发帖
雷达卡
发表时间：2012-03-08浏览量：2144评论数：0挑错数：0
Canada’s pension funds Maple revolutionaries Canada’s public pension funds are changing the deal-making landscape
加拿大公共养老基金正在改变交易情境
Mar 3rd 2012 | MONTREAL AND TORONTO | from the print edition
THEY own assets all over the world, including property in Manhattan, utilities in Chile, international airports and the high-speed railway connecting London to the Channel tunnel. They have taken part in six of the top 100 leveraged buy-outs in history. They have won the attention both of Wall Street firms, which consider them rivals, and institutional investors, which aspire to be like them.
他们在世界各地拥有资产，包括曼哈顿的物业，智利的公用事业，国际机场和连接伦敦至英吉利海峡隧道的高速铁路。他们参与了历史上百强杠杆收购的其中六个。他们赢得了两方关注，华尔街的公司视他们的为对手，机构投资者立志像他们一样成功。
These giants are Canada’s largest public pension-fund groups. They manage around C$640 billion ($643 billion) between them. Of the 40 largest public pension funds in the world, four are Canadian, according to Preqin, a research firm (see table). America aside, no other country has more on the list. But size is not what marks them out. Their approach to investment is intriguing.
这些巨头是加拿大最大的公共养老基金组织。他们共同管理着大约 6400亿加元（约合6430亿美元）。根据研究公司Preqin（见附表）的报告，在世界上40个最大的公共养老基金中，有四个属于加拿大。除美国之外，没有其他国家有更多的组织上榜。但并不是规模令他们突出。而是，他们的投资方法引人关注。
Unlike those in charge of public pension funds elsewhere, the Canadians prefer to run their portfolios internally and invest directly. They put more of their money into buy-outs, infrastructure and property, believing that these produce higher returns than publicly traded stocks and bonds. They are in some ways like depoliticised sovereign-wealth funds. Jim Leech, the boss of Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, calls them a “new brand of financial institution”. And as public pensions around the world cope with painfully low yields on their assets, many see them as a template. Michael Bloomberg, New York City’s mayor, is among the model’s admirers.
不像其他地区的公共养老基金负责人，加拿大人更喜欢内部管理投资组合和直接投资。他们把钱大多用于收购，基础设施和物业投资，认为这些比投资公开上市的股票和债券产生的回报率高。在某些方面，他们像非政治化的主权财富基金。吉姆·利奇，安大略教师退休金计划的首脑，称他们是“金融机构的新品牌”。世界各地的公共养老金正痛苦地面对着其资产的低收益，因此许多人将他们视为模板。纽约市市长迈克尔·布隆伯格，是该模板的崇拜者之一。
Ontario Teachers pioneered this style of investing in the 1990s when it brought more of its investments in-house. Other large funds soon followed suit, building up teams to handle deals on their own. The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) wants to have 90% of its assets managed internally by the end of 2012, leaving some room for allocations to external managers in specific areas.
安大略教师退休金在20世纪90年代率先推行这种风格的投资，进而有了更多的内部投资。其他大型基金很快如法炮制，建立团队来处理自己的交易。安大略市政雇员退休系统（OMERS）希望到2012年底90％的资产实现内部管理，只留一些配额给负责特定领域的外部经理人。
The funds will do smaller deals alone but often act as “co-sponsors” with leading private-equity firms on bigger transactions. This allows them to have more control over the investment and to save on fees. CPP Investment Board and PSP Investments, for example, worked with Apax, a buy-out firm, to acquire Kinetic Concepts, an American medical-devices company, for $6.1 billion. It was one of the biggest buy-out deals in 2011.
这些基金独自进行规模较小的交易，但往往作为“共同投资人”与领先的私募股权一起做更大型的交易。这使他们更好地控制投资并节省费用。例如， CPP投资委员会和PSP投资，与收购公司APAX合作，花费61亿美元，得到Kinetic Concepts，一家美国医疗设备公司。这是2011年最大的收购之一。
The main draw of the Canadian model is cost savings. Running operations directly helps plug “the incredible leakage that goes out through fees” to pricey external managers, says Gordon Fyfe, the boss of PSP Investments, a large fund. In private equity, for example, many managers charge a fee equal to 2% of assets and 20% of profits. Hiring staff and building up internal capabilities costs far less. Keith Ambachtsheer of KPA Advisory Services, a pensions consultancy, says running assets internally costs a tenth of what it would if they were outsourced.
加拿大模式的主要优势是节约成本。直接运作，帮助消减了在支付给昂贵的外部经理人各种费用中导致的令人难以置信的资金流失，大型基金PSP投资的老板戈登·法伊夫说。例如，在私募股权投资行业内，许多经理人收取的费用相当于2％的资产和20％的利润。录用人员，并建立内部能力团队所需的成本却少得多。养老金顾问，KPA 咨询服务的Keith Ambachtsheer 说，内部资产运作所需费用仅是外包的十分之一。
There are other advantages. Public pension funds have a longer investment horizon than private-equity firms, so the Canadian behemoths can choose to sell when the time is right, mitigating some of the risks of investing in illiquid assets. In December, for example, Ontario Teachers announced it would sell its majority stake in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, a large Canadian sports business, for around C$1.3 billion. They had been invested in Maple Leaf since 1994, far longer than a private-equity firm’s typical five-year horizon, and are expected to get a return of five times their money.
该模式还有其他一些优点。公共养老基金比私募股权投资有更长的投资期限，因此加拿大的基金巨头可以选择正确的时间出售，减轻一些非流动性资产的投资风险。例如，12月安大略教师退休金宣布将出售其拥有的加拿大大型体育企业——枫叶体育娱乐公司的多数股权，约合13亿加元。他们从1994年开始枫叶投资，比私募股权投资公司典型的五年的投资期限要长很多，并有望获得5倍的回报。
Because they are saving so much on fees and only need to meet the liabilities of scheme-members’ pensions, moreover, the Canadian funds feel less pressure to chase the high returns that leading buy-out firms do. They can pursue investments with less risk and leverage. “Because returns don’t have to be as good, they can bid more for companies,” says one buy-out boss. It sounds like a loser’s lament.
因为他们节省这么多的费用，并只需要满足投资策划成员的养老金，此外，加拿大基金在追逐高回报方面比领先的收购公司的压力小。他们可以从事风险小和杠杆率低的投资。 “由于并不要求回报要多么好，他们可以给公司更好的出价，”一家收购公司的老板说。这听起来像一个失败者的哀叹。
So far the funds’ strategy has paid off. Over the past ten years Ontario Teachers has had the highest total returns of the biggest 330 public and private pension funds in the world. Some of this outperformance stems from the relative strength of Canadian stockmarkets and property, to which Canadian pension funds have higher allocations than others. But not all of it. In 2010 OMERS returned $25 on every dollar spent on internal management, for instance, compared to only $10 for every dollar spent on external managers’ fees.
到目前为止，基金策略已见成效。在过去的十年中，安大略省教师退休金在世界上最大的330个公共和私人养老基金中获得的总回报率最高。这样突出的表现一些是由于加拿大的股市和物业发展相对强劲，加拿大养老基金在这两个市场中有比其他更高的配额。但并不是全部原因。例如，2010年，OMERS内部管理每花费1美元，就有25美元的回报，相比之下，外部的经理费每花费一美元，却只有10美元的回报。
Those seeking to understand how Canadians have pulled it off are given two answers: governance and pay. There is little political interference in the funds’ operations. They attract people with backgrounds in business and finance to sit on their boards, unlike American public pension funds, which are stuffed with politicians, cronies and union hacks.
那些试图发现了解加拿大人如何实现目标的人，得到两个答案：管理和薪酬。在基金运作中很少有政治干预。他们吸引有商业和财务背景的人加入他们的委员会，不像美国公共养老基金委员会确是充斥着政治家，亲信和工会人士。
Just as important is their approach to compensation. In order to recruit the best executives, Canadian pension funds have ensured their pay is competitive with Bay Street, Toronto’s version of Wall Street. They pay a base salary, annual bonus and long-term performance award (which many pension funds elsewhere do not) to make their employees take a long-term view of investments. Mr Leech of Ontario Teachers made over C$3.9m in 2010; 51% of that was a long-term performance award, 36% his annual bonus and only 13% of his base salary. He would doubtless earn more on Wall Street, but this is a huge pay packet by public-pension standards. Anne Stausboll, the boss of CalPERS, the largest American public pension fund, made around $380,000 in the year to June 30th 2011, including a $96,638 bonus.
同样重要的是他们的薪资支付方式。为了招到最好的高管，加拿大养老基金，确保他们的薪酬比起海湾街，多伦多的华尔街的同行，具有竞争力。他们支付基本工资，年度奖金和长期业绩奖励（在其他地区许多养老基金并不这样做），以使他们的员工，进行长期投资。安大略教师退休金的Leech在2010年的薪资是390万加元; 其中51％，是长期业绩奖励，36％是年度奖金，他的基本工资只占13％。在华尔街，他无疑将赚得更多，但是依据公共养老金行业标准，这堪称巨大薪酬待遇。Anne Stausboll，美国最大的公共养老基金CalPERS的老板，到2011年6月30日为止一年得到约380,000美元薪资，包括奖金96638美元。
Such disparity may hinder the Canadian model’s spread. Joe Dear, the chief investment officer of CalPERS, has said it is “not politically feasible” to set up this sort of compensation structure. For politicians, not to mention voters, multi-million-dollar salaries are not going to be popular.
如此差距可能阻碍了加拿大模式的传播蔓延。 CalPERS的首席投资官，Joe Dear，说建立这种薪酬结构是无政治可行性的。对于政治家来说，几百万美元的工资是无法通行的，更不用说选民。
Many officials at American public pension funds would not want to copy the model anyway. If a big deal were to go south, they might be sued. But Mr Ambachtsheer says board members also have a fiduciary duty to consider how fees are eroding assets. If they have an option to pay 90% less, they should try to take it.
美国公共养老基金的许多官员不管怎样并不想复制该模式。因为如果交易失败，他们可能会被起诉。但Ambachtsheer说，董事会成员也有思考收费如何侵蚀资产的受托责任。如果他们有选择可以节约90％，他们应尽量采用它。
Another obstacle to the adoption of Canadian ways is scale. A fund needs to be a certain size to buy companies and invest in infrastructure projects, and to swallow the upfront costs of building internal teams. Smaller Canadian funds have been unable to follow suit, for example. Sometimes the large funds will syndicate their deals and give the minnows a chance to take part. In 2009 OMERS won approval to manage assets of smaller pension funds in Canada.
采用加拿大模式的另一个障碍是规模。基金需要一定的规模，来购买公司和投资基础设施项目，并承担内部团队建设的前期成本。例如，较小规模的加拿大基金已经无法仿效。有时，大型基金会组团进行交易，并给小基金机会参与。2009年，OMERS在加拿大的获得批准，管理小型养老基金的资产。
Cuddly Canucks
可爱的加拿大人
The giants face problems of their own. One, paradoxically, is the growth of assets: CPP, for example, expects to manage C$275 billion by 2020 and C$1 trillion by 2050. Getting bigger makes it harder for each investment to make a difference to overall returns. “How we can scale our direct investing so it continues to be meaningful in a fund that’s doubled its size is a challenge,” says David Denison, CPP’s boss.
巨头也面临自己的一些问题。其中之一，看起来比较矛盾，是资产增长：例如，CPP预计到2020年管理2750亿加元和到2050年升至1万亿加元。规模越大，使每项投资都对整体效益具有重大影响的难度也越大。 “我们该如何扩展我们的直接投资，使它对规模扩大一倍的基金仍然意义重大，这是一个挑战，CPP的老板大卫丹尼森说。
Another challenge is handling expansion into more volatile emerging markets. To find good deals, funds need people on the ground. But as they become global, they may spread themselves too thinly. The Canadian model assumes that diversification is not as important as deep knowledge: the funds are likely to be better at doing deals in Montreal than Moscow. Some funds have opened foreign offices, but Mr Fyfe of PSP Investments is wary: “These people are going to be sitting there telling you to do a deal, so they’re not irrelevant.”
另一个挑战是处理更不稳定的新兴市场的扩张。为了寻求好的交易，基金需要投资者实地考察。但是，当他们全球化后，他们的人员散播可能过于稀少。加拿大模式认为多样化不比深度知识重要，基金的投资交易，在蒙特利尔比在莫斯科做得更好。一些基金已开设国外办事处，但PSP投资的伊夫先生警惕：“这些人将要坐在那里，告诉你去做交易，所以他们不是无关紧要的。”
Even so, Canadian pensions are primed to do well in these dismal times. Some are planning to do more in credit, since banks are lending less. Cash-strapped governments are also lining up a huge number of infrastructure-asset sales. Politicians find the Canadians cuddlier partners than many others. According to Michael Sabia, the boss of Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, another pension-fund group: “If they’re faced with the consortium of ‘Bonfire of the Vanities’ from New York versus a consortium of large public institutions who are long-term investors… I think I know who they’re going to pick.”
即便如此，加拿大养老金已经准备在这令人沮丧的时候依旧做好投资交易。一些计划扩大信贷，因为银行贷款减少。现金短缺的ZF也在准备将数量庞大的基础设施资产进行排队销售。政客发现作为合作方加拿大人比其他人更可爱。另一养老基金财团Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec的老板迈克尔·萨比亚说：“如果他们面对着纽约的“虚荣的篝火”财团和长期从事投资的大型公共机构财团，......我想我
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
京公网安备 11010802022788号
