Pensionskassernes Administration A/S, PKA, the multi-employer DKK235 billion ($35.6 billion) Danish pension fund for the country’s healthcare professionals, nurses and social workers, returned a 5.7 per cent return in the first half of this year, boosted by strong performances from private equity and alternatives.

“We are quite satisfied,” says Peter Damgaard Jensen, chief executive officer, speaking from the fund’s Hellerup headquarters outside Copenhagen.

“Particularly because of market volatility and Brexit.”

The fund has posted an 8 per cent average annual return over the past five years from a portfolio primarily invested in bonds, shares, real assets and absolute return.

The fund is split 50:50 between external and internal management, with investment ideas and themes typically developed in-house with external mangers brought in to execute them.

PKA has grown its alternatives portfolio to account for 25 per cent of assets under management, in one of the biggest allocations among the fund’s Danish and European peers.

“There are still some allocations in the pipeline to real estate and infrastructure, but in private equity we are where we want to be,” he says.

All the alternatives allocation – bar real estate – is run through PKA AIP, an offshoot responsible for investing and monitoring PKA’s alternative investments in private funds, co-investments and direct infrastructure based out of Copenhagen.

Current alternative strategies include diversifying the portfolio away from its concentrated exposure to offshore wind, as well as diversifying infrastructure investments into North America and different European markets from its current northern European bias.

Damgaard Jensen also likes solar, arguing: “Solar costs have fallen so much it is now possible to invest without subsidies and this is less risky.” He’s also got an eye on the UK energy market following a decision by the new, post Brexit government to pause planned nuclear investment.

“If the UK doesn’t invest in nuclear there will be a huge energy deficit. This could be a significant opportunity. It will be interesting to see what they do.”

Deep local knowledge

The bulk of the real estate portfolio is invested in Denmark, which Damgaard Jensen prefers to forays into foreign markets because of PKA’s deep local knowledge and the ability and cost advantages of investing direct.

Going forward he plans to develop the portfolio to invest in “whole areas” within cities alongside other investors, rather than confine investment to individual buildings.

“The Danish economy is promising; we are seeing more investors coming in to Copenhagen from the outside,” he says.

Only 2 per cent of the real estate portfolio is invested overseas and all investments here are with funds.

Cutting costs through direct investment in private equity is more challenging however. Only 30 per cent of the private equity portfolio lies in co-investments, which does reduce the cost “considerably” but still leaves private equity “expensive.” The fund has made eight private equity co-investments in the past two years..

The fund also plans to increase its allocation to corporate debt. Its current allocation stands at a tiny 1 per cent of the portfolio, but as banks shed debt to comply with new BASEL regulations, Damgaard Jensen believes this will grow.

So far all PKA’s investment in the asset has been alongside banks because of PKA’s reliance on their expertise in the asset class.

“We are building up our competence here but at the moment the banks still have all the experience in this area.”

Membership ‘very active’ on coal

Low carbon investment is becoming increasingly important across the portfolio with PKA’s most recent green infrastructure investment coming via a 50 per cent stake in a new UK biomass plant, expected to be completed by 2020.

The fund aims to have 10 per cent of the real estate allocation in sustainable properties by 2020. In another initiative launched after the Paris agreement on climate change last year, the fund is divesting from all its holdings in “coal-reliant” companies like mines and utilities, spurred on by its membership, which Damgaard Jensen describes as “very active” on the subject of coal.

The fund has also asked companies that generate between 25 and 50 per cent of their revenues from coal to provide plans on how they will reduce their exposure to the fossil fuel.

“We engage with companies on policy and how they can change to have less reliance on coal,” says Damgaard Jensen, adding that looking at low carbon indexes within the equity portfolio is “on the to-do list.”

Equities remain the biggest single risk at the fund, responsible for 50 per cent of PKA’s entire risk.

In 2012 it restructured the equities portfolio to invest in risk premia strategies, building exposure to factors like value and momentum, as well as systematic risk exposures typically found in hedge fund strategies, via a robust absolute return portfolio that Damgaard Jensen believes is a crucial defensive play.

“During any market crash, it is the absolute return portfolio that performs much better than the equity portfolio. History shows there will be another equity crash.”

Ongoing efforts to tamper equity risk – and costs – include increasing passive strategies, he concludes.

The shift from defined benefit to defined contribution means a shift in risk pooling to individual risk bearing by individual participants. This means that adequacy on an individual level becomes the objective of retirement savings, but the question of how funds can provide retirement security for all plan participants is a more difficult one.

Michael Drew, Professor of Finance at Griffith University in Australia, says there needs to be a shift from the plan sponsor’s business imperatives to a real fiduciary focus.

In the paper Governance: The Sine Qua Non of Retirement Security, Drew and his co-author Adam Walk, question whether when plan sponsors say they are taking a fiduciary focus, they are prioritising values of the profession or doing what is best for investment clients, over the economics of the business or doing what is best for investment managers.

“Plans are concerned that the economics of the business are being prioritised over the interests of plan participants,” the authors say.

In defined contribution funds there is a real tension between a fiduciary focus and business imperatives, and that needs to be recalibrated. Drew questions whether those that say they have a fiduciary focus actually put it into practice.

“Do we really, hand on heart, live like that and put that into action? Simple questions like what does this mean for our 58 year old members, and not our peers,” Drew says.

In Australia, possibly the most established defined contribution market in the world, this tension is heightened because there is no requirement to ensure a certain level of retirement income for plan members.

Regulation in Australia is focused on inputs to wealth, such as the level of contributions and the investment risk, not on the outputs from wealth such as the replacement ratio or level of retirement income.

“In terms of defined contribution plan governance, there needs to be a shift from returns being the solution to being one of the inputs, not the outcome,” Drew says. “Delivering retirement income should be the headline objective of a defined contribution plan.”

Following the ‘north star’

In this context, that retirement income is the destination, and everything cascades from that “north star”, he says.

By following this north star, governance and investment decisions will be recalibrated.

“We wonder out loud if governance is below the line, for example focused on investments and returns,” Drew says. “If you reframe your beliefs as part of achieving an outcome, it leaves you with different beliefs. This is especially in the post-retirement phase where you can’t keep applying the idea that time is continuous.”

The authors say that defined contribution plan fiduciaries and the investment teams must take a more sophisticated approach to performance evaluation, consistent with the investment objectives set by plan fiduciaries.

“A replacement ratio of 70 per cent of final salary is an infinitely more useful objective for a plan participant than a return target of CPI+3 per cent per annum over rolling 10-year periods after fees and taxes.

“Once fiduciaries have set appropriate objectives, the entire governance framework and the investment complex should be directed toward this achievement. With the target properly set, the means needed to achieve it become clearer, as do the ongoing monitoring requirements.”

In a defined contribution context, Drew and Walk advocate the following investment beliefs as (nearly) universal:

  • Retirement income is the true measure

Investors are heterogeneous

Timeframes are finite

Market returns (or beta) matter most

Dynamism is important.

“Whatever their progress, we would recommend to defined contribution plans, one overriding principle: coherence. For example, a plan that claims it is “outcomes focused” and yet only reports time-weighted returns to participants is subtly undermining its message or just using its “outcomes focus” as a slick marketing line. Claiming to be “best practice” will not suffice in the absence of both institutional commitment and tangible action – which is often costly – to evidence such a claim.”

 

 

Japan’s $1.3 trillion Government Pension Investment Fund, GPIF, has announced plans to boost its stewardship role by establishing a Business and Asset Owners Forum through which it will liaise with investee companies.

The world’s biggest pension fund will begin by engaging with a cohort of 10 companies this September, exactly a year on from when the fund signed the United Nation backed Principles for Responsible Investment, PRI, the world’s leading proponent for responsible investment.

“We would like to contribute to an optimal and efficient investment chain through our stewardship activities by feedback of opinions and requests from companies of the forum to our external asset managers,” said the fund in a statement. In line with Japanese legislation, the portfolio is managed by external managers.

GPIF has also announced plans to set up a Global Asset Owners Forum, whereby it will meet with global pension funds renowned for pursuing environmental, social and governance (ESG) strategies to share ideas.

For the first time the fund is seeking “an exchange of opinions with non-Japanese asset owners which have made advances in ESG investment. We will utilize their sophisticated expertise and also feed discussions with non-Japanese asset owners, to companies and our external asset managers,” said the fund.

The Forum comprises around 20 asset owners including CalSTRS, CalPERS, Florida State Board of Administration, State of Wisconsin Investment Board, Canada’s Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, the UK’s Universities Superannuation Scheme and Dutch asset manager PGGM.

“I sincerely expect that the establishment of the two forums will lead to more advanced activities for our stewardship responsibility for beneficiaries, and that we contribute to sustainable growth and fostering corporate values of investee companies through optimising the investment chain,” said GPIF president, Norihiro Takahashi, in a statement. Norihiro took the helm at the GPIF in April.

English-language version

Jo McBride, publisher of the Japan Pensions Industry Database and a seasoned commentator on Japan’s pension funds believes the move is another gradual step towards more responsible investment by some of Japan’s biggest pension funds.

He argues that the statement is notable for its English-language version when most publications from the fund are in Japanese, and also that the statement included a reference to fiduciary duty.

“This is a concept fundamental to investment regimes elsewhere, but of which Japan still lacks a legal definition,” he says. “As the fund appears to be the only owner involved in the group it might be better named the Business and GPIF Forum.”

McBride recently reported that the GPIF plans to run a portion of its domestic equities portfolio on an ESG basis.

The announcement came at the same time as the GPIF announced losses of more than $50 billion for the 12 months to March 2016, its worst year since the global financial crisis. The GPIF returned -3.81 per cent, amounting to a loss of $51 billion on its $1.3 trillion assets, and blamed the fall on the strengthening yen and tumbling share prices.

As of March, GPIF had a 21.75 per cent allocation to domestic equity – the fund can adjust the weighting in domestic equities by 9 per cent in either direction – while foreign equity accounted for 22 per cent of assets, and foreign debt 13 per cent of the total portfolio.

Although the fund has sought to correct its bias toward government debt, Japanese bonds still account for almost 40 per cent of assets at 37.55 per cent. Almost 80 per cent of GPIF’s holdings are in passive investments.

The fund doubled its holdings in equity to 50 per cent of the portfolio and cut its allocation to bonds, as part of a strategy to take on more risk and invest less in low-yielding domestic bonds. Before the shift in strategy in 2014, half the fund was invested in Japanese bonds, mainly government debt.

The fund targets a long-term real return of 1.7 per cent and although its latest performance was below that target, GPIF has returned an average of 2.6 per cent over the past 15 years.

For the first time the fund has also disclosed individual stock holdings and the issuers of the bonds it held as of March 2015. GPIF’s biggest investments in Japanese equities were Toyota and Mitsubishi, while outside Japan it was US tech giant Apple.

Finance should not be about making money, according to Nobel Laureate, Professor Robert Shiller, so how can the industry move to integrate missions for society within financial institutions? Shiller will address the Fiduciary Investors Symposium at Yale School of Management from October 23-25.

Historically, financial innovation has benefited many people, but it has moved away from a profession where fiduciary responsibility matters, to where making money matters. According to Nobel Prize-winning economist, and author of Irrational Exuberance, Robert Shiller, finance should not be about making money.

So when does financial innovation create complexity and opaqueness that harms society and when can financial innovation be used as an enabler of equality, a solution to the current problems of jobs and inequality? Shiller will discuss these ideas and challenge the industry to move to integrate missions for society within the structure of financial institutions.

Shiller, who warned of both the tech bubble and the housing bubble, says that irrational exuberance among investors has only increased since the 2008-09 crisis and contends that psychology-driven volatility is an inherent characteristic of all asset markets.

He will give a keynote address at the Fiduciary Investors Symposium at the Yale School of Management from October 23-25.

The event brings global investors together to examine best practice investment strategy and implementation, including the latest thinking relating to asset allocation, risk management, beta management and alpha generation. It has become recognised as an event that challenges the influence and responsibility of fiduciary capital and explores the evolution in investment management.

With great fiduciary power comes great responsibility

Managing assets as a fiduciary comes with a complex range of responsibilities and commitments. This conference examines the holistic approach to fiduciary investing and how investing has and should evolve. This includes the wider responsibilities of long-term investors in stabilising financial markets, and the impact of investments on social welfare and environmental management.

The Fiduciary Investors Symposium at Yale School of Management will focus on the relationship between finance and the broader economy.

The event will draw on the school’s focus on finance within the economy and broader society, and highlight the work of Shiller and William Goetzmann, who say there is a need to discuss structural changes to finance in order to prevent a recurrence of the global financial crisis.

Confirmed speakers from Yale include:

  • Zhiwu Chen, Professor of Finance, Yale School of Management
  • William Goetzmann, Edwin J. Beinecke Professor of Finance and Management Studies and director of the International Center for Finance, Yale School of Management
  • Roger Ibbotson, Professor in the Practice Emeritus of Finance, Yale School of Management
  • Tobias Moskowitz, Visiting Professor of Finance, Yale School of Management
  • Robert Shiller, Sterling Professor of Economics, Yale University
  • Jeff Sonnenfeld, Senior Associate Dean for Leadership Programs and Lester Crown Professor in the Practice of Management

Importantly, the event will cover issues pertaining to long-term investment and fiduciary duty. In particular there will be sessions focusing on a report from the World Economic Forum on the future of investing, next generation environmental, social and governance (ESG) integration and the UN sustainable development goals, and the role of investors in holding Wall Street to account.

The event, which is only open to asset owners, will use case studies to highlight best practice as it applies to asset allocation and investments, governance and decision-making.

Held over three days, the event enables institutional investors to engage with industry thought leaders in academia and practice in a collegiate environment that promotes shared discussion. The on-campus venues facilitate a unique space for different thinking and discussion, and the event includes tours of various university faculties.

For more information about the program, and to register, visit The Fiduciary Investors Symposium website

Program-related investment, PRI, characterised by high-risk private sector investments for the specific purpose of furthering the aims of foundations and endowments is gaining popularity in philanthropy.

“Bill was a very strong advocate of looking for opportunities in the private sector. Investing here was an important piece of the strategic direction of the Gates Foundation,” recalls Dick Henriques, former chief financial officer of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the largest foundations in the world, and now a Senior Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for High Impact Philanthropy.

During his tenure, Henriques, who worked separately from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Trust that manages the $39.6 billion endowment, grew the PRI portfolio from $50 million to $700 million between 2010 and 2014 in a strategy that sought to better align the foundation’s investments with the Gates philanthropic mission to alleviate poverty and improve health and education around the world.

“There is around $800 billion in private foundations in the US. Around 1 per cent of that is currently exposed to PRI and it wouldn’t take much to increase that to 3-4 per cent,” says Henriques who has valuable advice for chief investment officers and foundation boards under pressure to use their balance sheet to further the mission of the foundation.

If PRI is a growing passion of the wealthy individuals behind foundations and endowments (the US has 87,000 such institutions), it is a growing source of concern for their chief investment officers, with a primary focus on growing and preserving assets.

The US rules that to be eligible for tax relief, foundations must pay out at least 5 per cent of the value of their endowment annually; a challenge amid today’s market volatility, low returns, and given that many foundations have little source of income unless they conduct fundraising activities. And PRI means backing companies that traditional investors and venture capitalists avoid because the charitable goals of the foundation or endowment, not financial returns, are the primary goal.

Money well spent

“These investments are either high or low risk with typically a low return. If the charitable purpose is achieved we would say the money has been well spent,” says Henriques, articulating the core expectations behind PRI.

But that is not to say that some of the investments don’t make significant returns. Last May the Gates Foundation revealed the sale of an original $5 million stake in biotechnology firm Anacor Pharmaceuticals, made in 2013 to help fund the company’s research efforts into parasitic diseases, had netted an $85 million return.

“This shows what is possible, although it is not expected,” says Henriques, adding that proceeds from investments go back into the foundation’s pool for future programs.

Foundations and endowments need to separate PRI from the return-seeking part of their endowment, suggests Henriques. Investment officers, mindful of seeking the maximum return, will always be difficult to convince of the benefits of the asset.

“This puts a restraint on PRI because it is then viewed through a conservative lens. At the Gates Foundation we carved out a portion of the asset base and dedicated it to PRI. It became separate from the investment process and was therefore not a source of tension.”

The Gates Foundation currently has some $1 billion in 47 investments, of which 18 are equity stakes or convertible debt. That compares to the Rockefeller Foundation’s PRI portfolio which stood at $23.9 million in 2013.

Another requisite is building the internal capacity PRI requires. PRIs are typically generated and advocated by program staff with sector expertise on the ground, rather than investment teams.

“These are the same people who typically make grants. They are not trained to make private sector investments. The due diligence is different; there are legal hurdles to clear; there are a set of issues that make it more complex,” he says.

At the Gates Foundation, program staff became actively involved in the investment process alongside the Foundation’s sophisticated finance team, to the extent that program officers actually led on investments.

“This ability to build capacity and expertise is not something most private foundations can do,” he admits. Transaction costs are also “high, daunting and complicated.” He grew the Foundation’s PRI team from two full-timers to 12 in a team that prioritised investment in health to begin with.

“I would like to see pilots around more efficient and effective ways to execute a transaction,” he says.

Measuring the impact of PRIs is another challenge.

“There is a lack of data, apart from anecdotal reports. There has been no rigorous collection of financial and social outcomes to get a handle of what is happening in the PRI arena.” Along with more PRI programs, Henriques believes foundations and endowments need to do much more responsible investment.

“They’ll do it, but they are reactive more than active in this field.”

 

When the $62 billion not-for-profit super fund QSuper opens its doors to all comers from June 30 next year, the fund’s chairman, Karl Morris, does not expect it to be swamped by new membership applications or transfers.

The 550,000-member QSuper has been ready to become a public-offer fund for many months; the timing of the Queensland government announcing the date for the change was more to do with waiting until another fund – LGIAsuper – was properly prepared to go public-offer on the same date. While QSuper caters to employees of the Queensland state government, the smaller ($10 billion) LGIAsuper is the fund for Queensland local government employees.

“Personally, I don’t see that we’re going to get an absolute flood of new members coming into QSuper overnight,” Morris says. “It’s a very competitive space. [But] I might be surprised; there might be a bit of a windfall from people we know have been wanting to join the fund but haven’t been able to.”

Morris says that initially, at least, becoming a public-offer fund will shore up QSuper’s defences against leakage.

“We’ve had $30 million we’ve had to send to other super funds because [members] are no longer government employees,” he says. “I don’t like doing that when I have those people saying ‘why can’t I remain?’ I think it’s bloody awful that we’ve got to shift them out. I also think it’s bloody awful also that we can’t take relatives on as well.”

Share and share alike

Being an open-offer fund will mean QSuper has to more actively raise its brand awareness, “but I like to think we’ll do that in a responsible and reflective way, reflecting our members’ best interests,” says Morris.

“We will do a significant amount of analysis and ask for feedback from our members on what they think is appropriate in increasing our brand awareness, particularly in Queensland,” he says.

But don’t expect to see the fund’s branding appearing on football players or a sports stadium. What being a public offer fund might allow QSuper to do more efficiently, however, is offer to other funds some of the solutions that it has developed for its own members.

“For example, our new insurance business,” Morris says. “At the moment we’re just going to insure our own members, but what’s to say another super fund doesn’t come to us and say ‘we have a very aligned membership base; we don’t want to go to whoever; would you think about covering our members as well?’ It will allow us to do those sorts of things. And in the insurance business it is a capacity business, a scale business.”

That sharing approach could extend to other aspects of fund operation as well, Morris says, overcoming some of the inefficiencies inherent in having every fund independently trying to solve the same problems as all the other funds.

“There’s a lot of us reinventing the wheel,” he says. “I look at other industries that I’m involved in that have the same problems. There’s not as much sharing that goes on. We’re all solving the same issues and we’re all spending the same amount of money solving those issues. I would have though that in the not-for-profit world we’d have been a little bit more sharing.

“I think that’s one of the things QSuper is very good at. We don’t feel that everything we do is proprietary; we’re there to help other superannuation funds with things that we think we’re a little bit more cutting-edge on.

“There’s been a couple of great examples that have been announced recently, [such as the income account transfer bonus], and some other tax things that we’ve been able to do that are a great benefit to our membership base, that I don’t see as being particularly proprietary to us. It’s just that we’ve done a bit more of the heavy thinking and lifting than some others.”

QSuper boardSuper funds need to think about ‘whole member’

Morris says all superannuation funds, not just QSuper, need to think more creatively about the value they offer to fund members beyond just investment returns and retirement account balances. He says funds need to start doing more to address the “whole member”.

“Some of the headwinds we’ve got at the moment, with lower contributions going forward, everyone’s talking about lower returns going forward, and I would think our contributions are going to be less going forward, our returns are going to be less, [so] what are we going to do for our members that’s going to be bigger and better that’s going to help them? Whether it [is] through financial literacy and education, [or] giving them personal advice. How do we deliver that personal advice, whether it is through digital, or direct? There are a number of touch points there.

“I think were going to have to invest our members’ money in terms of maybe we’re not going to provide them a return in terms of increased [account balances] but value in other forms, that’s going to be cheaper mortgage rates, or exposure to other bits of advice for their life.”

In this context, super funds will look increasingly like other vertically integrated financial institutions, but Morris says he believes funds come from a better starting position than others.

“Superannuation is going to be the basis of it,” he says. “Superannuation funds are trusted, I think, over banks. Banks are going to try aggregation, and they’re going to go hard at that. We’re already getting a bit of pushback from people.

“On [QSuper’s online management tool for members] Money Map, you can have mortgages and leases and assets and your whole financial dashboard.

“At the moment we don’t have access to it, it’s just for [the member], but at some stage [the member] is going to turn that on and say, you know, I do want you to have a look at that because I think you’d actually think differently about my super if you knew all about this.

“If I had to say one thing about us going forward [it is] that personal advice – structuring things for your financial situation – is the most important thing that we can do. The cohorts were the start; Money Map is the second.”

Not rushing into robo advice

An aspect of its operations that QSuper will not be sharing with other funds is financial advice for members. With 550,000 members and 45 advisers, they’re going to have their hands full just meeting in-house demand. And while other funds are actively exploring the implementation of robo advice offerings to help get more advice to more members, Morris says QSuper isn’t rushing in.

“I went on behalf of QSuper and visited a couple of the robo advice groups in the US last year, and it’s something that we’re keeping an eye on,” Morris says. “At this point in time, I can’t quite see how it works for our members when we have such good default options, which is kind of what robo advice is trying to do. It is something we’re keenly watching, potentially I think more for the post-accumulation stage.

“When we were in [the US], the problem with robo advice is it’s great if you give them cash – bang, done – but if you’ve got assets that need to be transferred, it’s a complete nightmare. It’s quite a conundrum that a lot of us have, as to how best to use it. And to some extent it may be best utilised by the actual adviser, rather than by the member. So that’s what we’re keeping an eye on.”

No ‘magic pudding’

Morris says the board and management of QSuper are “spending a huge amount of time” considering better retirement options for fund members. Morris says that while about 3 to 4 per cent of its members currently move into decumulation phase each year, that number will increase.

“The most interesting thing now is when someone retires – and you’ve got to think a lot of people are going to retire and also require the age pension – how [do] we give them some insurance on longevity?” he says. “So we’re spending quite a bit of time looking at structuring products that could assist those of us who are lucky enough to live a little bit longer.

“I don’t think there is any magic pudding when it comes to it all. I look at the work that we’re doing and I think we’re at the forefront of some of that thinking. We’ve looked all around the world for how other people have done it. We’ve been very close to the Rotman School of Management out of University of Toronto, and looked at how other funds have tried to solve this. Unfortunately, a lot of other funds around the world are DB funds and don’t really have the same issue that we have.”

Morris’s role as chairman of the QSuper board stands out in a CV that also includes being executive chairman of Ord Minnett, a director and master member of the Stockbroker’s Association of Australia, and deputy federal director of the Liberal Party. He is on the board of the Catholic Foundation of the Archdiocese of Brisbane, is a governor of the University of Notre Dame Australia, and patron of Bravehearts.

But he is also on the board of the RACQ, and “there’s another great example of a member-based organisation, a not-for-profit”, he says.

“So I had a very good understanding of what the differences would be coming into a not-for-profit, purpose-driven organisation,” he says. “The culture and the differentiation of QSuper to a lot of the other funds was something I understood, and culturally was very aligned to, so I was attracted to it on a number of different levels. And also just the fact – as you put it – I’ve been on the ‘dark side’.”

Morris says that despite their very different commercial imperatives, he sees some parallels between Ord Minnett and QSuper.

“QSuper was attractive to me just due to the fact that the one thing about Ord Minnett is we also have this culture that the client comes first,” he says. “It mightn’t be member comes first, but client comes first.

“And I was very much attracted to [QSuper] for the fact that I knew it wasn’t broken. When I went into QSuper there was nothing to fix. It is an unbelievably, extremely efficient, culturally aware fund. Whichever way you look at it, it is an extremely busy place. The insurance that we’ve done; IT upgrades that we’re doing continuously; the open offer, changing all sorts of architecture within the business; there’s a lot happening within the fund and it’s an exciting place to be, at the forefront of some of the things we’re doing better for our members. That was the attraction.”