UK Government Targets Pension Funding for Infrastructure, Consultants Express Hesitation

UK Chancellor George Osborne has announced that a total of £6.3 billion of public money and up to £20 billion of private funding from pension funds will be invested in infrastructure projects, and while consultants generally commend the decision, they also express skepticism.

(November 29, 2011) — The UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has announced a £30 billion plan to build roads, railways, power stations and schools, with the Government set to provide only a third of the investment — £5 billion by 2015.

Future infrastructure projects are scheduled to be funded by an ‘investment platform’ — a joint venture between Government and private funds. After 2015, the Government is scheduled to invest another £5 billion for longer-term projects over the following five years. The remaining portion of the infrastructure investment will come from institutions, such as pension funds. 

Osborne said in his Autumn Statement: “We need to put to work the many billions of pounds that British people save, in British pension funds, and get those savings invested in British projects. You could call it British savings for British jobs.”

On the announcement that the Government will unlock £20 billion from pension funds for infrastructure investment, Colin Robertson, global head of asset allocation at Aon Hewitt, told aiCIO in an emailed statement: “It is good to see the Government talking to pension funds about their requirements for investment. There is considerable demand from pension funds for infrastructure investments and this should be especially the case for Local Government schemes which can adopt a longer time horizon. However, pension funds must consider what is best for their scheme. They will need to take account of the illiquid nature of infrastructure and carefully assess the financial terms of the Government’s proposed investments.”

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

Another consultant reiterated the importance for pension funds to consider what is best for their scheme, noting that while the relationship between local governments and pension schemes can be a symbiotic one, with the benefit of infrastructure investing equally shared by both parties, the relationship often risks being plagued by misaligned interests. “Pension funds are, first and foremost, bound by their duties as fiduciaries and as such must seek the best possible investments, balancing expected returns with potential risks,” Timothy Barron, president and CEO of consulting firm Rogerscasey, told aiCIO. “Yet, for public plans particularly, there is a symbiotic relationship with their sponsoring entity, where a healthy sponsor is crucial to the long-term viability of the plan itself. Infrastructure investing may be an example where the plan fiduciary can provide capital to support the sponsor while benefiting the plan as well—this must be determined through careful due diligence of each individual opportunity, however, and is fraught with the potential for misaligned interests.” 

The UK Treasury, which is seeking £250 billion infrastructure investment over the next several years, has signed a memorandum of understanding with The National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) — whose members have £800 billion of assets — to increase their spending on such projects. Joanne Segars, Chief Executive of the NAPF, said: “We’re excited by the Government’s commitment to try to make it easier for pension funds to back major infrastructural projects, and we look forward to working on the details with them…This could be a real win-win. The UK desperately needs to update its infrastructure, and pension funds are looking for inflation-linked, long-term investments.”

Segars continued: “Pension funds hold over a trillion pounds in assets, but only around 2% of that is invested in infrastructure. There’s the potential for that to be much higher. Infrastructure is a good fit with the needs of pension funds because projects like ports and power stations can offer a reliable return over a long timeframe.”



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Paula Vasan at <a href='mailto:pvasan@assetinternational.com'>pvasan@assetinternational.com</a>; 646-308-2742

Towers Watson: Stable-Value Strategies Grow Riskier

In a newly released whitepaper, consulting firm Towers Watson advises plan sponsors about the new risks of stable-value investment strategies. 

(November 29, 2011) — Plan sponsors are subject to new risks within stable-value strategies, consulting giant Towers Watson says. 

“While stable value investment strategies have performed relatively well during the past few years compared to money market strategies, we believe the changed environment means investors should revisit these with a view to understanding all the risks now associated with this investment strategy,” said Peter Schmit, research manager in Towers Watson’s investment business and co-author of the paper. “Regardless of upcoming regulatory decisions, we believe there has been a structural shift in competitive advantage away from plan sponsors and stable-value managers over to insurance providers and the investment strategy now faces distinct market risks and regulatory headwinds.”

In a statement, Schmit added: “We have been discussing stable value with our clients for a number of years, specifically with an emphasis on the education and oversight of the complex structured product…As a plan sponsor fiduciary, it is important to understand the wrap issuer market and the developments within the wrap market, as well as the risks associated with stable value. Ultimately, those who are armed with the best information will make the wiser investment choices as they relate to this issue.”

The whitepaper — titled “Assessing Stable-Value Strategies: What Plan Sponsors Should Consider” — noted that Dodd-Frank is a wide-ranging law that could impact stable-value because it will define whether or not stable-value wrap contracts should be included within the definition of a swap security. “This is a concern throughout the stable-value market since Dodd-Frank could be very harmful to the future of the stable-value industry. Reform could include capital and margin requirements for banks’ swap transactions as well as new clearing and reporting requirements,” the report explained. “If stable- value contracts were to fall under this definition, the additional requirements may deter certain wrap providers from issuing new wrap capacity, which would put even greater pressure on a market that is trying to cope with an already-limited supply of insurance wrap capacity.” 

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

The consulting firm warned plan sponsors that they should be aware of the type of events that may cause a violation of the wrap agreement. Such risks include counterparty, term, credit and liquidity (at the plan level) and are exaggerated by:

1) Complexity

2) Lack of standardization

3) Less-than-ideal transparency

4) Changing markets prompted by uncertainty over Dodd-Frank, swap legislation, diminishing capacity and evolution of the wrap market 

5) The reality of higher wrap fees and lower yields

Last year, sources told aiCIO that the San Diego Country Employees Retirement Association (SDCERA) was leveraging its fixed-income portfolio to create ‘risk parity’, continuing a trend among pension funds. At the time, the SDCERA board planned on increasing its stable value portfolio to 35% from 21%, cutting the value of its growth-oriented portfolio to 40% from 55%. While its stable value portfolio included US Treasuries and emerging fixed-income, its growth-oriented portfolio consisted of global and emerging market equities and high-yield bonds. Lee Partridge, the pension’s outsourced CIO at Integrity Capital, recommended the changes.

Read Towers Watson’s whitepaper on the future of stable-value strategies here.  



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Paula Vasan at <a href='mailto:pvasan@assetinternational.com'>pvasan@assetinternational.com</a>; 646-308-2742

«