Let us put the size of our investment (13m of Brits allows me to use “us”) at £50bn. I know it has been about that level for some time and the FT’s Mary McDougall quotes this amount. (free link to early beds)

It is an amount that can shift things, especially when Britain is short of capital. It is not money that will definitely into the infrastructure of Britain’s economy and this article asks Elizabeth Fernando and Mark Fawcett whether politics creates a conflict towards Nest’s fiduciary duty to us 13m.

Fernando believes Nest’s shift towards longer-term private assets, such as infrastructure and property, will benefit members as they tend to provide regular cash flows throughout market cycles.

More importantly as an indication of Nest’s long term intent, a move from 17% to 30% suggests a long term intention to pay pensions, regular cash flows pay pensions.

To suppose that Nest is a national wealth fund is wrong, it is a pension fund which currently has to meet regulatory and legislative rules that prevent what it should be doing, which is to pay pensions.

What Nest wants to do is deeply honourable. There is some malevolent text published in the Telegraph this week claiming that Nest is wasting savers money, I know the people mentioned in this FT article and they, like others in Nest are deeply intent on providing a retirement income  for the majority of DC savers who have no access to advice nor aspiration to “wealth”.

These people need people thinking like Fawcett, Fernando and Todd. We need to think of more DC auto-enrolment schemes about how they can improve the pension that is primarily provided by the State Pension. That is the reality of a large proportion of Nest savers today.

But having a long investment view means that Nest cannot be deeply serious about its responsibility to make Britain a better place for its savers to live in retirement.

Mark Fawcett, chief executive of Nest’s investment business, said he considered the impact of Nest’s UK investments in economic terms, as well as the performance it delivered for members.

The misconception that Nest is mandated to invest as the Government wants is one they want to bury at this stage. It is not what this team does,

Fernando follows up by stressing

 that increasing the default fund’s private market exposure from 17 per cent to 30 per cent by the end of the decade was “an ambition, not a guarantee. We’ll do it if the opportunities arise.”

What little there has been from Rachel Reeves suggests that Government are not requiring Nest to become anything but a well invested pension. But what this article does is point out how our Pension Funds could be invested if the aspiration is to pay people a lifetime income in the future

The fund’s infrastructure investments include the M6 toll road and Manchester, Stansted and East Midlands airports, as well as telecoms masts company Arqiva and the Hornsea offshore wind farms. About 40 per cent of its private market exposure is in the UK, including all of its property investments.

In her Spring Statement on Wednesday, chancellor Rachel Reeves noted that reform of the pensions industry was a key pillar of the government’s plans to revitalise growth.  We should be greeting news that Nest has an intention to play a part of this as good news for Britain as well for future pensioners (of which I’m one).

Nothing should be “guaranteed” when it comes to investment, we want our great pension funds, of which Nest is now one, to provide a guide to smaller schemes. I am pleased to see mention in the article with co-investment with L&G and they have also worked with NatWest Cushon. They do not need to restrict themselves to working with DC master trusts, they could work with DB schemes if those schemes are able to participate in Nest’s strategy. It is good to see Nest working with Dutch pension fund PGGM.

There will be many critics of a Government owned pension fund for its approach but it does what it can because it is allowed to be ambitious as a growth fund. It does not have to worry about negative cashflows and will not be looking to annuitize itself for people who want pensions.

I am encouraged by the article.