, there is a very keen orientation towards improving client outcomes and solving client problems in creative ways across teams. People here are naturally oriented toward thinking about the client’s objectives from a total-portfolio perspective and bringing all of our tools and insights together in innovative ways.

This approach has led us to create some truly unique products in the marketplace—whether it’s open-architecture OCIO solutions, the unique ETF structures we’ve been able to launch, or more efficient ways of implementing portfolios across manager positions in both equity and fixed income. There is clear evidence that these differentiating elements have meaningfully impacted client performance and range of possibilities.

With interest rates, inflation, and geopolitical tensions reshaping fixed income markets, what trends do you believe will define the next 12–18 months?

I think one of the trends that is really interesting, especially in bond markets, is the confluence of the AI revolution and the way that financing is happening across both private and public credit. Recently we saw the Meta deal come to market in a blended offering of public and private debt that was made available to institutional investors. There almost isn’t a clear demarcation anymore between private and public markets, so understanding how the two are integrated, where it’s prudent to draw financing from one versus the other, and how to construct portfolios that use both in a liquidity-sensitive way is, in my mind, one of the most important developments in the investing space over the next year to year and a half.

The other broader trend is occurring in the global rates markets where we are now starting to see material divergence between the path of rates in the US vs. UK or Japan, for example.

Fixed income investors can take advantage of these divergent paths through relative value trading in rates and more broadly the divergent growth and inflation paths underlying these rate narratives creates a broader set of opportunities in both global rates and credit investing.

How is Russell Investments leveraging data science, AI, or machine learning in its fixed income processes and risk management?

We use data science and machine learning as tools to support portfolio management. Because systematic credit strategies require processing enormous amounts of data, data science becomes essential. We rely on SQL, database tools, and programming languages like Python to manage and analyze that information.

We also use optimization techniques for portfolio construction, which require coding and software to test different outcomes. Machine learning enters the picture as an extension of econometrics: exploring statistical relationships, including nonlinear patterns, using tools like neural networks. But we maintain a strong bias toward economic intuition and clear priors. As fiduciaries, we must be able to explain why a model behaves the way it does, so we always pair more complex approaches with simpler models to justify the added complexity.

Beyond that, AI plays a role in productivity—tools like Copilot help refine text, assist with research, or translate between coding languages. These are smaller but still meaningful efficiency gains for the team.

How do you see clients’ expectations evolving around fixed income?

In terms of client expectations, I think what’s really exciting about managing fixed income in today’s world is that yields are truly back. You can earn yields of around 4.6% on AAA corporates and close to 7% in high yield. Being able to earn that in high-quality, default-remote credit has reshaped the fixed income landscape. Clients are naturally attracted to these characteristics, but they’re also extremely discerning. Many clients are using data science and AI tools themselves, and they expect us to be transparent about how we use these tools and how they impact performance and productivity.

I think with quant fixed income, what’s interesting is how much these concepts have been socialized across the industry. Whether it’s managing assets in a systematic credit framework or using quantitative methods for portfolio construction, the general level of familiarity and comfort with these models has changed a lot over the last 10 to 15 years. Clients have seen good performance with them in different areas, and they’ve developed a real sense of comfort and robustness around these approaches.

Because of that, conversations about systematic fixed income today have become far more sophisticated. People want to talk about what these methods mean in practice, how they’re used, and their merits and limitations, rather than simply asking how they differ from fundamental credit selection. It’s been a meaningful shift, and clients continue to raise the bar for transparency and evolution in how we use these techniques.

What have been some of the pivotal moments in your career journey as a woman leading in systematic fixed income at a global firm like Russell Investments?

With nearly 25 years in fixed income, some of the most pivotal moments in my career came when I found roles or opportunities that were genuinely intellectually interesting to me and working with people who challenged and supported me.

In every firm I’ve been part of, I’ve had the chance to build something new. I think that’s partly my constitution and a function of people meeting me on the other side of the table and being willing to help me do that. At Russell Investments, it has been exciting to bring together open architecture with quantitative and systematic methods on a platform of this scale. I’ve been fortunate to have leaders who support that vision.

On a personal level, one major turning point was when I had my son. I have a 15-year-old now, and at the time I was also at a point where the opportunity came up to move from managing a quant team to a portfolio manager role. That was something I had been looking to do for some time, but, as life would have it, that opportunity arrived literally at the same moment I had my first child. So I had to really ask myself whether I wanted to take that on or choose a different path.

I was very fortunate to have a supportive partner at home and manager at work, and I did take on the role. It was difficult, particularly from a work–life balance perspective, and I fully respect that others might have made a different choice, but that decision opened the door to many opportunities. I discovered that I enjoyed managing money and working with clients, and I was able to bring my cross-asset thinking and quantitative background into that work, which eventually led me into a very fulfilling path in systematic fixed income.

Another pivotal moment came later in my career. I was a strategist and managing money, but I felt I was capable of something else. The firm I was at was going through a restructuring, and I had to look for another opportunity. I even thought about leaving the industry entirely and started doing some consulting projects in sustainability and other topics that interested me. But once again, something drew me back in, and the role at Russell Investments came about with a broader remit and an orientation toward building solutions for clients. It was exactly the kind of work I felt suited for at that point in my career.

What changes have you seen in the industry when it comes to gender diversity, and where does the work still need to be done?

Early in my career, the only people I saw doing the kind of work I wanted to do were almost always white men. The few women I did encounter in those roles often seemed quite worn down by the process, not because they weren’t capable, but because the path had clearly taken a lot out of them. It was a very small sample, of course, but it didn’t give me many examples of what I might want to grow into.

That has really changed. Now I speak at various conferences and am involved in different industry organizations, and when you look around large asset management firms today, you see a meaningful cohort of senior women across investing, sales, wealth, operations—many of whom came through completely different paths. Recently, for example, our CIO and President, Kate El-Hillow, was named one of American Banker’s Most Powerful Women in Banking, and being in a room with those nominees was incredibly inspiring.

It’s much more balanced now, and that creates real role models for younger women at many different levels and in many different parts of the organization. It gives them the ability to look across the firm, pick and choose what resonates, and think about where they want to position themselves as they move forward.

In your view, what are the most effective ways firms can cultivate a pipeline of diverse talent, especially in quantitative and fixed income roles?

I think one of the most effective ways to cultivate diverse talent ties back to having women at different levels of the organization. When you’re moving up through your career, you naturally look for role models—we all collect bits and pieces of people and imagine which parts we could see in ourselves. If you don’t have a broad set of examples, it’s hard to picture yourself in those roles.

At Russell Investments, our analyst program is very well balanced in terms of gender, and as you move from analyst to senior analyst to associate and senior portfolio manager, there is solid representation of women. I can think of women at my firm managing money, managing senior client relationships, working as quants, analysts, and on the trading desk. That breadth really helps maintain a strong pipeline.

The biggest challenge is the drop-off that often happens when women have children or other caregiving responsibilities, and supportive teams and benefits are crucial at that stage. What makes it harder today is the higher turnover in our industry—people earlier in their career move roles more often, which can weaken the longer-term social contract that allows firms to invest in someone through a period of reduced capacity. I’ve benefited from that kind of support, and I think it’s essential for keeping the pipeline strong.

How do you personally mentor or support the next generation of women in finance, and what impact do you hope to make?

In terms of personal mentorship, I mentor several women in a more individual capacity. I serve on the investment committee of my undergraduate college, Reed College. It is a liberal arts college in the Northwest and not a typical training ground for careers in asset management so there I help students—many of whom come from nontraditional paths—explore careers in finance. I also have an informal cohort of women I’ve met and sustained over the years across organizations. As a first-generation immigrant who came here as a student, I try to focus especially on men and women who are earlier in their careers or who might not necessarily have the access of more conventional backgrounds.

I speak regularly at industry conferences, and that often leads to meaningful conversations and connections. I have had some truly transformative mentors in my career and I’m very conscious of how important that support has been. I want to ensure I’m giving that back to the broader community and helping create opportunities for others.