ESG roundup: Climate change risks, Towers Watson’s ‘extreme risks’, CDP Water Report, Social Investment Research Council

first_imgHealth progress backfire Insurance crisis Depression Towers Watson Extreme Risks 2013Rank201320112009 8 11 Resource scarcity Deflation 2 Nuclear contamination Sovereign default Sovereign default Webb dismissed the idea that considering climate change falls outside trustees’ legal responsibilities, saying it reflects “too narrow” an understanding of fiduciary duty.He welcomed the Law Commission’s provisional conclusion that fiduciaries such as pension scheme trustees may take into account factors relevant to long-term investment performance, including environmental factors and wider systemic considerations.Green Light is a new multi-year initiative from ShareAction that seeks to support pension funds in becoming more climate-conscious, recognising and acting on the investment implications of climate change for savers’ best interests.A copy of the report can be found here.  Terrorism Banking crisis 6 Protectionism Depression Hyperinflation Excessive leverage Currency crisis 14 Global temperature change Banking crisis Currency crisis Currency crisis Protectionism Sovereign default Major war In other news, the 2013 CDP Global Water Report has found that a misguided approach to water-related risk management has become business as usual at the world’s largest global companies.It revealed that corporate focus is too often directed at reducing water use, which is an inadequate response to increasingly immediate substantive water risks, threatening shareholder value. The key findings of the report – entitled ‘A need for a step change in water risk management’ – are:Water presents substantial risk, threatening profitability and shareholder security, primarily in the energy, materials and consumer staples sectors. Each company in the sample faces an average of seven water-related risks, with three-quarters (70%) stating that water presents substantive risk to their business. Half have already experienced detrimental business impacts in the past five years.Water risks are increasingly immediate. The percentage of risks that companies expect to impact their business within five years (64%) has increased by 16% in the space of one year, and the majority of risks identified in direct operations (65%) and supply chains (62%) are near-term. The most widely identified near-term water risk is water stress or scarcity, followed by flooding and rising compliance costs. Declining water quality, higher water prices and reputational damage are among the other reported risks expected to impact within five years.Corporates wrongly believe water usage is the primary risk driver. One-quarter (23%) of companies do not know if water presents risk to their supply chains.CDP, formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project, is calling on investors to take a leading role in guiding companies on this issue.  Political crisis Climate change UK pensions minister Steve Webb has warned pension funds of the growing financial risks of climate change.Speaking at the launch of ’The Green Light Report: resilient scenarios in an uncertain world’ by charity ShareAction, he said: “Those who at least question the valuation of firms, question what the firms are doing to diversify and question what the firms are doing to mitigate the carbon implications of what they’re doing may well be ahead of the curve and have a competitive advantage.”He continued: “Simply upgrading our electricity infrastructure alone will require more than £100bn of capital investment between now and 2020. These sorts of issues are not marginal or niche. They’re absolutely mainstream and substantive, and some of the biggest pension funds in the land are having to grapple with them.”Ten or 15 years ago, if you’d have invested in coal-fired power stations, you would have thought we were going to need electricity forever. Here we are now, following EU-wide emissions legislation, shutting down coal-fired power stations. The people who spotted that coming years ago were ahead of the curve. There are huge opportunities in this whole agenda.” Stagnationcenter_img Insurance crisis Infrastructure failure Political crisis Climate change 7 13 Euro break-up 3 Resource scarcity* Elsewhere, Towers Watson has warned institutional investors that a food/water/energy crisis is top of the risks they should be worried about, ahead of stagnation and global temperature change.While food/water/energy crisis (previously known as resource scarcity) rose 10 places to take the top slot in the consultancy’s extreme risks ranking.Other extreme risks that have also risen up the ranking this year are global trade collapse and global temperature change, which are up four and three places, respectively.Depression loses the top spot for the first time since the research began in 2009, while sovereign default and insurance crisis have both fallen five places.Tim Hodgson, head of Towers Watson’s Thinking Ahead Group, said: “There has been a high level of turnover in the top 15 this year. This is largely due to our expanding our research into the non-financial extreme risks so we now have a full list of 30.”This illustrates the challenge facing institutional investors, of how they should actually adapt to changing assessments of extreme risks. We would suggest time should be spent on pre-mortems, which are about trying to determine in advance what could, colloquially, kill you – that is, permanently impair an investor’s mission.”According to the research, such pre-mortems should identify which extreme risks matter and which can be ignored.For the former, Towers Watson asserts that the right thing to do is to pay up for the insurance, if available and affordable, given that the prioritisation exercise has shown the investors cannot afford to self-insure.Then an investor should do the simple things: ensure the portfolio is as diversified across as many return drivers as possible, diversify within asset classes and create a strategic allocation to cash to provide optionality.Thereafter, it suggests adding long-dated derivative contracts in a contrarian manner – that is, when they are cheap rather than popular.The top 15 extreme risks now for the first time include stagnation, health progress backfire, nuclear contamination, extreme longevity and terrorism, while those that have dropped out of the top 15 this year are euro break-up, hyperinflation, political crisis, major war, end of fiat money and killer pandemic. 10 Hyperinflation Extreme longevity Killer pandemic End of capitalism 9 War Banking crisis 5 Depression End of fiat money End of fiat money Insurance crisis Disunity in Europe 12 Global trade collapse 15 Infrastructure failure 1 Killer pandemic 4 Finally, a Social Investment Research Council has been set up in the UK aiming to help advance the UK social investment market through consolidating research efforts to generate powerful and practical insights for the benefit of social sector organisations and investors.Nick O’Donohoe, chief executive at Big Society Capital, said: “The council will focus on projects with a potential to transform the social investment market, working in partnership to help understand what information is needed and ensure those needs can be met.”There is a lack of information in the market about how to deliver the right kind of investment products to attract investors, and the industry must work together to commission research to help us meet this challenge.”The council’s founding members are Big Lottery Fund, Big Society Capital, Citi, The City of London Corporation and the Cabinet Office.last_img read more

adminSeptember 29, 2020djjpctLeave a Comment

Read More

UK government seeks ‘allies’ in challenging Brussels on IORP II

first_imgThe UK government has said it will challenge all proposals in the IORP II Directive that do not “add value” to the local pension system, a minister has warned.Economic secretary to HM Treasury, Andrea Leadsom, said the government fundamentally disagreed with the European Commission’s treatment of pensions as “insurance products”.The Conservative MP, who joined the Treasury in April this year, said the government would challenge IORP II proposals with allies in the European Union that postponed solvency requirements for European pension funds.However, speaking at the National Association of Pension Funds’ (NAPF) annual Europe seminar, the MP said details on how and which proposals to negotiate were still scarce. “The [European Commission] has forged ahead with a legislative proposal that still represents problems for the UK,” she said. “It has made a poor case for strengthened rules around governance and transparency.“The UK should not be obliged to change the way we regulate IORPs if we have a robust approach to regulation.“If there is no clear case for changing the way UK occupational pension schemes meet high standards of governance and transparency, then we will oppose new prescriptive requirements.”Solvency requirements were originally included in IORP II before being dropped by the Commission, after negotiations with member states opposed to the measures.The UK, alongside Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium, compelled the Commission’s to postpone solvency requirements in favour of a focus on governance and transparency, currently being debated.However, the revised IORP II, since publication in March this year, has drawn much criticism for being overly prescriptive in terms of transparency, communications to members and governance – particularly in more developed pensions markets.Leadsom denied suggestions her party’s plans to re-negotiate the UK’s relationship with Europe would undermine the government’s negotiating position – or the efforts of the NAPF and PensionsEurope.Should the Conservative Party win next year’s general election, it has committed to holding an in/out referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU if re-negotiations take place.Leadsom – also a member of the Conservative Party’s Fresh Start Group looking at re-designing the relationship – said that, where the government was focusing on policy, it would remain focused.“There is no muddying of the waters,” she said.“We are working towards reform of the EU to make it more competitive. But individual portfolios are absolutely focused on the engagement to the benefit of the EU and not just UK interests.“I do not see the two things as incompatible. Those who are negotiating within the EU are very careful to avoid bringing issues of fundamental reform into discussions about day-to-day legislation.”last_img read more

adminSeptember 29, 2020burahaLeave a Comment

Read More

Regulatory expectations of engagement a ‘systemic flaw’, says USS

first_imgThe regulatory expectation on institutional investors to “fix society’s ills” is a systemic flaw and does nothing to help investors engage with companies, Universities Superannuation Scheme Investment Management (USSIM) has said.The in-house investment arm of the UK’s largest pension fund, USS, said investors were often blamed for failures at the corporate level, and that it was impractical to address all the issues faced by companies.Speaking at the OECD Roundtable on Long-term Investing in Paris, Daniel Summerfield, co-head of responsible investment at USSIM, said it was unrealistic of regulators and organisations to expect investors to engage with all of their holdings.USS has £42bn (€53bn) in assets, with around 44% invested in listed equities. “We own a large chunk of the investible universe,” he said. “And one needs to prioritise and have a reasonable chance of success with engagement.“The regulators expect investors to fix society’s ills. [The notion] that, if we do not fix it, then it is our fault is a systemic flaw in the regulatory environment.“Simply shifting the blame to investors is not a good call.”Summerfield was backed by Invesco’s CIO for global equities, Bernhard Langer, who said there was a mismatch between calling for pension funds to engage and what engagement actually meant.He cited the pressure placed on the UK’s Local Government Pension Schemes (LGPS) to engage with their equity holdings, but said there were few tangible outcomes in place.“There is the expectation to be engaged, but what is this expectation?” he asked. “Is there a tangible objective? As a human being, I understand where you are coming from, but as an investor, I need more concrete outcomes.”He also criticised external organisations “jumping on bandwagons” such as diversity and encouraging pension funds to engage on aspects that have no material outcome to their portfolios.“Is this relevant to our investment?” he asked. “No. Has it proven that it improves returns? As a member of society, I hope in the long-term it will help, but it has no impact on our portfolio.”However, Fiona Reynolds, managing director for the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investments, said the engagement of pension funds and their asset managers was key for long-term sustainability.“Pension funds are intergenerational,” she said. “So when you invest in companies, you want companies that will be around for the long term and provide the best value. The best way to ensure that is engaging with them.“Obviously, this does not mean you never sell, but engagement is an effective tool to ensure long-term value.”She also rejected Langer’s point, arguing that proven companies with diversity policies outperformed those without.Langer also said, in many cases, it was easier to sell shares in companies rather than allocate resources to engagement.Agreeing with Langer, Summerfield said sometimes the only course of action was to sell, quoting failed British bank Northern Rock as an example.He also defended asset managers that did not actively engage and said the right incentives were not in place.“It is up to asset owners to set instructions and parameters clearer, rather than going to asset mangers after the investing and asking what they are doing about climate change,” he said.last_img read more

adminSeptember 29, 2020mcoaepLeave a Comment

Read More

Chairman retires at UK Universities Superannuation Scheme

first_imgThe university employers representative, Universities UK (UKK), initially appointed Harris to the trustee board in 1991, before he went on to lead the organisation in 1997.In his final months as chair of the scheme, Harris oversaw a debate between the employers group and trade unions over the future of the scheme.The current proposals, set to be implemented by the USS board include fully closing the final salary section of the defined benefit fund and moving all members’ future accrual to career-average benefits.USS opened a career-average section for new employees in 2011, accounting for one-third of the scheme’s members.In addition to dropping final salary benefits for academics, the fund will become a hybrid scheme with defined contribution accrual for all entitlements above a £55,000 earnings cap.The current deputy chair, Kevin Carter, is an independent member of the trustee board and became deputy in April 2014, after the retirement of John Bull. Sir Martin Harris has stepped down as chair of the trustee board for the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) after nine years in the role.He officially stepped down at the end of March, with the scheme set to announce his successor in the coming days.Harris joined the UK’s largest scheme as a director in April 1991, when he served as vice-chancellor of the University of Essex.He became deputy-chair of the £41.6bn (€57bn) pension fund in 2004, taking over as chairman two years later.last_img read more

adminSeptember 29, 2020utkzqdLeave a Comment

Read More

IPE Views: ​Can the EU avoid both Brexit and Grexit?

first_imgA key objective of Lawson’s conditions for the UK to remain within is to have a British opt-out from the EU’s historical commitment to create an “ever-closer union” of the peoples of Europe. He has also argued for ensuring that national parliaments have the right to club together to block EU legislation. But those demands are completely at odds with the direction of change within the EU, whereby every crisis has been used to establish closer links within states. For my Greek friends, though, the EU represents something else – it represents hope. Hope that individuals can escape from the burdens imposed on them by a dysfunctional state, beholden to special interests, no matter which party governs. Moreover, as part of the EU, they see Greece’s security as enhanced against what it perceives as aggressive and unstable neighbours surrounding it. For them, the EU’s institutions and rules represent an escape route from the craziness of a country that aspires to be a developed Western European democracy but remains wedded to practices dependent on patronage and privilege.Greece has endemic problems its post-war governments have never been able to solve, such as corruption, tax evasion and so on, which makes it closer to an emerging market than a developed one. Its population has been let down for decades by a political class that failed to develop a modern European state. Yet an ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe is exactly what would revitalise Greece. Each step following on from membership of the euro gives the psychological assurance the country is moving closer to the Western European countries within the EU. For local entrepreneurs, as well as investors in the country, acting under the protection of EU law while minimising interactions with a dysfunctional Greek government has been a priority. As long as they are clear in all their dealings with the Greek state – on taxation, national insurance contributions, etc. – it is membership of the EU that can provide a route to success.The pro-EU Greek sentiment and the anti-EU British sentiment now being expressed represent an existential challenge to the EU. Producing an acceptable fudge successful in avoiding both a Brexit and a Grexit is the challenge. It can and should be done, but it may ultimately prove impossible without a lot of fresh thinking.Joseph Mariathasan is contributing editor at IPE A lot of fresh thinking is needed to resolve the European Union’s existential crisis, writes Joseph MariathasanThe battle lines for the future of the EU are being drawn up as we watch. The news that Nigel Lawson, the UK’s former finance minister under Margaret Thatcher, has stepped forward to lead a campaign to leave the EU is an indication that nothing is certain and there is everything to play for. The interests of Great Britain and of Greece lie at opposite ends of the continuum of possibilities of what the EU should be. The challenge for the EU is to be able to avoid both a Brexit and a Grexit simultaneously.In September, Lawson announced his new initiative to lead a cross-party movement that would advocate the UK’s exiting the EU before the referendum due to take place by the end of next year. In doing so, he expressed the frustrations of many in the UK – that the EU was simply a development of the European Coal and Steel Community established in 1951, just a few years after World War II, whose prime purpose was to prevent another European war.That political objective was achieved to the great satisfaction of everyone, but moving on from a trade organisation to one that seeks to establish a united states of Europe does not have majority support within the UK, or, arguably, in many other European countries.last_img read more

adminSeptember 29, 2020ktidqeLeave a Comment

Read More

LGPS should shift to DC accrual, use DB assets for infrastructure – CPS

first_imgThe UK government should consider restructuring England’s local authority funds so that future accrual occurs within defined contribution (DC) schemes, shifting the legacy defined benefit to a pay-as-you-go system (PAYG), a think tank has suggested.Proposing that the current local government pension scheme (LGPS) model could be replaced with accrual in DC funds – such as the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) and its competitors – the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) backed the government’s current model of pooling assets into a limited number of vehicles dubbed British Wealth Funds (BWFs) by the chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne.But a paper by research fellow Michael Johnson warned that the scale achieved by pooling would fail to address some of the system’s longer-term challenges, such as the funds becoming cashflow negative.The CPS paper also suggested the BWFs set up after a shift to PAYG could invest in infrastructure, being paid a premium by the Treasury for any projects they fund. “Thus,” Johnson argued, “the chancellor could combine deficit repair with an incentive to invest in infrastructure.“One might expect that, over time, given the Social Premium, the weaker BWFs (i.e. those with larger deficits) would be the more inclined to assume larger asset allocations to infrastructure.”The chief executive of the Pension Protection Fund, Alan Rubenstein, also suggested the idea of paying pension funds a premium for funding infrastructure projects during a presentation last year at the National Association of Pension Funds annual conference.Speaking in a personal capacity, Rubenstein suggested at the time that the bonds could pay a premium of 1 percentage point above the current UK yield.In his paper, Johnson suggested the shift towards a DC model would also allow local authority employees to take advantage of the liberalisation introduced in 2015, enabling the drawdown of pension assets from 55.He suggested, however, that in instances where assets were not drawn down prior to retirement, a new collective LGPS decumulation fund could be set up.The idea is similar to those floated for collective defined contribution by former pensions minister Steve Webb.The idea of shifting LGPS accrual to DC has been suggested by Johnson in the past.In a 2011 paper, he argued that NEST could be used as the basis for new DC pots.last_img read more

adminSeptember 29, 2020gfcnhrLeave a Comment

Read More

Actuarial Association warns against strict cross-border funding rules

first_imgIt said: “The AAE agrees it is paramount the interests of members and beneficiaries are protected to the extent required by national social and labour law, but the Directive should not require that a higher level of security applies in a cross-border transfer.”The AAE, however, did not agree with all the amendments proposed by ECON.It questioned why the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) should be consulted about the cross-border transfer of pension fund assets, as it was difficult to see how such a transfer would cause systemic risks – one of the arguments used by parliamentarians to justify the European supervisor’s scrutiny.It added that individual member interests were protected by the prudential regulations enforced by national regulators.The actuarial association also questioned whether pension funds should be mandated to assess the risk of climate change to investments.Noting the emphasis placed on environmental matters by the Commission and MEPs, the AAE said it accepted that such risks should be assessed using a routine risk-management framework.It added, however, that sponsors and employees should be left to “discuss these matters and agree how they should be taken into account” by any IORP.The view contrasts with the those of several charities pushing for the inclusion of environmental-risk metrics in the finalised draft of the law. The final draft of a revised IORP Directive must ensure cross-border pension funds are not subject to a stricter funding requirements than those operating in one country, European actuaries have urged ahead of final trialogue negotiations.The Actuarial Association of Europe (AAE) set out its views on IORP II as the European Commission, European Parliament and EU member states continued their negotiations on a final version of the law.Many in the industry hope the talks will conclude before the end of the Dutch presidency of the Council of the EU at the end of June.The AAE once again emphasised that any obstacles to cross-border activity should be removed and said it supported attempts by the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) of the European Parliament to link a cross-border fund’s recovery plan to approaches taken by individual member states.last_img read more

adminSeptember 29, 2020mcoaepLeave a Comment

Read More

‘Systemic importance’ designation still possible for pension funds

first_imgThe Financial Stability Board (FSB) has held out the prospect of pension funds still being subject to policies designed to tackle ‘too big to fail’ institutions, saying it would consider financial stability risks posed by the former when it resumes its work – suspended last year – on methodologies for identifying global, systemically important financial institutions other than banks and insurers.The Switzerland-based organisation hinted at the possibility in a report, published 22 June, that sets out its proposals for policies to address “structural vulnerabilities” from asset management activities that could destabilise the financial system or markets. Last March, a consultation by the FSB and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) on which non-bank, non-insurer global institutions should be classed as systemically important financial institutions (NBNI G-SIFIs[1]) suggested pension funds could be excluded.This, however, was criticised by some of the world’s largest asset managers. Falling into line with IOSCO, the FSB suspended its work on systemic risk posed by asset managers in July, saying it would finalise the methodologies after completing its work on structural vulnerabilities from asset management activities.The latter are the focus of the policy recommendations the FSB unveiled for consultation yesterday.The policy recommendations, of which there are 14, address four of five areas the FSB had in September identified for further analysis.The fifth area, which the policy proposals do not address, concerns the potential risks to financial stability that stem from pension funds and sovereign wealth funds (SWFs).The FSB explained this decision by stating that, although certain types of pension funds and SWFs may pose financial stability risks, these vary depending on the size, nature and legal settings of the individual entity.“Therefore,” it said, “the FSB decided to conduct further assessment when it revisits the scope of assessment methodologies for identifying NBNI G-SIFIs.”The FSB will be working with IOSCO when it reviews the scope of the methodologies designed to decide which institutions are of global systemic importance.The review will happen when the policy recommendations for asset managers “are finalised”, according to the FSB.The consultation closes on 21 September this year.However, the FSB said the “relevant authorities” may in the meantime want to take into account the FSB’s policy recommendations for asset managers “in considering their policies towards pension funds and SWFs in their jurisdictions if they consider them appropriate”.Pension fund vulnerabilitiesThe FSB said pension funds “generally” make a positive contribution to financial stability, and have relatively low levels of liquidity transformation and financial leverage.“Nonetheless,” it said, “pension funds can engage in activities that give rise to vulnerabilities, in the event that liquidity or asset reallocation pressures may arise.”It identified three main sources of risk.One is the potential for liquidity risk in some types of defined contribution pension funds, where plan rules allow members to withdraw invested amounts.This means some pension funds are vulnerable to redemption pressures in a similar way that open-ended investment funds are.Another source of risk, according to the FSB, is the build-up of leverage in pension funds.It acknowledged that pension funds do not generally take on significant financial leverage but said “they may take on other forms of leverage”.This could be by investing in funds that take on leverage, engaging in leveraged strategies as part of liability-driven investment strategies or investing in “less liquid” alternative assets.Pension funds’ use of derivatives, for enhancing return and mitigating longevity risks, also raises questions about counterparty risk and the “interconnectedness in the financial system”, according to the FSB. [1] Non-bank non-insurer global systemically important financial institutions (NBNI G-SIFIs),WebsitesWe are not responsible for the content of external sitesLink to Proposed Policy Recommendations to Address Structural Vulnerabilities from Asset Management Activitieslast_img read more

adminSeptember 29, 2020kxtqqrLeave a Comment

Read More

Belgian insurer Ethias establishes multi-employer pension fund

first_img“Employers are transferring insured pension schemes to pension funds, and insurers are looking into setting up multi-employer pension funds from which to run defined contribution schemes for third-party companies given Solvency II regulation,” she told IPE. Insurers are struggling to meet guaranteed returns on pension contributions given the low-yield environment and Solvency II, leaving plan sponsors with a shortfall to make up. OFPs, like other Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORPs), are not subject to harmonised capital requirements like those facing the insurance sector since January this year. Although still in the development stages, the new Ethias OFP has a board of directors and recently appointed a “delegated director”, effective 31 May. Philippe Lallemand, a member of the Ethias management committee and board of directors, was nominated to the position. Lallemand is one of six members of the board of directors of Ethias Pension Fund.The FSMA, the Belgian supervisory authority for occupational pensions, had yet to grant a licence to the Ethias Pension Fund as at 1 July 2016, according to the FSMA website. Ethias is the main insurer for Belgium’s public sector and its agents, and provides pension insurance for first and sector-pillar schemes in that sector.It is majority-owned by the Belgian state and the Walloon Region and Flemish Region.  As at the end of the first quarter, it had a total balance sheet of €18.43bn, and a Solvency II margin of 110.92%. Belgian public sector insurance company Ethias has set up a pension fund using the country’s dedicated legal vehicle for these purposes, the Organisme voor de Financiering van Pensionen (OFP).The “organisation for financing pensions”, as the Flemish term for the country’s pension fund legal form translates into English, was set up in December 2015 and is called Ethias Pension Fund.The pension fund is still in the early stages of its establishment, and a spokesperson for Ethias said the company did not wish to comment at this point of its development. Ethias’s move is part of a general trend toward providing workplace pensions via pension funds rather than insurance companies, according to Elke Duden, counsel at Linklaters.last_img read more

adminSeptember 29, 2020djjpctLeave a Comment

Read More

Large Dutch schemes not keen on investing in energy firm Eneco

first_imgEneco itself emphasised that it was at the forefront of sustainability and energy transition due to its public stakeholders, and said that a new owner should also provide stability, have a long time horizon and be a responsible investor.It also said it wanted the new owner to invest in innovation and have assumptions for returns that match Eneco’s sustainable projects.Union FNV said a new stakeholder must be Dutch, and reminded that earlier takeovers of domestic energy firms had led to thousands of redundancies, citing the 2009 deals involving Swedish firm Vattenfall’s acquisition of Nuon and German company RWE’s purchase of Essent.The shareholders committee of Eneco also indicated that the company’s 53 council owners wanted to set sustainability requirements for a new owner.The €67bn PMT simply said it was not considering taking a stake in Eneco, while its €45bn sister scheme PME explained that it “lacked a mandate for actively searching for such deals”.ABP said that it would assess a possible share purchase against its usual criteria of risk, return, costs and sustainability.PGGM, the asset manager for PFZW, for its turn, indicated that it only passively invested in equity, and that it “would assess all interesting opportunities for private equity and infrastructure”.Its spokesman declined to be specific about Eneco. The Netherlands’ largest pension funds are not enthusiastic about taking a stake in Dutch sustainable energy company Eneco, which is currently owned by local councils.When asked by IPE’s sister publication Pensioen Pro, the metal industry schemes PMT and PME indicated that they were not interested in participating in a sale.Last week, four councils with a 60% majority – Rotterdam, The Hague, Dordrecht, and Leidschendam-Voorburg – decided to divest their stake. The sale is expected to yield between €2bn and €3bn.Eneco and connected workers’ unions, however, oppose the sale and are trying to influence the decision regarding the eventual buyer. Union CNV explicitly indicated that a “sustainable and solid stakeholder, such as the large Dutch pension funds, would be by far preferable to random foreign owners”.last_img read more

adminSeptember 29, 2020djjpctLeave a Comment

Read More