Want to know what chairman of the Future Fund, David Gonski, thinks about governance? So did we, so we interviewed him. See how Gonski approaches his role as chairman of one of Australia’s largest funds in the second part of our Maverick Series video.
In the first of a new series of video interviews featuring thought leaders in global institutional investment, chair of the $80 billion Australian Future Fund, David Gonski, outlines his views on governance.
Over the past five years, Finland’s 5.4 million people have watched with alarm as the eurozone they joined as founder members has descended into financial turmoil. So it is no surprise that Keva, which manages €34.4 billion ($47.1 billion) on behalf of Finland’s municipalities, as well as administering state and Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland retirement systems, is also trying to reduce the risk of overexposure to the currency region.
In 2011, as Europe’s sovereign debt crisis worsened, Keva reported a negative return of 1.7 per cent, with eurozone assets helping to drag down performance. Yet at Keva’s headquarters in Helsinki, senior executives say the fund’s recovery in 2012, when it posted a return of 12.9 per cent, is due in large part to a long-held policy to reduce the portfolio’s exposure to Europe. “We are well diversified both in markets and asset classes,” says director Fredrik Forssell, chief investment officer for internal equity and fixed income management. “We are not particularly exposed to the eurozone compared with many of our peers.”
Eurocentric
As Forssell acknowledges, Europe still looms large on Keva’s trading screens; the region accounts for 53 per cent of all assets under management, with a substantial amount invested in the eurozone. Yet at the end of 2007, 71 per cent of Keva’s investments were in Europe, with 20 per cent of the total portfolio in Finland. In the intervening period, Keva has almost tripled its emerging market exposure from 5 per cent to 14 per cent, while raising its investments in North America from 14 per cent to 22 per cent. From a low base, Keva has also more than doubled its hedge fund investments to 2.3 per cent of assets under management and increased private equity holdings to 5 per cent of the portfolio.
In addition the manager has made substantial changes within its two main asset allocations: fixed income has been increased from 39 per cent to 48 per cent of the portfolio since 2007, and equities has been reduced over the same period from 49 per cent to 36 per cent. In fixed income, “Keva has diversified away from a central focus on just government bonds and moved into assets such as high-yield emerging market bonds,” says Forssell. In 2012 this shift paid off handsomely, with fixed income returning 11.5 per cent for the year. It is a similar story in equities, where during the global downturn Keva has lessened its exposure to US and European stocks, and moved more of its allocation into emerging markets. Last year, Keva’s listed equities returned 17.2 per cent.
Despite this strategic reallocation, manager’s 1.3 million Finnish beneficiaries still owe much to Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank. Since last July, when Draghi pledged to do “whatever it takes” to save the euro, the region’s stock markets have staged a still-fragile recovery, while yields on the sovereign debt of Spain and Italy have narrowed, reducing fears that these countries will need a bailout. “Mr Draghi’s speech has obviously played a major role in helping returns across all of Keva’s asset classes,” says Forssell.
Too many assets too close to home
Yet no one at Keva is complacent about the fund’s prospects, for both international and domestic reasons. In fixed income, Forssell notes, “it will be very challenging to achieve anything like last year’s returns in 2013”. Like other institutional investors, Keva is also not assuming that global equity markets will continue to rise through the year. And, regardless of what happens in these volatile international market conditions, Keva will continue to have significant asset management issues in Finland, which for historic reasons still accounts for about 18 per cent of all investments.
Keva – which has no explicit investment mandate from its municipal owners – is actually less exposed to its home base than the country’s overall pension system. This is one-third focused on the domestic market, according to a review of the system published in December by Nicholas Barr of the London School of Economics and Keith Ambachtsheer from the Rotman International Centre for Pension Management. Barr and Ambachtsheer estimate that the country’s pension funds underperformed their international peers by about 1.5 per cent per year in the period 2007 to 2011.
As Forssell points out, moving more investments out of Finland is easier said than done for Keva, the country’s second-largest pension fund; it would run the risk of disrupting Finland’s small stock and bond markets every time it buys or sells assets. “Liquidity, especially in the domestic stock market, leaves a lot to be desired,” he says. “We are like an elephant in a china shop with Finnish equity.” Yet Finland’s economy is unlikely to achieve much more than 0.5 per cent growth in 2012, meaning that Keva is lumbered with too many assets too close to home that it cannot trade easily.
As in other Nordic countries, Finland’s healthy, ageing population presents another liability for funds like Keva. Female life expectancy at birth is now 83, while males can on average hope to live till they are 79; close to one-fifth of the total population is more than 65, with the proportion bound to grow in the coming decades. “Increasing longevity not only puts pressure on the pension system but also on Finland’s labour supply, and so there is a political debate about increasing the retirement age,” says Forssell.
Planning for the ever-changing present
To cover present and future liabilities, Keva aims to meet a 3 to 4-per-cent annual real-return target, even though the fund does not have a set benchmark. Since the fund’s inception in 1988, it has achieved a cumulative real return of 5.3 per cent per annum, which with capital weighting falls to 3.7 per cent. It is sufficient but, in common with other large European public sector pension funds, Keva cannot afford too many years like 2011 when the return drops below the target. In 2012, for instance, when Keva’s total return shot up to 12.9 per cent, more than three-quarters of its $6.6 billion in municipal contribution income was immediately paid out in pension benefits. Keva invested the remaining $1.37 billion of this income in a pension liability fund, which – thanks to rising global markets – produced a $5.3-billion return on investment for the year.
The hardest part of Keva’s portfolio diversification may therefore only just be beginning, as pension funds everywhere confront growing liabilities from the swelling ranks of their beneficiaries. Forssell says one promising area for further investment could be real estate, which at present accounts for 7.9 per cent of the portfolio. However, most of Keva’s directly held property is in Finland’s flat market, and overall the real estate assets only returned 4.9 per cent in 2012.
Other Nordic institutional investors, led by Norway’s $620-billion sovereign wealth fund, are starting to move more aggressively into overseas real estate, and Keva may follow suit. “We plan to increase modestly our international real-estate holdings, depending on market conditions,” says Forssell with characteristic Finnish caution. Private equity, which returned 10 per cent last year, and hedge fund assets, which returned 10 per cent, could also acquire more weight in the portfolio. As Forssell observes, the key to successful investing in both sectors is finding winners amid the majority of duds.
For Keva, the only strategic option not on the table is standing still. Like other Nordic public sector funds, the days of largely tracking European and US stock and bond markets are well and truly over.
Samuel Lisse, chief executive of Switzerland’s Vita Sammelstiftung (Vita), is currently in the process of hiring a new head of investment. The new appointee will have plenty resting in the in-tray, it appears, as she starts to assist the investment committee that governs the strategy of the 8.5-billion-Swiss-franc ($9.1-billion) joint foundation. That is not because of any headache-inducing investment performance. Far from it, with 8-per-cent returns in 2012 exceeding the Swiss average and gaining the foundation and its 100,000 small and medium-enterprise members a healthy 2.5-per-cent surplus.
Realigning strategy fundamentals
An issue awaiting the new head of investment is that Vita – like many Swiss investors – has started to question some of its strategy fundamentals.
Lisse says that a majority of Vita’s bond portfolio, worth roughly $4.1 billion, is held in government-issued debt. There is nothing unusual about that in pension investing. However, with yields on 10-year Swiss government bonds hovering around 1 per cent for the last 12 months, Lisse says this position is now under review by the fund’s investment committee, led by Dr Thorsten Hens of the University of Zurich.
It is too early to be certain of any drastic changes, Lisse says, although the fund’s actions in the past year show diminished appetite for bond holdings on the whole.
As part of its standard investment strategy tweaks, Vita began trimming its exposure to Swiss-franc-denominated bonds in the third quarter of 2012 by over 3 per cent and has continued doing so since.
An expectation that interest rates will rise in the near future (and therefore push yields higher) is behind these moves, explains Lisse.
Into equities again
The euro crisis saw Vita’s investment committee move even quicker on its smaller European debt portfolio. Exposure to European bonds was cut by almost a quarter to around $129 million, with the fund having divested almost entirely from the southern European ‘periphery’. Equities have fallen into favor at the same time, with recent stock purchases putting Vita overweight on Swiss, European, US, emerging market and sustainable global shares. Lisse reveals that an altered economic outlook has facilitated an equity drive.
Things certainly seemed gloomy 12 months ago as reflected in Vita’s 2011 annual report. Fortunately, the concerns shared by many investors did not come true.
Buoyant equity markets were a hallmark of a year that exceeded investors’ expectations. Lisse says Vita Sammelstiftung’s investment committee began to feel positive after further eurozone jitters in the summer were resolved, but only after some serious thinking about launching a major hedging operation.
The equity upturn since then has played a major role in Vita’s strong 2012 performance figures, with its approximately $274-million emerging-market-share pot being the strongest of all asset classes.
Swapping bonds for bricks?
As relieved as Lisse is by improving market conditions, his fund still faces its meager bond-yield dilemma. Attempts to find reliable substitutes for some of its bond holdings has led Vita into infrastructure investing for the first time.
The fund has committed 2 per cent of its overall portfolio into an infrastructure vehicle that is about to be launched and insurance-linked bonds are also keenly interesting the fund – catastrophe bonds in particular. Real estate is a more established bond substitute, as far as Vita is concerned, with just over 10 per cent of assets currently held in the class. While the majority of these assets is currently based in Switzerland, the fund is seeking direct investment opportunities in European property as part of its bond-substitution strategy.
This quest to replace some of its bond exposure takes place against the background of a portfolio that is already well diversified. Over 8 per cent of the assets are held in mortgages, and close to 12 per cent in alternatives. The major part of that alternative pot is a roughly $860-million allocation to hedge funds.
In recent years this is asset class has been the subject of controversy in Switzerland due the perception of high fees, despite hedge funds having gained acceptance from Swiss institutional investors more easily than in other markets. According to Lisse, their pleasing performance has outweighed the drawback of expensive fees, but the hedge fund allocation remains a discussion point among the investment committee due to the costs involved.
Selection issues
Lisse reflects that a reason for his fund’s strong hedge fund returns could be a solid selection record. He is confident that Vita’s manager-selection process “is very tightly controlled and thorough”. The foundation gets expert assistance from a full-time team at Zurich Invest that leads the selection work, as Vita is closely connected to the Zurich insurance group.
Active management currently dominates across Vita Sammelstiftung’s portfolio, but Lisse says this approach is another thing under review by the investment committee, especially on equity portfolios.
Alpha and beta rely to a large extent on exposures to systematic risk factors, so goes the “2013 thinking” of ATP in reversing the decision to separate alpha and beta in its investment portfolio six years ago.
ATP has separate hedging and investment portfolios, with the hedging portfolio significantly larger at around DKK 670 billion ($122 billion) versus DKK10 billion ($1.82 billion), and the investment portfolio has been separated into alpha and beta. The separation was so distinct that the beta team was run from the head office, but ATP alpha was on another site, and was based on a small number of independent risk-taking teams.
The beta portfolio is split into five main risk classes or factors and the alpha portfolio will now be taken into this framework within beta.
“In the main, we conclude that alpha and beta are a question of exposure to systematic risk factors. We therefore see alpha and beta together in the same portfolio. It’s a development of our thinking,” chief investment officer Henrik Jepsen says. “It’s more like smart-beta risk factors. We are internalising these deliberations and want a more coordinated framework.”
ATP alpha will now be restructured and, while it is still to be determined which strategies will be pursued and which risk factors the fund wants exposure to, it will lose half of its 35 staff.
Jepsen acknowledges that having a small number of independent risk-taking teams was both a strength and a challenge.
One of the challenges was that with a large number of small teams it is difficult to scale the size of the total risk in the alpha exposure. In this way it was difficult to scale the investment efforts, and there was also a risk of over-diversification.
“In addition, the difficulty of scaling the efforts meant it was an expensive operation to run. We think it is important to have a focus on cost because we are in a low expected-return environment,” he says. “And thirdly, and most importantly in the long term, we think we can achieve better portfolio coordination.”
“The alpha group has been a success, after all costs and taxes, but while alpha has been $310 million, the fund is $120 billion, so we want to scale even more. It’s a challenge.”
This presents a conundrum for many large pension funds that use scale for cost reduction and negotiation. This may mean that these funds can not manage such strategies internally and achieve those aims, in light of the fact that the success of some of these strategies depends on being small and nimble.
ATP will continue to use the multi-strategy investment platform it has developed in the alpha business, where it managed long-short equity, equity market neutral, global macro, foreign exchange and currency.
It’s hardly surprising that a pension fund for employees working for an organisation charged with reducing climate change and its consequences invests according to strict green criteria. Yet the investment strategy of the United Kingdom’s £2.1-billion ($3.29 billion) Environment Agency Pension Fund (EAPF) definitely has the capacity to surprise. The EAPF posted a total return of 5.1 per cent, double the average 2.6 per cent of the UK’s other 89 Local Government Pension Schemes (LGPS) last year. Since 2009 the fund, which has 22,000 members in England and Wales, has returned a total of 16.1 per cent, again beating most other LGPS schemes. “Our focus on green investments is having a very positive impact on our financial returns,” enthuses its head Howard Pearce, who lives and breathes sustainable investment. Pearce dates his passion for environmental causes from his boyhood near Manchester, when he was unable to boat or fish on the polluted River Mersey.
As awareness of environmental, social and governance issues steps up a gear, the link between ESG strategies and returns has become hotly debated. For Pearce, head of the EAPF for the last 10 years and under whose stewardship the fund has grown to over $3.29 billion from $1.2 billion, the link between ESG and performance edge is glaringly obvious: well governed companies that manage their ESG risks will, overtime, produce more sustainable returns compared to poorly governed companies, he says. Now the fund is radically increasing its green strategy even more. “So far 13 per cent of our fund investment is linked to the green economy and we are on target to increase this to 25 per cent by 2015.”
Getting real with asset allocation
The EAPF’s active fund currently portions 73 per cent of its assets to a growth pool and 27 per cent to a defensive allocation. The bulk of the growth pool, at 63 per cent, is in listed equities but the new strategy will see this gradually pared down. The total equity allocation will fall to 50 per cent in the next few years and increasingly favour actively managed emerging markets – including a mandate managed by First State – in sustainably themed equities. “We have reduced our direct UK holding to a target of around 13 per cent to improve diversification and avoid the stock concentration present in the UK,” he says. “Emerging market equities offer better, long-term growth rates and investing in global markets enables us to access a much wider range of strategies and managers, including thematic sustainability funds.” The growth fund will maintain its 5 per cent allocation to private equity, managed by Robeco-Sam, but in another, sweeping shift, aims to gradually build its allocation to real assets from 5 per cent to 14 per cent.
In what Pearce dubs a back-to-basics approach targeting tangible assets rather than “esoteric financial products”, allocations will be made to property (6 per cent), infrastructure (4 per cent), as well as farmland and timber (4 per cent) with returns targeting at least 5 to 6 per cent annually. “We already invest in property. We now intend to look at investing globally in infrastructure, sustainably managed farmland and sustainably managed forestry. We want these investments to give us capital growth, be a hedge against inflation and climate change.”
Real asset investments will eschew anything that could accelerate climate change including green-field property developments, intensive agriculture, tropical hardwood deforestation and environmentally unsustainable infrastructure. Instead the focus will be on assets like low-carbon buildings, renewables and mass transport networks. These new allocations will most likely be invested via managed funds or possibly in collaborative ventures with other like-minded pension funds, he says.
Elsewhere, the defensive allocation will gradually move out of UK gilts, dropping from 13 per cent to just 5 per cent in the next few years. The slack in the strategic fixed-income allocation will be taken up by a doubling of the allocation to corporate bonds to 28 per cent by 2014. Despite the shift, Pearce reassures that because the fund is structured around allocations oscillating between set ranges it “still has the opportunity” to switch back into gilts “should yields start to pick up.”
Sharing with the locals
Pearce’s response to concerns that the green-investment universe is still limited is suitably swift. “If we cannot find suitable investments to meet our sustainability and financial criteria, we will not invest.” He does, however, acknowledge that high quality managers specialising in these new asset classes are still thin on the ground. The shift in strategy means more allocations, all with ESG managers, are in the pipeline with the EAPF in the final throws of completing an EU-wide tender for a low-volatility global equity allocation and for a real asset manager too. “Our searches are still underway, but we hope to appoint by April 1,” he says. “Some of these new fund management contracts we will set up may be accessible by other LGPS funds.”
In this novel approach the EAPF has hooked up with five other local authority pension schemes to jointly procure and employ specialist actuarial and other advisory services. Through this pooled procurement, local authority schemes don’t lose any control or identity over their fund, consistent with the government’s localist agenda, but the strategy does allow significant cost savings. “Each fund tendering separately would have cost around $940,000 whereas the estimated total cost for the collaborative exercise was around $313,000,” says Pearce. “Going forward, funds should save around 10 per cent annually with reduced day rates, reduced costs for specific work, discounts for doing the same work for more than one fund, and added-value free services. Current estimates indicate a further overall saving of up to $1.7 million over seven years.” If the sharing approach is broadened further it could help shave costs in a fund where “100 per cent” of the assets are externally managed. “Our best performing ESG managers are Sarasin and Generation, both managing active global equity mandates,” says Pearce. The EAPF’s Pensions Committee is responsible for strategic asset allocation, investment policy and the appointment of advisors and managers, but the fund has shaped its new strategy using Mercer and B Finance.
For Pearce, whose career began in the environmental management of river systems and not, unlike many other heads of local authority schemes, in accountancy, following ESG criteria is more necessity than optional extra. He’s notched up many firsts during his time at the helm, including signing up to the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investment in 2006 and becoming the first UK scheme to produce a Responsible Investment Review in 2009. Shifting to a bigger allocation to green investment is an entirely natural progression. “Our priority is to maximise risk-adjusted investment returns but we have also seen significant changes in some corporations’ behaviour and management,” he says.