CalPERS has hit back at criticism from a coalition of environmental advocates and public sector unions, California Common Good, that its flagship $53 billion sustainable portfolio which it hopes to double to $100 billion by the end of the decade includes a $3.5 billion allocation to many of the world’s biggest polluters.

The organisation used public records, including filing a California Public Records Act request, to highlight that CalPERS’ climate adaptation, transition, and mitigation investments include holdings in 52 of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters. The report aims most of its criticism at CalPERS’ inclusion of seven oil and gas companies in the portfolio.

“Unfortunately, the report raises unfounded concerns that CalPERS isn’t serious about addressing climate change. Even worse, it could be construed as suggesting that CalPERS is intentionally misleading its 2.2 million members and the public about the intent of our climate investing program,” said CEO Marcie Frost in a statement.

Problems in Solutions

CalPERS does indeed classify a small proportion of its investments in oil and gas companies as providing climate solutions, confirmed Peter Cashion, managing investment director for sustainable investments, speaking during the investor’s mid-March board meeting.

Specific business lines at these companies amount to $67 million worth of investments in activities that qualify as climate solutions like developing green biodiesel, carbon capture technology and sustainable aviation fuel.

CalPERS measures portfolio companies’ green business activity using a taxonomy that tracks climate solution investments across three categories – mitigation, adaptation and transition. Under the transition umbrella, Cashion said it is possible for high emitting companies in hard to abate sectors to qualify as providing a climate solution if they have transition strategies that support pro-climate activities.

Using this approach, CalPERS values 1 per cent of its $234 million Saudi Aramco holding as a climate solution, for example. Elsewhere the investor classes its $12.6 million investment in Indian coal giant Adani Group’s Green Energy subsidiary as a climate solution.

CalPERS uses a variety of globally recognised data providers to measure companies’ green activity including Financial Times Stock Exchange, HSBC and MSCI and Blomberg. The CalPERS team have sought out best practices supported by the Institutional Investor Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).

Cashion said the allocation reflects CalPERS belief that “a green asset is a green asset regardless of corporate ownership” whereby even if a green asset sits on the balance sheet of an oil producer, it is still viewed as green.

He also reiterated the importance CalPERS places on engaging with oil and gas companies to promote sustainability at these corporations. Witness how CalPERS $5 billion allocation to a Climate Transition Index underweights oil and gas companies with no transition plan.

Frost said that CalPERS’ approach to assessing climate solutions has been iterative in a reflection of the emergence of best practices and additional data. “We wish things were easier. CalPERS has long supported clarity and consistency in climate investing definitions. We reject any suggestion that our methodology wasn’t well researched or independently authenticated,” she stated.

She also reiterated why CalPERS does not support climate divestment, something she called a “a symbolic act that not only ignores the value of climate transformations and investor engagement, but a possible breach of our fiduciary duty as required under the California Constitution.”

Her response underscores the challenges investors face balancing financial returns with their climate commitments. CalPERS believes that its influence can push polluting companies toward greener practices and support funding clean energy technologies. Yet transition progress is slow – and remaining invested is an essential return stream for CalPERS 2 million beneficiaries.

California Common Good also called for more details on the private equity, private debt, infrastructure and real estate holdings CalPERS classifies as climate solutions. The lobby group said this was particularly important given CalPERS has announced plans to increase private holdings to 40 per cent of its portfolio.

Investors are operating in a period of “profound uncertainty” characterised by more volatile inflation and real economy activities, as well as unpredictable policy impact, according to GIC chief economist Prakash Kannan. It is intrinsically different from anything investors have lived through in the past few decades, and for some their entire investing lifetimes.  

This means asset owners can no longer take existing assumptions about the investing environment for granted, including the relatively unconstrained ability to move capital across borders, trust in contracts and a peace dividend.  

Prakash, who is also GIC director of economics and investment strategy, said these uncertainties will challenge asset owners’ investment models. For example, he suggested organisations incorporate more agility and inflation risk management, in expectation of a new inflation pattern that is more “spiky” and “episodic” in the future.  

“I think where most people…misunderstand is that a regime of high inflation doesn’t mean that inflation goes from two [per cent] in the past to four [per cent] in the future, like that’s it,” he told the Top1000funds.com Fiduciary Investors Symposium in Singapore.  

“Fundamentally, what we’re going to experience is this kind of very episodic, spiky inflation because the nature of the shocks over the last 20 years have been very much coming from the demand side.”  

But current shocks in the economy come largely from the supply side such as trade wars and decarbonisation needs. “You’re going to have inflation and growth moving in the opposite directions,” Prakash said. 

This would impact asset allocation in at least two ways, Prakash said. Firstly, real return for clients and members becomes an even more important objective in a high-inflation world, which means funds need to think hard about inflation protection in their strategic asset allocation.  

Secondly, avoiding large drawdowns in a high, spiky inflation environment requires a more nuanced allocation approach.  

“Not all inflation shocks are the same,” Prakash said. “Commodities may not respond the same way to an inflation shock, if it’s alongside a weaker growth environment.” 

“Gold is doing well right now, but it is traditionally a more monetary-led, inflation-type of asset. 

“The inflation linkers – which performed terribly in 2022 in an inflation shock because of the duration exposure – if you actually enter a stagflation world, that’s a really good asset to have. 

“That kind of agility in this world where I think we’re going to be facing a lot more supply shocks has to be part of the investment process.” 

Globally-minded

Aside from investment, Prakash also urged asset owners to re-evaluate aspects of their operating model amidst changing global dynamics. For example, ensuring compliance with local regulations is evermore essential for organisations operating across the globe. 

Other issues for asset owners include paying more attention to sectors intersecting with national interests, as well as reviewing counterparties and being conscious of where their assets are invested.  

Prakash also urged investors to be geopolitically aware. He acknowledged that geopolitical events are hard to foresee but the idea is not to predict the conflicts but to minimise any potential impacts on the portfolio.  

“Ultimately, for long-term [asset] owners, we don’t care about volatility [in the short-term] – what we care about is permanent impairment. And I think the risk of permanent impairment has gone up,” he said. 

“If you’re putting assets in a country, how do you know that you’re going to get your capital back? How do you incorporate that kind of uncertainty into your underwriting process?  

“The reason why investors haven’t paid attention [to these questions] is because we’ve lived in this peace dividend period. So frankly, they were right not to care about it, because it didn’t matter. 

“Today, I think this becomes fundamentally much more important.” 

The past two years have been a challenging time for private equity investors thanks to low deal activity, falling distributions and a tough exit environment. As a result, they have turned to the secondary market as a common liquidity management tool.

But it is far from the only reason why interest in secondaries is on the rise. Niklas Risberg, director at Franklin Templeton’s secondary manager Lexington Partners, highlighted the market as a good way for asset owners to adjust their private equity exposure.

“In the past, if you wanted to manage your private equity portfolio, every year 20 to 30 per cent of your NAV would go down [via distributions], so you could manage how much that exposure is through downsizing your commitments going forward,” he told the Top1000funds.com Fiduciary Investors Symposium in Singapore.

“Now, when you’re not getting that yield on the portfolio, people are definitely thinking about how they can use the secondary market to manage their exposure.

“You might want to get out of certain strategies, or your allocation might be too large… it’s more like strategic portfolio management reasons for selling, rather than back-against-the-wall [with liquidity].”

Australia’s second-largest pension fund Australian Retirement Trust (ART) is a seller in the secondary market, and head of investment strategy Andrew Fisher said that position helps with resource management.

The A$320 billion ($201 billion) ART has a little less than 10 per cent allocated to private equity across the fund. It has been overweight private equity since 2021.

“It’s the same reason why we’re selling data centres the same day we’re buying data centres,” he said.

“It’s actually a resource-efficiency thing from our perspective, [because] cleaning up the portfolio on a regular basis allows the team to focus on the things that matter. And running off funds towards the end of their life isn’t something that we really want to be focusing a lot of time and energy on.”

But Fisher stressed that selling in the secondary market doesn’t mean just spinning off all the unwanted assets in a package. For one, the package needs to at least have some desirable assets that will be appealing to another investor. Secondly, timing is crucial. “If we are going to clean up [the portfolio], we have to clean up before, like eight years into a seven-year fund life – you’ll get nothing for that,” he said.

Risberg added that selling in secondary markets can also help asset owners get their capital back sooner.

“If you have a commitment that has already distributed 1.8 times your money, and you have just a little bit of a tail left, you can probably afford to take a pretty big discount on that remaining NAV,” he said.

“You can take those proceeds that you get from the tail and reinvest them at a better return probably than that last little NAV, which you won’t get any upside on and have to wait for two or three years before it comes back.”

Fee pressure

ART is generally a seller but not an buyer in secondaries, which Fisher said is partially because of Australia’s regulatory environment. A regulatory guide (RG) issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission concerning disclosure of fees and costs discourage secondaries for funds like ART, Fisher said.

Fisher said private markets already takes up 80 per cent of ART’s fee budget and, while there is an illiquidity premium in private equity, “it is not consistently enough to justify the fees”.

“You need the occasional 2021-like experience where you get a big payoff to actually justify the fees over the long term, and it’s very hard to predict when that lumpy year comes,” he said. “That’s why we treat private equity as a long term commitment in our portfolios”.

And if ART was to invest in secondaries, “you don’t get to apply the discount to [underlying] NAV that it comes in [to the secondary market] at on the fees, unfortunately,” Fisher said. “You get full-freight fees, plus secondary manager fees on top, and that’s just too much of a burden for us.”

With that said, asset owners should evaluate the merits of secondaries based on their own private equity allocation status, said Singapore-based head of Asia Pacific at investment advisor Albourne Partners, Debra Ng. For the under-allocators or new allocators in alternatives, which locally include many Singaporean university endowments, secondaries could be a great entry point.

“One of the easy ways for new allocators to get into private markets and private equity is secondaries, because you get diversification [of assets], you get a nice vintage year diversification as well, and a quick start while you build the rest of your program,” she said.

More broadly, Ng also highlighted the flow of wealth and retail capital into the private equity asset class, which institutional allocators should be cognisant of.

“For all the things that we ask our GPs and the demands on fees, they’re raising a lot of assets from the retail and private channels,” she said.

“The retail channels are less concerned about the elements underlying the valuations and so on. I think if a private bank can provide access [to the asset class] to their clients, they’re winning.

“If you want better governance and transparency as asset allocators or the typical institutional LPs, make sure that those kind of principles are in place.”

This article was edited on 28 March 2025 to clarify the impact of Australian regulatory guidance on ART’s involvement in the secondaries market.

Institutional investment in private credit across the Asia-Pacific is failing to keep pace with the region’s strong economic growth and more attractive interest rate environment, according to a panel of investors at the Fiduciary Investors Symposium.

Mercer alternatives investment leader, Johnny Adji, said private credit in the region offers a 200-400 basis point compared to US, yet Asia-Pacific only attracts about 5 per cent of flows.

“I think it’s severely discounted the potential and the investment opportunity in this region,” he said at the symposium in Singapore. “If you look at just, for example, on GDP alone – Asia should have accounted for, say, maybe about 25 per cent.”

He said returns in the 9-11 per cent range in the lower middle market senior direct lending sector compared well with historical private equity returns of 15-17 per cent, given PE managers now had to service greater debt costs in a high interest rate environment.

However, it was crucial to choose the right manager given there were fewer to choose from while investors needed to be aware that Asia-Pacific private credit tended to comprise a much higher percentage of a loan – as high as 25 per cent – compared to US private credit.

CPP Investments managing director and head of APAC credit, Raymond Chan, said recent interest rate rises had created more opportunities for credit investors in Asia, given many international funds remain focused on developed markets.

“The opportunity here is huge,” Chan said. “So that’s why I think we are very aggressive in terms of building out the credit book. Basically, it’s more driven by global reactive value as well as the alpha.”

CPP investments had committed close to $5 billion in Asian private credit. It had also taken advantage of recent market dislocation to upgrade the quality of its book from around CCC to a B or BB credit rating.

IFM Investors executive director and co-head of Australian diversified credit, debt investments, Hiran Wanigasekera, said it was beginning to focus on Asia after expanding into every sub-sector in Australia.

“That’s where our next leg of growth in private credit is going to be,” he said.

Returns in its senior secured direct lending strategy had come down slightly to 9-11 per cent on an unlevered basis with credit spreads in the high-four hundred to six hundred basis point range, he said.

Wanigasekera warned that Asia-Pacific private credit is even more illiquid than in other regions.

“We are very firm in saying that private credit is an illiquid asset class,” Wanigasekera said. “There is no traded position. And especially if you’re playing in Asia, the liquidity level drops off the cliff relative to what you can do in US and Europe. So this concept of secondary exit potential in private credit positions really is nonsense factor in this part of the world.”

A short, 10-to-15-minute survey can help pinpoint how ready an organisation is to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) into its systems and processes, the Top1000funds.com Fiduciary Investors Symposium has heard. 

The so-called AI Readiness Index (AIRI) was developed by AI Singapore (AISG) to help it decided which organisations that approach it for help with AI implementation projects are likely to proceed to completion. The survey is available online for any organisation to take. 

It’s an approach that helps AISG fulfil its mandate of creating collaboration between researchers and industry to develop and, most importantly, to implement AI solutions, and has seen the nation of just 5.6 million people ranked behind only the US and China as a global AI power. 

Laurence Liew, director of AI innovation at AISG, said the survey helps it grade an organisation as AI-unaware, AI-aware, AI-ready or AI-competent. 

“This AI Readiness Index, the framework that we use to engage with customers, was something that we developed back in 2018, 2019 because we were spending too much time, I felt, talking to customers that, in the end, did not lead to an outcome,” Liew said. 

“For those that AI Singapore will do AI projects with, they have to be AI-ready. So this survey started off as a way to shorten my sales process, my sales cycle. It was a very selfish reason, but eventually it became a very powerful tool to allow us to quickly scan through and determine which companies to work with.” 

Liew said AISG assesses a business’s readiness on five issues – organisational; ethics and governance; business value; data; and infrastructure – that it thinks will “determine how successful an organisation is in terms of its AI journey”.  

Business value readiness means there must be a minimum expected ROI on investing in an AI project; data readiness means the data for the project must be sufficient and relevant; infrastructure relevance means having the infrastructure to run the project on  (“not a laptop”); and ethics and governance means recognising there’s a big difference between knowing if you can do something and whether you should do something. 

But the most important, he said, is organisational readiness, and that’s where the survey comes in. 

“All our projects have a requirement [that] if we support you, we co-create a project with you, it has to go into deployment,” Liew said. 

“So even before we start the project, there is an agreed scope of work to be done. So it’s very deliberate.” 

Liew says AISG’s mission is to make the organisations it works with at least AI-aware. 

“We get a lot of requests from people who say you have all these high-end, very advanced courses, can we do more training and so on and so forth, can AI Singapore go and teach Python to everyone?” he said. 

“If you have been in Singapore long enough, you even hear of some politicians saying everyone must go and learn Python programming. My message is: please stop learning Python programming. 

“It does not make sense today for the audience. If you are a super geek, please go ahead, it’s your hobby. But if you think you want to learn Python because you want to analyse some data, it’s a waste of time.” 

Liew said there are much better tools to use, including uploading datasets to ChatGPT and asking it to do the required analysis. 

“What they need [instead], is half an hour, an hour, or one and half hours, introduction to what is AI. That’s about it, so that they are not fearful of AI, they are open and willing to use AI tools.” 

Educating employees about the use and benefits of Ai is critical, Liew said, to avoid HR and other employment-related issues cropping up later on, driven by individuals fearful of the impact AI may have on their jobs. 

“I’m sure all of you will have read in the US, when the US ports wanted to bring in automation, they had the port workers went on strike and so on,” Liew said, said. 

“As more and more companies bring in automation, the first thing that we have learned that you need to do is actually educate the staff about AI, so [raise] AI literacy. If not, you’re going to get a revolt.  

“And obviously you have to have management policies and so on, for retraining, upskilling and so on and so forth.” 

Organisations AISG assesses as AI-competent have sufficient and relevant data to support the project, employ people who can take over the project from AISG on completion, and have a clear ROI target. 

“I’m going to spend $150,000 of taxpayers’ money, how much is Singapore going to get back?” Liew said. 

“What’s your ROI? If it’s one or two-times, I’m not really interested. At least has to be three, five, 10, and so on and so forth.” 

Liew said if AISG goes ahead with a project, it throws considerable resources at it. 

“For every project that has been approved, AI Singapore will co-invest $150,000 in kind. That means our engineers, researchers. The company must put in $150,000, of which 30 per cent must be cash, 70 per cent in kind. Cash comes to us, and that, combined together, allows me to put together a team to work on the company’s project for six months.” 

Liew said AISG’s teams work full-time on companies’ projects, which “not like a typical university where the professor will say, yes, I’ll do the project for you [but] he may only look at your project once a month”.  

“These teams, Mondays to Fridays, nine to six, do nothing but the company’s project,” Liew said. 

“It’s a full-time thing.”