Joint Pensions Committee - Thursday 11 December 2025, 7:15pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Joint Pensions Committee
Thursday, 11th December 2025 at 7:15pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you.
Welcome to this meeting and welcome to all the visitors this evening.
I'm sure we're going to have an interesting and fruitful debate.
I'm looking forward to it.
My name is Councillor Marshall.
I'm the chair of the Joint Penitents Committee.
Members of the committee, I'll now call your names in alphabetical order.
Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance.
Councillor Caddy, I believe you're joining us remotely.
That's correct. Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Craigy, Deputy Chair. Good evening.
Councillor Crookdale. Good evening.
Councillor Dickard. Good evening.
Councillor Loeschke. Yes, good evening.
And Councillor Ireland. Good evening.
And we've received apologies from Councillor Pridham
Do apologise, I incredibly apologise Councillor Sarah
We have a number of officers present who will introduce themselves when they address the committee
So, item one are the minutes from the 11th of September, 2025.

1 Minutes - 11 September 2025

Members, are there any objections to confirming those minutes?
Thank you.
I'll take that as approved.
Thank you.
Item two is Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.

2 Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

Are there any declarations of either pecuniary, other registrable, or non -registrable interests?
Council Dickerdum, Councillor Gesser.
I'm a member of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which will undoubtedly be relevant to the
But I don't get any financial benefit from that.
Thank you.
And Councillor Gasser.
I should probably disclose that I do have a very small pension in the pension fund from
when I was a Councillor previously.
Thank you very much.

3 External Audit Results Report (Paper No 25/437)

So substantive item 3, the external audit results.
I'm now going to call on Mr. Gelotti to introduce this report.
Thank you, Chair.
I'll be very brief and just say this is a report primarily and delivered by
Ernst and Young and Ben Lazarus from them are here today, so I'll pass you straight over to him
Thanks Paul, I'll also keep it quite brief you saw a report from us at the last committee that was a
substantive update report a draught results report if you like and
There were some
elements of completion procedures we had to do at that point in time.
So this is me bringing a final report to you which just confirms that those completion
procedures have been done.
I would make a few points that I'd just draw out for the meeting.
So one is we anticipate issuing an unqualified audit opinion on the pension fund accounts.
Unqualified is a clean audit opinion.
It's the right sort of audit opinion.
You will hopefully see from our report it's just generally a very clean report.
We haven't found anything in the way of significant control deficiencies.
We found one minor audit difference just above our reporting threshold around a sort of timing
difference, but I wouldn't get too exercised about that if I were you.
And I'd also note in here some really sort of positive commentary around the work of
the finance team and Coral, who's sitting next to me, in terms of servicing the audit.
That's been absolutely stellar, as usual.
So there is a table on page 8 which just – we are reporting across the sector and across
the wider local government sector to sort of give commentary on how organisations are
in terms of the audit process.
And as you can see from here, it's a very effective and green process.
So I do want to call out for the minutes and thank management and all those involved in
the audit process.
The only other thing I think to note before I open for questions is you'll remember
as a committee that at the moment we are not legally permitted to sign the audit opinion
of the pension fund without it being embedded within the overall council accounts.
We can't disentangle those two opinions at this stage.
So even though I'm giving you a completion report and saying everything's done and
my opinion will say this, I'm not yet putting pen to paper, that's because the ones with
borough council accounts audit is still – it's in its final stages, but it's still ongoing
and we anticipate completing that final sort of elements of work over the next week or
so and maybe slightly bleeding into the early part of January.
So we will move to signing these accounts alongside or as part of the overall council
accounts in January.
There is a backstop date for all of these accounts – 24, 25 accounts of end of February
– so there's still a really good buffer.
There's no risk to that.
But just in case members or public are wondering why we're not actually signing the things
yet, it's that entanglement with the overall council accounts and that audit is still being
finalised.
I'll stop there and open for questions.
Thank you very much.
I mean, there is slightly more drama involved in this than you might have thought from this
because it's been a long road getting these audit reports signed off and they are, try
as it may seem, extremely important.
There's large sums of money involved and this is how we make sure that those sums of money
are being spent and audited correctly.
So thanks to everybody who's been involved,
officers and our external advisors.
Do any members have any questions?
Yes, Councillor Dickard.
Yeah, I mean, it's a totally clear bill of health,
it seems like, from the report,
but obviously the only thing that was mentioned
was the LCA of renewable infrastructure asset change.
So I can, it says about timing,
could you expand that a little bit more, just for clarity?
Yeah, so I mean, I guess first of all,
We have – the numbers in the pension fund of this scale and complexity are large, right?
So not for a minute do I want to suggest that this is a – it's a number that doesn't
matter to any other one.
We're talking a number over a million pounds, but in the scale of this pension scheme, our
materiality is significantly higher than that at the sort of 80 -million -pound mark.
So it is quite small, but it is above that reporting threshold.
That's why we've put it in there.
What tends to happen with – in any pension fund is you don't always get a sort of third -party
report that absolutely aligns to the year -end date.
So in this instance, the third party has provided a report that's slightly misaligned with
that.
The council – officers have put a number in that links to that.
We've then got further information post -year -end that tells us, actually, it's slightly erroneous.
But that error is a small enough magnitude that it's not worried me, it's not stopped
me making my overall opinion, and I suspect, frankly, management have got to a position
at that point where they've closed the accounts process.
So actually, does it make sense to reopen that, use management time in an organisation
to do that?
I don't think it does, actually, given the scale.
If that were a much more material number or a much more material difference, I'd be
saying a lot more about it.
But it's a timing difference in terms of when a third party gives us a sort of data point
It doesn't quite align here, but the difference is pretty small
That's the gas
Thank you, and I know there was a couple of outstanding audits weren't there previously
I just want a confirmation that now everything's basically caught up. So is it and then the second question
I just wonder if you could say something on page 12 we talked about the inherent valuation of property investments to just be a slightly
Higher risk, so I just would like you to provide some reassurance around those numbers
Okay, thank you
Yeah
I think the historic audits that were that were sort of behind that you refer to counsellor in relation to the main
Council, but I may be mistaken but in terms of the pension fund
And this is the 24, 25 accounts.
The 23, 24 accounts were signed off a while ago now.
So the pension fund audit is absolutely up to date.
Also we've reported recently to the council audit committee and we're also working towards
the completion of the 24, 25 accounts there.
So all audits are sort of commensurate with the current timetable that you'd expect
across this sector.
In terms of valuation of level two investments,
so we have a sort of delineation of our risk assessment
across your different asset bases.
Level three assets are those which are hardest to value,
don't have a sort of easily observable market.
Level two assets are still really quite judgmental
and there's quite a lot of estimation
and the big numbers in there.
So we have a suite of audit procedures
and specialist inputs to make sure
that the valuation methodology is being used to value those assets which are linked through
to property are appropriate.
The assumptions are credible and are linked back to sort of appropriate source data.
So we've done a huge amount of work around that area and, you know, sort of one of the
points around audit reports is we do report by exception and I'm not reporting anything
by exception.
So I'm comfortable with all of the procedures we've done to be able to conclude that those
assets are materially correct in the account.
So there's a lot of work behind that one -page a counsellor, but it's a clean bill of health in that area
If there are no further questions
We're recommended to note the draught ISA
260 audit results report
2020 or 2025 so that's duly noted

4 Draft Funding Strategy Statement (Paper No 25/438)

Thank you. Thank you counsellors item for our draught funding strategy statement once again, mr. Gelotti
Okay, thank you, Chair. So hopefully members will recall that we have the actuary that
has been in front of the Committee before and is setting out the roadmap for the valuation
process, which ultimately will lead to how we set the employer contribution rates going
forward. This privacy funding strategy statement is the updated version. That's what we will
be using when we come to finalising those decision -making processes, and it outlines
the assumptions that have been proposed to be used for carrying out the valuation and
the approach that we take in relation to surpluses, etc. within the funds.
The main thing really to note is obviously in paragraph 11, which again has previously
been brought here, how we calculated it is that the discount rate will be 5 .1%.
The reason why that is key and important is that's really will set out what we need to
achieve when we're looking at the asset allocation review later on on the agenda and you know
after prudence allowances etc.
Other assumptions that will look massively impact on how the fund operates is paying
inflation and they're obviously detailed and outlined in paragraphs 12 and 13.
The rest of it is detail and you know and it obviously is important but they're the
key sort of elements for where I think you need to be brought to your attention.
the approach and the reason why the financial statements funding strategy
statement looks fundamentally different is the guidance that's been issued this
time around as said we need to provide the information in a lot more prescribed
manner and that's similarly explained in paragraph 14 so I think that probably is
all I'd like to say for now and some questions. Thank you Mr. Gelotti. Are there
any questions from members?
Councillor Dickerton. Yeah I mean the I guess the economic changes are the
things that were probably most concerning to officers in the immediate
term following 2022 but there's also very long -term stuff like climate risk
in the in the back of it could you expand a bit on that because that I
couldn't quite get my head around how you would far too little too late
scenario when you can't really plan for it. I was wondering how you mitigate risk like that.
It's a challenge and you know especially when you think that obviously we are a
fund and you know whilst 3 .4 billion pounds is a significant sum of money in
market cap terms it's very small but the influence and the
decisions that obviously happen across the globe impact on how we invest and
what we can invest in.
That is why when, you know, several years ago we did do that climate scenario analysis.
We took appropriate advice from Mercer's where they came and presented and actually mapped
out what the issues were and what the changes were and that led to us demonstrating that
by setting a net zero 2050 approach to how we invest, it was net positive on financial
reasons.
So, by taking climate into account, it is positive for the Fund.
So we don't have, as you know, we don't have a direct exclusion approach currently.
Within that, it is more about engagement, but it's an active engagement because we've
got that roadmap to net zero, which is an influence on it.
So that is really how we tackle it and what we do.
The SIV just produced, and we're still going through the numbers, we've only got them
this week so we can keep analysis on our roadmap
towards that journey, because we committed
to making a 60 % reduction by 2030.
That is what we're now looking at the data
that we've just recently got in to analyse it
to see how we are on that journey.
Initial figures and what we've got in
means we do not need to change our current approach
because we are on track to meet those targets.
So we will endeavour to continually review that process,
and if we need to change,
We've discussed before that this time of approach, when we're looking to set out
our asset allocation review, is probably the optimum time to do that.
That is what I would suggest we continue to do, but we are working and moving into new
dynamics from April, because clearly we're going to be more guided by the London CIV
in how we manage this, the advice that we take.
But I'm still comfortable that, subject to, if we've got any – once we've done
the numbers, I can bring it back to the next committee if there is any changes. What we'll
be proposing later, we don't need to ratchet up our climate changes to meet our previous
agreed targets.
Councillor Cropache.
Thanks. Could I ask a question about the contribution reviews and the provisions related to triggering
those reviews. I just wondered if you could explain to me whether, in considering whether
you would undertake that review, you would look at how funded the fund was, if you like,
before or after a volatility reserve, because I notice in later papers you started providing
a funded percentage figure after a volatility reserve, but I don't know how you're defining
that in there and so I'm not sure how that would work in terms of looking at
the terms and conditions if you like in the strategy paper. So the paper was
written obviously is talking about a hundred and fifteen percent you know as
a cap. We you know it is subjective and there is always going to be challenges
to what is right and what is wrong and what are people comfortable with. The
discount rate that we had in the last three years was 4 .4 percent. We've
increased it to 5 .1%.
When you're setting any sort of discount rate, it is at, as I say, it's at the whim
of the actuary, but the actuary is used, obviously they're professionally trained, they work
in conjunction, they obviously take into account details from colleagues like Mercer in how
they calculate it.
But there has been a sizeable chunk and shift in 4 .4 to 5 .1.
That means that we now need to achieve 5 .1 % every year to maintain our current sort of
set up in effect.
It's been a challenge to hit that across all sectors when you've got a diversified portfolio
after the last three years.
Do we think the market has increased significantly, that we're going to get a better performance?
We're all taking challenges and risks.
Now guilt rates, which we'll talk about again later, and things have gone up, which is why
the risk -free rate has changed.
That's a context for where we're working in and that is why, whilst when we're looking
at where we will be setting rates, et cetera, having relevant prudence is important.
Because stable contributions is one of the most important things for financial planning
for Section 151 officers, but also for managing the fund.
So I think the way that we've looked at this and the way we've approached it, we'll
see reductions in the contribution rates with immediate effect.
I can't say exactly what they're going to be because this is all what we're working
on at the moment.
But when we come back to setting out the rates at the next meeting, they are going to be
lower.
I think I'm comfortable to say they're going to be lower.
So we're doing our bit to help with regards to the challenges that all local authorities
achieve.
There will be other funds that will have much higher discount rates than what we're proposing.
because the way that they've calculated it,
their approach that they use towards that
is more on what's known as a GILTS Plus model,
which will start on that level and then add sums on top.
We take an approach where we look at
what are we directly invested in
and then take off a prudence allowance
to get us to where we are.
So that's how we do it.
And out here it says is that we also recognise
that people are struggling, so we need to make sure.
And when we look to how quickly do you move
on a stepped basis because there is an approach that you don't give the discount immediately,
you don't cut straight to the lower rate.
No, it's a struggle, it's a challenge.
So when I worked the actuaries, their proposal originally was let's step the rate down.
When you see it next time it won't be, it'll be straight away, what is it that we can go
to, that's what you get.
Because I'm giving everything straight away, we need to make sure we've got prudence as
well.
And I think this is a good right blend to enable us, this approach, to have that and
And that is why I'm still retaining the volatility reserve.
You would have seen in the last three years, there's been certain events that have seen
10 percent, 15 percent quite quickly taken out, whether it be events in America with
certain comments and decisions.
And you see the bounce back quite quickly.
If you've done that over the period of when it was, we've had issues surrounding COVID
and how that impacted.
By having that, we've been protected.
And that's why I think this is a sensible way to manage that level of stable contributions
without excessively taking, you know, not giving back as much as we could.
With no further questions, we are recommended to approve the revised funding strategy statement
set out as described by Mr. Jiloti, and these changes described in this report have been
incorporated into the proposed funding strategy statement.
Furthermore, we are recommended to delegate to the Director of Financial Services in consultation
with the Chairman, myself, and the Deputy Chairman, Craigie, of the Joint Pensions Committee
the ability to make minor adjustments to this strategy should any subsequent comments be
received from any scheme employers. Is that all agreed? Thank you very much.

5 General Matters (Paper No. 25/439)

We move on now to Item 5, General Matters, which is what everybody at the back of the
hall is here for. I hope that we are going to have –
So we may have to hold questions if you have questions, if anybody has questions, to the
So, members, if you could necessarily be patient for that.
But in the meantime, there are other matters on this.
And I'm going to ask the Director of Finance to introduce the report.
Yeah, certainly.
So I think normally we go through it chunk by chunk.
So we, you know, and we'll obviously deal with the other matters on there until the
SIV can join.
So if we start for in general about the fit for – the update on fit for the future.
So we've reported previously, we've discussed it before, that the government have set out
their approach to how the LGPS is going to be working longer term.
We've talked about having the London CIV, our – have been our partner for a number
of years, since 2015.
In the past it has always been that we were guided towards investing with them,
it then got slightly stronger and it was comply and it or explain, namely that
you'd either invest through them or you had to have a very good reason not to.
From the 1st of April 100 % of our assets will be directly managed by the
London CIV, either through products that they operate or under a management arrangement
process for them.
So that means going forward, any things that we set out will need to be on the platform.
And that does mean that there can be constraints about our approach and what we are able to
physically do.
That's not down to them.
It's down to obviously national government, the way it's been set out in how we operate.
So that's really on the journey as to where they are currently moving towards – sorry
– on that point.
My machine's going a bit awry.
When we looked at also where we're trying to do is the analysis as to how – when we
go other changes that would be made and the future direction about what we're
looking to try to do. There wasn't draught guidance. It has literally just come
out this week. We haven't had a proper time to digest and saying how we'll go
out and implement them. But some of the other main proposals really have been
setting out where there is going to be some significant impact really for us
and which we need just to highlight because we haven't yet done anything
directly with is two new roles that are going to be created. So at the moment you
know we've been served well by colleagues in with Mercer who have been
able to provide our main primary advice on it. Going forward that isn't going to
be the case. We're going to have to take the primary advice from our pool the
London CIV to help support the committee then what they're looking to try to do
and make your proposals is that there will be an independent advisor brought in.
Some funds have already gone out and recruited for them.
We have deliberately not yet, because we're waiting for the explicit guidance to say what
skill set is it that they want from somebody, because the role certainly appeared to be
much broader than investment only.
It was looking at governance and administration oversight as well.
So once we know exactly what it is, we'll go out and we'll come back here to find out
who to appoint. There is debate about whether or not Mercer should be retained at all. I'm
not speaking out of turn, I would agree with Tony on some of this, we've just been talking
about how it is. And none of this is written in stone, because again we need to work out
what is compliant and what isn't. And we need to work with our colleagues at the London
CIV, what they're able to do and what they can't. The contract we have with Mercer
is a framework based contract, so I don't commit to spending any money with them. So
So why terminate if I don't spend any money potentially?
So I think what is much more prudent and practical to do
would be to use them sparingly
when we need something that the CIF can't provide.
And rather than then try and have to work with the CIF
to recruit and get something else to come in,
if I've got something on the shelf
that's still applicable to use,
so that's what we'll be looking to try to do.
But we'll also have to work with and get ourselves
an independent who will be joining you on this committee. The other new role, which
isn't really new for here, but it is for many funds, is to have a statutory
responsible officer who covers all areas of the fund, that's admin, it's
gonna be me, so I'm already, because of the nature of my role and most people
are lay, you know, and other funds may be a layer below, so they don't oversee
everything, so the admin team will be done separately, they might do the
accounts and the finer and the investment strategy, they wouldn't normally have the
admin team.
It's not really going to be an issue here because it just means I've become a statutory
role rather than it being slightly different.
But obviously, that will be brought, you know, once it's more formalised as well.
So I'll leave it there.
Is there any questions on that element before we move on to other bits?
In that case, are we ready to move to the reputations?
Is she the change?
Thank you.
So just before we call the deputations forward, we're joined by officers from the London Collective
Investment Vehicle, known as ELSIV, who will be able to provide very valuable technical
advice about how the matters that we're discussing might actually be implemented on the ground.
So if we could just introduce the people here.
Perhaps if I could ask you to speak briefly.
Good evening, everybody.
My name is Jenny Buck.
I'm the Chief Investment Officer of the London CIP.
Good evening.
My name is Stephanie Ames, and I'm Client Relations Manager
at London CID.
Brilliant.
Thank you very much, and welcome.
So we've got two deputations.
The first one is from on behalf of Unison and Wentworth GMB.
And we are joined this evening by a number of people from that deputation, if you could
start making your way towards the Council chamber.
But we have Harry Yip and Kathy Kettle, each of whom are going to speak for five minutes
on behalf of their respective unions, after which members are free to ask them questions.
I'll also ask Mr. Gelotti to respond to the points that they make.
So as soon as everybody is sitting comfortably.
Who would like to go first?
Mr. Yip.
Hi.
Good evening.
My name is Harry.
I'm a council worker and workplace steward speaking on behalf of the Wandsworth Branch
of Unison alongside my fellow Unison representatives.
In 2025, owing to the International Court of Justice decision that it was plausible
Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and the UN Commission's finding that Israel
had committed genocide in Gaza, our members in unison have become increasingly worried
about LGPS investments in companies facilitating genocide against Palestinians.
In July 2025, a motion was presented to our Ones with Branch Committee to campaign on
on Unison's National Executive Council's policy to quote,
use targeted boycott, divestment, and sanctions
to apply pressure to the Israeli government
to end the occupation, respect the rights of Palestinians,
and bring about peace, including promoting Unison's campaign
to divest from local government pension schemes, end quote.
Wandsworth Unison's motion set forth a demand
that Wandsworth Council divest itself of investments
in companies with proven links to the illegal settlements.
It also calls on Wandsworth Council
Council to work with ones with workers unions to develop its policy with regards to divesting
local government pension scheme funds in line with ones with Council's policy regarding
ethical investments.
This motion passed with unanimous support at Branch Committee with zero oppositions
nor abstentions.
In April 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that LGPS funds can pursue ethical disinvestment
because, quote, the fund represents scheme members' money, end quote, provided it would
not involve a risk of significant financial detriment and if they believe scheme members
would support the decision.
We the workers pay into the fund, and this deputation of workplace representatives is
here to tell you that investing in companies linked to violent atrocities is categorically
not in our best interests.
Furthermore, we believe that money currently invested in companies delivering arms to Israel,
operating in illegal settlements, or providing surveillance technology utilised for apartheid,
could just as productively be invested in profitable alternatives.
Investing in weapons means betting on a future of war and feeding the perspective that war
will continue to be profitable.
We believe that councils have a duty to invest our money in infrastructure which can increase
confidence in a better future for everyone.
We will be happy to discuss further the specific companies the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign
has discovered within ones with investment portfolio linked to violations of international
law.
Such investments are also not aligned with ones with supposed ethical investment policy.
Ones with statement of investment principles reads, quote, investment managers acting in
the best financial interests of the fund are expected to consider, amongst other factors,
the effects of social, environmental, and ethical issues on the performance of a company
when considering the acquisition, retention, or realisation of investments for the fund."
This principle also recognises that ethical investments are more financially sound.
Indeed, the decision of the Pension Committee in May 2021 to reduce environmentally unfriendly
investments was made in this ethical spirit.
Well, the UN Commission, the ICJ, and myriad human rights experts have found it evident
that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Additionally, a Guardian article from May 2025 revealed, quote, the carbon footprint
of the first 15 months of Israel's war on Gaza will be greater than the annual planet
warming emissions of 100 individual countries.
Therefore, the Council cannot claim it has sufficiently considered social, environmental,
and ethical issues while continuing to invest in companies profiting from the tumultuous
war Israel is waging in Gaza.
The Council has already committed to playing a role in opposing environmental harm through
We can do the same in opposing the harm caused by war.
We also highlight what Amnesty International's General Secretary has referred to as, quote,
the dangerous illusion that life in Gaza is returning to normal, end quote, following
the so -called ceasefire of October 10th.
As The Guardian reported on December 1st, since the ceasefire, more than 300 have been
killed and almost 1 ,000 injured, and those numbers continue to rise.
Oxfam reports that in the two weeks after the ceasefire alone, shipments of water, food,
tents and medical supplies from 17 international NGOs were denied access to Gaza.
Clearly, for those of us here committed to showing compassion, a pledge we follow as
workers at ones with counsel, we cannot turn our backs on Gaza, nor the West Bank, nor
Lebanon.
In fact, any ethical investments must always be committed to avoiding complicity in any
violations of international law, both for moral and financial reasons.
We are not asking ones with council to break the mould.
In Sudduck, councillors are committed to divest pension funds investments in companies listed
by the United Nations OHCRH, as well as a range of measures to call on ELSIF to safeguard
against future investments linked to conflict, military occupation or genocide.
In Islington, the council pledged to divest £2 .6 million from its pension fund, which
been invested in companies complicit in the ongoing Israel occupation of Palestinian territories.
Again, all we are asking is for Wandsworth to work with unions to follow the example
set by such councils to unlink Wandsworth from well -established atrocities.
Those of us working for the council often choose to do so to help people.
I myself am a mental health social worker.
I, like others in this deputation, give a lot of myself to try and make life better
for others, particularly the most vulnerable people.
We therefore insist that the wages we earn for providing that help are no longer invested
in destroying the lives of vulnerable Palestinians.
Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Yip.
I'm now going to ask Ms. Cattle to speak and then we'll take questions from members to
both of them.
Thank you.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.
I'm here as a GMB union representative and Unison obviously has spoken as well because
this issue matters deeply to all of us.
I also want to add that I'm an early health practitioner in Wandsworth Children's Services
working every day with some of the most vulnerable people in society. I think that perspective
matters because the decisions we make here have real world consequences for the communities
we serve. Let's start with the basics. Pensions aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet, they
represent the deferred wages of workers. This is money that belongs to the people who this
council, who keep this council running. Right now millions of pounds from Wandsworth Council
pension funds are invested in companies that are complicit in Israel's crimes against
humanity. Council policy is clear. The investment managers are expected to consider the effects
of social, environmental and ethical issues on the performance of a company when considering
the acquisition, retention or realisation of investments for the fund. So what does
GMB, Union, Richmond and Wandsworth believe? These current investments show a complete
disregard for well -documented human rights violations by Israel against Palestinian.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have described these actions as apartheid.
The International Court of Justice found there is a plausible case for genocide in Gaza.
We believe ones with counsel must take action to divest from any companies linked to Israel's
illegal occupation of Palestinian territories and violations of international law, whether
directly or indirectly through banks and investment funds.
And let me be crystal clear, any actions to divest these pension funds must involve unions
every step of the way.
Not as an afterthought, not as a tick box exercise, from consultation to decision making
to communication
Workers and their unions must be at the heart of this process. These are our pensions our money our future
Now the reality is 14 months ago. The pension committee said they would look into this matter
Yet here we are. Nothing has been done
Some kind of promises were made but they have not been kept worth still agreed actions weren't even properly recorded
This is unacceptable.
Our members expect progress, not empty words.
And let's be honest, this isn't just about paperwork, it's about trust.
When commitments are made and quietly forgotten, it erodes confidence in the entire system.
Workers deserve better than that.
They deserve transparency, honesty and action.
And let's talk about values.
So Richmond and Wandsworth like to call themselves progressive, but there's nothing progressive
about investing in companies linked to apartheid, in weapons and betting on a future of war
and destruction. Council should be investing in infrastructure, in communities and a brighter
future for everyone, not in companies profiting from conflict and displacement. Think about
what that means. Every pound invested in unethical companies is a pound that could have gone
into sustainable housing, green energy or social care. Instead, it's being used to fuel
violence and instability. That's not just unethical, it's a betrayal of the communities
we serve. And let's not forget, these are workers' pensions, people who have dedicated
their lives to public service. They deserve to know that their money isn't funding human
rights abuses. They deserve to retire knowing that their savings have supported peace and
progress, not war and destruction. And here's the bigger picture. This isn't radical and
isn't impossible. Around 20 to 30 councils across the UK have already committed to taking
steps to divest from unethical investments. They've shown leadership. They've shown that
change is possible. So why are Richmond and Wandsworth lagging behind? If others can do
it, so can we. So today we're asking the board to commit to start the process of divestment
from companies complicit in Israel's war crimes against humanity and violations of
international law, guarantee that unions are fully involved at every stage – consultation,
decision -making and communication, no decisions made behind closed doors – and set a clear
timeline for action, no more vague commitments. Our members need to see real movement. If
you claim to be progressive, prove it. Stop funding war and start funding hope. Thank
you.
Thank you both for those very eloquent and passionate speeches.
I'm going to start by asking Mr. Gelotti to respond.
So if I just start by saying clearly, obviously, we listen to the views of ski members, and
And that is always going to be imperative for how we approach things in life with regards
to the investment strategy that we then set out.
The challenges we've reported on previously, and once that original motion or deposition
came to the Committee, the Government brought in Fit for the Future, which changed the dynamics
about exactly what underlying funds can physically and actually directly invest in, and the approach
going forward.
You heard earlier when I was talking on the paper that from the 1st of April, the London
CIV will be directly responsible for 100 % of all of our assets.
So it's been really clear, not just for this fund, but for all of the funds within
the London CIV, that we work closely with them to find a commonality about how we can
approach not just for today, but for the next several years going forward.
That is the work that's been taking place since that original discussion that was brought
to this committee.
I'll let the CIV in a bit talk about how they're going to approach that, but I'd
hope you'd appreciate that it's not viable for them to have 33 separate approaches, because
that is how many underlying individual funds there are in the London CIV.
So what they've been having to do with all of us as individual funds is try to get some
commonality that gives the flexibility for all 32 currently, 33 going forward, to be
able to have something that meets their singular fund requirements.
The other thing that we need to note, and I think Harry you made reference to it in
your approach, is yes things can be done subject to X, Y, Z.
So for us to do things, we would then need to seek to get that advice.
once we know what offer we can move towards, and that's what we've been doing at Stage
1, and Silph will comment upon that, it's then saying what is the impact to see if there
is any impact on the financial elements, and quite rightly, we need to consult.
The consultation, though, is with all scheme stakeholders.
That is not just workers, that is deferreds, and it is pensioners.
There is a much broader scheme membership.
The scheme membership of the fund is over 40 ,000 people.
That is what we are required to evidence that we have got the views from.
And it's not just scheme members, it is scheme employers.
The contribution rates that individuals pay as an employee are fixed.
They're not determined by the investment returns.
What are impacted by the investment returns is the contribution rate the employer pays.
Any increase in performance, they benefit.
Any decrease in performance, they suffer.
That means if you're having to pay more in underlying individual contributions, that
means there's less money to be spent on frontline services.
So it is a balance, and that is why it is important to engage with all of the relevant
stakeholders to take their views and wishes so that when the committee can make an informed
decision they're aware of all of the facts, and that does include the wishes and the views
of all of the scheme membership, which is what we'd be looking to do if we go down
certain pathways. Like I said, there's been a lot of work that's been taken, that's already
has taken place to enable the CIF to be able to offer funds going forward that could meet
the majority of some of the wishes that the people here today would like to, for us to
move towards. So I'd probably say it's a better place for the CIF to comment upon their new
strategy with their three pillar approach, to comment back on the work that they've been
doing just because they have been doing stuff in the interim period.
Thank you very much.
I think before I ask the CIF to comment, though, I'm going to turn this over to members to
ask some questions so that they can prepare the ground, because I think what's going to
come from the CIF needs to be directed to the specific concerns that are raised.
So if I could ask Councillor Gasser to go first, and then Councillor Dickard.
Yeah, I've got a couple of questions, if I may.
Thank you very much, both of you.
very passionate and moving presentations you gave.
So first of all, I'm interested in how many members
you represent between you, how many employees,
and secondly, just because we spoke
of the London -wide context, I wondered if you're working
with your fellow unions across all of the London boroughs
who looks like we need a London -wide approach.
I don't know about anyone else in the deputation,
but I can't give the numbers of members for Unison
But we're certainly working with other councils who are paying into ELSA to look at what they're
doing and to find out kind of what victories their campaigns are having in terms of calling
on the ELSA to divest from the kind of companies we mentioned in our speeches.
For instance, as I mentioned in my speech, Suddock and Islington have made recent firm
commitments to call on the ELSA to divest.
I don't know if anyone else from the deputation would like to weigh in.
Tower Hamlets as well and Southwark and Kingston as well I believe and that's just as more
I mean that's just London I believe it's something like 20 to 30 councils on a nationwide
basis so it clearly can be done.
Ms. Kettle, do you want to comment on your union?
The union members in Richmond and Wandsworth are unanimously supportive of this position.
We have, I don't know, we're the biggest union I think with Wandsworth council workers
and I'm not quite sure how many but there's a lot of few thousand.
Councillor Dickerton.
Yeah, I want to say a massive thank you for coming
and I basically agree with everything you're saying.
I think the history of this is that the reason why I think it's become more and more hard
and successive governments have tried to make divestment difficult
because we know that in the 1980s, a handful of councils came out on divestment on apartheid
South Africa. By the mid -1980s, two -thirds of every single council in Britain had an
anti -apartheid policy adopted, right? So we know that it can build, you know, build mass
consensus and have a massive impact. I think what would be really helpful for us is as
we as a pensions committee have had our direct ability to change investments taken over by
the LCIV is one, like this is really helpful because we're articulating our soft power
as a council now to say we as a council would like funds in the LCIV that meet the requirements
of international law, human rights and don't fund genocide and apartheid. But I think where
that the challenge that is being placed on us is we've got to be able to show that there
is buy -in from workers on that, and I think the union is going to be absolutely critical
to that.
That was the case in the 80s as well.
The union movement was absolutely critical to the divestment in South Africa Apartheid.
I would also say that the point that I thought was most important about your deputation was
highlighting the crossover into our fiduciary duty, which
is our duty to get a good return for our workers and pension
members.
Because that fiduciary duty is what protected our ability
to make the ethical investments under the UK law on carbon
emissions.
And I thought your point about the carbon impact of the war
machine, there is just such an obvious empirical direct
relation with our ability to meet our carbon targets
if we are funding the thing that is causing the largest
amount of carbon output.
And I read those articles as well.
So I think we need to meet with you directly and think through if it comes to going to
members, which I think isn't – we would ideally not want to have to go and ballot
all members because that is a long process.
Everyone in the pension scheme retired and so on.
Ideally, there would be a way of making this progressive decision without doing that.
But if it gets to that stage, it's really, really important that we work together on
that because it will be a case of being able to prove that this is something that is the
of the workers and the members.
And to the LCIF, yeah, I guess we can ask questions
to the LCIF a bit later on, because I think it's important
that they hear directly from workers in each council
to understand the stakes at play here in regards to, like,
you know, if you're working for a council and you want to,
you know, you want to have a clear conscience at night,
it's really important that they hear that.
So as a member of the Deputation,
I was very keen to speak.
If you could ask you to.
Hi, Richard Hieu.
I'm working for Richmond Moorland Council.
So I've got, we've just done a survey recently.
It's gone out about 10 days ago
in relation to all our members in unison.
And we've got some really big numbers
on those surveys at the moment.
In relation to people wanting regular consultation,
which I think was the point that you raised earlier,
sorry, I've forgotten your name in the corner there.
87 % of the people that we've surveyed in the last 10 days
want regular consultation
from the local government pension scheme.
So there's an interest in that.
So you don't have to believe me,
you can go and do that yourself.
In relation to not investing into unethical companies,
90 % of the people who've been surveyed in the last 10 days
don't want our local government pension schemes
to be invested into unethical companies.
In relation to other arms companies,
90 % of the people who've come back in the survey,
only in 10 days at the moment from the Unison branch,
want that investment not to be going towards those arm companies.
Again, it's 87 percent don't want companies to be invested into genocide companies or
apartheid companies.
So at the moment, just in the 10 -day period where we've done this survey in unison,
GMB's doing the same survey and the National Education Union are also doing the same survey,
we're getting a huge number just at the moment on people who want to have their voice
heard and have the investment in a non -ethical investment.
And just in relation, I believe that the point that somebody made earlier in relation to
the SIV, wasn't there meant to be a consultation, legal advice that the council was supposed
to do in relation to how the SIV carries on the scheme?
In relation to, shouldn't the SIV represent the ethical investment of the local authority
as opposed to the SIV telling the local authority on how things are going to be?
Officers and the CIF to come back on that specific point, but thank you for all that
data and thank you for collecting it and bringing it to us.
Councillor Crook -Dake.
Many thanks.
Thank you.
Yes, fantastic, fantastic speeches.
Just in terms of consultation, actually, was one of my points, Paul.
You said we had to go to all scheme stakeholders, so workers, deferred pensioners and employers.
What I'm very keen to understand is what is the vote share of these different groups
to make sure that we, you know, the thousands of employees that maybe want these changes
or deferred pensioners want these changes or pensioners want can't be outvoted by
two primary employers.
And the second thing is I really would like to see, given the time that has elapsed since
people came previously, some sort of firm timelines
so that again, we're not allowing these things to slip.
Yes, so Josh, if you could respond to that,
and then if I could ask Representative Elsif
to comment on the point from the previous speaker.
Yes, certainly, so on that particular point,
so now we're getting to the stage, obviously,
what's taken the time, and the CIF have engaged
with us, so it isn't them being done, us being done too, it is actually going around,
consulting with all of the 32 underlying funds to come up with something that is manageable
and feasible for them to be able to deliver.
Because as I said at the beginning, to do, to have 32 straight 33 individual ones is
not going to happen, it cannot happen, it's not viable.
So it's finding ones with, right, okay, how can we get groupings that can come into it,
and I'll let them explain it in more detail about that work that they've been doing, how
they've come together with the three, they've got basically a three -tier offering so that
there should be something sufficient to get the majority of what an underlying fund would
want.
Will it deliver 100 % of any underlying funds?
Probably not, if I'm being honest with you in saying as to what is there, but it will
be a fundamental difference to what we have now in the sense that we have got to how we
can get to that sort of stage.
There then needs to be the products that can be developed thereafter.
But I will let Jenny and Stephanie talk to you about how they have come to what they
are going to be delivering and then the roadmap for if a fund wants to select a particular
pillar how they will then go on to deliver that.
Can I just jump in?
I know Councillor Sarah has been waiting very patiently to ask a question.
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, I agree with everyone's comments earlier about that you've made your case very clearly
and very passionately.
I just wanted to ask a question of what Harry said earlier, and I'm afraid I didn't catch
the exact person or institution that you were quoting where you said, I think, and I'm paraphrasing
slightly where you said the disinvestment can be justified so long as it does not cause
significant financial detriment.
So my question is in two parts.
Could you just elaborate on what you just said there and then I will ask my second point.
So that was a Supreme Court ruling in April 2020.
So thank you for that.
What would you classify as being significant financial detriment in terms of numbers?
I would say that's a difficult thing to specifically identify.
I think that would probably be the role of this committee, really.
I think that it's difficult to argue that divesting from companies that are complicit
in crimes against humanity could reasonably be expected to have a significant detrimental
impact on scheme members.
First of all, no one in this room knows how any individual asset or asset class will perform
in the future.
The reality is it might be beneficial to the members of the pension funds.
For example, it's pretty clear which way the tide is moving on this stuff.
More and more councils are committing to divesting from these sorts of companies.
That is not something that's going to be beneficial for the market caps of those companies, and
hence for the value of the investments held by individual councils.
So you can fairly easily construct an argument for it being just to the benefit of the pension
fund members just purely on that basis, even without the ethical side of things.
And then obviously we've talked about the need for consultation and so on.
I would just point out as well that I guess someone could try to construct an argument
that divesting from such companies would result in slightly less opportunity for diversification.
I think that would be just to preempt that in case that's coming.
I think that would be a very weak argument.
And no one here is talking about divesting from an entire asset class, like all of bonds,
for example.
We're talking about very specific companies.
I think it's pretty hard to argue that that would have any detrimental effect on a portfolio.
So, I mean, just to return to what I was saying at the start, though, I think this committee
should tackle that question themselves.
Thank you. I would like to bring in Elsif now to pick up on some of the points that
have been made from the floor.
Good evening, everybody. As I say, my name is Jenny Buck from London, London, SIF. I
I think Paul has set the scene really well in that the discussion this evening is one that has been
happening in a number of the boroughs that we work with. But I think it's fair to say that not
everybody is having the conversation. Some want to continue down a line of engagement and influence
because they believe that that is the way to get real wave change. If you come out of a company,
some might argue that actually that company is still there doing its stuff,
the shares are still an issue.
So what we've tried to do is our job is to provide products and investment solutions
to meet the needs of all of our partner funds.
And as Paul has said, we have tried to come up with what we're calling our RI matrix,
which will give some options to try and meet the varying different needs
of all of our clients in our pool.
Now we have, we believe in human rights
and we believe in human rights across the whole world
and not particularly one particular area.
So we have some fundamental investment beliefs
that we look to make sure that our fund managers
that we choose to partner with apply by.
And so what we've come up with is a matrix
where I'd say we call it Pillar 1, which is relatively light touch in exclusions to meet
those partner funds who don't want to sort of specifically exclude companies. But there will
still be some exclusions there. So from an arms point of view, that would be a very light touch,
but excluding controversial weapons. Then we have a Pillar 2, where the exclusions are on things
which again are aligned with our investment beliefs.
So in addition to controversial weapons,
the exclusions would include things like adult entertainment,
gambling, tobacco, and what we call predatory lending.
And also, there'll be a threshold in that,
because some companies might have a little bit of exposure to it,
but the bulk of what they do doesn't fall in that category.
And then in that pillar two, we would also exclude any companies breaching global norms and human rights standards as defined by one of our benchmark providers, Standard & Poor's.
So that would be pillar two.
But we recognise that there are a number of partner funds who want to go further.
And in particular, the recent debate has been around companies involved in conflict zones
and very much along the lines of the conversation tonight.
So the intention for the Pillar 3 option would be restrictions of all of the things that I've
just mentioned, but in addition, excluding weapons, so companies that are producing weapons.
And then thirdly, because we really wanted to make sure that this was decided by somebody independent from us,
so it wasn't us making an opinion, we would also be looking to exclude companies officially listed by the UN
at breaching human rights and international law in conflict zones.
So the idea was that that was an independent entity,
which is deciding which companies are bad actors,
as it were.
So the intention was we'd have those three pillars.
And then the idea is to try and get a feel as to where
our boroughs are so that we can develop products
in the future which meet those pillars,
and also get a feel on our existing products, which ones
we need to modify to align with the pillars.
In addition, we have talked about also having an impact fund.
So actually, sort of having an investment solution
where actually it's very specifically designed
to actually have a positive impact.
So, you know, we have a number of partner funds
who would rather sort of be investing in things
which are very focused on having an impact
as opposed to just making sure
that their money is not excluded from things.
So I'll pause just in terms of the final side of things.
We've had this consultation over the summer.
There was a meeting just last week
to try and get it wrapped up.
And the idea is really hopefully this is, as Paul said,
we're not going to ever sort of be able to satisfy
32 people completely, but we hope that this is very much
going on a real sort of meaningful route.
and we would look to kind of get consensus and finalise it all before the end of the year.
And then we need to work out which of our products need to be amended.
I'm going to be open with you. This will take a little bit of time to amend a fund.
We have to go through various legal and regulatory processes so that can take a period of up to three to four months.
So we will start with our products where there's the greatest appetite to change so that we're
meeting the biggest need as soon as we can.
I'll pause there.
Thank you.
If I could just ask for a final round of questions on this deputation from members, please.
Anybody who's not come forward yet?
Any questions that members want to ask to anybody?
I understood from the CIF, we have three pillars, but do all councils have to be under the same
pillar or can we choose which pillar we want to be?
Sorry, I did not make that clear. The intention is there will be three pillars and councils
can be in different pillars, some might choose to be in more than one pillar, but the idea
is that it helps us design our products. It is really for us to try and get a feel of
preferences and where the demand is to change products and for future product fund development
in the future. Does that answer your question?
Thanks, Jenny. Could I ask the independent advisor that kind of helped shape Pillar Free,
are you allowed to tell us who that was? And the second question is, have you engaged with
any of the campaign groups that are obviously very clearly interested in the conflict and
particularly the issues around the genocide in Gaza.
Has that fed into Pillar 3 directly?
And can you tell us whether there's been engagement specifically for those who want to see divestment?
I know that it – and I agree with it that it's across all areas, but whether there's
been some direct engagement on this particular issue, because it was obviously the one that
the general public writing to members about campaigning around and passing motions on?
Our consultation has been very much with our partner funds and through the officers and
members have been invited to participate in the consultation side of things. So,
To specifically answer your question, we have not engaged specifically with particular groups
who are lobbying or protesting as we have been doing it through our partner funds.
This is work that we have done directly on the response of consultation.
We have not been working with independent advisors, particularly on it.
Thank you. Following on from Councillor Siro's question really, can you just indicate initial
differences in return that you might be considering from 123 and the impact fund?
The impact fund is still very much in its nascent stage, so I'm not going to sort of
commit on that side of things. I would say the vast majority of our products are in
Pillar two.
Pillar three, I think is a little bit harder to do.
And we're doing some back testing to be circulated
very shortly to all of the partners funds
as to what it would look like.
The one thing which is just being really open to you
is we know what's on the UN list at the moment.
I can't tell you, and I can't predict in the future
how many more companies will or won't be on that list.
So that one's a little bit harder for us to predict,
but we are doing some backtesting on the basis
that hopefully this is where the matrix will land up
because that is something which a number of people
like Paul have asked us to do.
Question to the sieve just on the detail of these pillars
and I appreciate that they're still being developed.
It seems to be the companies have to be behaving increasingly less bad to reach Pillar 3 before
they're excluded.
So Pillar 3 is companies.
But the real question, I suppose, sorry, I'm not being very articulate.
You have to select Pillar 3 to be able to exclude the list of companies on the UN lists,
which is a key topic of this evening.
Would it not make more, but that drags in an awful lot of other companies on unrelated
matters like gambling and entertainment and tobacco and things.
Doesn't it feel like that should almost be in a pillar one, like that should be the first
exclusion because it's quite a short list.
I appreciate the UN list is a moving target, but it's quite a short, quite a specific list
of countries behaving, arguably companies behaving arguably very badly.
and it's all the way down in pillar three, would it not be more sense to have it a bit
higher up the pillar structure, where it gets kicked out first and then other companies
get kicked out later?
In terms of that side of things, I think one of the things that we have observed over the
last six or particularly the last 12 months are there are a lot of lists out there about
companies which are alleged to be associated with things.
Some of those lists, in our opinion,
are more robust than others.
And therefore, it takes quite a lot of work
to make sure that you are looking at companies
and that there is work to do there.
Now, that is quite intensive work.
And therefore, it can take quite a long time
to go through those lists.
And what we were trying to put in place here
was something which was genuinely independent
and easy to execute,
and which was also something
which would have genuine shelf life,
because we want to make sure that this applies
to all human rights, not just to one particular conflict.
So the other area which I'm just going to be open with you
is some of the companies which have occasionally
been talked about are companies
which the world has just got a lot more complicated with technology.
So there are some companies which are associated with things,
but which arguably could also be things that we all use every day of our lives.
And it's just a small proportion of the revenue of a company
which is associated with something.
So we're navigating something which is really quite complicated.
I'm not saying that what's on the table is perfect,
and I'm sure it will evolve over time,
But we've tried to come up with something which we're seeking to address,
beginning to address some of the issues which have been discussed tonight.
But I'm not claiming it's perfect, but I'd also ask you to help us sort of in trying to find something which is reasonably easy to execute.
This is quite a complicated world and we don't always have all of the data to be able to verify issues.
And I think it's important that we do verify things.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to take one final contribution from this deputation.
We've got a second deputation which is covering the same territory.
So there is going to be this discussion is going to continue.
So I'm not cutting it short, but I do want to give the second deputation some time.
If you'd like to make your points up, and then we'll move on to the second deputation.
Thank you.
I just heard the attempt at an argument with respect to the proportion of a company's revenue
that might be associated with crimes against humanity.
And I would just argue that seems like a farcical benchmark.
I mean, to say that you're okay with investing in a company because maybe only 5 % of their
profits are at the expense of Palestinian lives, I just find ridiculous.
I mean, it's like I'm imagining, you know, it's like imagining someone on trial for murder
standing up in court saying I only murdered one day this year.
You know, I mean, this should be this should be zero tolerance stuff.
If a company is on a United Nations list, that's already gone through a high degree
of due diligence, OK, by people who've got far more expertise in the area than the L -CIV
would have.
If a company appears on lists like that and any percentage that's above zero of their
revenue is associated with crimes against humanity, it should be automatically excluded
from every single pillar that the LCF offers, to get back to what the gentleman was saying
before.
I find it farcical that any council would want pension fund money to be invested in
anything of the sort.
I think that's totally indefensible, both morally and legally.
The second thing I wanted to say is I didn't hear very much in that statement about other
sorts of companies that are complicit in crimes against humanity, specifically in the occupied
Palestinian territories.
They're beyond arms companies.
So the likes of Motorola, the likes of Airbnb, Booking .com, Expedia, Caterpillar – there's
a whole host of companies that have got blood on their hands here.
This is not just about providing weapons that are on genocide, even though that is an extremely
important part of it.
It is also about ethnic cleansing and it is also about apartheid and racial discrimination.
This stuff – I guess the final thing I'd like to say – and thank you for letting
me speak some more – is this stuff is about as serious as it gets, right?
And I'd just like to know if the LCIV and also if the committee here in this room has
taken legal advice with respect to their own duties when it comes to prevention and non -assistance.
And those duties do fall upon you and upon the SCIV and upon the Secretary of State under
both international law and domestic law.
So I would be interested to know, and I think probably the public would be too, what legal
advice you've had in that respect.
Thank you.
So what I propose, I think I'll get an officer now to respond to that.
Just so that we're moving on, can I just at this stage just say thank you very much indeed
for your contributions.
I'm going to ask Paul Gelotti to comment on that legal advice question.
I would like to thank you.
I'd like to thank the audience as well for the respectful way in which you've been joining
in this debate with your applause.
And we will then move on to the second deputation.
So Paul, if you could just briefly respond to that question about legality, and then
we'll move on to the next deputation.
Yes, certainly.
So the Schema Advisory Board that helps and supports all of the LGPS did seek legal opinion.
It obviously got the views of when the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign got their lawyers to look
at it, and they did address those points.
So Nigel Giffin, who is KC, did the,
provided advice on behalf of all of the LGPS community.
So once again, thank you very much.
If you'd like to take your seats back in the gallery.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm now calling on Dr. Simon Sandberg and his colleagues to present the second deputation
this evening.
Thank you.
Whenever you're ready, Mr. Sandberg.
Thank you.
Well, thank you for having me.
I don't do this very regularly.
In fact, I'm struck that it's almost exactly 50 years since I last argued for divestment
in a meeting such as this, namely when I was a student member of the governing body of
Christ College, Cambridge.
at the college at that point should not be banking with Barclays since that bank was
directly complicit in supporting the South African government's apartheid regime.
Well that campaign, I have to say, was not immediately successful and it led to me not
being allowed to go back to college.
The much larger international campaign was in the end some 18 years later, instrumental
in leading to the peaceful dissolution of the apartheid regime and inaugurating a new
era of democratic rights for all.
And it's now almost 20 years since the Palestinian civil society called for boycott, divestment
and sanctions against Israel, until it complied with international law and universal principles
of human rights.
That call came because since 1948, hundreds of UN resolutions had condemned Israel's colonial
and discriminatory policies as illegal, and they called for immediate remedies.
And because all forms of international diplomacy had failed to convince Israel to comply with
humanitarian law, or to respect human rights, or to end the illegal occupation of Palestinian
land.
Twenty years on, and we are now in a much worse situation, where a genocide may have
taken place in Gaza and where, incontrovertibly, the IDF have committed legion war crimes and
where the Israeli Prime Minister and the Defence Minister have been indicted by the International
Criminal Court for both war crimes and crimes against humanity.
More, there's been a massive upsurge in violence in the occupied territories, where several
hundred Palestinians have been killed just this year by the settlers or the IDF, and
with near total impunity.
It's against this background, like many other people and organisations across the world,
that we come to this and similar meetings, and ask for a step change to reflect both
the worsened situation and the fact that diplomatic interventions have proved ineffectual.
Like the South African situation, it is plain that the situation in Israel will only change in the face of concerted international pressure.
There is no impetus from any mainstream Israeli political party to address the plight of the Palestinians.
Even if Netanyahu and Likud are defeated in a general election, which they might well be,
there is no prospect of any feasible alternative government changing course and trying to reach a reasonable accommodation with the Palestinians.
It is for these reasons that we present the motion recognising that the pooling of funds,
which we've been talking about here, means that this – recognising that this committee
may not be the decisive voice in determining the policy of the London SIV.
Nevertheless, we recognise that working with other LAs, Richmond and Wandsworth can play
an important role in firming up and forming the CIV's responsible investment policies,
which, looking at the statement on their website, does need some change, since at the moment
it lacks moral clarity, speaking as it does of the difficulty of assessing human rights
impacts, the divergent views of the Israel -Palestine situation, divergent views on the defence
sector across London's SIB client base, and in the case of the conflict in Israel and
the occupied territories, it says there are allegations of human rights abuses by all
parties involved.
It speaks approvingly and stresses its neutrality on this issue and argues that constructive
engagement with companies investing within Israel and the occupied territories is a useful
way forward and argues that these companies often serve civilian populations on both sides
of the divide.
The statement issued by the CIV in July this year concludes by saying that while we consider
the exclusion of specific companies in extreme and clear circumstances,
we believe that assessing companies on a case -by -case basis
and pursuing engagement is a more effective route than a blanket ban.
I just want to say I'm not sure how much of an extremity
we would require for something to be done.
And the blanket ban is something of a straw man,
since like most other parties,
we are asking for a staged programme of divestment rather than immediate ban.
In short, the SIB statement reads like this,
either struggle over Palestine is a symmetrical struggle
where both sides are in conflict.
This seems to us a fundamental misunderstanding what is better
seen because a better seen and more accurately seen
as an asymmetric settler colonial project.
And I say this as somebody whose great aunts were
when I was a young boy, they were termed pioneers.
as I am Jewish and I have family in Israel and have had since 1911.
I would hope that most, if not all London local authorities would see the matter this
way and recognise that neutrality in a settler colonial project is not a moral position.
The arguments for constructive engagement are redolent of those opposed to divestment
from companies in South Africa during the apartheid era, down to the use of civilian
use of some projects on both sides, as if Palestinians are using facial recognition
technology for using targeting drone attacks or use caterpillar diggers to
destroy critical infrastructure inside Israel. In any event, the statement in the
investment strategy needs modification because the legal opinion secured by the
Palestinian solidarity campaign which asserts legal liabilities for
administering authorities under UK law. And to that end we note the entirely
sensible letter sent in October by the chair of the board of the LGPS Advisory
Board to the responsible Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
asking for advice in response to the detailed position paper drawn up by leading counsel
and experts in international law from Doughty Street Chambers.
And obviously much will hang on the response to that letter, which I believe is still forthcoming,
and any further legal opinions and judgments.
In any event, I'm conscious of my time.
We would hope that the Committee would support the motion, look forward and take the necessary
steps consistent with its accepted fiduciary duty, legal liability and moral probity to
seek to avoid exposure to companies linked to military occupation or worse within Israel,
Gaza and the occupied territories.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you very much indeed, Dr. Sandberg, for that very passionate setting out of the
matter.
I just want to put a little bit of context into what's going on here, because it may
not be entirely obvious to the members, I guess, in the gallery.
Wandsworth Council, I don't speak for Richmond,
but Wandsworth Council is legendary among councils
for the opacity of its procedures.
We are a bit of an outlier, frankly,
and in many ways in which we run things,
no reflection on the current officers,
it's what they've inherited.
But we are bringing this tonight as a motion,
as Dr. Sandberg has mentioned,
which is a slight difference from the previous deputation.
It's a motion that's coming from members
members of this committee, and it will be debated by us and voted on democratically.
But I do want to make that clear because it's probably not very obvious from the proceedings
that this is essentially a motion that's being proposed by some members of this committee,
but with the support of Dr. Sandberg, for which we're extremely grateful.
So with that in mind, I do want to give Mr. Gelotti the opportunity to comment on this
motion is quite long.
It's about three or four pages long.
And it's on the website, so you can get it from there.
But it does cover a lot of the points that have been
discussed this evening.
And among them, it includes a time frame for when we're
asking for people to come back with a substantive response on
this, which we hope will address some of the most
important points that have been made.
It is seeking to address this fundamental clash between, on the one hand, the desire
to bail out of investments in individual companies who are quite clearly culpable, faced with
a very, very complex mechanism for doing so.
And you've heard some – a little bit of that.
And this is not trying to make a plea for why nothing can happen.
And it's a genuinely very, very complex situation that we face in actually implementing some
of that.
We need to move forward on this, taking into account a lot of issues, and remain legal
and bring people along with us.
I'm going to ask Mr. Gilotti to speak, and then I'm going to ask Elsif to respond as
well.
GILOTTI.
Okay.
So the motion at hand asks for a report to be brought back looking at how we can progress
that in line with the current regulations. The current regulations are set to change
because as I mentioned before, the fit for the future and the new bill that's going
through. The draught guidance has just been issued this week. So the report that we will
do would need to reflect upon those notes but it can come back here with the wishes
and explaining what can be done and what needs to be done if you want to go into any of the
three pillars that we've just explained as to what is on offer.
So that can easily be done.
It can be brought here so that you then can make that informed decision.
And you've heard several people, yourselves have mentioned it as committee members, you've
heard some of the comments made in those depositions about the criteria and when you can make those
non -financial issues.
And it is looking at what would the impact be if we were to look into taking the various
options so you can make that informed decision. If it isn't significant that
means what you can do and then it is looking at whether or not we would
need to engage with the scheme membership as a whole. It cannot be a
singular element of the scheme membership but that can be outlined in
the report once we've got the advice based on what it is that we're seeking
to do. Other funds have made statements, they've also going out, no doubt will be
doing the same and going out and getting their own legal opinion on what they can
and what they cannot do. Things have evolved, like I say we've just got a
brand new set of draught guidance, there was reference made to waiting for the
Secretary of State to come back in. Clearly anything that does come back
in that time can be reflected in the report that would get brought back. So
that's it in summary really in the response, is yes the things that are
listed here, where you can bring back with options and decisions that what you want to
do in context and in conjunction with, A, the London CIV for the products that they
are able to provide, but secondly, and as important, if not more important, the legal
framework for which both this fund and the CIV are constrained by.
Thank you very much. I would like to invite Elsif to comment.
I don't think there is very much more for us to offer. We appreciate that what work
we have done over the summer may not meet everybody's needs, but we are trying to
move in a way to give you some choices.
Thank you very much. Any comments from members?
Councillor Kraktak. Thank you.
A number of times I think ELSEF mentioned that they were seeking the easiest solutions
and this is how they have designed their pillars. Well, to be honest, that is just not my priority.
You know, I prefer a solution which is based on the outcomes, even if that's potentially more complex.
And so I would just like them to go back and perhaps reconsider.
Yes, mine was roughly on the same lines actually.
I think they would have heard from the feeling of these members and our audience how strongly
we feel about this.
And Councillor Craig had a good suggestion about bringing the one criteria into the first
pillar maybe to make it absolute.
So, is there, is this an iterative process, else they've listened to us and heard that
we might like different pillars?
Thank you.
I mean, I think the point about the UN Genocide Convention is absolutely clear.
I think it, if it's complicated to enact the UN Genocide Convention in funding, so be it.
That's the UN Genocide Convention.
I can't think of something more serious than that.
I guess the point that is really important for, well, it's been important for us as members.
It's important for our workers and our residents is understanding so they don't feel that this
is just a talking shop, what those clear timelines are.
And I think what would be really helpful from the sieve is knowing just before we're going
to get these independent advisors before we're going to take on the options on the pillars,
what further things us as a committee can do to try and shape and influence what that
third pillar, which is very clear the third pillar is going to be the pillar that's most
compliant with the values that seem to have been expressed tonight.
At what stage and at what point and over what timelines are we going to be able to see some
real material detail around that because as colleagues said, if within that third pillar
there are these maybe overlaps with practises that fall outside the remit, then it will
have just been seen as a talking shop and there won't be that trust from us as local
authorities, from workers and their pensions.
Thank you.
Councillor Serra.
Yes, thank you.
I was trying to phrase my question without mixing my metaphors, so it will make sense
when I ask my question.
Are these pillars fixed?
And that's what I meant by that.
And what I mean by that is, is it possible, where we're talking about exclusions and lists
and so on, is it possible that a company could initially be excluded and somehow creep back
in at a later stage?
There are a couple of questions which Elsif might be able to address on that.
The point of Councillor Serra is whether once you're in a pillar you can ever move to another
one and from Councillor Dickerdine about how we as a administering authority can influence
these design of these pillars going forward.
So I think on the first point, we have tried to be consulting over the last, since May,
in terms of these pillars. And we've tried to represent everybody who has worked with
us on the consultation. There is probably, you know, before Christmas, an opportunity
we're in the final bits of trying to get something finalised. We know this is important to people
and what's being presented is where we think the consensus is.
If you've got strong views,
then I would encourage those views to,
and I've heard them today,
our issue is that every time you present it,
something, you know, people have different views on things.
So, we're trying to, and I don't,
I'm sorry this may come across as a thing,
I'm trying to find a solution that works for people,
but I will need to draw it to a line at some time
so that we can then implement it.
The longer the consultation goes on, the longer we don't do anything.
And I'm hearing very loudly that people want something to happen.
In terms of could a company come in and go out, yes.
If it was on a list and then the list says that company is no longer,
it's changed and it's no longer doing things which meant that it went on the list,
then yes, it would then be available for investment again.
And similarly, things which aren't on the list
but which maybe suddenly do do things
which aren't considered appropriate will go on the list.
So that will be a live list which will have people coming in
and going out of the list.
Okay, thank you very much.
So the motion essentially that's embedded in this document,
I'm just going to pick out the relevant part of it here,
which is this committee resolves to instruct the director
of Financial Services as Section 151 officer and in their capacity as lead officer for
the Wandsworth and Richmond Pension Fund to bring to the next ordinary meeting of this
committee and in any case within six months a report containing specific recommendations
and those are set out over the following page in considerable detail and I'd urge you to
have a look at the report on the website.
I'd like a proposer for that, please.
Yeah, I'd like to propose that.
But could I also add that key in this is that we're going to immediately write to the sieve
Outlining the position has been articulated today as part of that consultative process
Part of the process which is set out in this motion in detail. Thank you to dr. Sandberg for coming and speaking so eloquently as well
Opposing the motion councillor dick, I'm kind of a seconder, please councillor guess. Oh, thank you very much indeed
All those in favour
I'd very much like to thank the speakers this evening.
I'd very much like to thank the audience for their respectful but enthusiastic contribution.
I think the passion that this issue arouses is very, very eloquently demonstrated by the
people who have come to talk this evening.
I thank you very much indeed.
I just would point out that if you want to suffer any more from the internal workings
of the Council on Pensions, you are welcome to stay.
I assume you want to go.
Do you need us to stay on any further?
No, no, your contribution and points have been well raised.
Sorry, can I just interrupt? Jenny, you might want to stay for the paper that's on quarterly
investment performance, because there might be some discussions about active versus passive.
Okay, I'll stay. I'll stay on board.
Okay, cheers, thank you.
I'm afraid that offer doesn't extend well, so if we need you here for some of the further
discussions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So, if we can just continue, we've got a couple more items on the general matters.
So back to Mr. Gelotti.
Thank you, Chairs.
I think next to items on this particular paper should be reasonably quick and simple.
I'd already brought to this committee and we had discussions and we've mentioned the
32 funds becoming 33 with Buckinghamshire going forward.
We're now at the stage where we're doing the formal voting and everything else.
Previously it's been delegated through to me to be able to sign the relevant documents
to ensure that this is enabled.
Nothing has changed since my original recommendation supporting this, which was endorsed by yourselves,
So, it's just bringing it here to say that we are looking to basically take that forward
and move ahead unless there was going to be any sort of significant expressed concerns
about that approach.
And the other one, it was just a general matter, is to highlight that, you know, that we're
– there are various different consultations that are out there at the moment, also in
with some of those draught regulations that we've been talking about, but there are other ones which
does impact on the work that we do as a team and can impact quite significantly, to be honest with
you, on the fund itself, is on things like multi -academy trusts, because, you know, we've
talked about contribution rates going down. We're already a cash flow negative fund, and how options
to invest and how we invest are influenced by that sort of capacity. If we then see a sway the
schools exit and move transition into different funds, which this is again to potentially
enable.
Some of the stuff that they're looking at trying to do can have significant changes,
not necessarily in the short term but in the medium to long term.
That is why whenever we get requests coming in we normally say no, Eno is not going to
be a significant change for us, it's for the betterment and the consistency for the
fund going forward to stabilise those contribution rates.
So that was it.
I sort of thought I would basically let you know that's a strategy and the type of approach
that we are taking.
So I think that's it for this paper.
Thank you very much.
So can I ask for – ask all for any further comments, but otherwise, do we accept this
paper and note the recommendations?
Thank you very much.
So we're now on to the quarterly investment performance report.

6 Quarterly Investment Performance Report - 2025/26 Q2 (Paper No 25/440)

So normally I just go straight to questions on this because it is what it is and it explains
the detail.
But the only thing I would slightly flag and the reason why I asked Jenny to stay on from
the CIV is that we've had discussions in the past over the performance of our active managers.
And as a result of that there's been some training that's been provided at previous
committees on the risks associated with active but also the risks of switching out of active
into passive and certainly at different times and thresholds in how performance is going
in general with global economy. So there is a recommendation and a note on here is that
we are conscious of it and how long can you continue to accept performance the way that
it has been. So it's an opportunity to talk with Jenny as well and to consider revising
our current approach to where our funds are split between the equity managers. That is
independent of what we're going to be talking about later about when we look to
shape and change what our asset allocation is. At the moment it is, I know
we've got a 55 % weighting towards equity. It's you know of that it has been
roughly been 25 -30 split between 25 % roughly in passive 30 % in active of
that 55. Because we can't pick managers that is the responsibility of the CIF.
we're not going to be able to pick whether our active first is passive from the 1st of
April.
Last chance to switch going in.
The SIV have been very mindful of our approaches and our wishes and have said that they would
obviously try to deliver what we want going forward, but we know that their hands are
going to be tied further if and when they want to make changes after they inherit what
they inherit.
So now if we're going to make changes, this gives us some opportunity to make them so
we pass over to the SIV so they don't have to worry about those sort of things that we
want to do.
They can get on with some of the other stuff that we've been talking about today and
focus time there.
So I don't want to go into any more because I'll throw it over to questions because
no doubt you might want to ask Toni about views and whatever is it the right time to
shift or not, even irrespective of performance.
But similarly, you might want to ask Jenny about how well our active managers are and
what she thinks and what is currently being done to address poor performance.
Just because it's a SIV fund and maybe Paul can talk to this, but the LV managed fund
with the stonking underperformance, why?
You want to talk about the Longview fund about the LV?
Jenny, I don't know whether or not you particularly wanted to do that.
Obviously, it's a very focused fund, so there's a small number of assets in there,
but Jenny, you probably want to go into detail.
I just wanted to cheque which fund we were talking about, Paul, but if it's a Longview
fund, it's a fund which is, as Paul says, very focused, so it only has exposure to circa
around 30 companies and it's a very sort of unique -ish strategy where it buys companies
for the long term which it thinks will have growing revenues over the long term and with
the right price. And it also is one which is a little bit unusual in that it has equal weights
to all of the companies that it owns. Quite often managers will have different weights depending on
their conviction.
You're absolutely right.
Performance is really not good.
The fund manager has been managing it
in line with their strategy.
But to be blunt, their stock selection,
particularly on some of the health care side of things,
has been really, really poor.
So it's right up there on my radar of things to do.
Since I last saw you, we've been focusing
on our emerging markets, our global growth fund,
and we are also in the process of creating a new multi -manager
one -stop solution for active funds.
But Longview and the Quality Fund
are very much next on the radar.
I would wish I could have a magic wand
to sort all of the funds out at one go,
but it takes me a little bit of time, I'm afraid.
But you're right.
It's not performing very well,
I would be of the view that our concerns are that it is a little bit stuck in the 20th
century in terms of its investment process and it has not really been able to take into
account the way the world and the market is moving, particularly on momentum.
So just to make sure I'm understanding that we're talking about the L -CIV Renewable Infrastructure
Fund.
No.
Which one?
This one over here.
Ah, that one.
Okay, fine.
Well, could I ask a question then about the Renewable Infrastructure Fund?
But I will wait until after questions have come on the first one just to make sure that
there is no other questions on that.
Councillor Sara.
Yes, thank you.
I just wanted some clarification on this whilst we are on the topic of the Longview Fund.
I just wanted to understand what it says.
It says you have identified poor stock selection in particular AI companies.
Do I understand from that?
they've excluded AI companies or they've chosen the wrong AI companies?
Because as far as I understand it, the AI market has done really, really well.
A combination of both, Councillor.
They've been underweight that sector.
And if you've been underweight the sector, then it will hurt your relative performance.
But they have also chosen the less well -performing companies in that sector
compared to the ones which have performed well.
Thank you. Now, well, I sort of had a similar question then about the renewable infrastructure fund and in particular the sort of private debt.
So is this just
the stage of investment? So are you not so worried about this or are you renewing
again, the sort of the criteria, if you like, that people might use to choose their investments
in this private debt fund.
Can I just clarify, there's two different funds there. There's the Renewable Infrastructure
Fund and then the Private Debt Fund.
Yes, so it's the Renewable Infrastructure Fund that I'm talking about.
The renewable infrastructure fund is a fund which invests in renewables and most of the
investments are what we call in green field funds, green field type of projects.
So that is building out wind farms, solar panels, battery storage, that side of things.
And as a consequence of that, the performance of the renewable infrastructure will go through
what we call a bit of a J curve in terms of it will take some time for these assets to be built and then to be income producing.
So the nature of the return will take a little bit of time to come through.
So I just wanted to set the scene in terms of what you're invested in.
But it's fair to be it's fair to say, Councillor, one of the investments that was made in that fund was in a BlackRock renewable infrastructure fund.
and that one investment has turned out that Blackrock bought a number of assets right at the peak of the market
and being blunt, their underwriting wasn't very good. So I'm afraid that fund has, we've seen a number of assets
written down to zero and it really hasn't performed very well. They've got new management team on board
and they're trying to remedy it as much as they can.
I don't think it will, you know, a good result will be
that we get our capital back on that one.
But as a fund as a whole, there are a lot more investments
in that fund and at this point in time, everybody else is
on track if not ahead of track of where we think we will be.
So as I sit at this time, over the long term,
looking out ahead five, seven years time, I'm as confident
as I can be, that the fund will deliver its investment objective, notwithstanding the fact
of BlackRock, because the others are very much ahead of where I think they will turn
ahead of underwriting. But it has been affected by that BlackRock investment.
Just on the topic Mr. George, you wanted to address, the active versus passive. I think
So just on a broader point, it is disappointing to see the three key equity funds, which are
all active, underperforming.
There is a temptation and a danger, sort of speaking from my somewhat professional background
to it's gone down, we should sell it kind of reaction.
I would be cautious about selling something just because it's fallen, particularly looking
the Longview fund. Unless we think, and we'd have to take feedback from the SIV on this,
unless we think that manager has fundamentally lost the plot, we kind of have to, selling
it just because it's dipped is not a particularly good thing, and that would not be a good reason
to shift it into passive just because it's underperformed. We'd better be, we would be
better off waiting for a bounce or a return to normal performance before then making kind
of the switch to more passive under a more stable environment in my view.
Long term, I have no problems with moving some of the active into passive.
I mean, they've all underperformed for the last three years.
I think, again, on the broader context, AI stocks, if you haven't been in AI or, frankly,
just following passives, which have been very heavily dominated by AI, which is the benchmark,
you have underperformed.
And so basically all active managers all over the world, or I mean, Tony, you can say if
any active managers have outperformed, unless they were in North American tech in the last
three years and I think it's no.
So basically there's only been one place
to invest to beat the benchmark.
And if you were lucky, you were there.
And if you were unlucky, you weren't.
And so almost in a way, I wouldn't
be too harsh on the active managers
because the Belly Gifford and Royal Bank of Canada
have done actually OK in that context.
Longview has not.
But I still think maybe the timing is not right now
because those AI stocks look really expensive.
And it's unlikely they're going to carry on
for another two or three years on the same trajectory.
Having said that, people said the dotcom boom and bust
would end in 1997, and it ended in 2000, three years later
at three times the price.
So you never know when the crash is coming,
but it's hard to, in good conscience,
put more money into the benchmarky kind of AI stocks
in my view.
Just respond to that decision.
You're not to select, sorry, to make any decisions based
on the manager itself, because already that
That should be with the SIF.
It's moving for that compliant explained,
so now you have no option.
What this is purely about is a risk management approach,
and do you like to continue with our current style
on having an element of our current split
on taking on active risk?
And I think you've explained that,
about the concerns about shifting,
I don't know whether Tony just wants to add.
Yes, so you have been agreed a lot of what you say, Councillor.
I mean, clearly it has been a very disappointing, difficult time for your active managers.
I absolutely agree that it's been a very difficult time for active managers generally.
It's been quite a narrow momentum driven market and has become quite a concentrated market
now to the US and some particular sectors such as IT and AI in particular.
I would caution that your current manager structure
is not that diversified and you've got some style biases.
So RBC and Bailey have some quite growthy managers.
Jenny did mention earlier that London SIP
are looking to construct a multi -manager,
hopefully an all weather portfolio
with difference factor biases that therefore
you won't get these.
You've had a very bumpy ride.
If you remember these mandates,
we're actually shooting the lights out
and then suddenly there have been some of them
really, really struggling.
So it's been a very bumpy ride and more diversified
active manager, multi -manager fund,
which has different blends, different factors,
I think would give you a much more kind of a clean
and less bumpy ride.
And I absolutely agree with the points that
potentially if you did, yeah, absolutely,
Merce, clients should come to their own beliefs
on active versus passive.
we've had this discussion separately.
And I passionately believe that despite what
Fit for the Future says, I think investment,
it's a fundamental investment belief,
whether you go active or passive.
Most of our clients come to a conclusion
actually they have a mix.
So I think it's something to keep under review.
But yeah, my personal view would be now could be,
could be, but might not be a bad time to switch.
And I would wait for London Civ to launch
their multi -manager fund because then that's
the natural time then for you to make a decision
or to perhaps influence the CIF on to what extent do you want to keep your current active
passive split or whether you want to actually change that.
So Jenny, the question that you probably didn't hear is what's the time scale for launching
the multi -manager equity fund?
I hope it will be available end April, early May.
The one thing which would be just being open with you
and given the previous conversation,
at the moment we have appetite for Pillar 2,
but if you are thinking that you're interested
from a sort of Pillar 3 perspective,
that would be helpful for me to know
to make it available as soon as possible.
Councillor Serra, I think you had a question
and then Councillor De Kedem.
Well, thank you. The point I wanted to make has been made anyway. I was going to say,
just going back from my experience as well, alpha funds, special situation funds, for
example, like the M &G Recovery Fund, they tend to go through these periods of underperformance
and then shoot back up again. So we shouldn't just give up on actively managed funds simply
because they're going through a tough patch.
Yeah, I'm kind of a layman here, but just some clarification.
My understanding is that it is better to have a mix when something might pop or when there's
a risk that the bubble is going to burst.
Is that correct?
Is that what?
Yeah, yeah.
Because that's all I'm reading about.
I think there is some recommendations.
Yes, indeed.
Though the investment performance, consider revising the allocation of equity
to passive management to address the risk of the medium term underperformance
of active managers as discussed in paragraphs 11 to 14.
We're happy with that.
I think we're looking at a bit more of a split.
And review the overweight positions in London, CivGlobal Focus Fund being above 15 percent
of the fund, power of 28, and cash being above the higher benchmark, threshold power of 32,
to be addressed during the implementation of the asset allocation review.
Thank you.
So now we are going to talk about a couple of things which we need to exclude the public
and the numerous members of the press who are sitting there, recording every word, or
at least online. Sorry, gents and ladies. And if you could let me know when they've
closed the stream down.
You just need to agree on a resolution.
Sorry, I beg your pardon. We need to actually have a resolution to exclude the press and
public. Is that agreed? Thank you very much and thank you, Mr. Cushall.