New Nest CIO Elizabeth Fernando Plans Steady-as-We-Go Strategy

Move into alts, doubts about emerging markets, and criticism of Shell highlight the pension program’s direction.

Elizabeth Fernando

Elizabeth Fernando, the new CIO at the U.K.’s National Employment Savings Trust pension fund, is committed to maintaining the same strategy that proved successful under her predecessor, Mark Fawcett.

That means moving into alternative investments and hardy support for renewable energy investments, as seen by the fund’s pressure on Shell to honor the oil giant’s commitment to shrink its carbon-fuel emphasis.

“I see more of the same” for Nest’s policy direction, Fernando says in an interview following her April elevation to the top investing job. “Mark and I will continue working close together,” with the former CIO having input into asset allocation, she says. Fawcett will remain in his role as the CEO of Nest Invest, the pension scheme’s Financial Conduct Authority-authorized subsidiary.

By all accounts, Nest (assets: $36 billion) has had a good performance record. Witness the quarterly report for its flagship 2040 retirement fund, whose allocation is relatively close to the classic 60-40 equity-debt split: It had a 7.3% annual return over the 10 years ending in March, more than a percentage point ahead of the 60-40 Morningstar average for the same period.

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

Fernando joined Nest in 2020, became deputy CIO in 2021 and has 25 years of investment experience. She was named a CIO NextGen leader in 2022. Before Nest, she was head of equities at the U.K.’s Universities Superannuation Scheme.

She says the fund’s investment “teams are good,” so little change is needed, other than some small alterations about “reporting lines.” About half the fund is in public equities, and Nest is gradually moving that into alts such as real estate and private equity. She is aiming to raise allocation to alts, which she refers to as “illiquids,” to 30%, from around 18% now. “We are going at a pace where we can find attractive opportunities,” she says.

One area in disfavor at Nest is emerging markets, in which the fund has slightly less than 5% in debt. “The risk premium is not high enough to compensate” for problems in this area, Fernando indicates. Indeed, some smaller EM nations, such as Ghana and the Bahamas, sponsor bonds that are selling at a substantial discount, with yields in the low teens. Fawcett had moved EM investments to underweight, she notes.

In assessing EM investing, Fernando focused on China, which makes up the largest chunk of the equity-centered MSCI Emerging Market Index (almost 30%), despite its status as the world’s second biggest economy. She expresses wariness about China’s “deep-seated problems with property,” which is over-built and is suffering from slumping prices in both commercial and home sales. Beijing’s tighter regulations on business and data, “showing the Chinese consumer is cautious,” give her pause.

Fernando registers disappointment at Shell, which she criticizes for not pursuing more aggressive emissions standards. Nest, which has just a fraction of 1% of Shell’s shares, teamed up with other climate-minded institutions in voting to urge Shell to match its 2030 target to the 2015 Paris Agreement.

The group’s resolution on the subject garnered 20% of the vote, the same as the year before. Nest also joined in on a minority vote against Shell Chair Andrew Mackenzie. The May investors’ meeting was marked by chants and songs from some attendees objecting to company policy.

Shell has a “reluctance to follow through and has gone off track somehow,” Fernando says. “We’re not comfortable with the answers we’re getting” from the company. Shell’s investor relations staff deals with dissenting shareholders “with a dismissive tone,” she adds, and Shell has increased its budget for oil and natural gas exploration.

For its part, Shell has proclaimed its goal of meeting a zero-emissions standard by 2050 and has touted its commitment to eliminate gas flaring and linking some staffers’ pay to lowering carbon emissions 20% by 2030. Shell plans to spend some $40 billion on oil and gas production and trading from 2023 through 2025, compared with $35 billion previously, it announced. Shell did not respond to a request for comment on Fernando’s remarks.

Related Stories:

Fernando Named CIO at UK Nest

U.K. Nest Pension Auto Enrollment Remains ‘Robust’

Nest Commits $350 Million to Octopus Renewables for Green Infrastructure

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Barr Introduces Another Anti-ESG Bill in House

Mirroring language from Trump-era rules, the Ensuring Sound Guidance Act would require that only pecuniary factors be considered by fiduciaries in investment decisions.



Representative Andy Barr, R-Kentucky, introduced legislation called the Ensuring Sound Guidance Act in the House on Wednesday, a bill which would require advisers, broker/dealers and ERISA fiduciaries to act in a client’s or participant’s best interest solely on pecuniary factors.

The language of the bill closely mirrors legislation which would have overturned the Department of Labor’s rule permitting the use of environmental, social and governance factors in selecting retirement plan investments from November 2022, which President Joe Biden vetoed in March, as well as a Senate bill from the last Congress proposed by Senator Mike Braun, R-Indiana.

The Ensuring Sound Guidance Act would amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to require advisers and broker/dealers to only consider pecuniary factors, unless a client consented in writing to the consideration of other factors. In that case, the fiduciary would be required to explain the potential costs of considering those other factors.

The Employee Retirement Income Act would also be amended to likewise require ERISA fiduciaries to only consider pecuniary factors. The only time a non-pecuniary factor could be considered is “If a fiduciary is unable to distinguish between or among investment alternatives.” Even then, the fiduciary would have to document why pecuniary factors were inadequate and how the non-pecuniary factor(s) considered were in the participant’s interest and provide a comparison of the investment options, using economic criteria such as diversification and liquidity.

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

The language of “unable to distinguish” closely tracks the rule enacted during former President Donald Trump’s term concerning ESG factors and is considered a tougher standard than that of the Biden-era rule which permits “collateral” factors to be considered in choosing investment options if both options would equally serve the interests of the plan.

The Biden-era rule, currently being challenged in at least two lawsuits, also permits collateral factors to be considered if they are considered by popular participant demand and if including such an investment would increase participation.

The “pecuniary” language is said by multiple administration officials to have a “chilling effect” on ESG investing. The primary reason is not that defenders of ESG think ESG factors are irrelevant on a risk-return basis, but that a future Republican administration could determine ESG factors as non-pecuniary, and that language favored by Republicans could be ambiguous enough to invite litigation.

Barr’s bill demonstrates this posture. The bill also requires the comptroller general, who heads the Government Accountability Office, to study “underfunded state and local pension plans” and their impact on the federal government, specifically by looking at “the extent to which such pension plans subordinate the pecuniary interests of participants and beneficiaries to environmental, social, governance or other objectives.”

The implication of this study is that some pension plans could be underfunded in part due to their consideration of ESG factors. The bill also requires the comptroller to investigate “legislative and administrative actions that, if implemented at the Federal level, would prevent such pension plans from subordinating the interests of participants and beneficiaries to environmental, social or governance objectives.”

Barr’s bill is unique in that most bills reported as “anti-ESG” rarely make explicit mention of ESG in their text, but Barr’s does. The file distributed to media was even named “BARR_ESG_Act.pdf.”

Tags: , , , , ,

«