Edi Truell spoke at the Pension PlayPen Coffee Morning, supported by the Pension Superfund CEO- Luke Webster
The meeting was structured to give Truell the right to respond to an article in the FT , taking Superfunds to task.
I was asking the questions and additional questions were asked by Jo Cumbo of the FT. A recording of the event will appear on my blog and in the press section of http://www.pensionplaypen.com
A consolidator of pension funds under the pension fund regime. Single set of trustees. Backstop Capital provision
Not at all. Pension funds have suffered by not investing into real assets. LPFA example. International examples and the likes of Yale or Wellcome
Significantly better than the majority of covenants
That’s the Clara model, which does not work Pension SuperFund is designed to be for life
Until Mansion House, the structure was not investable There remains a debate one the ability of trustees to manage risk in real time, post the LDI crisis
I do not understand how their model can work, nor does anyone else
Very much so. It has widened the universe of affordability for many more pension funds and their sponsors
Gateway needs to be either abolished as potentially illegal anti-competitive behaviour; or at the very least removed for funds that are clearly not in immediate range of a buyout; and for troubled sponsors Who can tell what might happen in five weeks, let alone years?
Restoring a competitive landscape. The previous guidelines were such that superfunds had to fund to a HIGHER level than insurance (99.8% vs 99.5% certainty); and moreover insurers can use voodoo economics to present value future profits and call it solvency capital (Matching Adjustment).
Much less risk than continuing with a single stock sponsor. |
