Canadian pension giants are grappling with the complex consequences of a national anti-greenwashing rule, which could leave businesses and investors more exposed to legal challenges for issuing environmental claims in marketing materials.   

The law, known as the environmental provisions under the federal Competition Act, was introduced in June last year.  

The country’s largest pension investor, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), was criticised for recently backing down from the commitment to make its portfolio and operations net zero of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. While it is the only known member of the Maple 8 to retreat from its net zero target, the move is an indication that the anti-greenwashing rule is causing compliance anxiety among asset owners, and that a divergence in climate reporting philosophies is emerging.   

Funds will be negotiating with the far-reaching impact of the law in the years to come as they are both users of portfolio companies’ ESG data and preparers of their own sustainability reports. Top1000funds.com canvassed key Canadian asset owners on what the new law means for their sustainability targets and engagement with companies on climate reporting.   

Climate anxieties  

In CPPIB’s explanation of the net zero backflip, which was quietly announced in the FAQs section on the fund’s website this month, it cited worries that “recent legal developments” in Canada are changing how net zero targets are being interpreted.   

In particular, it was said there is “increasing pressure” to adopt standardised emissions metrics and interim targets, many of which “don’t reflect the complexity of global investment portfolios”. CPPIB has never committed to interim targets since it introduced the net zero target in February 2022.   

The legal context

The new environmental provisions in the Competition Act essentially introduce the expectation that, from June 2024, any claims promoting products or business activities as having environmental benefits should be backed up with “adequate and proper tests” or “internationally recognised methodologies”. These terms are not defined under the act and leave plenty of room for interpretation – the methodologies could be developed by regulators, standards-setting bodies or different industries, for example.

Last week, another part of the provisions called the private rights of action came into effect. Individuals can now bring greenwashing allegation before the Canadian Competition Tribunal, which may accept and adjudicate the claims if it deems them to be “in the public interest”.

This means companies and funds can be dragged into drawn-out and costly legal battles over environmental claims, and many Canadian businesses have removed or are considering removing climate commitments simply because it is prudent to avoid the legal risks.

It previously used emerging markets as a reason. In a Harvard Business School case study in 2024, chief sustainability officer Richard Manley said CPPIB’s allocation to emerging markets “where net-zero was forecast by 2060-2070″ means its emissions would rise in the near-term, and setting interim targets would “constrain portfolio design”.   

While the fund was the only Canadian pension manager to explicitly include scope 3 emissions in its net zero goal, climate group Shift was critical of the fund for not including scope 3 emissions in its carbon footprint calculations. The fund cited a lack of information – only 30 per cent of its investee companies report scope 3 emissions – as the reason in its 2025 annual report.  

A CPPIB spokesperson said the fund wants to seek “coherence and consistency” in dealing with risks and opportunities of climate change, rather than being tied down to “targets disassociated from how we navigate through the whole economy transition and factors driving change whether interim, medium or quarter century dates”.  

CPPIB is not alone in questioning whether climate targets can truly reflect a portfolio’s sustainable impact. The UK’s largest pension fund Universities Superannuation Scheme says it will continue to measure its carbon emissions and plans to produce at TCFD report this year, but going forward the investor will spend more of its energy in engagement with government and corporates than producing reports. Explaining the decision, CEO Simon Pilcher said the fund would rather divert time spent on reporting to ratcheting up pressure on policymakers to facilitate policies friendlier to climate solutions.  

“Our portfolio has decarbonised significantly, but to put it bluntly, it’s not made a jot of difference in the real world and our focus is on a real-world impact rather than window dressing of our own portfolio,” said Pilcher. 

Divergence 

But most of CPPIB’s Canadian peers have doubled down on climate targets. Weeks after CPPIB’s decision, Québec’s CDPQ published its next five-year climate strategy, which reaffirmed its commitment to net zero. The fund has $58 billion invested in so-called “low-carbon assets at the end of 2024, and is running ahead of its 2017 goal to reduce the portfolio carbon intensity by 60 per cent before 2030.  

CDPQ is often hailed as a sustainability leader among institutional investors, including in an annual pension fund ranking by consultancy Global SWF. Its global head of sustainability and head of CDPQ Global, Marc-André Blanchard, was recently appointed chief of staff for Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, fuelling hope that climate progress will be higher on the new administration’s political agenda.  

CDPQ’s new target in the next five years is to reach $400 billion invested in “climate action” by 2030, including companies committed to decarbonising their activities and climate solutions, the fund said.  

But standing by existing climate commitments from this point on will not only require genuine belief in the impact of sustainable investment, but also rigorous compliance practices. Among measures to help keep track of CDPQ’s portfolio transition status in 2024, the fund adopted a real estate tool to monitor alignment with the Paris Agreement-complied carbon trajectory, as well as enhancing its in-house data compilation process and sustainability rating methodology. Whether more funds would similarly put additional resources into the management of sustainability data remains to be seen.  

HOOPP, OMERS and BCI also confirmed commitments to their existing climate plans to Top1000funds.com, while PSP Investments declined to comment. OTPP and AIMCo did not respond to requests for comments.    

Ontario’s OMERS said managing climate risk in the portfolio is part of its fiduciary duty for almost 640,000 members and it remains committed to reporting progress on a yearly basis. 

Unintended consequences 

In another sign of the Competition Act’s side effects, British Columbia’s BCI told the Competition Bureau in a public consultation that as investors, pension funds are both users and producers of company climate reports. While the act’s anti-greenwashing rule applies to consumer-facing marketing information, not investor-facing materials, the fund is worried that the distinction is not sufficiently clear to assure Canadian companies that historical company data will not be interpreted as environmental claims. 

Jennifer Coulson

The country’s biggest bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, walked away from its environmental promises in May and triggered speculation that more companies will quietly abandon their commitments.  

BCI’s proxy voting guidelines state that it will vote against directors at companies that do not provide climate-related information, and it will not accept companies using the bill as an excuse, the submission said.  

“We’re disappointed that it has prompted some companies to pull back on their sustainability disclosures – an unintended consequence for investors who rely on access to material ESG data to inform investment decisions,” Jennifer Coulson, BCI’s senior managing director and global head of ESG told Top1000funds.com.  

The fund will engage with companies to bring their climate reporting up to global standards, but it is pushing for stricter mandatory climate disclosure requirements in front of the country’s market regulator Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA). The legal development around that is on pause the CSA is worried that the mandatory climate disclosure would make the Canadian market uncompetitive amid ESG pullbacks in the US, but Coulson said “there is no substitute” measures.  

International learnings 

Australian pension funds have been facing similar anti-greenwashing pressures from their members and the market regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).  

In 2020, the A$93 billion Rest Super was sued by a member who argued the fund breached its fiduciary duty by not properly considering the risks posed by climate change. The case resulted in Rest Super issuing a public statement acknowledging the significant financial risks of climate change, as well as committing to a net zero carbon footprint by 2050 and regular progress reporting. 

Meanwhile, ASIC made anti-greenwashing one of its top enforcement priorities in 2024, and various super funds were caught up in its legal crackdown. The A$65 billion Mercer Super was fined A$11.3 million by the Australian Federal Court last August for including fossil fuels, alcohol and gambling companies in its ‘Sustainable Plus’ investment options, while the A$15 billion Active Super was penalised with a A$10.5 million fine for investing in fossil fuel, gambling and Russian entities while claiming their exclusions in ESG screening.  

There is similar criticism that “nuance is missing” in the Australian regulator’s approach, with the PRI calling for more engagements between ASIC and Australian asset owners to recognise the uncertainties in financing climate transition and the reality of how sustainability goals are translated into investment portfolio.  

But for their Canadian peers, perhaps the key takeaway is to “do what they say, and say what they do” when it comes to sustainable commitments if they want to avoid being called out on climate misrepresentation.

 

This article was corrected on 27th June to clarify that USS has no plans to stop TCFD reporting.

Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) is using an internally developed engine powered by AI to monitor and measure its portfolio managers’ skills, aiming to identify behavioural biases, improve decision making, efficiency of trades and save costs.

The system, called the Investment Simulator, currently covers all internal active portfolio managers in NBIM’s sector strategies as well as external fund managers of the $1.8 trillion investor. The result is information that helps them reflect on their trading patterns and identify strengths and weaknesses, according to NBIM head of Singapore and co-head of equity trading Sumer Dewan.

As the world’s largest investor, the fund makes around 49 million transactions per year, trading around the clock with its Singapore, Oslo, London, and New York offices’ coverage.

NBIM started expanding the tool’s usage in equity trading as a part of its three-year company plan which began in 2023. It stated at the time that the goal is to “promote psychological safety so that our portfolio managers dare to be contrarian and avoid herd behaviour”.

The tool provides a behavioural score of stock pickers based on historical order records. While Dewan declined to identify specific factors the scorecard tracks, one basic example is whether a portfolio manager holds onto their losing companies for too long, or their winners for too short.

Eventually, the fund wants the tool to become “agentic”, giving more real-time feedback and suggestions, instead of just after-the-fact.

“[The Investment Simulator] will be there soon… the speed at which this can be made [happen] is just incredible,” Dewan tells Top1000funds in an interview.

“Even where I sit, when a new trade comes in, I see who has sent it – let’s get a behavioural analysis of them.

“[It can also] tell me everything I need to know about this company very quickly, discuss current market conditions, and make recommendations of the best way to transact.”

There is also another version of the scorecard for NBIM’s traders and index portfolio managers, who have shorter trading time horizons compared to portfolio managers in sector strategies.

“But both scorecards are multidimensional in nature – timing, sizing, positioning, trading around and responding to events,” Dewan said.

“Traders also have tremendous discretion about how they trade so there are lots of variables we can look into.”

AI integration fund-wide

NBIM is well-advanced in its integration of AI in investment processes. The fund’s chief executive, ex-hedge fund manager Nicolai Tangen, is leading from the top with a clear message that using AI is not an option, but a must.

The fund has “AI ambassadors” scattered in different offices who Dewan says are volunteers spreading knowledge about the technology and helping people “unlock the door”. Departments and investment units in the firm are also encouraged to conduct their own AI projects with the ambassadors’ help.

Claude, a family of AI models and assistant developed by US firm Anthropic, is the main AI tool at NBIM, with the chatbot integrated across all devices in the organisation.

Dewan says that through the help of the internal ambassadors, he has transformed how he uses the tools and the information they provide, with tailored reporting and enhanced project management including recommendations.

There is the obvious cost-saving benefit of AI, too. For example, the technology can reduce unnecessarily trades by predicting future orders and opportunities to transact internally.

As the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund with 71.4 per cent of its AUM invested in equities, NBIM has a significant passive exposure and hence the need for constant rebalancing.

Tangen previously touted that the AI tool is already shaving $100 million off the fund’s trading costs every year and the ultimate target is to save $400 million, but Dewan says he “wouldn’t be surprised if we went beyond that number”.

“[With] the size of the fund and the holdings, there is a significant amount of internal crossing… that can be done – that itself is cost free,” he says.

“So right then and there, you are able to – by bringing your left and right hand talking together – fully analyse, anticipate and predict how your inventory looks and how it will look.”

These tools are still a “work-in-progress” but being able to test their effectiveness in a risk-controlled environment helps.

“We don’t just think our way forward, we build our way forward. We prototype, and that is very much in the DNA of the firm,” Dewan said.

AP3, the 549.1 billion Swedish kronor ($51.8 billion) buffer fund, has benefited from tactical asset allocation in recent months, with CIO Jonas Thulin arguing TAA is a potentially transformative component of portfolio strategy.

Thulin believes the strong rebound in the S&P 500 following the sharp declines associated with President Trump’s tariff announcements, was justified and even predictable based on historical market patterns. The core drivers of the rebound are improvements in liquidity in the US financial markets starting around April 8-9, post ‘Liberation Day’ but before Trump’s rollback – or downgrading – of his tariff policies.

Thulin says this pattern was also visible in the market rebound seen in March 2020 when he successfully deployed similar models to benefit from market movements.

In early April, AP3 was underweight equity and even short the S&P 500, at which point modelling showed that market liquidity had suddenly improved. AP3 took profit in short positions and flipped to being overweight US stocks to take advantage of the market trends.

The buffer fund was using a model that focuses on the price of liquidity in the US bond market as a key indicator. Thulin explains that when liquidity conditions improve significantly, it tends to trigger a strong “relief rally” – any ease up in liquidity is one of the classic “buy signals” for the stock market, he says.

He added that this liquidity improvement also coincided with a strong cyclical rebound in the US economy, further boosting the stock market.

“The important thing to emphasise here is that we run thousands of models, but this is one of the ones that we use to see what tomorrow will bring,” he said in an interview on Swedish TV translated into English.

Listen to the markets, not the media

Thulin notes that although the media is still reporting concerns about the US economy the market is not showing the same level of concern.

He says that data shows China has lowered export prices to offset the impact of tariffs which in turn could reduce the impact on US CPI. For this reason, the US could scale back tariff levels. In this scenario inflation in the US is expected to continue declining, which should lead to rate cuts from the Fed, while other factors like falling housing costs could also outweigh the impact from the tariffs.

“The interesting thing here is not whether this is right or wrong, or naive. The interesting thing here is that the market is going for this – right or wrong. And now the market, just like American consumers, thinks that the US seems to be heading in the right direction.”

Thulin’s observations on the benefits of tactical asset allocation are laid out in greater detail in a paper he co-authored earlier this year in collaboration with the University of Oxford, Duke University academics, and Man Group.

It espouses the benefits of market timing to tactically shifting portfolio allocations to capture gains from anticipated market movements triggered by geopolitical volatility.

“Far from being a speculative endeavour, market timing, when executed with skill and discipline, is a powerful tool for navigating the complexities of global financial markets. We propose that market timing should be seen as one of the levers that allocators employ in seeking to deliver returns to their investors across the cycle,” the authors state.

The value of market timing lies not in the use of a particular indicator but in the ability to combine diverse signals and adapt them as conditions change. Equally important, and arguably less understood, is the role of time-varying risk. Financial markets are not static; they oscillate between periods of stability and turbulence, with changes in volatility, liquidity and correlation structures often occurring rapidly.

“If a (small) percentage of managers can add value through timing strategies, the presence of such skill challenges the narrative that passive investing is universally superior. Findings also suggest that active management is most relevant in market environments characterised by complexity and rapid change – conditions under which passive strategies may fail to respond quickly enough.

“Market timing, long looked at askance in both academic and professional circles, emerges from our analysis as a viable strategy – when it is approached with the requisite nuance. While the prevailing literature highlights the difficulty of achieving consistent outperformance through timing, it often overlooks the meaningful returns that a subset of highly skilled managers can generate. Our findings support a reframing of market timing discussions to acknowledge the role of advanced, dynamic strategies that go beyond simplistic signals.”

The paper states how analysis of market timing also underscores the need for continuous innovation in market timing methodologies. The most successful approaches are fluid, allowing for the ongoing refinement of models and the incorporation of new data sources.

While market timing is not a universally attainable skill, it isn’t the impossibility that traditional narratives suggest.

“For those willing and able to rise to the challenge, market timing – far from being a speculative gamble – is a potentially transformative component of portfolio strategy,” they conclude.

The US state of Oregon is on the cusp of passing legislation that will require the $100 billion Oregon Public Employees Retirement System to invest in clean energy wherever possible as it aims for a net-zero portfolio by 2050. The state’s treasury previously directed the fund to engage more with private markets fund managers on emission reduction goals, but identified public equities as the area where it can have the most impact on the carbon footprint.

The US state of Oregon is on the cusp of passing legislation that will require the $100 billion Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) to invest in clean energy wherever possible and slash its carbon footprint, bucking the anti-ESG trend elsewhere in the country. 

HB 2081A, or Climate Resilience Investment Act, passed the Senate this Tuesday with an 18-10 vote, including the support from one Republican Senator Dick Anderson. The bill still needs the signature from state governor Tina Kotek to become law.  

OPERS wants to achieve a net-zero portfolio by 2050, with an interim target of a 60 per cent reduction in portfolio emissions by 2035 compared to a 2022 baseline. The fund is already changing how it works with private markets fund managers to realise these objectives.  

In a 97-page net-zero plan published in 2024, the Oregon state treasury directed OPERS to incorporate a portfolio’s emission reduction goals into fund manager due diligence in private markets and increase the share of impact fund investments.  

The report identified real assets, such as infrastructure, but not including real estate, will be one of the biggest roadblocks to a net-zero portfolio. It represents 10.1 per cent of the overall allocation at the end of June 2024, but 30 per cent of its emissions according to the 2022 baseline as reported at the end of 2023. 

OPERS’ real assets investments consist of some 70 per cent in airports and bridges, and 30 per cent in natural resources such as commodities, timber, energy, and agriculture – all hard-to-decarbonise industries, the treasury said. 

The fund also has an outsized private equity allocation which came to 26.9 per cent in 2024, compared to the 14 per cent US public pension peer average, according to figures from the American Investment Council. While it is not as emission-intensive nor as hard to decarbonise as real assets, the treasury highlighted some difficulties in controlling the sectors it invests in.   

“We are not choosing companies; we are choosing strategies and the right people to implement those strategies. The managers then go on to select companies based on those strategies, criteria, and their own best judgment,” the report said. 

Changes to public equities management 

However, public equity is where the treasury believes the fund can make the most impact because of its high “emission intensity” – calculated by dividing financed emissions by the capital invested. The asset class accounted for 23 per cent of total allocation in 2024 and 47 per cent of portfolio emissions based on the 2022 baseline, 36 per cent of which is caused by active strategies.   

Specifically, OPERS discovered that it has a higher level of fossil fuel exposure than the MSCI ACWI index due to its investment process and selection of risk factors. A low volatility strategy in public equity has led to a higher allocation to utility companies, for example. 

The treasury wants to bring OPERS’ active portfolio emission intensity in line with the MSCI ACWI benchmark, increase active “climate-positive investments” and switch passive investments to climate-aligned index, in addition to ongoing engagements and stewardship efforts. 

Progress 

OPERS is making headway in achieving its net-zero goals. In an annual update 10 months after the initial report, the treasury said OPERS has committed capital to two climate-focused real asset projects in 2024 in green hydrogen and battery storage. In private equity, it invested in a company that provides ESG data and benchmarks for real assets, as well as an outdoor living product manufacturer that uses recyclable plastics. 

Commenting on the  Climate Resilience Investment Act’s passage, state treasurer Elizabeth Steiner said it “is a clean energy investment law, not a divestment mandate”. Under the act, OPERS will need to “actively analyse and manage the risks of climate change”, including reporting on scope 1 and scope 2 emissions of fossil fuel investments, and reduce its carbon intensity through “a preference for investments that reduce net greenhouse gas emissions”.   

The treasury established an advisory group in 2024, comprised of representatives from public employee unions and OPERS retirees, which meets at least semi-annually and provides feedback on the fund’s net-zero progress.  

Another bill introduced this year, SB 681, is seeking to enact a five-year pause that bans the Oregon treasurer and Oregon Investment Council from investing OPERS and other state capital in private funds that deal heavily in fossil fuels. The bill has not been progressed from the Senate since March but received overwhelming support in its first public hearing.  

One of the most prominent and successful of the United Kingdom’s eight Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) pools, the £31 billion Brunel Pension Partnership, renowned for its responsible investment strategy, has been told by the Labour government to merge with another pool as it begins enacting plans for fewer, larger pools to better manage the £392 billion LGPS to “back Britain” and drive investment in productive assets.

Brunel, together with £52 billion ACCESS which manages assets for 11 LGPS pension funds in southern England, has been told their business plans don’t meet the government’s vision for the future of the LGPS. Both must now notify ministers which other pool they will merge with by the end of September.

The decision has blindsided Brunel because other LGPS pools such as the £25 billion Wales Pension Partnership and £62.7 billion Northern LGPS (a partnership between Greater Manchester Pension Fund, Merseyside Pension Fund, and West Yorkshire Pension Fund) were given the greenlight on their pooling plans but are not Financial Conduct Authority regulated – a key government requirement.

In a statement on Brunel’s website, chief executive officer Laura Chappell outlined how Brunel has met other pooling criteria it was tasked to achieve. Around 90 per cent of client funds’ assets have transitioned to the pool; cost savings amounted to £46 million per year by 2023-24, and Brunel also has a large allocation to the UK – 32 per cent of all pooled AUM was invested in the UK at the end of Q1 2024.

“In short, we did not simply meet the initial aims of pooling: we exceeded those aims and blazed a trail in Responsible Investment across the global asset owner space. For these reasons, we strongly reject any suggestion that weaknesses as a pool explain the government’s recent invitation to Brunel’s partner funds to seek an alternative pooling arrangement,” writes Chappell.

A blow to responsible investment

Brunel’s achievements in responsible investment are particularly noteworthy. Brunel staff hold positions including chair of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change and in the Investor Advisory Group for ISSB. Brunel also contributed to the investment industry’s most widely-used net zero framework and has pioneered Paris-aligned passive indices.

Brunel’s expertise and wide ESG offering to client funds may not be matched in investment strategies offered by other pools.

Writing in a personal capacity on LinkedIn, Adam Matthews, chief responsible investment officer (CRIO) at Church of England Pensions Board said:

“I personally view [Brunel] as one of the most credible practical examples of what it is to be a responsible investor. Be under no illusion what you have pioneered and driven has made a real world difference.”

Costs for ACCESS

ACCESS, which has already pooled £50 billion from its 11 partner funds, also criticised the government’s decision and warned that a merger with another pool would incur significant additional costs.

In a statement, the pool said a merger with either Local Pensions Partnership or Border to Coast Pension Partnership would incur estimated transition costs of between 28 and 36 basis points, based on the value of active listed assets already pooled. This equated to approximately £100 million, and double the cost of building its own vehicle – something it called  “unnecessary expenditure of tens of millions of pounds and a financial burden on our plan members which could alternatively be used to invest in U.K. productive finance initiatives.”

Last year, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves travelled to Toronto where she gleaned ideas from Canada’s Maple 8 bosses on how to create a “Canadian style” pension model in the UK. LGPS consolidation is expected to be a key pillar of the upcoming Pensions Bill, which is anticipated to be brought before the UK parliament in the coming months.

Australia’s Future Fund will partially internalise its direct local infrastructure and property investments to cut costs and boost flexibility in the wake of its growing concerns about investing in the US.

The shift aligns with the sovereign wealth fund’s revised government mandate to consider investments across three national areas of priority: the energy transition, the supply of residential housing, and Australian infrastructure.

Future Fund chair Greg Combet said this increased focus on domestic real asset exposures had prompted the fund to seek government approval to invest in local infrastructure and property assets – a first since the fund was established nearly two decades ago.

“This additional capability is intended to help access new opportunities in Australian infrastructure and property that we might otherwise be unable to access efficiently, or which external managers may not be focused on,” he said in a speech to a Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) event in Sydney.

It is understood that this may also include defence-related infrastructure assets where the pool of existing fund managers is small or non-existent.

While the majority of Australia’s superannuation funds have internalised much of their asset management, the Future Fund employs more than 100 external managers, which manage the bulk of its A$240 billion ($155 billion) barring some co-investment sleeves.

“We do not anticipate a significant shift away from the way in which we partner with our external managers,” he said.

The move is also viewed as a way to bring more dollars home as the fund grows increasingly cautious on the investment and geopolitical outlook for the United States. The Future Fund has more than 70 per cent of its assets offshore, well above most local super funds, which hold less than half of their portfolio offshore.

Combet said the election of Donald Trump as US president last year has “added layers of volatility and uncertainty”, adding that the Future Fund was focused on the US’ retreat from global security and economic arrangements, and on the uncertainties that have arisen as a result of that waning influence.

“We’re also mindful of the geopolitical contest between China and the US, including the race to dominate in artificial intelligence capability,” he said.

“The US tariffs and their likely macroeconomic impact are on our mind… The dollar has fallen about 10 per cent this year against major currencies, and continuing depreciation may be significant for global capital flows of asset values.”

Investors also have to contend with the “big beautiful bill” – the US’ budget reconciliation bill – which contains Section 899, which “potentially and dramatically escalate” tax rates for foreign institutional investors like the Future Fund.

“In combination, these policies and dynamics are making the US a more risky and uncertain investment destination,” Combet said.

“The factors I’ve highlighted are alerting investors that elevated risk demands a higher return on capital and that they may be overweight US assets.

“So while the US will undoubtedly continue to offer many attractive investment opportunities at the margin, I think it’s fair to say that it’s become a less attractive investment destination than it was, and maybe likely to see a smaller share of capital flows going forward.”

Those changes, if not permanent, will be long-lasting, Combet said, and the Future Fund is reviewing its short- and long-term investment scenarios.

“What will the investment environment look like under the Trump Administration and beyond? It seems unlikely that even dramatic reversals of Trump policies would engender a return to business as usual approach from long-term investors now that some doubt has been sown.

“And the trend towards deglobalisation, greater political tensions, geopolitical tensions and multi-polarity pre-date Trump and can be expected to post-date the Trump era. We certainly don’t think at the Future Fund that the dynamics I’ve spoke of will pass and return the world to the norms of yesteryear.”

Combet’s comments echoed Future Fund chief investment officer Ben Samild’s comments earlier this month at the Australian Fiduciary Investors Symposium hosted by Top1000funds.com’s sibling publication, Investment magazine.

“The global institutional order is changing,” Samild said. “The stability of the post-Bretton Woods II institutional framework may be fracturing. Portfolio construction against this backdrop is considerably more challenging and you have unsatisfactory choices.”

Samild said several forces had raised the risks for offshore asset owners investing in US dollar-denominated assets, including China’s waning appetite for US dollar assets and accumulating large foreign exchange US dollar-denominated reserves in response to the Trump administration’s hefty proposed tariffs.

“Is the global savings flywheel reversing? The US has captured 70 per cent of global savings – Europe, Japan, the most important surplus countries, Canada, Australia. I think China’s out. Many of the policies that have been announced or discussed make it more difficult for capital providers in all these countries.”

Samild said the fund viewed FX as the most important lever in its portfolio.

“It’s the least spoken about but the most important one. It changes your returns over time more than any, and it has more nasty trade-offs that you really have to think through than any of the other things that we do.”

The fund takes an active, whole-of-portfolio approach to managing currency through overlays rather than allowing FX exposures to be shaped by its underlying investments.

Samild said the Future Fund was now questioning three core beliefs about the Australian dollar that had held up over decades:

  • The Australian dollar will (on average) exhibit pro-cyclical behaviour against a basket of developed market currencies.
  • Australia will (on average) have somewhat higher real interest rates than other developed markets.
  • Developed market FX is a valuable source of diversification, particularly in stressed environments, and for liquidity risk reduction.

“We have changed our duration exposure,” Samild said. “We changed our strategic FX, we changed our tactical FX. You have to be really careful about correlation.”

“We think we might be in a world which is even harder than the one I’ve described, because our running correlation, from an Australian dollar perspective, might turn the other way, but your tail correlation in an event may still be Australian dollar down.

“It’s very hard to take on this correlation risk blind now. So maybe you buy gold, maybe you buy alternative reserve currencies, maybe you use hedge funds instead, maybe you use long vol, maybe you use options yourself. Maybe you do some version of all of this. But this is all more challenging than reliable, scalable, rewarding portfolio anchors like US duration and FX have been.”