A Discussion Forum Sponsored by Rotman ICPM. Held at the Park Hyatt Hotel, CANADA May , 2011

Transcription

1 A Discussion Forum Sponsored by Rotman ICPM Held at the Park Hyatt Hotel, CANADA May , 2011 KEY FORUM INSIGHTS AND POSSIBLE ACTION STEPS May 2011 Session I: Funds Networking Session Session II: ICPM Information Update Session III: PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTING: New Research Findings and Management Implications Session IV: WHAT SHOULD PENSION FUNDS SAY ON PAY? Session V: PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING AND COMPENSATION IN PENSION FUNDS Session VI: SCALE ECONOMIES AND DISECONOMIES IN MANAGING PENSION FUNDS Organization of this Document 1. ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Agenda 2. Funds Networking Session 3. ICPM Information Session 4. Private Equity Investing Session 5. Say on Pay Session 6. Pension Fund Performance Benchmarking and Compensation Session 7. Scale economies and Diseconomies Session 8. Participant Feedback on Forum and Suggestions for Future Topics 9. Forum Attendee List 10. Forum Agenda Overview October , 2011 (Washington, DC) Note: all PowerPoint materials from the event are available on the ICPM website ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Key Findings and Action Items June 2011 Page 1 of 14

2 ICPM MAY 2011 DISCUSSION FORUM Monday, May 16 through Wednesday, May 18, 2011 All sessions take place at the Park Hyatt Hotel, University East and Central Ballroom Monday, May 16 Pre-Forum Activities These are optional or by-invitation-only sessions 10:00-10:50am 11:00-11:50am 12noon-1:00pm Funds Networking Session (limited to those with fund management responsibilities only) Topic: Participant driven Location: Park Hyatt Hotel, University West (this room has changed) Moderator: Graham Pugh, OMERS (Canada) ICPM Information Session (open to all) Location: Park Hyatt Hotel, University East and Central Ballroom Moderator: Rob Bauer, University of Maastricht (Netherlands) Topics: Research Project Update, NEW issue of the Rotman International Journal of Pension Management, Video Update, NEW Board Education Program Welcome Lunch and Networking Opportunity at Park Hyatt Hotel, University West Ballroom Monday, May 16 PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTING: NEW RESEARCH FINDINGS AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Afternoon Break 3:15-3:45pm 1:15-1:30pm 1:30-3:15pm 3:45-4:45pm Opening Remarks and Speaker Introduction Keith Ambachtsheer, Ann Henhoeffer and Rob Bauer The Attractiveness of Private Equity Ludovic Phalippou, Said Business School, Oxford University (United Kingdom) (45 minutes) The presentation will review the methods used to measure risk and return in private equity, provide compensationrehensive evidence on past performance, and robust estimates of the cost of capital and appropriate benchmarks for private equity. Scale is shown to be the primary driver of differences in return of private equity firms. Organizational challenges offer the best explanation for this finding. Discussant: Alexander Dyck, Rotman School of Management (Canada) (30 minutes followed by open group discussion for 30 minutes) How We Manage Private Equity Investing and Why Speakers: Jane Rowe, Ontario Teachers Pension Plan (Canada) (15 minutes) Tom Ruggels, Washington State Investment Board (United States) (15 minutes) Short presentations featuring different Research Partner approaches followed by Q&A (30 minutes). 4:45-5:15pm Practical Take-Aways General Discussion 5:15pm onward Networking Reception at Park Hyatt Hotel, Mezzanine Level ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Key Findings and Action Items June 2011 Page 2 of 14

3 ICPM MAY 2011 DISCUSSION FORUM Monday, May 16 through Wednesday, May 18, 2011 Tuesday, May 17 WHAT SHOULD PENSION FUNDS SAY ON PAY? 7:45-8:15am Light Breakfast Available 8:15-8:30am 8:30-10:30am 10:50-11:50am 11:50am-12:30pm Opening Remarks and Speaker Introduction Keith Ambachtsheer, Rotman ICPM (Canada) Part I A Conversation on Executive Compensation (1 hour) Roger Martin, Dean, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto (Canada) Lucian Bebchuk, Director, Program on Corporate Governance, Harvard Law School (United States) Two leading thinkers on the design of executive compensationensation and on how investment institutions should exercise their voice in say on pay exchange views. There will be no Q&A until after the next session. Part II Panelist Reaction and Perspectives (10 minutes for each panelist with 30 minutes for Q&A) Moderator: Alexander Dyck, Rotman School of Management (Canada) Panelists: Anne Simpson, CalPERS (United States) Ira Kay, Pay Governance (United States) Mark van Clieaf, MVC International (Canada) Part III Breakout Discussion / Report Back Session What Should Pension Funds Say on Pay? (1 hour) In this session participants will be broken into smaller groups to share thoughts on the issues raised in the prior session, assess the effectiveness of current executive compensation systems in the corporate sector, and discuss the say on pay opportunity that has been provided to institutional investors. Say on Pay Reflections and Final Thoughts (10 minutes for each panelist with 10 minutes for general discussion) Moderator: Keith Ambachtsheer, Rotman ICPM (Toronto) Panelists: Lucian Bebchuk, Harvard Law School (United States) Ann Yerger, Council of Institutional Investors (United States) Stephen Griggs, Canadian Coalition of Good Governance (Canada) Tuesday, May 17 PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING AND COMPENSATION IN PENSION FUNDS 1:30-2:15pm How Pension Funds Pay Their People Keith Ambachtsheer, Rotman ICPM (Canada) A survey of the compensationensation practices of the world s thought-leading pension funds offers a close look at their compensationensation philosophies and practices. 2:15-3:30pm 4:00-5:00pm Strategies for Attracting and Retaining the Right People (10 minutes for each speaker with 15 minutes for Q&A) Speakers: David Denison, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (Canada) Else Bos, PGGM (Netherlands) Ken Hugessen, Hugessen Consulting (Canada) What kind of people do pension funds need to be successful investors? How do they compensationete for talent in a very compensationetitive labor market? Where does compensationensation fit into this question? Two pension fund leaders offer their views from opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean. A leading compensationensation consultant adds his perspective. Challenges Facing Pension Fund Boards and Their HR/Compensation Committees (15 minutes for each speaker with 15 minutes for Q&A) Speakers: Elisabetta Bigsby, Board Member, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (Canada) Chris van Boetzelaer, Board Member, Algemene Pensioen Groep (Netherlands) Cassandra Lichnock, HR Executive Officer, CalSTRS (United States) Reflections by Research Partner Board Members on current practices. 5:00-5:30pm Practical Take-Aways General Discussion 5:30pm onward Networking Reception at Park Hyatt Hotel ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Key Findings and Action Items June 2011 Page 3 of 14

4 ICPM MAY 2011 DISCUSSION FORUM Monday, May 16 through Wednesday, May 18, 2011 Wednesday, May 18 SCALE ECONOMIES AND DISECONOMIES IN MANAGING PENSION FUNDS 8:00-8:30am Light Breakfast Available 8:30-9:00am 9:00-10:15am 10:45-12:00noon Lessons Learned / Framework for Discussion Rob Bauer, Maastricht University (Netherlands) Recap of lessons learned from the Forum thus far and how it connects to today s session. ICPM Research Paper: Asset Allocation and Performance of Pension Funds by Aleksandar Andonov (Maastricht), Rob Bauer (Maastricht), and Martin Cremers (Yale) Aleksandar Andonov, Maastricht University, (Netherlands) (40 minutes) Using the CEM Benchmarking Inc. database, the researchers study the asset allocation and performance of American and Canadian pension funds in the period They estimate and compensationare the importance of asset allocation policy, market timing, and security selection decisions for explaining the differences in the performance between funds. To evaluate whether deviations from strategic asset allocation lead to differences in performance, the researchers risk-adjust the market timing and security selection return compensationonents. They look at the impact of size, costs and investment style on the performance at the total fund level and on various asset classes separately: equity, fixed income, real estate, private equity. Discussant: Susan Christoffersen, Rotman School of Management (Canada) (20 minutes followed by open group discussion for 30 minutes) The Impact of Scale, Complexity, and Service Quality on the Administrative Costs of Pension Funds Onno Steenbeek, Algemene Pensioen Groep (Netherlands) and Jaap Bikker, DNB and University Utrecht (Netherlands) (40 minutes) Using the CEM Benchmarking Inc. database, this paper examines the impact of scale, the compensationlexity of pension plans, and service quality on the administrative costs of 90 pension funds, and compensationares those costs across Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and the US. We find that, except for Canada, large unused economies of scale exist and that administration costs vary significantly in the database. Higher service quality and more compensationlex pension plans significantly raise costs, whereas offering only one pension plan reduces costs. Discussants: Tony Lally, Sunsuper (Australia) (20 minutes followed by open group discussion for 30 minutes) 12:00-12:15pm Final Wrap-Up General Discussion ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Key Findings and Action Items June 2011 Page 4 of 14

5 Funds Networking Session The objective of the group discussion was to define the relevant problems and questions that we face as pension organizations that could become possible research areas for ICPM funding. Discussion Group 1 Are your portfolios over-diversified? There is a risk that we are running over diversified portfolios when buying the market indices Challenges/Questions How should do we measure success in concentrated portfolios? How should we do risk management in concentrated portfolios? How do we do this if our risk budget is based on active risk? Is there a risk of herding in the sense that we call buy the same concentrated portfolios? If this is done with a technical approach (i.e. using the same optimizer) this could give a market impact. What are the explicit and implicit costs? Is there a risk we miss the next big thing (e.g. Google)? If we use external managers, how do we properly align interests for running a concentrated portfolio? Possible related research topics How have institutional portfolios moved over time with respect to concentration / dilution? Measuring success in managing concentrated portfolios. Alternative risk budget approaches. Discussion Group 2 Risk Measurement Methods in Private Assets Given that many plans are increasing their allocation to private market assets (i.e. infrastructure, real estate, private equity), how can plans better measure risk for these asset classes and at the total fund level? Do we need different risk measures for different time horizons? The holding and liquidating periods for these asset classes are far longer than public market assets. Is there another way to evaluate the risks in these asset classes rather than use proxies? Proxies are often used in order to get higher frequency return information on the asset class. What is the impact on realized risk, asset class strategy and returns (ex-post and ex-ante) of using proxies versus absolute return benchmarks? ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Key Findings and Action Items June 2011 Page 5 of 14

6 Discussion Group 3 Agency issues Alignment of interests Overview of the current landscape by comparing the approach taken by different organizations o Mandates, organizational structure o How successful have the different organizations been? Can we design a better risk-return target/ambition? o Using asymmetric risk-return profiles and optionally more? o Make use of other type of benchmarks than market weighted? What are we really selling as pension organizations? A nominal deferred annuity or a real but uncertain ambition? How could we do a transition from an AM to a LDI framework? o Senior management is afraid of losing asset management people if moving to LDI framework. o Absolute return targets? Other comments On this topic, Chresten Dengsoe recommends a book by Phil Rosenzweig called "The Halo Effect and the Eight Other Business Delusions that Deceive Managers". The underlying idea of the book is that much of business thinking is shaped by delusions errors of logic and flawed judgments that distort our understanding of the real reasons for a company's performance. Other Proposed Research Topics Dual objectives on how to manage the combination of nominal promises and real ambitions for defined benefit plans. The home country bias is ubiquitous despite being what many would regard as being suboptimal. It's easy to argue that a home country bias is sub-optimal on mean-variance arguments. The question is, under what conditions is it actually optimal? These suggestions will be reviewed by the Research Committee as topics for future funding. ICPM Information Session ICPM Director Keith Ambachtsheer reported that ICPM continues to grow at a measured pace. The number of supporting Research Partners is now 30, with two more funds expected to join shortly. Rob Bauer has joined ICPM as Associate Director Programs. Ann Henhoeffer s new title Associate Director Business Development and Operations reflects her increased outreach responsibilities. She also introduced a new colleague in her area, Karen Clarke. Keith noted the 2010/11 Annual Report describes ICPM s recent accomplishments in some detail. He singled out the new Rotman-ICPM Board Effectiveness Program (BEP) as a major new initiative for First offering is November 28 through December 2, ICPM Board Member Tony Lally (SunSuper) reported on the Board s strategic planning session that took place prior to the Information Session. A key Board decision is to place a ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Key Findings and Action Items June 2011 Page 6 of 14

7 40 Research Partner ceiling on ICPM membership. Board and Management are to take a pro-active approach to identifying candidates for the 8 remaining Research Partner memberships. Strategically, ICPM should now solidify its efforts in funding a well-targeted research program, delivering two outstanding Forums and Journals each year, and ensuring the new BEP initiative is a success. ICPM Research Committee Chair Stefan Lundbergh (Algemene Pensioen Groep) brought the group up-to-date on the 7 Research Projects that ICPM is currently funding. All are proceeding on time and on budget. The Board strategic planning process led to a decision that, in addition to funding research, ICPM should also be actively scanning the research universe for interesting projects by quality researchers that it is NOT funding. Rob Bauer (Maastricht University) outlined progress to date on developing yet another exciting agenda for the October Forum, to be co-hosted by the World Bank in Washington DC, October 17-19, Sessions will include in-depth looks at measuring the quality of retirement income systems around the world, pension fund governance, dynamic asset allocation, and risk management. These sessions will feature a new ICPM-funded Case Study and the findings from ICPM-funded research projects. Private Equity Investing Session Ludovic Phalippou (Oxford) addressed 3 questions in considerable detail: 1. What do we know about Private Equity (PE) returns? 2. How should we benchmark PE returns? 3. What do we know about the drivers of PE returns? In summary, he concluded that the PE industry return data suffer from a number of issues: sample bias, survivorship bias, methodology bias. Better methods (but same quality data) suggest average PE returns are in line with, or below, public equity performance. A major factor in this finding is the high cost of PE investing through externally-managed PE funds. Better performance benchmarking is achieved by using the Net Present Value (NPV) rather than the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) approach. PE investing suffers from material diseconomies of scale when size is represented by number of investments simultaneously outstanding. Alexander Dyck (Rotman School of Management) noted that Phalippou s findings related to situations where, from a pension fund perspective, decisions were taken to outsource the PE investment function to external GPs. Through the CEM Benchmarking Inc. database, he was able to investigate PE performance from the perspective of pension funds as PE investors. From that perspective, he found material positive economies of scale in PE investing. In other words, large funds had, on average, significantly higher PE returns than small funds. A major driver of the higher PE return experience of large funds was their decision to in-source some or much of the PE investment function, which reduced investment costs materially. Likely, it also opened up a significant number of co-investment opportunities. ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Key Findings and Action Items June 2011 Page 7 of 14

8 Jane Rowe (Ontario Teachers Pension Plan) and Tom Ruggels (Washington State Investment Board) provided PE investment perspectives from the firing line. Both have had good results with the asset class despite taking quite different implementation approaches. Teachers Private Capital manages a $12B PE portfolio, about in-sourced/outsourced with a strong focus on specific sectors. It has achieved a 20% IRR over a 20-year period. WSIB fully outsources the management its $16B PE portfolio. The management of the portfolio is quite concentrated, with 15 GPs managing 75% of the PE assets. The achieved IRR was 13% over a 30-year period. Say on Pay Session Roger Martin (Rotman School of Management) delivered a summary of his controversial new book Fixing the Game (see new Spring 2011 issue of the Rotman International Journal of Pension Management for book excerpt). His essential message is that equitybased compensation is taking corporate managements eyes off the real game as they focus on fuelling the expectations game. This mis-focus leads to short-termism as the game is to continually manage, match, or beat earnings expectations. As a result, long-term, sustainable wealth-creation (e.g., delighting customers, investing in innovation, mitigating long term sustainability risks) takes a backseat. Sad by-products are reckless risk-taking, financial crises, and a corporate executive class that lacks authenticity. The solution? Realign financial incentives for corporate executives away from equity-based compensation schemes and towards rewarding outcomes that generate sustainable wealth-creation for all corporate stakeholders. Panelists Ira Kay (Pay Governance), Mark van Clieaf (MVC International), and Anne Simpson (CalPERS) responded quite differently to Martin s message. Kay argued that, when properly managed, equity-based incentive compensation, while maybe not perfect, DOES align the financial interests of corporate management and shareowners. By implication, shareowners must agree, as corporate pay proposals are receiving generally high (over 90%) shareowner acceptance votes. (In the subsequent general discussion, this proof was refuted as not reflecting the general position of knowledgeable shareowners who had truly studied the executive compensation issue). Van Clieaf agreed with Martin that executive compensation needs a major rethink and overhaul, and that it needs to be refocused on such metrics as market share, return on risk-adjusted capital, and more qualitative assessments related to corporate sustainability and risk mitigation. Simpson reminded everyone that the say on pay option should be thought of as a means to engage corporate boards on the broader question of their duties to shareowners and other corporate stakeholder groups. At the end of the day, it is the alignment and effectiveness of corporate Boards that really matters to institutional investors. Moderator Alexander Dyck then engaged Forum attendees on the say on pay question by dividing them into 7 small groups, and asking them how important they felt the question to be in their organizations, what role investment institutions should play, and what specific ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Key Findings and Action Items June 2011 Page 8 of 14

9 pay issues would you focus on. The feedback consensus from the small groups was that corporate compensation design was indeed an important issue, that pension funds are wellplaced to be important change agents, and that the key compensation issues to focus on are clear links to corporate strategy and sustainability, timeframe, symmetric upside/downside rewards, transparency, and board effectiveness in aligning stakeholder interests. In the final reflections and thoughts panel, Ann Yerger (Council of Institutional Investors), Stephen Griggs (Canadian Coalition of Good Governance), and Lucian Bebchuk (Harvard Law School) all stressed the importance of smart collective action strategies by pension and other long-horizon investment institutions. For example, the Council of Institutional Investors and the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance both play pro-active roles in defining and improving corporate governance, championing shareowner rights, and advocating smart strategies to improve executive pay at investee corporations. Lucian Bebchuk spoke of his efforts working directly with large pension funds to change corporate pay arrangements to eliminate perverse incentives to take on excessive risks, and to replace them with longer-term, sustainable wealth-creation incentives. Pension Fund Performance Benchmarking and Compensation Session Keith Ambachtsheer presented the results of a just-completed survey on pension fund compensation for the investment function involving 37 funds from Europe, North America, AUS/NZ (AUM $2.2T). Key findings and conclusions included: 1. a surprisingly broad array of investment implementation strategies, 2. significant variance in compensation models and compensation outcomes within the sample, 3. strong investment benchmarking bias towards market-relative yardsticks, and 4. the two most important high-compensation drivers were total head count and Canada-location. Finding #4 is best explained by the strategic decision by some large funds to significantly in-source their private markets investment activities. Three important industry challenges are: 1. remove artificial compensation ceilings, 2. develop explicit rationale for investment performance benchmarking protocols, and 3. develop and integrate explicit risk-adjustment protocols into pay for performance calculations. David Denison (Canada Pension Plan Investment Board) and Else Bos (PGGM) provided perspectives on attracting and retaining the right people at CPPIB and PGGM respectively from a senior management perspective. This requires thinking about organization culture and strategy first. CPPIB has chosen to take advantage of its scale, long-horizon investment mandate, and projected positive cash-flow for years to come, by in-sourcing a significant part of its investment operations, especially in private markets. So at a junior level, it is prepared to compensate with the investment banks for top talent. At more senior levels, the CPPIB value proposition is to still be Q1-compensationetitive within the pension investment sector, but not necessarily with the investment banks. However, CPPIB is still ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Key Findings and Action Items June 2011 Page 9 of 14

10 able to be competitive because of considerations such as public service, and no short term performance or marketing pressures. PGGM is keen to attract head and heart people genuinely interested in enhancing the economic well-being of plan participants. So there is more focus on performance targets related to plan design, balance sheet and risk management, and stakeholder communications, and less emphasis on direct pay for investment performance formulas. Ken Hugessen (Hugessen Consulting Canada) stressed the need for pay for investment performance formulas to be multi-year in their structures. In his view, measuring investment performance in private markets is still a work-inprogress, with no final answers yet in sight. Elisabetta Bigsby (Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec), Chris van Boetzelaer (Algemene Pensioen Groep), and Cassandra Lichnock (CalSTRS) provided the supervisory board perspective on pension fund HR and compensation principles and practices. They warned that at the end of the day, it is all about intelligent talent management and not about complex compensation formulas. The shape, state, and culture of the local labor market can matter a great deal in the design and execution of HR/compensation strategies. Pension funds don t need to compensate directly on compensation with investment banks for talent. They have significant non-financial perks and benefits to offer the talent they need. However, arbitrary externally-imposed restrictions on fund HR and compensation principles and practices can be a serious problem. Supervisory boards can, and should play constructive roles in ensuring that funds have the requisite internal resources to create value for their stakeholders. Scale Economies and Diseconomies Session Aleksandar Andonov (Maastricht University) presented the findings of an ICPM-funded research project (other researchers are Rob Bauer (Maastricht University) and Martijn Cremers (Yale)), on the investment behavior of a group of American and Canadian pension funds over , using the CEM Benchmarking Inc. database. Key findings included: 1. Security selection, not asset allocation policy, accounts for most of the differences in fund returns over time. 2. Average positive excess returns disappear when adjusted for momentum (in US) and benchmark-specific effects (in Canada). 3. External management and size reduce excess returns in publicly-traded markets. 4. Internal management and large-scale investing in private markets increases excess returns. The presumption is that governance quality is an important success driver in pension fund management, but it cannot be directly observed in the CEM database. Susan Christoffersen (Rotman School of Management) was the paper discussant. She noted that this type of research had also uncovered scale diseconomies by other participants in publicly-traded investment markets (e.g., mutual funds and hedge funds). Asset-based fees in mutual funds encourage asset growth, while performance-based fees in hedge funds restrain it. The positive private markets scale effect in pension funds is an interesting finding. She wondered about the cost-benefit of the risk-adjustment process employed in ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Key Findings and Action Items June 2011 Page 10 of 14

11 the study. On the whole, the study makes an important contribution to the literature on investing because pension funds have not received the same attention as mutual and hedge funds. Jacob Bikker (DNB and Utrecht University) and Onno Steenbeek (Algemene Pensioen Groep) presented the findings of a research project on the impact of scale, complexity, and service quality on the cost of providing pension administration service to members. The basis of their study was a international database of 90 pension plans provided by CEM Benchmarking Inc. They noted that the cost-effective management of pension plan operating costs is important because unnecessary operating costs increase the cost of providing retirement security without any offsetting benefit. They find that administrative costs vary materially across the sample. The pension administration function is subject to significant scale economies, and significant unused scale economies exist. Higher service quality and more compensationlex pension plans increase costs. Offering only one plan formula, and large proportions of deferred members reduces costs. Plan rationalization within country pension sectors would produce material reductions in operating costs. Tony Lally was the paper discussant. He confirmed the author's conclusion that the pension administration function is subject to significant scale economies, although he questioned the linearity of the relationship. He based his feedback on a detailed overview of the Australian industry (pension) funds' experience in the past few years. Tony showed that there are indeed economies of scale in the administration costs per member in Australia, even for organizations with a large number of participants (more than 1 million). He furthermore provided evidence that the dispersion of fund returns is significantly lower for large funds than for small funds. He concludes that members are better off at larger industry funds, both for pension administration and for asset management services. Participant Feedback on Forum and Suggestions for Future Topics Did the May 2010 Forum meet attendees expectations? On an excellent/good/poor grid, 70% of the attendees scored excellent and 30% scored Good (from a total of 23 respondents). Despite missing out on the Rotman School of Management facilities, you really liked the Forum. We encourage you to keep on responding to the survey. We need the feedback to keep the high standard. Presentations by Keith Ambachtsheer (International Compensation Survey), Ludovic Phalippou (Private Equity) and Aleksandar Andonov (Asset Allocation) got the highest marks based on survey respondents and Anne Simpson (CalPERS) was graded highest as a discussant. ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Key Findings and Action Items June 2011 Page 11 of 14

12 Positive Feedback ICPM continues to grow in its stature and its potential to do good across pensions is massive: keep going and thank you My first ICPM meeting and it did not disappoint! I was impressed by the superb quality of debate, excellent preparation and lively good humor throughout. Thank you again. Balance feels pretty good at the moment. Suggestions for Improvement More qualitative research (not just a quantitative dimension). More polarization in the panels to have more discussion. Ensure enough time for networking during breaks. This time we had too many people reciting the everything s perfect here mantra. Both the good and the bad should be shared. There should be more scope for sessions by Fund Executives; more balance with academic sessions is needed. Continue to encourage discussions by the funds representatives. Maybe more table discussions needed? There needs to be more time ask questions and get answers. Future Forum Topics Risk Management Frameworks (broader than just investment risk). What metrics are people looking at to gauge systemic risk? Pension Fund Governance. International Solvency rules for pension funds. Life-cycle investment solutions and life-cycle design. More on the corporate governance of listed companies. Financial system reform. Benchmarking of pension fund investments. Cost transparency of pension plans (to members). Forum Agenda Overview October , Washington DC The October 2011 Discussion Forum will be co-hosted by World Bank Treasury in Washington DC. The following themes that will be explored include: Global Aging and Pension Design Pension Fund Governance Case Study 5: Dynamic Asset Allocation Research Paper Findings on Dynamic Asset Allocation ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Key Findings and Action Items June 2011 Page 12 of 14

13 ICPM MAY 2011 DISCUSSION FORUM ATTENDEE LIST COUNTRY NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS USA Lorraine Monchak 1199 SEIU Pension Fund Canada Jean David Tremblay-Frenette AIMCO Canada Meryl Whittaker Alberta Local Authorities Pension Plan Corp (ALAPP) The Netherlands Stefan Lundbergh Algemene Pensioen Groep (APG) The Netherlands Onno Steenbeek Algemene Pensioen Groep (APG) The Netherlands Chris van Boetzelaer Algemene Pensioen Groep (APG) USA Paul Spijkers Algemene Pensioen Groep (APG) Australia Gordon Hagart Australia Future Fund Australia Stuart Watson Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) Canada Elisabetta Bigsby Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec Canada Bernard Morency Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec USA Anne Simpson California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) USA Cassandra Lichnock California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) Canada Stephen J. Griggs Canadian Coalition for Good Governance Canada Mike Heale CEM Benchmarking Canada Bruce Hopkins CEM Benchmarking Canada Jody MacIntosh CEM Benchmarking Canada Terrie Miller CEM Benchmarking USA Mario Virtudes Commonfund USA Ann Yerger Council of Institutional Investors (CII) Canada Stephen Burnie CPP Investment Board (CPPIB) Canada David Denison CPP Investment Board (CPPIB) Canada Jean-Francois L Her CPP Investment Board (CPPIB) jflher@cppib.ca Canada Don Raymond CPP Investment Board (CPPIB) draymond@cppib.ca Canada Geoffrey Rubin CPP Investment Board (CPPIB) grubin@cppib.ca Canada Mark Wiseman CPP Investment Board (CPPIB) mwiseman@cppib.ca Denmark Chresten Dengsoe Danish Labour Market Supplementary Pension (ATP) cd@atp.dk The Netherlands Jaap Bikker De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) J.A.Bikker@DNB.NL Finland Timo Löyttyniemi Finland State Pension Fund / Valtion Eläkerahasto timo.loyttyniemi@ver.fi USA Lucian Bebchuk Harvard Law School bebchuk@law.harvard.edu United Kingdom Marlon Sahetapy Hermes Pensions Management Limited M.Sahetapy@hermes.co.uk Canada Victoria Hubbell Hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) vhubbell@hoopp.com Canada Jim Keohane Hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) jkeohane@hoopp.com Canada Ken Hugessen Hugessen Consulting khugessen@hugessen.com The Netherlands Aleksandar Andonov Maastricht University a.andonov@maastrichtuniversity.nl The Netherlands Rob Bauer Maastricht University r.bauer@maastrichtuniversity.nl Canada Jane Ambachtsheer Mercer Canada jane.ambachtsheer@mercer.com Canada Mark Van Clieaf MVC Associates International mark@mvcinternational.com United Kingdom Rudyard Ekindi National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) executive.office@nestpensions.org.uk United Kingdom Tim Jones National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) Tim.L.Jones@nestpensions.org.uk New Zealand Tim Mitchell New Zealand Superannuation Fund tmitchell@nzsuperfund.co.nz New Zealand Sarah Owen New Zealand Superannuation Fund sowen@nzsuperfund.co.nz Japan Sadayuki Horie Nomura Research Institute s-horie@nri.co.jp ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Key Findings and Action Items June 2011 Page 13 of 14

14 ICPM MAY 2011 DISCUSSION FORUM ATTENDEE LIST COUNTRY NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS Canada Patrick Crowley Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) Canada Janet Wilson Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) Canada Blair Cowper-Smith Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) Canada Graham Pugh Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) Canada Jim Leech Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board (OTPP) Canada Neil Petroff Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board (OTPP) Canada Jane Rowe Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board (OTPP) Canada Barbara Zvan Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board (OTPP) The Netherlands Fred Heemskerk ORTEC Finance United Kingdom Ludovic Phalippou Oxford University USA Ira Kay Pay Governance The Netherlands Else Bos PGGM The Netherlands Niels Leivaart PGGM United Kingdom Chris Hitchen Railpen Investments Canada Mary Johnston Rotman Executive Programs Canada Rita McDowall Rotman Executive Programs Canada Keith Ambachtsheer Rotman ICPM Canada Ann Henhoeffer Rotman ICPM Canada Susan Christoffersen Rotman School of Management Canada Alexander Dyck Rotman School of Management Canada Na Li Rotman School of Management Canada Roger Martin Rotman School of Management Canada Leila Peyravan Rotman School of Management Canada Maureen Stapleton Rotman School of Management Canada Aazam Virani Rotman School of Management Canada Glen Whyte Rotman School of Management The Netherlands Rogér Otten Stichting Philips Pensioenfonds The Netherlands Kilian Thevissen Stichting Philips Pensionenfonds Canada Edward Waitzer Stikeman Elliott Australia David Hartley SunSuper Australia Graham Heilbronn SunSuper Australia Tony Lally SunSuper The Netherlands Twan van Erp Syntrus Achmea Asset Management USA Bill Dempsey United Food & Commercial Workers - International Union bdempsey@ufcw.org United Kingdom Howard Jacobs Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited drussell@uss.co.uk United Kingdom David Russell Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited drussell@uss.co.uk USA Stephen Lerch Washington State Investment Board (WSIB) slerch@sib.wa.gov USA Liz Mendizabal Washington State Investment Board (WSIB) lmendizabal@sib.wa.gov USA Tom Ruggels Washington State Investment Board (WSIB) TRuggels@sib.wa.gov USA Serge Desjardins World Bank Treasury sdesjardins@worldbank.org USA Thumpasery George World Bank Treasury tgeorge@worldbank.org USA Sudhir Rajkumar World Bank Treasury srajkumar@worldbank.org ICPM May 2011 Discussion Forum Key Findings and Action Items June 2011 Page 14 of 14