We may have taken our annual print break over the past three weeks, but online at pensionsweek.com we’ve ensured our summer holiday readers had plenty to browse through.
One highlight was a one-on-one video interview with Martin Clarke, executive director of financial risk at the Pension Protection Fund, on the pensions lifeboat’s investment strategy.
The fund’s assets outperformed liabilities by more than 4 per cent in the year to March 2013 – down, he explained, to incremental improvements from its hedging strategy and stronger performance in its equity and bond portfolios.
Video: How the PPF designs its portfolio to beat liabilities
I also pressed Clarke on the increase in the PPF’s investment management fees, which were up to £47.8m in 2012 from £19.5m in 2011. ‘Value after’ investment was the watchword.
“Looking at fees in isolation is probably, in my opinion, not the best way to look at it,” Clarke said, “and in many cases the large fees are associated with very active portfolios, and therefore it is best to look at them on a net basis.”
A growing, high-profile fund like the PPF has the luxury of an ever-strengthening negotiating position, he admitted. Other schemes would understandably be envious of that starting point in discussions with their fund managers.
Another strong story covered the latest iteration of the auto-enrolment capacity crunch, this time with concerns that a 2014 spike in employers staging could stretch the capacity of pensions law firms.
It would be unnecessarily pessimistic to say the advisory market cannot adapt to change – as Pinsent Masons’ Tom Barton said, the legal crunch (my phrase, not his) actually presents an opportunity for lawyers.
But the issue is whether the capacity gap – in whichever guise – impacts on the value that employers can get for themselves and their members, especially when they do not have the scale to knock the door down.
Ian Smith is editor of Pensions Week. You can follow him on Twitter @iankmsmith and the team @pensionsweek
