Fiduciary managers struggled to show they were rewarded for taking risk in 2020, according to a report by Barnett Waddingham.
The review of fiduciary manager investment performance for UK pension funds carried out by the consultancy found investment performance was mixed and dependent on the level of return being targeted. For low and medium return targeting mandates, most fiduciary managers achieved their investment return objectives but for high return targets, fewer managers were successful.
The report found a wide variation in managers’ investment returns and their ability to protect against short-term market falls. This applied mainly to medium and high return targeting mandates and was down to a wide variation in investment approaches and liability hedging strategies, even among pension funds with seemingly high levels of hedging, says Barnett Waddingham.
The consultancy says it was able to conduct the research as a result of newly-launched requirements and standardised methodology for fiduciary managers, the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS) for Fiduciary Management Providers to UK Pension Schemes.
The report identified a continued trend of pension fund de-risking, with increasing proportions of fiduciary manager mandates having lower investment return objectives and higher liability hedging requirements.
It found ‘clear evidence of fiduciary managers adding value for pension funds targeting a moderate level of returns over the long term’. For mandates targeting higher returns, success continues to be mixed.
Differences in returns within fiduciary managers’ own portfolios indicates differing levels of customisation in portfolios to reflect specific pension fund needs.
Barnett Waddingham head of FM Evaluation Peter Daniels says: “The variation in performance highlights the importance of pension funds understanding what is driving their investment returns and the impact of their managers’ decisions.
“The range of investment returns and risk protection over 2020 demonstrates the financial significance of selecting the right fiduciary manager to fit with your pension fund’s objectives.
“We have said for a long time that although the decision to adopt a FM approach should be governance-led, the decision about which fiduciary manager to use should undoubtedly be investment-focussed.
“It also emphasises the importance of being able to understand what is driving a pension fund’s investment performance and whether the decisions taken by the fiduciary manager are adding value. Delegating responsibility over all of the assets places greater emphasis on a trustee board’s ability to hold their manager to account.
“We do however absolutely share the views of others in the industry that past investment performance should be one of a number of factors you should consider when appointing a fiduciary manager. Understanding performance data and making sure you are comparing apples with apples is vitally important.”
Establishing a standardised methodology for measuring FM performance was one of the many positive outcomes of the CMA Review. It allows pension funds to compare and contrast performance which is more relevant to its own circumstances. The data is useful to make high-level performance observations and supplemented by a more detailed assessment of how returns have been generated.
It is important GIPS® for FMPs data is used alongside expertise in interpreting the results and awareness of its limitations. It should be no substitute for more detailed, scheme specific performance analysis.
The post Fiduciary managers struggling to find rewards for risk – Barnett Waddingham research appeared first on Corporate Adviser.
