• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • LATIF
  • Conferences
  • Dashboard
  • Edit My Profile
  • Log In
  • Logout
  • Register
  • Edit this post

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • Slough welcomes commitment that Office for Local Government ‘will not be a burden’

    June 30, 2022

  • Homes England agrees strategic partnership with two authorities

    June 29, 2022

  • Soaring inflation and pay pressures to add £3.6bn to council budgets

    June 28, 2022

  • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’

    June 27, 2022

  • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as ‘disappointing’

    June 27, 2022

  • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council

    June 23, 2022

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews
  • Briefs

RBKC pension scheme struggles to find property fund managers

0
  • by Colin Marrs
  • in 151 News · LGPS
  • — 14 Jun, 2018

Photo: ahundt/Pixabay, CC0

A London council pension fund has received a lukewarm response from the market after attempting to find investment managers for a proposed new property portfolio.

The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC) pension fund has been told the main obstacle is a requirement that the council’s investment committee retains the right to agree any property deals before they are signed.

Mercer, advisers to RBKC’s fund, consulted with five property managers, which followed a decision in February to increase the pension fund’s property allocation from 5% to 20% and the resignation of an in-house consultant.


Room151’s Annual Conference – September 20th, 2018, London Stock Exchange
Local Authority Treasurers’ Investment Forum and FDs’ Summit


However, only one of the five managers showed any interest in the council’s specifications.

Mercer’s report said the investment committee’s role was the big issue.

“This is the primary stumbling block, as the managers are reticent to put in place any agreement that might complicate matters from an operational standpoint and potentially impact costs,” said the report.

The document said giving the investment committee an early veto might mean there was not enough information available for a considered decision; a veto late in the process would risk writing off large fees racked up on due diligence.

The investment managers also highlighted conflicts of interest as a problem.

Mercer said that all managers are already operating pooled property funds with “broadly similar” investment characteristics to RBKC’s requirements.

The report said: “Given the investor appetite for properties of this type, the managers would not want to compromise their current offerings, in any way, by encountering conflicts of interest when deciding to allocate to one portfolio over another.”

According to Mercer, the obstacle might be overcome by exploring different sectors or negotiating shorter lease terms.

The one manager that was interested — Aberdeen Standard Investments — proposed a blended fee of 33.75 bps on a commitment of £200m.

The Mercer report suggested the council consider the option of engaging a property manager on a property-by-property basis, with an estate manager then appointed to manage the assets.

However, it pointed out that splitting acquisition from management meant a loss of alignment of interests.

Mercer said in such an arrangement a “transaction manager” could be incentivised to rush through as many deals as possible, regardless of their quality, “as they just walk away once the deal is done”.

The council’s investment committee would therefore need expertise to evaluate the quality of the property proposed for acquisition.

In summing up the response from managers, Mercer said: “Ultimately, although we have made it clear to the managers that there could be some flexibility in what the portfolio might look like, the reality is that these types of property are hugely in demand in the present environment given their attractive yields.

“For that reason, the managers are in a strong negotiating position and have no great need or desire to compromise on their current offerings for high lease to value property.”

Get the Room151 Newsletter

Share

You may also like...

  • Levelling up and the LGPS 16th Feb, 2022
  • LGPS could back an investment Big Bang ‘so long as the price is right’ 7th Sep, 2021
  • The opportunity in the renewables and grid support market as UK looks to ‘build back better’ 3rd Mar, 2021
  • Should LGPS divest from fossil fuel assets? 26th Apr, 2021

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • 151 BRIEFS – WHAT’s NEW?

    • Homes England agrees strategic partnership with two authorities
    • Soaring inflation and pay pressures to add £3.6bn to council budgets
    • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’
    • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as ‘disappointing’
    • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council
  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    Valuations & Risk
    LGPS Women

  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    LGPS Women
    Valuations & Risk
  • Latest tweets

    Room151 7 hours ago

    Hillier confirmed as keynote speaker for LATIF/FDs’ Summit: Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, has been confirmed as a keynote speaker for Room151’s combined Local Authority Treasurers Investment Forum (LATIF) and FDs Summit. The… dlvr.it/ST70F7 pic.twitter.com/hxV676Iley

    Room151 7 hours ago

    Councils’ funding at risk due to ‘undercounting’ in census data: Population estimates in London and Manchester may have been significantly underestimated in the 2021 census potentially threatening government funding for frontline services in these… dlvr.it/ST707J pic.twitter.com/VncIyaXa01

    Room151 2 days ago

    Gove at LGA: councils to receive two-year financial settlement: Michael Gove has announced that councils will receive a two-year financial settlement from next year to provide authorities with “financial certainty” and allow them to plan ahead. The… dlvr.it/ST0kSV pic.twitter.com/wxL3UM4sGO

    Room151 2 days ago

    LGPS valuations: the digital journey: Rob Bilton explains how technology is helping to deliver one of the most complex data exercises in the world of public sector pensions. The 2022 valuations for LGPS funds in[...] dlvr.it/ST0kMq pic.twitter.com/VxjSPC2Uvo

    Room151 6 days ago

    Conrad Hall: ‘more sophisticated’ regulation needed for local government: The chair of the CIPFA/LASAAC Code Board has questioned the sophistication of financial regulation in local government and the continuing focus of the Department for Levelling Up,… dlvr.it/SSnPBV pic.twitter.com/G5d7JCWF8c

    Room151 1 week ago

    Slough Council approves plans to restructure finance department: Slough Borough Council has approved plans to restructure its finance department to enhance capacity and capability and to address a “significant weakness” in the function. The local… dlvr.it/SSf8DG pic.twitter.com/l5lmyHmkBg

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Previous story Social care costs consume more than a third of council budgets
  • Next story Aileen Murphie: The state of local government funding pressures

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares