GLOBAL - The majority of pension funds view sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) as innovative and ground-breaking investors rather than as competition, show the results of the latest Global Pensions 100 Panel.
However, several of the 50% majority made the point that while they agreed SWFs would lead in investment innovation, they were not convinced they would make the best examples for pension funds to follow.
"I agree with the statement itself," stated one panel member. "[As for the question of whether] this is something for other pension funds to follow, I'm not too sure."
"Sovereign wealth funds are simply another pool of institutional capital that should be considered in analysing capital flows and investment opportunities," commented another respondent.
"They have similarities to endowments, but also additional constraints and should not be considered as an example for pension funds. Pension funds should invest their risk capital into diversified portfolios that will provide the highest probability of meeting their required actuarial returns based on available investment opportunities."
Another panel member made the point that even though SWFs have been in the headlines for a while, they are still a relatively new phenomenon in the world of international investment, saying: "[It's] too early to tell, [they] may be competition for access to good investments."
Only 21% of respondents chose to respond that SWFs have "no impact" on pension fund investment.
Royal London saw its new group pension business decline over the first half of 2018 as the rollout of auto-enrolment (AE) drew to a close, according to its interim results.
Now Pensions has made "huge progress" in resolving legacy administration issues - switching systems and completing unit adjustment for a "large proportion" of members, it says.
Trustees of the Airways Pension Scheme (APS) will not make a firm decision on whether to appeal the Court of Appeal's judgment on discretionary increase payments until September.
Accountant Hashmukh Shah has pleaded guilty to deliberately providing false information to The Pensions Regulator (TPR) when stating a pension scheme had been set up for staff of a London-based restaurant.