Passive aggressive: reforming the Local Government Pension Scheme

by

24 Jun 2014

Investors have locked horns over the respective merits of active and passive management for years, but the debate was reignited recently over a proposed series of radical changes to the investment strategy of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) aimed at saving the taxpayer millions of pounds a year.

Features

Web Share

Investors have locked horns over the respective merits of active and passive management for years, but the debate was reignited recently over a proposed series of radical changes to the investment strategy of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) aimed at saving the taxpayer millions of pounds a year.

Investors have locked horns over the respective merits of active and passive management for years, but the debate was reignited recently over a proposed series of radical changes to the investment strategy of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) aimed at saving the taxpayer millions of pounds a year.

In May the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) published a consultation paper proposing two key changes to the scheme: moving its £89bn of actively-managed listed assets into passive management, to be accessed through a common investment vehicle (CIV); and replacing all LGPS funds of funds arrangements with a CIV for alternative assets.

According to analysis by consultant Hymans Robertson, published alongside the consultation, these two changes will save the LGPS £420m and £240m a year, respectively, if all of the funds adopt the proposals in full. The driver of these massive changes is cost: figures from the DCLG show the cost of the LGPS to employers in England alone has almost quadrupled from £1.5bn in 1997/98 to £5.7bn in 2012/13.

Other figures published as part of the call for evidence show the reported cost of investment in cash terms has risen from £340m in 2010/11 to £381m in 2011/12 and £409m in 2012/13, while data from Hymans Robertson identifies investment management fees could in fact be reaching in excess of £790m.

The desire to bring down costs is therefore understandable, but with 89 separate funds and some £178bn under management collectively, achieving collaboration and consensus across the LGPS has been a long-running battle. The government has already introduced a revised benefit structure which came into effect on 1 April this year, but it believes more can be done to reduce LGPS costs even further.

 Four options

The consultation proposes four possible solutions to address this: funds could be required to move all listed assets into passive management; funds could be required to invest a specified percentage of their listed assets passively, or to progressively increase their passive investments; fund authorities could be required to manage listed assets passively on a “comply or explain” basis; or funds could simply be expected to consider the benefits of passively managed listed assets.

The DCLG consultation resonates with a paper published by the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) think tank in November last year, which described the LGPS as “woefully inefficient” and comprising “101 opaque, predominately sub-scale, inefficient, funds, with excessive costs and lax governance”.

The paper outlined a strong negative correlation between administration costs per fund member and fund scale. Essentially, the larger the fund, the lower its expenses with investment costs ranging from £7.60 per member (West Yorkshire) to £317.30 (City of London). Among the think tank’s suggestions was a proposal to re-design the investment process, emphasising investment in passive rather than actively managed funds, which it said could save £860m a year.

Comments

More Articles

Subscribe

Subscribe to Our Newsletter and Magazine

Sign up to the portfolio institutional newsletter to receive a weekly update with our latest features, interviews, ESG content, opinion, roundtables and event invites. Institutional investors also qualify for a free-of-charge magazine subscription.

×