2018-03-31
The Financial Services Board of South Africa issues comprehensive guidelines requiring pension fund boards to establish and annually review a written Investment Policy Statement that aligns with fiduciary duties and regulatory compliance. The document mandates that boards define essential portfolio parameters including asset allocation, diversification, liquidity needs, risk tolerance, and socially responsible investment criteria while strictly managing conflicts of interest and derivative usage. Additionally, it requires explicit voting rights policies, detailed asset manager mandates with performance monitoring, and regular transparent communication of fund performance and governance practices to beneficiaries and regulators.
Rigel Park 446 Rigel Avenue South Erasmusrand Pretoria 0181 South Africa
PO Box 35655 Menlo Park Pretoria 0102 South Africa
Tel +27 12 428 8000 Fax +27 12 347 0221 E-mail info@fsb.co.za
Toll free 0800 110443 Internet http://www.fsb.co.za
| ENQUIRIES: | W MOKUPO | D. DIALLING NO.: | +27 12 428 8032 |
|---|---|---|---|
| OUR REF: | 12/12/1 | FAX: | +27 12 347 8787 |
| DATE: | 11 JUNE 2007 | E-MAIL: | wilman@fsb.co.za |
ANNEXURE B TO CIRCULAR PF 130
This guideline sets out the following:
Investments and the allocation of surplus funds should be made in the best interest of members and beneficiaries of the fund. There should be impartiality between different classes of members, and beneficiaries and those of the employer (where it has obligations to the fund). Boards have a fiduciary duty to deal with the investments with due care, diligence and in good faith and ensure that it complies with the rules of the fund, pensions law, the Financial Institutions (Protection of Funds Act) and all other applicable laws.
These guidelines contain the minimum standards and the issues that boards should consider when establishing a written IPS. The guidelines should be adapted by each board of fund to suit their particular obligations, objectives and all other factors that may affect the solvency and funding of their fund and its ability to meet its financial obligations. The board of fund should be prepared to explain any deviations from the IPS.
The guidelines are intended to serve as a guide only without intending to limit the care that boards of fund are expected to take in the performance of their duties. The IPS should be based on the standards that a reasonable person would apply to the investment portfolio of a fund – the “prudent person portfolio approach”.
It is recommended that some of the guidelines set out herein should be included in the investment manager mandates rather than the IPS itself.
When required, the board of fund must be prepared to deliver a copy of the IPS to the fund’s actuary and/or the Financial Services Board.
Board Members Dr CDR Rustomjee (Chairperson) AM Sithole (Deputy Chairperson) BM Hawksworth
Ms JV Mogadime Ms AMM Mokgabudi Ms LM Mojela Prof PJ Sutherland Ms HS Wilton
Executive Officer RJG Barrow
The board should consider the following to properly understand the obligations of the fund, namely:
In addition, factors relating to solvency ratios and the maturity of the fund as set out more fully below, must also be take into consideration.
In this instance, the fund may appear to discharge its investment obligations by paying out contributions accumulated in beneficiaries’ accounts along with investment returns, even though they may be low. However, it is recommended that the following factors also be taken into account, namely the:
In addition, the board should monitor “default” accounts for beneficiaries who have not indicated an investment option, the participation rate and the investments selected by beneficiaries. The purpose of such monitoring being to assess whether changes may be required in communication and/or education programs.
In order to be able to determine the fund’s investment policy, it is essential that the board of fund has first identified the profile if its beneficiaries. This will enable the to identify what portion of funds will be required for short, medium and long term investments and the risk profile attached to each category of beneficiaries e.g. those retiring in the short term will require low risk, high liquidity. As this is an essential element of determining the investment policy, the board should, where appropriate, obtain the advice and guidance of independent consultants and/or actuaries.
In determining the appropriate IPS, boards should consider the:
Taking a holistic view of these considerations into account, together with the purpose and objectives of the fund, the board will then be able to determine the appropriate mix of assets to meet the fund’s obligations. In arriving at a decision, the board will have to obtain expert opinion and advice. In this regard, care must be taken to avoid a one-sided view e.g. an actuary might have a good understanding of a fund’s present and future liabilities, but might not be an expert on investments, whilst on the other hand, and investment manager may only have expertise on a limited class of investments. Therefore, care must be taken that the advice obtained is free from conflicts of interest.
The same cautionary applies to setting effective performance appraisals e.g. an asset manager might wish to constrain effective performance appraisal levels and the vendor of a specific financial product may overlook the disclosure of commissions to offset fees for service.
The purpose of formulating an investment policy is to:
regularly traded as well as the fund’s exposure to fluctuations in interest rates, foreign exchange, inflation and market prices.
The IPS should stipulate the:
Examples of the rate of return expectations are the following:
In principle, investment risks can be reduced through investing in diverse asset types, industries and geographic regions. However, diversification usually carries a cost in the form of transaction fees, custody costs etc as well as potentially lower returns. Therefore, a balance between the mitigation of risk and the related costs must be maintained. Accordingly the degree of diversification will be determined by the fund’s size, risk profile and the inherent risk of the particular investment.
One way to achieve diversification at low costs is to invest in investment vehicles that have been formed to hold a diverse portfolio. Selection of the appropriate vehicle should not only be on the basis of past performance and track record but also on the synergies between the policies of the particular fund and those set out in the IPS.
As mentioned above, investments should be made taking into account the fund’s cash flow needs in the coming year to avoid having to liquidate medium or long term investments to cover short term requirements. By the same token, it might not be necessary for a portfolio to hold unnecessary amounts of cash or low yielding liquid assets. Accordingly the fund should have a clear idea of what its cash flow requirements will be.
It might be preferable for funds to borrow against assets in order to meet short term cash flow needs. Similarly it may be necessary for a fund to pledge assets for the purposes in engaging in futures contracts. However, in order to protect the fund from placing the investments at risk, clear limits and procedures should be established for such borrowing or pledging to occur and these should be closely monitored. Furthermore, it should be established whether such activities are authorized in terms of the fund’s rules or subject to any regulatory or statutory restrictions.
CAVEAT: Accordingly extreme care and caution should be taken when considering the possibility of such activities.
To the extent that it is permitted by the rules and statutory or regulatory restrictions, the IPS should clearly set out the circumstances under which funds may be lent against the fund. Such policies and procedures should set out:
Accordingly extreme care and caution should be taken when considering the possibility of such activities.
Management fees, custodial fees and transaction costs must be taken into account when considering asset managers. The board of fund must decide between active or passive asset management and determine whether the concomitant costs of active management are justified by the returns achieved. In order to make this assessment of performance over a given period, it may be useful to secure expert advice, however, care should be taken to avoid a conflict of interests.
Payment of fees should be linked to clearly defined responsibilities and those tasked with particular functions should be accountable. There should be mechanisms in place to ensure proper monitoring including the relevant checks and balances to alert the board to any significant losses and deviations from authorized policy.
The remuneration of asset managers must not encourage deviation from the mandate assigned to them nor encourage unethical behaviour. Costs and fees paid by the fund to asset managers and administrators should be subject to full disclosure and transparency and communicated to the beneficiaries.
The issue of socially responsible investment often raises the question of whether such investments offer the best returns on the investment. However, there are various ways to achieve such investments. The first is to invest in companies that meet certain prescribed criteria, whilst the other is, through shareholder activism, to influence the behaviour of companies in which funds are already invested to encourage them to meet corporate governance and good citizenship best practice standards.
The primary obligation of s is to provide optimum returns for its beneficiaries. However, once these returns have been met, funds should consider socially responsible investments. Boards of fund should consider how shareholder activism can be applied to promote good governance and citizenship in companies in which their funds are already invested. Such activities may actually enhance the performance of the companies and therefore the returns to the fund.
It is recommended that s of fund apply their minds to formulating a suitable policy regarding such investments as well as incorporating shareholder activism into their investment mandates. Examples of how this can be done are elaborated in more detail below.
It has been argued that the voting rights attached to shares of the companies in which s are invested should be considered an asset of the fund. Accordingly, the board of fund would be expected to apply the same fiduciary care and consideration to this asset as it does to the financial investments it makes. Indeed, there is an inclination internationally to require s of fund to be more proactive in ensuring that the voting rights are utilised effectively by the asset managers in accordance with the shareholder activism obligations of the .
In order to fulfil this obligation, and in accordance with the recommendations of King II, the board of fund should formulate and develop appropriate voting policies and incorporate these in their mandates to the asset managers including the monitoring and reporting of the same. Such policy should also be disclosed to the beneficiaries along with the steps taken by the board of fund to monitor the effective implementation of the same by the asset managers. More in this regard is incorporated under the asset manager mandate recommendations detailed below.
The relevant portions of the IPS should be included in the mandates to asset managers. This will include the category of investments, risk profile, diversification policies etc. as stipulated above. In addition, it will contain the expected rate of return and the actions to be taken in the event of the said managers not meeting performance targets. Furthermore, in order for the board of fund to effectively monitor the fund’s performance, the reporting frequency and performance targets should be clearly spelt out.
In addition, and in order to ensure that the asset managers practice the same corporate governance standards and best practices that s are expected to maintain, and in order to met their fiduciary obligations relating to voting and shareholder activism issues, the mandates should also require the asset managers to report on the following matters, as recommended by the International Corporate Governance Network, namely:
This information should be reported to the board of fund at least annually to enable the board in turn to report meaningfully to the beneficiaries on how it has applied and monitored its governance responsibilities.
The IPS should be reviewed regularly to ensure that it continues to meet the objectives of the fund and any deviations or changes should be explained to the beneficiaries.
Effective and regular communication between the board, the beneficiaries and the asset managers is essential, not only for the purposes of transparency and disclosure, but also to establish proper and regular monitoring of the fund performance, adherence to the terms of the mandate and the IPS.
The IPS should be disclosed to fund beneficiaries, investment managers and, where required, to the relevant regulatory authorities.
There should be regular, reporting to the beneficiaries, preferably quarterly, in a manner and a form which is easily understood, on relevant performance, risk/return and fund matters especially relating to any changes, that the might deem appropriate.
Refer to the relevant guidance issued by the Registrar from time to time which sets out the minimum disclosure to beneficiaries and the frequency thereof.
PRESCRIBED INVESTMENT AND LENDING LIMITS FOR PENSION FUNDS
To be provided from time to time via Regulation and Directives
INVESTMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURE GUIDELINES
To be updated by FSB from time to time
COMMUNICATION: MINIMUM DISCLOSURE TO MEMBERS, DEFERRED MEMBERS, DEPENDANTS, PENSIONERS AND BENEFICIARIES OF DECEASED MEMBERS
To be updated by FSB from time to time in circulars, etc.