New decision making parameters for Alaska’s investments

The $38.5 billion Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) has made further enhancements to its unique approach to investment decision making, clarifying procedures relating to risk guidelines in its investment policy.

The investment policy outlines via colour codes, different operating zones which allow for various decisions to be made with, or without board approval, and correlate to the riskiness of investments.

There are three zones – green, yellow and red – with the policy outlining that the portfolio must be within the green zone at least 80 per cent of the time. The green zone is the board approved, chief investment officer operating zone.

In December the board expanded the communications and procedures for the riskier zones of yellow and red.

The amended policy clarified each required step to enter into the yellow and red zones, including the steps required to extend operating in the zones. The policy had previously been less clear about extending approval for operating in these zones and the procedures required for notifying those needed to approve it.  The updated policy has also made provisions for the board to be provided with a historical report showing periods of operating within the yellow and red zones at board meetings.

Changes to the APFC investment policy also clarified that any weighting above 20 per cent to a single portfolio manager or investment vehicle within a distressed, mezzanine or credit opportunity mandate must be approved in writing by the executive director upon recommendation of the CIO.

Sponsored Content

Previously the policy did not specify who was required to provide the written approval. The amended policy also removed the restriction on the investment life of general partnerships, increasing the partners’ ability to invest in distressed debt funds. The policy previously limited investment life to December 31, 2022.

These changes follow on from the introduction of a new way of classifying its investments in 2009 and demonstrate APFC’s continual strive to make changes to ensure the fund is well positioned to provide benefits for Alaskans now and in the future.

One response to “New decision making parameters for Alaska’s investments”

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

Washington reviews governance, pay and in-house investment

The pay levels, amount of in-house investment activity and governance structure of the $83 billion Washington State Investment Board (WSIB) may be under review following a rigorous debate that included a presentation to the board by KPA Advisory’s Keith Ambachtsheer.mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

PRI calls for academics to fill ESG research gaps

Responsible investment research has reached a “tipping point” in its development, says the PRI’s director of strategic development, Rob Lake, and it needs to be more closely aligned to the practical needs of front-line investors.mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Top1000funds.com brings some of the world’s largest investors together in Beijing

More than 70 investors representing more than $3.1 trillion in pension, endowment and sovereign fund capital will converge on Beijing on Sunday for the first Top1000funds Fiduciary Investors Symposium.mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

HOOPP splits investment functions as Keohane appointed to top job

The $35.7 billion Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) will split its chief investment officer function in two following the appointment of Jim Keohane to president and chief executive and the retirement of John Crocker.mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

No rewards as systemic risk and turbulence ratings soar

The market is reflecting a high state of systemic risk and turbulence, and investors should adjust their allocation to growth assets accordingly, says Lucas Turton, chief investment strategist of Windham Capital Management.mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Why institutions trade their reputations for profit

It is a key assumption that financial institutions such as auditing firms and credit ratings agencies will act in an ethical way to protect their reputation because it is, ultimately, the source of their profitability. But groundbreaking work by Harvard University postdoctoral fellow Abigail Brown posits that institutions may actually be incentivised to cyclically “trade

Previous