Now this is a merger: NZ mulls mega-fund

The New Zealand government could create a single NZ$40 billion ($30 billion) fund under a proposal mooted in its inaugural ‘Investment Statement’ published this month.

If adopted, the proposal – classified as one of the “high level choices in the financial portfolio” – would impose a central investment structure across all Crown Financial Institutions (CFI), which include the $13 billion New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the $9.7 billion Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) fund.

“At present the five CFIs are separate entities,” the government Investment Statement says. “A single fund manager across CFIs might increase efficiency and overall performance, and enable better aggregate risk management across the financial portfolio.”

As well as the ACC and NZ Super funds, CFIs also include the $4.5 billion Earthquake Corporation (EQC) fund and the $2.2 billion Government Superannuation Fund (GSF).

While classed as a CFI, the $1.35 billion National Provident Fund manages the private savings of individuals across several industry groups and falls under the government purview because it carries a Crown guarantee.

A spokesperson for the office of Finance Minister Bill English said the options included in the Investment Statement represented an “initial stocktake” of Crown assets and were not government policy.

Sponsored Content

“No decisions have been made or any in-depth analysis of the pros and cons [of creating a single CFI fund] has been carried out,” the spokesperson said.

Paul Dyer, economic adviser to Bill English, formerly held high-level investment positions at both NZ Super and the ACC fund.

The Investment Statement, also reveals the government would review the size and asset mix of the EQC fund (officially called the National Disaster Fund or NDF) following the massive earthquake that hit Christchurch this September.

“Both issues will need to be reassessed in the light of the Canterbury earthquake, which is likely to result in payments from the NDF of up to $1.1 billion,” the Investment Statement says.

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

Maverick Series video: Gonski part I

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. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

ATP reunites alpha and beta after 6 years

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

State Street’s Probyn into 2013

The current equity rally is not predicated on a shift in economic performance, according to chief economist at State Street, Chris Probyn, who says it would be reasonable to say the market may “pause for thought”. Probyn says the move from fixed income to equities has been fostered by some of the “economic areas for

CalPERS’ sustainability initiative drives investment beliefs

Launched this week, CalPERS’ Sustainable Investment Research Initiative (SIRI) will drive the development the $250-billion fund’s first set of investment beliefs. While difficult to believe a fund of its size, reach and history could invest without a set of investment beliefs, it is encouraging to see that sustainability will be a core part of that

Finnish pension reform a lesson for all

The findings from the first review of the Finnish pension system, commissioned by the Finnish Centre for Pensions, were handed down by Nicholas Barr from the London School of Economics and Keith Ambachtsheer from the Rotman International Centre for Pension Management last month. Although Helsinki in January is far from a party Ambachtsheer and Barr

European investors stay on the offensive

2012 was a year of battles for European pension funds. An ongoing war was waged against a severe regulatory challenge from the European Commission in the shape of Solvency II-style legislation. Aside from the uncertain struggle of that campaign, major European investors gained plenty of credit from standing up to corporate boards in the “shareholder

Previous