Posts Tagged 'Corruption'

Korea’s NPS Cleaning House

Ashby Monk

Weighing in at over $300 billion, Korea’s National Pension Service is the fourth largest pension reserve fund in the world and is Korea’s largest investor full stop. To give you some notion of its size, it’s roughly $100 billion larger than CalPERS. That’s big. Unfortunately, like CalPERs, the NPS has also been dealing with its fair share of internal governance problems stemming from its dominant position in financial markets.

The Korea Herald reported yesterday that the NPS was shaking up its senior leadership to ‘send a message’ to its investment decision-makers about unethical conduct and corruption (lots of nepotism). Here’s a short blurb from the NPS: “The reshuffle was designed to warn those who have been involved in business wrongdoings as criticized by the media.” What did the NPS do that was so bad, you ask? A recent audit of the NPS shows some rather unsavory conduct:

  • “…the NPS bullied business partners, mainly securities firms, made poor investments in real estate and wrongly collected pension contributions…”
  • “The biggest corruption allegation involves the NPS’s treatment of securities firms via leveraging its dominant status in the market.”
  • “One former NPS team leader, back in late 2009, forced his staff to raise company evaluation scores for two brokerages identified by their initials, F and G, because he had college friends working there, the public auditor’s report said. As a result, F and G were allocated more stocks to manage worth 102 billion won and 95.9 billion won respectively, helping them earn 255 million won and 240 million won in commission.”
  • “In another case, the pension fund allegedly forced a securities firm to use Cheong Pung Resort owned by the pension fund.”
  • “One brokerage identified as N reported the case to the National Assembly and in retaliation, a department head of the NPS last September urged his staff to disqualify the company from handling the fund. The securities firm lost an opportunity to make 37 million won in commission.”
  • “The auditor also criticized the NPS for its investment in real estate. When the NPS acquired a building in central Seoul for 320.7 billion won, an asset manager in charge suggested it won’t collect any commission if the NPS sells the property in five years. If the building is sold later, it would make a 10-percent commission as an incentive. The pension fund, however, decided to pay the commission for selling the property in five years and pay a 15 percent incentive, the BAI’s report revealed.”
  • “In addition, another property on which the NPS spent 83.7 billion won proved to be inappropriate as an investment. The pension fund’s own rules say that properties subject to investment should yield more than a 5 percent inflation-adjusted profit per annum for a five-year period. The 83.7-billion-won building was estimated to yield a 4.21 percent return a year, and this wasn’t reported to the committee.”

Oh and then there was this little nugget of news from the Korea Herald this week:

“…two employees of the NPS were charged by police in the past week for buying sex. The police, currently investigating the case, also suspect them of bribing an employee from a securities company who drank with them on Aug. 13.”

Wow. Some unwelcome distractions for a fund that is in the process of expanding its investment operations to include a variety of global industries and asset classes. Clearly, the NPS has some work to do on its internal governance as it develops as a global institutional investor. At least NPS Chairman Jun Kwang-woo has begun the hard process of institutional reform. Good luck to him.

Medvedev Fights to Keep the ‘R’ in ‘BRICs’

Ashby Monk

Russia is a hard place for foreign investors to operate. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently summed up the situation succinctly:

“I have already given my opinion on the investment climate in this country — it is very bad … Corruption remains a factor.”

Indeed. According to PWC’s 2010 ‘Doing Business and Investing in the Russian Federation’,

“…the operating environment remains hazardous on a number of fronts, with many foreign investors scared off by poor legal safeguards.”

So what to do? How can foreign investors be convinced to come back? Seriously, put yourself in Medvedev’s place. How would you go about convincing foreign investors to come back to Russia and make private equity investments?

Interestingly, Medvedev has some new and innovative answers to that question. And the cornerstone of his ‘investment attraction policy’ is a new government investment vehicle that will allow private equity funds to partner with the government in Russian investments. The new fund will be called the Russian Direct-Investment Fund, and the Kremlin hopes it will attract upwards of $90 billion in foreign investment over the next five years.

I’m sure some of you responded to the question above (how to attract foreign investors) by shrinking the imprint of Russia’s government on the Russian economy, and/or by limiting the influence of the government. But Medvedev’s plan to create a new government-backed investment vehicle (i.e., temporarily increasing the scope of the government’s involvement in the private sector) is actually pretty smart, as it will ultimately align the interests of the public and private sectors and provide confidence to the private co-investors that corruption or government interference won’t get in the way of returns. According to Vladimir Dmitriev, who is head of the state bank tasked with setting up the new investment vehicle,

“Investors are simply scared…Investors are ready to come only on [the] condition the government shares the risks with them.”

Put simply, the impetus for the new sovereign fund is to assuage the fears of foreign investors by creating a government-backed vehicle that they can participate in. The subtle sales pitch in this is to say that the individuals who might otherwise engage in corrupt practices with private investors wouldn’t dare mess around with the Kremlin. Creative.

Now, as you know, Russia already has two other sovereign funds: the Reserve Fund and the National Welfare Fund (which are both descendents of the Stabilization Fund, which was split up in 2008). But RDIF will operate quite differently:

“Unlike a traditional sovereign-wealth fund, which usually invests outside its home country, the new fund will put its capital into projects inside Russia. Foreign partners—big international private-equity and sovereign-wealth funds—will be offered the chance to take stakes alongside it, but won’t hold shares in the fund itself… The fund will take stakes of 15% to 25% in each project, spending between $50 million and $500 million…The bulk of the investment in the projects—including controlling stakes—will come from the foreign partners. Typical for private equity, the fund and its partners will hold stakes for five to seven years, exiting through public offerings or other sales… Returns of about 20% are expected over a five- to seven-year investment plan…The fund’s management will be independent, made up of professionals from the industry to allay any fears of political influence or conflicts of interest.”

What’s more, Medvedev only views Russia’s participation in the fund’s investments as temporary:

“The state must not take part in the management of such a fund and must necessarily guarantee withdrawal from the company’s capital in about seven or eight years…The fund will be managed by a team of investment market professionals.”

So the fund is really just a private investment catalyst rather than a long-term investment vehicle for the sovereign’s wealth. Again, that’s quite creative.

Still, it will be very interesting to see how foreign investors react. To date, some funds have already expressed interest, including sovereign funds from China and Abu Dhabi. And it’s not hard to see why: If I were looking for a partner for private equity investments in Russia, the Kremlin would be top of my list.

SEC Investigating SWF Bribes

Ashby Monk

Dionne Searcey and Randall Smith broke a story yesterday about the launch of a new investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission into whether US banks and asset managers violated bribery laws in their dealings with SWFs. Apparently, the investigation singles out 10 firms and appears to be linked to the “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act”. In short, the SEC seems to be treating all employees and agents of SWFs as foreign government officials, which means lavish gifts to these individuals could be considered a bribe under FCPA.

For more details beyond the WSJ article, check out coverage from BloombergReutersthe FT, and the NYT. Watch this space…



About

This website is a project of Professor Gordon L. Clark and Dr. Ashby Monk of the School of Geography and the Environment at the University of Oxford. Their research on sovereign wealth funds is funded by the Leverhulme Trust and The Rotman International Centre for Pension Management.

RSS Feed

 RSS

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 327 other followers

Latest SWF News

Visitors Since August 2010


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 327 other followers