The
Secretary-General’s letter of 14 April to Fund members raises more questions
than it answers. What really caused the sudden departure of Sudhir
Rajkumar, the Secretary-General’s
Representative for Investments (RSG) and
what’s being done to address any underlying issues to ensure our Fund’s
continued health during Covid-19 and beyond?
Fund members were
surprised to learn, on 29 March, that Rajkumar had abruptly resigned. One
moment, on Friday, 27 March, he was posting an investment report on the Fund’s
website, the next moment it was removed, and two days later, he resigned.
The
Secretary-General’s renewal of Rajkumar’s two-year contract last December, in
the thick of a year of internal tumult in the Office of Investment Management
(OIM), sent a signal of confidence in his RSG, wittingly or not. So much so,
that even close observers of the Fund didn’t see Rajkumar’s abrupt departure
coming.
Rajkumar’s surprise
exit came about two weeks after, on 12 March, a UN Participant Representative
to the Pension Board sent an open letter to the SG (not made public),
reiterating concerns and allegations stated in an earlier letter to the SG by
the UN participant representatives, on 21 October 2019. An internal
investigation and audit were reportedly conducted following receipt of the
letter.
No reassurance
without transparency
Fund members may
wonder about the message conveyed by the lack of any mention in the SG’s letter
of issues of concern besides those related to the volatile financial markets of Covid-19.
There are simply too
many unanswered questions for the SG’s letter to have the reassuring effect
that he clearly intended. It fact, the absence of transparency is a source of
great unease, particularly in a time of increased volatility in financial
markets, not to mention that there couldn’t be a worse time for flux in investment
leadership.
How much confidence
can Fund members/owners have in the SG’s pledge “to do
everything in [his] power to strengthen the management and operations of the
Fund in order to ensure the most prudent and capable handling of its assets” in
the absence of transparency about the facts of the underlying problems and
actions he’s taking to tackle them?
The RSG’s abrupt
departure
In his note to
correspondents on 29 March, the Secretary-General’s spokesperson noted that Rajkumar
had resigned; that the SG thanked him for his service and wished him the
best for the future; and had assigned the Director of the Finance Division as
Acting RSG pending recruitment of a successor. (Link to SG letter and note to
correspondents below).
In response to
questions from journalists the following day, the spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric
reportedly said that the RSG "decided to leave for personal and family
reasons” – in the middle of the Covid-19 crisis (see link to Deccan Herald
article).
Turmoil in the Fund
There’s more than meets the eye with this story, of course. For
more than a year before these latest developments, there were signs that there
was much that was amiss in the Office of Investment Management. (See blog
article posted on 29 March before the RSG’s resignation, setting out the
allegations and concerns, and the RSG’s position on the issues, link below).
Besides the letters
to the Secretary-General from UN participant representatives, there were media
reports on the situation early last year, and a pension briefing last November where
the allegations were aired on a UN video of the meeting in the public
domain.
Secretary-General’s letter
All along, it has been difficult
to square the reports of internal turmoil in OIM with the rosy picture of Fund investments
before Covid-19 shook the financial markets.
According to the
Secretary-General’s letter, in the midst of the past year’s turmoil in the
Fund, in the first quarter of 2020 “the portfolio reach[ed] a level of $72
billion” (its highest level ever) and decreased by 10 percent because of
volatility in the financial markets triggered by Covid-19, “consistent with the trend observed in the
markets more generally.”
.
Indeed, until Covid-19 wracked the financial
markets, the Fund had been a picture of financial stability throughout 2019. According to the short-lived investment report that the RSG posted briefly on the OIM website, and subsequently removed, the preliminary market value of the Fund's assets had decreased from $71.8 billion at the end of 2019 to $63.5 billion on 26 March. However, he noted, the Fund is a long-term investor and he was confident in OIM's ability to deal with any challenges that the market might present.
Renewal of contract
Around the time that
the UN participant representatives sent their 21 October letter to the SG, setting
out concerns and allegations regarding the RSG’s leadership of OIM, the SG’s
advisers were apparently already moving to renew Rajkumar’s two-year contract
to the end of 2022.
Yet, three months after
his new contract began, the RSG, seemingly, abruptly “decided to leave for personal and family
reasons”, two days after he posted an investment report that vanished from the
Fund’s website.
What, if anything,
did the RSG’s sudden departure have to do with the 12 March letter from
a UN participant representative to the SG, that reiterated concerns and
allegations and called for the Secretary-General’s urgent action?
Who’s in charge of
investments?
An issue seemingly at
the heart of the turmoil around investments relates to procedures in OIM that
reportedly changed under the RSG’s leadership. Senior investment officers in
the Fund from whom the allegations originated, reportedly contended that OIM
practice was that they, not the RSG, made investment decisions, and that the
RSG’s role was to approve those decisions.
The RSG, by assuming
ultimate decision-making for investments, they said, had overturned a system
that had worked to keep the Fund financially stable for decades. Further, he
was either misinterpreting his terms of reference, in their view, or the TORs
gave him too much power and needed to be revised.
Glossing over the
facts
The Secretary-General’s
intention in stating that “we do not foresee any disruption for
beneficiaries as the Fund ‘s liquidity is strong [and] I can assure you that
all pensions will continue to be paid in full”, without reference to the OIM’s
internal turmoil, may have been to spare Fund members from as much unease and
worry as possible.
Still, questions inevitably arise about the facts surrounding
the underlying issues and how they’re being addressed. Fund members may have,
for example, legitimate questions about the role of the Pension Board, the
Investments Committee, the Committee of Actuaries, and the Assets and
Liabilities and Monitoring Committee, in mitigating, or exacerbating issues that
may be contained in the findings of the OIOS audit.
Given the past year
of turmoil in the Fund, and the current Covid-19 crisis, why wasn’t the
disruption of the sudden departure of the RSG “foreseen” or better yet,
forestalled by timely action to resolve the issues? Were oversight bodies missing
in action?
What action was taken
to ascertain the facts of the allegations contained in last October's letter to the SG and
to address the situation prior to the RSG’s contract being renewed for an
additional two years?
The findings of the
OIOS audit must be made public
In the absence of verified factual information as may be
contained in the internal audit, one can expect speculation about which
effects on Fund investments can be attributed to current investment policies that are alleged to require a course correction, and which to the volatility of the Covid-19 financial
markets.
(It's noteworthy that the SG makes a welcome reference in his letter to plans to update and enhance the Fund's website to provide more transparent communications about the Fund's performance).
(It's noteworthy that the SG makes a welcome reference in his letter to plans to update and enhance the Fund's website to provide more transparent communications about the Fund's performance).
Do the RSG’s terms
of reference place too much power in the hands of a single individual as
alleged? If the role of the RSG is simply to rubber-stamp decisions by the
investment officers, is there a need for an RSG at the level of
Assistant-Secretary-General playing the role of a figurehead? How can a mere figurehead
be expected to implement the Secretary-General’s responsibility as fiduciary of
the Fund?
These and other questions
are valid now and will continue to be valid under the acting leadership of OIM,
and whomever the new RSG may be.
Fund members/owners need
to know the contents of the internal OIOS investigation and report. We are
entitled to know the facts, and wherever the responsibility lies, including vis
à vis the various oversight bodies, and what steps those in charge of our
Fund’s oversight may need to take to avoid a repeat performance to ensure our
Fund is protected in these volatile times.
No comments:
Post a Comment