Japan’s Government Pension Fund Changes Fee Structure

Japan’s $1.54 trillion Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) is revising the fee structure for its active asset managers in a move to increase their incentive for producing higher returns, according to a report from the Financial Times.

Under the new structure, which will be implemented next month, the fund will pay the managers a fee that is based on the excess returns they produce. The GPIF said its external asset managers are too focused on acquiring more assets, and have avoided taking the necessary risks required to reach their target alpha.

“By introducing the new fee structure, we would like to build a win-win relationship between GPIF and external asset managers,” said the fund. “Without excess returns, their fee must be equal to that of passive managers with the same amount of asset size.” GPIF added that its current pay rate does “not motivate asset managers to achieve alignment of interest between GPIF and external asset managers.”

Active asset managers for GPIF include Amundi, Schroders, Invesco, Eastspring, Nomura, Fidelity International, JPMorgan Asset Management, and UBS, according to the FT.

In the GPIF’s most recent full-year financial report, the fund had a return of 5.86%, which was below its benchmark of 6.22%. And for the 11 years since the GPIF was established in 2006, the total rate of return on all investment assets was 2.91%, which produced excess returns of just 0.04 percentage points over the benchmark of 2.87% during that same period.

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

The idea of changing the way the fund pays its active managers was first floated in October by GPIF President Norihiro Takahashi, who told a delegation of senior Australian funds management executives that he wanted to propose a variable fee structure instead of a fixed one, according to the Australian Financial Review.

“If a manager gains alpha, GPIF would pay a manager a certain fee. If a manager gains above alpha, GPIF would pay more, and we would not limit the fee,” Takahashi told the delegation. “If a manager gains below alpha, GPIF would pay less. Finally, if alpha is at zero or negative, GPIF would pay the manager an equal amount to that a passive-style manager would receive.”

Takahashi said the fund believed a variable pay structure would be fair because it expects active managers would gain enough alpha.

“But some managers are reluctant to take more risk to gain alpha,” he added, “because they can gain relatively high fees compared to passive-style managers, even when they gain zero.”

Tags: Active Management, Fee Structure, GPIF, Japan, Pension

Striking workers at a Canadian university have complained to a government agency that a 15-year-old provision in their pension plan, allowing their employer to reduce their pension benefits, is invalid.

Lawyers for the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 2424, which represents striking workers at Carleton University, filed a complaint with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO), saying that a 2003 pension plan amendment violated Ontario’s Pension Benefits Act.

The current strike stems from the union’s complaint that Carleton wants to remove language protecting bargaining and pensions from its collective agreement. The workers went on strike on March 5, after representatives from the union and university could not reach an agreement in negotiations that have been going on for eight months.

“These new revelations are deeply troubling,” said Kevin Skerrett, senior research officer and pension specialist with CUPE, in a release. “Our legal counsel has confirmed that Carleton’s board of governors implemented an amendment to the plan that not only reduced members’ future pension benefits, but did so in a way that contravened provincial pension law.”

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

The union said that in 2003, the plan enacted an amendment that removed a key protection known as a “non-reduction guarantee,” which states that pensions being paid to retirees can be increased according to an indexation formula, but can never be lowered below the amount promised and paid at retirement. It said the guarantee is considered a fundamental element of all defined benefit pension plans.

“According to the legal advice we have just received, this amendment was not legal, and this unfortunately confirms our worst fears about the history of the plan’s governance,” said Skerrett. “Our understanding is that no other defined benefit university pension plan in Ontario permits the reduction of pensions being paid to retirees.”

The union said that before it filed its complaint with the FSCO, it brought the matter up with the university, but “received no satisfactory response.”

CUPE 2424 said it is urging Carleton to return to the bargaining table to address workers’ concerns and resolve the dispute. On Monday, Carleton said it proposed to meet with the union and an external expert mediator on March 28 and is awaiting a response.

“This has grave implications not just for this group of workers on strike, but for everyone who belongs to Carleton’s pension plan,” said Skerrett. “It also highlights the crucial importance of protecting these workers’ retirement futures by keeping their pension rights in their collective agreement.”

For its part, Carleton denies the union’s claims that it is looking to reduce pension benefits, saying it “has not proposed the elimination or reduction of CUPE Local 2424 members’ pension benefits,” adding that “this is not something the university is even considering.”

Tags: Canadian Union of Public Employees, Carleton University, Financial Services Commission of Ontario, Pension