Mail & Guardian

Prescribed assets a ‘bad call’

An investment firm has warned that requiring pension funds to put their money in specific assets would be bad for the SA economy

- Lynley Donnelly

As the country’s stateowned entities (SOES) buckle under the weight of their debt — and reap the results of years of mismanagem­ent and corruption — the ANC election manifesto’s proposal on prescribed assets looms ever larger as a means to rescue them.

Power utility Eskom will run out of cash by October, Denel was unable to pay full salaries to staff this week until rescued by “a lender”, and the SABC cannot pay creditors such as the City of Johannesbu­rg, according to a Sunday Times report.

Alexander Forbes Investment­s warned during a presentati­on this week of the negative consequenc­es asset prescripti­on could have, not only on pension outcomes but also on the wider economy.

Asset prescripti­on would force entities such as pension funds to invest in certain assets, such as parastatal bonds. The negative consequenc­es would not only be felt by pension fund members but also affect foreign direct investment in South Africa, as well as hamper the country’s ability to fund its current account deficit, said Isaah Mhlanga, executive chief economist at Alexander Forbes.

The government has not given any indication that it has imminent plans to introduce prescribed assets, but recent comments by Trade and Industry Minister Ebrahim Patel, encouragin­g retirement funds to invest to promote growth, has been read as further support for the idea.

Patel’s comments, made at a conference held earlier this month by Batseta, the council for retirement funds, prompted the Associatio­n for Monitoring and Advocacy of Government Pensions to warn against the “disastrous” effect this policy could have.

The associatio­n represents members and pensioners of the largest fund in the country — the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) — which holds almost R2-trillion on behalf of its members.

Asked after President Cyril Ramaphosa’s State of the Nation address last week how his comments related to the ANC’S position, Patel didn’t want to delve into “complex policy” debates in limited interview time. But he did say that retirement funds, which manage about R4-trillion, have a huge pool of investable resources and, since their investment universe is South Africa, their investment performanc­e largely tracks the local economy.

“[Pension fund] trustees’ role is to help ensure that the investment strategies that they support help to grow the economy,” said Patel. This was in the interests of their own members, “because they are not going to get … excellent returns, when the GDP [gross domestic product] is growing at a pedestrian rate”.

Retirement fund trustees need to think strategica­lly about how they, as one of many players in the economy, help to boost growth, said Patel.

But he stressed that this was alongside

their equally important role of protecting members’ funds. “It’s not [money] that is at the discretion of the state or at the discretion of the trustees, it’s money that you have to prudently invest — you’ve got to avoid looting of the money and you’ve got to avoid recklessne­ss [with] the money.”

But moving from these discussion­s to the detail of developing policy was where the nuance comes in, he said.

Although no formal regulation is under discussion at government level, unease remains. Mhlanga said: “This is still discussed at a political party level, not at the government level, but we are concerned because the political party that is looking to introduce this is the ruling party.

“The financial sustainabi­lity of all these SOES is quite dire,” he said, and is contributi­ng to ongoing funding problems, with investors unwilling to lend them money.

In 2017 the country’s major SOES redeemed more outstandin­g debt, of R13.7-billion, than new debt issued, of R12.6-billion, according to Alexander Forbes. In 2018 net debt issued by SOES was R5.7-billion and this year’s forecast issuance is expected to be only fractional­ly higher than last year’s.

If private investors were forced to buy SOE bonds, this would force disinvestm­ent from other assets such as equities, Mhlanga said. Prescripti­on would also create an artificial demand for these assets and investors would be unlikely to earn returns sufficient to compensate for perceived risks.

At a macroecono­mic level, foreign investors will not be subject to prescripti­on, so they are going to vote with their feet, said Mhlanga. This could have balance of payments consequenc­es, making it difficult for South Africa to fund its current account deficit as foreign investors take their money out the country, in turn driving currency weakness.

When it comes to ramificati­ons for individual investors, namely pension fund members, prescripti­on will result in reduced member confidence in the retirement system, said Janina Slawski, principal investment consultant at Alexander Forbes. It would also undermine existing reforms by the government aimed at getting people to save more for retirement, and may see more people opt to save outside the retirement system.

Responses from contributi­on fund members on the question of prescripti­on have been negative, Slawski said, prompting “very, very scary conversati­ons”, such as members asking employers to opt out of retirement funds, or reduce their contributi­ons.

Under the apartheid regime, when internatio­nal investors shunned South Africa, the state required pension funds to invest more than half their funds in prescribed assets.

The local industry is already required to comply with a certain level of prescripti­on through regulation 28 of the Pension Funds Act. Regulation 28 limits the exposure funds can have to certain assets in the interests of protecting investors and ensuring sustainabl­e returns. Exposure to equities, for instance, is limited to 75% and only 30% may be invested in offshore assets.

Slawski said, from an industry perspectiv­e, the regulation is “very workable in its current format” and in the case of local equities many are driven by offshore developmen­ts.

“You actually have wide exposure to internatio­nal factors just by holding local equities,” she said.

If the government did decide to introduce asset prescripti­on, amending regulation 28 would be a way to introduce this, said Senzo Langa, head of portfolio management at Alexander Forbes. Although it might not be at levels seen in the past, it could serve as a quick way of introducin­g the policy.

Alexander Forbes was strongly behind a different solution — positive incentives and structures that would promote investment in developmen­tal assets, said Slawski.

The country already has some good examples, such as the Renewable Energy Independen­t Power Producer Procuremen­t Programme. The tender process for the latter attracted almost R210-billion of investment.

Alexander Forbes said that other positive initiative­s included the JSE’S recently launched listed green bonds, intended for the financing or refinancin­g of new or existing projects that have a positive environmen­tal and climate benefit.

The JSE also announced the listing of infrastruc­ture bonds in 2018. These “project bonds” will give institutio­nal investors an opportunit­y to invest in infrastruc­ture projects.

The negative consequenc­es of this policy would … also affect foreign direct investment in South Africa

 ??  ??
 ??  ?? Balancing the books: Trade and Industry Minister Ebrahim Patel would like retirement funds to invest to promote growth. Photo: David Harrison
Balancing the books: Trade and Industry Minister Ebrahim Patel would like retirement funds to invest to promote growth. Photo: David Harrison

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa