合并的利弊

两周前，安大略省被吓倒了a blog post作者：Mark McQueen表明，加拿大省废除了它的五个大型福利养老金（Hoopp，omper，opb，op信托和oTpp），支持单一，更大的基金，可以更好地利用规模经济并保持降低成本。这是一个模糊：

“But you’ve got to ask yourself: why a London firefighter, a London teacher, a local OPP officer, a local MTC employee and a nurse at St. Joseph’s Hospital might all be served by different pension plan managers with seemingly different strategies and risk tolerance levels? That can’t be the most efficient way to manage scarce financial resources in wild stock and credit markets, particularly when the same taxpayer winds up funding the shortfall if things don’t go as hoped. Which has been the case for at least the past three years...Each fund also has its own approach to public market management, as well. Some do most of it in-house, while others farm out the stock and bond picking to external managers. Invariably, these costs all wind up coming out of the pockets of the employer and employee in the form of the fund’s own unique investment management expenses and pension admin expenses, which amounted to $959 million in 2010...Just think: five different actuaries; five different audits; five different custodians; five different IT departments managing multiple offices...”

这是一个有趣的观点，绝对可以考虑。已经说，9.59亿美元的费用超过320亿美元的资产（这是五个基金的总AUM）仍然只占30个基点，这很便宜（特别是当您考虑这些基金所在的所有异国情调资产时）。正如您可以想象的那样，上面的博客帖子在安大略省激发了相当多的辩论，包括这封信来自Hoopp Ceo John Crocker，他认为：

“Our view is that bigger for the sake of bigger alone, isn’t necessarily better. There are risks – for workers, retirees and taxpayers – when consolidating hundreds of billions of dollars of assets into one “mega fund”. In Quebec, the Caisse de Depot et Placement houses all the pension fund investments for public sector plans – yet in 2008, that “mega fund” lost more money than the five separate Ontario plans combined...Moreover, our CIO Jim Keohane notes that once a fund grows beyond $75 billion in assets the real risk is diseconomies of scale – costs can actually start to go up.”

简而言之，这一来回恢复了巨大而强大的基金比中等大小和动态较小的持续存在的问题。就个人而言，我可以看到这个论点的两面。

我认为我们可以考虑挪威一会儿。The NBIM, which has close to $570 billion in AUM, will have all the economies of scale that a mega Ontario fund (that McQueen is lobbying for) could ever hope to have...and probably all the problems that go with it.

让我们从专业人士开始：NBIM具有显着成本效益;2010年的总管理成本是AUM的11个基点。这是非常低的，但也许反映了基金对索引的关注，并且与大小的福利一样缺乏暴露。nbim，它的部分，解释these low costs as a result of the fact that the fund makes “less use of external managers than its peer group.” Indeed, the NBIM believes (and has found) that the cost of internal management is lower than the cost of external management and, moreover, that the NBIM’s internal management costs are lower than its peers. So in short, NBIM has the scale to do things that a smaller fund might not, which is a real positive.

Now let’s consider the cons: The sheer size of the fund means that a small error or event can have significant financial consequences for the country. This is why the NBIM is so focused on internal compliance and controls and has a keen focus on countermeasures to prevent fraud or ‘unwanted events’. While laudable (and necessary), this can lead to institutional sclerosis that prevents innovation or dynamism (i.e. too many rules). But, to give the NBIM credit here, what choice do they have? You can’t manage $570 billion without rigorous and heavy-duty systems to ensure that all operational risks are well managed. But, again, these systems impose a real cost on the fund in terms of innovation, in my view. For example, the NBIM is only now (after decades of operations) moving into real estate and has no other real assets to speak of. My personal opinion is that a long-term investor should be investing in infrastructure, timberland, agriculture, and real estate. But the size of NBIM makes any of these allocations very slow in coming (if they ever come).

简而言之，有两个方法都是这样的。我可以看到如何限制创新，导致保守主义。此外，大型可以从一些有趣的交易中推动资金;I happen to know some large funds that miss out on fantastic deals that are “too small to move their return needle” because, given that internal resources (i.e. fixed costs) necessary to source and vet don’t change much by deal size, these funds focus on the large deals even though the small deals offer considerable upside. But I can also see that being large can bring considerable benefits. Large funds have the ability to manage assets in house, make direct investments in real assets, and impose a sort of monopsonistic leverage in their negotiations with potential asset managers, all of which offer considerable return potential.

因此，我认为最终决定赞助商是否应该“走”或“流动”取决于赞助权威的当地经济和政治地理。换句话说，它可能对挪威和日本有一个单一的大型资金来说是有意义的，而它也可能对安大略省和瑞典有意义地拥有少数较小的基金。真的没有一个尺寸适合 - 所有解决方案。