Keep watch on the watchmen

The job of corporate governance specialists in superannuation should not be to solely monitor and, where necessary, intervene in the management of listed companies to improve shareholder returns. They should also seek to make the people in charge of funds accountable for their work. Dean Paatsch, founding CEO of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) and former CEO at RiskMetrics in Australia, warned that a collective solipsism is blinding the superannuation industry. This was a belief that the “superannuation world” is the only world that exists, he said. Speaking at the 2011 AIST Fund Governance Conference last month, he pondered whether this was the outcome of a lack of focus on governance standards within the funds themselves. “We’ve fudged the biggest questions of all,” he said. These were: who owns the funds, and what ownership rights accrue to the people who own them? Super funds are fond of referring to themselves as the new mutuals, he said, and if this is the case, these ‘new mutuals’ must take the time to define how they discharge their responsibilities to the underlying owners of the funds. Neglecting this responsibility ran the risk of going the way of the old mutuals, which were now “captured by the managerialism and bureaucracy that once defined what they were not”. “The moral cover of the trustee system and its fiduciary mask hide the fact that members of most funds have no right to choose or remove the trustees who represent them, let alone discover what management is paid,” he said. In addition, the industry’s obsession with the fees paid to investment managers hid the management costs routinely being pushed onto investors, as soft dollars or payments into operating businesses of unlisted assets. Despite these shortcomings, Paatsch continued to advocate the equal-representation trustee system championed by industry funds.

Read more

Wake up, smell hydrocarbons, adapt: GMO

Jeremy Grantham has built a career on shouting down, and outlasting, asset bubbles. As far back as 1972, before he co-founded GMO, he was two years too soon in his bet that US small-caps were undervalued against the so-called ‘nifty-50’ companies leading the index. In 1986, three years before the Japanese market caved in from its all-time high of 65-times earnings, he sold all of his exposure to the original tiger market. He was deeply underweight technology companies two-and-a-half years before the dotcom crash, and railed against the US housing and leverage bubble that precipitated the financial crisis. As asset bubbles have come and gone, GMO’s undying adherence to mean-reversion has delivered a solid long-term performance record with less absolute volatility than most. However, temporary periods of painful underperformance mean that not all of the manager’s clients have enjoyed such gains. “We hero-worship regression to the mean,” Grantham said in a briefing with the financial media in Sydney last month.

Read more

Tread carefully amid systemic risks

Funds managers, pension  trustee boards and fund members  should adjust to a low-returns  environment and think carefully  about investment risk in such  uncertain times, warned Tim  Gardener, global head of consultant  relations at AXA Investment  Managers (AXA IM) and a veteran  of the UK asset consulting industry.  Tim Gardener, who was global  CIO of Mercer before joining AXA  IM, was in Australia during May  and told delegates at investment  roundtables that communicating  this reality to all fund stakeholders  was vital to secure long-term  investment returns.  “God didn’t come down from  the mountain and say you can  always have 10 per cent returns on  your investments, and I do think  that this is a period where we will  get lower returns and people just  have to get used to it,” he said.  “The danger is [that] if they  don’t get used to it, investment  managers will go in pursuit of  riskier and riskier investments to  try and maintain returns.” 

Read more

Agents in the mirror, all around you

Not only were agency risks alive and well in Australia’s $1.4 trillion superannuation industry, they were inevitable in a system whose principals – the end-investors – were largely disengaged, the Fiduciary Investors Symposium was told in Manly last month. Defining agents as every commercial participant in the super industry – including trustees, funds managers, asset consultants and the media – speakers explained how their actions put investors’ capital at risk and suggested how this risk could be mitigated. Agents found work in superannuation because the majority of principals did not have the time or expertise to run investment programs to meet their future income needs, explained Professor Ron Bird, a director at the Paul Woolley Centre for Capital Markets Dysfunctionality (PWC).

Read more

Advance embraces risk-on, risk-off regime

BT-owned multi-manager Advance Asset Management has instructed funds managers to exploit the wide-ranging opportunities available in a global market dominated by shorttermism. Head of investment solutions, Patrick Farrell, said this strategy would enable Advance to exploit the “risk-on, risk-off trade” playing out in markets worldwide. These large, short-term market swings were driven as much by sentiment and “noise” as fundamental valuations, Farrell said. “Capital markets forecasts are tormented by this. Fundamentals aren’t driving it. There’s lots of money washing around the system that is trying to make a quick buck and then get out.”

Read more