Management of GMPF’s assets is determined within the context of the Local Government Pension Scheme (Management and Investment of Funds) Regulations 1998 as amended. These require GMPF to have regard to both the diversification and suitability of its investments and to take proper advice in making investment decisions.
During 1994, the Management Panel decided to separate GMPF’s assets into two distinct parts - a Main Fund and a Designated Fund - in order to reflect a major difference between most of GMPF’s employers and that of a small number of employers in their liability profiles. The Designated Fund is used for employers who have a very high proportion of pensioner liabilities.
At 31 March 2011 the total Fund value was £11,012 million. Of this total, £10,665 million was held in the Main Fund and invested across a broad spread of assets whilst £347 million was held in the Designated Fund and invested almost wholly in UK index-linked with a small amount held in cash.
The UK index linked portfolios of the Designated Fund are passively managed in-house.
During the course of 2000/2001 an extensive review of the external management arrangements of the Main Fund was undertaken. This review culminated in the adoption of a Fund specific benchmark and the appointment of UBS Global Asset Management (UK) and Capital International as active managers and Legal & General Investment Management as passive manager. UBS and Capital manage the securities portfolios investing in equities, fixed interest and index linked on a multi-asset discretionary basis, whilst Legal & General manage a multi-asset indexed securities portfolio.
In 2009, GMPF published a Core Belief Statement on its website. This sets out the key underlying beliefs of the Management Panel in relation to investment issues and GMPF’s overall approach to investment matters. These beliefs provide the bedrock rationale underpinning GMPF’s investment activity.
The chart on the link below summarises the management arrangements for the Main Fund at the end of the year.
Core Belief Statement
Statement of Investment Principles
Chart summarising the management arrangements for the Main Fund at the end of the year
The Fund uses an independent custodian - currently the JP Morgan Chase Bank - to safeguard its financial assets and the rights attaching to those assets. The Custodian is responsible for the safe-keeping of GMPF's financial assets, the settlement of transactions, income collection, overseas tax reclamation and other administrative actions in relation to the investments.
GMPF's banker is Royal Bank of Scotland.
The remaining comments and results in this Investment Report relate solely to the Main Fund.
In December 2000 the Panel adopted a Fund specific benchmark, which defines the proportion of the Main Fund to be invested in each asset class.
Each year the Management Panel reviews the Main Fund’s investment guidelines for the coming year.
Summary of the 2011 benchmark
Each of the three managers has been given a specific benchmark reflecting their perceived skills and the relative efficiency of markets. The active managers are given ranges for each asset class allowing them to make tactical asset allocation decisions.
GMPF’s target allocation to private equity is 4% of Main Fund value, which is implemented by new commitments to specialised funds of £80 million per year. GMPF also has a target allocation to Infrastructure funds of 3% of Main Fund value, which is implemented by new commitments to specialised funds of £60 million a year. The target allocation to the ‘Special Opportunities Portfolio’ (SOP) is 5% of Main Fund value. Current realistic benchmark allocations for private equity, infrastructure and SOP are 2.5%, 1% and 1% respectively.
GMPF supports local investment predominantly through the Property Venture Fund (target allocation range up to 2% of the Main Fund) and the ‘New Initiatives’ allocation. Such local investment is restricted to 3% of Main Fund value.
The above left graph shows the net effect, on an economic exposure basis, of the total investment activity of the Main Fund during the year, based on the Panel’s guidelines. As can be seen, during the year there has been a substantial switch out of UK Equities, UK Government Fixed Interest and a reduction in Property with a move into Cash/Other, UK Corporate Bonds, Overseas Equities and Overseas Corporate Bonds.
The above right graph compares the return achieved by the Main Fund with the market/benchmark index return in each of the main investment categories during the year.
The year saw positive returns delivered in all reported asset classes, with Property, UK Equities and Overseas Equities achieving the highest returns. The returns delivered by UK investments in Index Linked, Fixed Interest and Corporate Bonds categories significantly exceeded the returns delivered by Overseas investments in each of these asset classes.
The Main Fund achieved a return of 6.4% during the year and under-performed the benchmark index in equity and in a number of other asset classes.
GMPF subscribes to WM’s Local Authority Pension Fund Service in order to assess its performance relative to all other funds which operate under the same regulations. The graph top left on the facing page looks at the Main Fund’s performance as compared to the local authority average over various durations extending over 25 years. Over the long term (10, 15, 20, and 25 years) the Main Fund has outperformed the average local authority by around 0.9% per year and has ranked within the top 5% of such funds. Indeed, GMPF is the top performing local authority fund over periods of 20 and 25 years.
The distribution of assets across the main investment categories within the Main Fund changes as a result of the investment strategy followed by the managers and the performance achieved within each investment category. These changes are shown, on an economic exposure basis, in the below right graph.
The year under review began well enough with growth on an inventoryled upswing backed up by easy monetary conditions as people finally decided that the economic system was not going to collapse after all and Purchasing Manager Indices indicators globally still pointing to a fairly decent expansion.
However, towards the end of April the unfolding Eurozone debt crisis took centre stage, which created a real prospect of sovereign default in advanced economies and raised the spectre of a double dip recession. Several credit ratings downgrades of various sovereign borrowers, including Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal, unnerved investors. Even the announcement of a EUR 750 billion Eurozone stabilisation package did little to allay concerns. Confidence plummeted and the inventory rebuild came to a premature and abrupt halt, discouraging investment and slowing growth down sharply.
The US Federal Reserve was sufficiently worried by the turn down in the surveys and the global outlook to make a major policy reversal and effectively pre-announce a second round of quantitative easing, which began in November. With the Eurozone crisis reaching some sort of settlement, if not resolution, confidence began to recover. This was further aided by the decision by US policy makers to extend Bush-era tax cuts, providing a boost of close to $900 billion to the US economy over the course of the two year extension and leading many forecasters to revise upwards their expectations for US growth. This culminated in a reacceleration in advanced economies (outside the Eurozone periphery) in the final four months of 2010.
The start of 2011 saw the US labour market finally starting to pick up with both the unemployment rate edging down further and non-farm payrolls adding more and more jobs. The US housing market has been the biggest disappointment, with both home sales and housing starts showing surprisingly big drops and house prices continuing to fall. The positive underlying momentum of economic activity in the Eurozone continued in the first three months of the year, with Germany leading the charge.
Although domestic inflationary pressures in the Eurozone should remain moderate throughout 2011, commodity prices have become a serious risk in the near future. This, combined with increasing supply chain pressures, led the European Central Bank to signal a likely increase in the base rate in the April meeting and now the markets are fully pricing in a 25bp move.
In the first quarter of 2011, however, it was events outside the US and the Eurozone which attracted most of the headlines. First, escalating tensions in the Middle East and North Africa region led to increasingly violent conflicts across the region. This led to a pronounced spike in the price of oil, as concerns about supply disruptions mounted, which, in turn, led to fears that a higher oil price could harm the world economic recovery and also add to inflationary pressures, particularly in emerging markets. Subsequent moves by OPEC to allay concerns about the spike in the oil price did briefly help calm concerns over the world economy.
Then, in March, the tragic earthquake and tsunami in Japan created a humanitarian disaster and a massive disruption to economic activity in the immediate area and beyond. These events were compounded by the ongoing uncertainty around the damaged nuclear reactors. Just as the final tally for the terrible loss of life is not yet known, the final economic cost is unknown at this stage.
By the end of the year under review, most economies had registered around trend economic growth although there was a notable divergence in the performance of some economies, particularly within the Eurozone, with Germany leading the way, while some of the peripheral countries continued to struggle. Unemployment rates have started to decline (albeit modestly) in most regions. Outside of the UK where inflation has been consistently above target for a couple of years, inflation was generally relatively muted and the major central banks had not started normalising interest rates by the end of the period of review (the European Central Bank did, however, raise rates at their April meeting).
The year saw a lessening of economic uncertainty and a marginally improved economic environment impacting positively on private equity. The industry continued to build on the improvements that began during the second half of 2009 and the buy-out market recovered to reach levels not seen since the onset of the financial crisis. Fundraising levels deteriorated further during 2010, remaining significantly below ‘pre-crisis’ levels. Those General Partners on the fundraising ‘trail’ were primarily driven to fundraise out of necessity, having invested significant amounts of their ‘dry powder’ in what was generally perceived as an increasingly favourable deal environment.
As in 2009/10, worst hit remained the ‘large cap’ and ‘mega’ funds, particularly in the US and Europe, impacted by the absence of ‘covenant-lite’ debt and increased debt pricing (on lower EBIT multiples) for those deals for which limited finance was available. This ‘correction’ continued to force private equity managers to re-assess the economics of deal opportunities, increasing pricing discipline and reducing levels of borrowings. The future for a number of well-established private equity groups, whose funds have been particularly badly hit, continues to be uncertain and further consolidation within the industry appears inevitable.
Fundraising (in terms of volume and number) continued to decline throughout 2010, with the totals representing the lowest annual amount raised since 2004, with several managers announcing that they continue to postpone fundraising to a later date for reasons including a lack of investor appetite and because they still have capital to invest from their current fund (capital ‘overhang’). What has been clear is that, in all but a few instances (where groups are able to exhibit strong past performance and a compelling investment strategy), fundraising has taken longer than was initially envisaged and the fund sizes reached were lower than that achieved for existing/predecessor funds. It is expected that 2011 will see the start of a period of significantly increased level of fundraising activity, primarily by attractive groups with a proven strategy and strong track record which is supported by recent exits.
With deal volumes recovering from the low levels seen in recent years, it was evident that whilst many managers continued to focus on supporting portfolio companies rather than completing new investments, some had found deals of both sufficient quality and reasonable price that they were willing to complete the transaction. A significant number of these deals were ‘secondary buyouts’, with assets being sold by one private equity house to another at prices each considered as appropriate and delivering reasonable returns to vendors and distributions to their investors.
Valuations, often based on public market multiples, increased during the year as is consistent with the improvement in price/earnings comparators in the public markets.
Investment activity levels for venture capital managers, also affected by the impact of the credit crunch, remained low and the greatest focus for these groups was on ensuring the continued existence of those businesses that were able to achieve agreed milestones in an improving economic climate. As a consequence, the level of drawdowns, for both private equity and venture capital, although increasing remained at relatively low levels in comparison to the period ‘pre crisis’.
As a number of experienced private equity/venture capital managers with access to debt have continued to invest, deal volumes are increasing steadily as the economic environment improves, more favourable credit markets remain and pricing is considered reasonable. During 2010/11, the global IPO market flourished, but the hub of activity was in Asia, rather than the more established private equity/venture capital markets of the US and Europe. However, it is anticipated that the level of distributions will increase to some degree in 2011/12, should the economic climate continue to improve.
Whilst there is every reason to believe that market conditions may remain rather difficult for several quarters to come – particularly in the large buy-out market - the history of the private equity industry has shown that experienced managers investing during recessionary periods have been able to generate above average returns, as attractively priced opportunities become available.
GMPF invests in private companies through pooled vehicles raised by specialised management teams. Five new fund commitments were made by GMPF during 2010/11 as opportunities were taken to invest in quality GPs returning to the market. The portfolio of 81 active funds is diversified by stage of investment (from early stage investments to very large buy out investments) and geographic locations across the UK, Europe and the US, with the first commitment being made to Asia during the period under review.
As at 31 March 2011, the target rate of new fund commitments remains at £80 million per year and, of the £624 million committed to private equity/venture capital funds, some £459 million has been drawn down and invested by managers into more than 1,400 individual companies. In addition, £453 million has been received back through distributions of realisations and income. The value of assets currently invested in private equity is £228 million.
Whilst more complete performance figures are becoming available for private equity, GMPF is also undertaking a fundamental review of performance measurement in conjunction with its specialist adviser (Capital Dynamics). GMPF’s private equity performance over one year, at 8.6%, is below the figure reported by the BVCA for 2010, reflecting GMPF’s historic lack of exposure to the very large/mega funds. Over 10 years, the average return was 5.8% per year, and the twenty year return was 20.5% per year. Since inception, the annualised return has been 17.3%.
During 2010/11 GMPF undertook a review of its infrastructure investment strategy. The revised strategy, effective from the meeting of the Management Panel held in June 2010, will result in an increase in exposure to the asset class. It is recognised that transitioning to the target allocation will take several years to achieve.
Two new fund commitments were made by GMPF in 2010/11 resulting in a portfolio of 10 active investments, with two funds having already been fully realised.
As at 31 March 2011 the target rate of new fund commitments is £60 million per year and, of the £102 million committed, some £60 million has been drawn down and invested by managers. In addition, £15 million has been received back through distributions of realisations and income.
As at 31 March 2011 the value of assets currently invested in infrastructure is £56 million. The short lifespan of the portfolio to date does not lend itself to the calculation of meaningful performance numbers but overall positive returns have been generated since inception in 2001.
GMPF established the ‘Special Opportunities Portfolio’ (SOP) in 2009/10 to broaden the range of assets in which GMPF invests, to improve diversification and assist with stability, and take advantage of opportunities as they arise or as market conditions allow.
No new commitments were made during the year for reasons including a lack of suitable opportunities with an appropriate risk profile, the changing economic environment, and a conscious effort to deploy investment over a reasonable period of time and different economic cycles. However, a number of potential opportunities remain under consideration.
The value of SOP investments as at the year end was £35 million.
On 31st December 2010 GMPF’s directly owned property portfolio comprised 63 properties. The indirectly-owned portfolio comprised 9 property unit trusts and 1 holding of convertible loan notes issued by the Hercules Unit Trust. Total value of all investments was £463 million excluding the convertible loan notes.
Properties sold in the financial year were Eastern Avenue Retail Park in Gloucester; Oracle Park, Chertsey; Bourne House in Staines; Units 1-4 Caldey Road, Wythenshawe, and 1/3 Frederick’s Place, London EC2.
Purchases during the year were Transrace House, Poyle (adjacent to Trident Industrial Estate) and 262/263 Water Road Alperton. Both are industrial investments.
Total return for all benchmarked investments within the main property portfolio was 12.1% during 2010 compared with the IPD Universe median return of 13.5% (and a mean return of 15.2%).
The directly-owned portfolio continues to be well diversified both geographically and by sector. Holdings include high street shops, retail warehouses, shopping centres, city centre offices, offices on business parks, and single-let and multi-let industrial estates. The bias towards the retail sector remains, as does the preference for mixed-use investments in denselypopulated city centres. The offices sold would have required significant capital expenditure on the expiry of occupational leases had they been retained.
Sale of Eastern Avenue Retail Park fitted the policy of selling secondary retail warehouses subject to restricted planning consents, and the sale of Units 1-4 Caldey Road, Wythenshawe was to an owner-occupier.
GMPF’s indirect property investments are held to give additional exposure to property assets. The value of those holdings at 31 March 2011 was £86.2 million and the performance in the year to 31 March 2011 was 9.3%, the return on the balanced index in that period being 9.1%. Performance of GMPF’s pooled holdings over 3 years was -3.3%, compared to the pooled fund index at -3.9%. This portfolio is performing in line with expectations, delivering returns broadly in line with the market.
|Short term and longer term performance from GMPF’s directly owned portfolio is summarised in the table to the right.
The GMPVF with a financial allocation of 2% of the Main Fund value creates property investments by a process of site acquisition, building design, direct property development and property letting/management, in order to generate state of the art office, retail, leisure, industrial/workshop accommodation.
Since its establishment in 1990 GMPVF has developed more than 1 million square feet of commercial buildings within the Greater Manchester area.
GMPVF has the twin aims of generating a commercial rate of return on all its property investments and developing commercial buildings in order to create/ preserve jobs and to boost the North West local economy. GMPVF also seeks to make an environmental impact through regeneration. To date, all completed developments have generated a profit.
At present the target area for GMPVF property investments is the North West of England with a particular focus on Greater Manchester. GVA, a firm of property consultants with national coverage, are the manager of GMPVF.
A detailed design is being prepared for an office building to be developed on a site owned by the GMPVF at Old Haymarket, Liverpool located near Lime Street Railway Station. When the scheme is designed an application for planning consent will be submitted to Liverpool City Council and after planning consent has been obtained, the project will be marketed in order to attract occupiers to the building when completed.
On the 12.5 acre site owned by the GMPVF at Calver Park, Warrington a masterplan with proposed site layout is being prepared after which an application for outline planning consent will be submitted to the local planning authority. The site will then be marketed to prospective occupiers on the basis that the GMPVF is able to offer commercial buildings in a range of sizes in order to meet local demand.
At Stockport the GMPVF intends to demolish the former Royal Mail sorting office fronting onto the main A6 and adjacent to Stockport railway station in order to facilitate redevelopment of a new hotel and office building including a basement car park. The proposed hotel element is currently being marketed and development work will commence once a hotel operator is committed to taking a lease of the building when completed.
The GMPVF-owned Globe Park Industrial Estate Rochdale continues to attract occupier interest. When the estate is fully let then subject to market conditions the GMPVF may consider disposing of the investment having achieved its objectives of regeneration, job creation and an appropriate financial return.
Number One St. Peters Square Manchester (formerly known as Elisabeth House) is jointly owned by GMPVF and Argent Estates Ltd. The joint venture partners have obtained planning consent for a new office building of 270,000 square feet. The proposed new building is currently been marketed to prospective occupiers.
Discussions have recently commenced with one of the Greater Manchester local authorities regarding GMPF investing in the development of residential units. These discussions are at an early stage and if a suitable financial model can be established that would deliver an acceptable return to GMPF on monies invested, then residential development could provide GMPF with a new area of investment activity.
GMPF invests in various company shares and bonds, government bonds, property and cash around the world and has an excellent long term investment track record. This helps keep our employer contribution rates at the lower end of the range for local authorities and, in turn, enables the authorities to spend more money on frontline services whilst maintaining attractive pensions for staff.
We invest over 60% of GMPF’s assets in well diversified portfolios of UK and overseas company shares. Further assets are invested in company bonds. GMPF has holdings in some of the largest companies in the world. You can see a list of GMPF’s top twenty holdings on page 7 of this report and a full list of GMPF’s holdings can be found on the Investments Homepage of this website.
We have delegated the investment management of these portfolios of company shares and bonds to a small number of external professional fund management firms. However, we give the investment managers detailed guidelines within which to work.
The cornerstone of our policy on ethical investment is our interpretation of the legal position. In our view, applying ethical, environmental or any other noncommercial policy either to investments generally or to selecting fund managers, would be inconsistent with our legal duties and responsibilities. We also have a statutory responsibility to ensure proper diversification of investments. Thus we have a policy of not interfering in the day-to-day investment decisions of GMPF’s investment managers. Moreover, we do not actively invest in or disinvest from companies solely or largely for social, ethical or environmental reasons. This policy is described in Section 8 of GMPF’s Statement of Investment Principles.
Click here for the Statement of Investment Principles (159 KB)
Although we will listen to special interest groups that oppose some of GMPF’s investments, for example in tobacco, alcohol, gambling or pharmaceuticals, we cannot let this detract from our duty.
Considerations such as these have led us to decide not to have or develop a detailed generalised ethical investment policy. We prefer to concentrate on developing a policy that involves using voting and other contacts to positively influence company behaviour. In our view, simply disinvesting from particular companies is a denial of responsibility. Rather, responsible institutional investors should seek to influence companies’ environmental, human rights and other policies by positive use of shareholder power. An example of GMPF following this stance was our concerted involvement in a successful campaign to secure improvement in Shell’s approach to environmental and related matters. However, none of this prevents us applying ethical or environmental criteria on a case by case basis if considered relevant and appropriate. For example, for many years we chose not to invest in South Africa.
The whole area of voting and exercising influence over the companies one holds shares in is known as ‘corporate governance’. GMPF has a well developed approach to such matters including:
- Issuing voting guidelines to our managers including, among other matters, a UK Environmental Investment Code which, where appropriate, we require the managers to apply in their voting behaviour.
- Having an Ethics and Audit Working Group whose role is to oversee corporate governance and related matters, including monitoring GMPF’s external active managers’ voting behaviour and other relevant activity;
- Subscribing to the research and advisory service of PIRC Ltd who are an important adviser in this field;
- Monitoring developments in corporate governance and the activities of GMPF’s managers in this area; and
- GMPF is also a member of the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, which provides a large investor base to influence companies’ corporate governance and social responsibility; and the Institutional Investor Group on Climate Change, a forum for pension funds and investment managers.
We have considered the possibility of investing in specialist ethical investment funds or vehicles, but our current view is that evidence on the returns of such funds or vehicles is not as clear as it might first appear. For example, the seeming competitive returns of ethical funds or vehicles could simply be the result of the well known ‘small companies effect’ and not of ethical investing at all. The small companies effect arises because small companies can give above average returns at different times within an economic cycle.
Ethical vehicles tend to invest more in small companies rather than large ones, because large companies are more likely to have dealings in areas that ethical vehicles dislike. For this reason and others, including that such investment would tend to run counter to our overall preference for using shareholder influence, GMPF does not invest in such specialist investment vehicles. However, we do review this periodically.
In March 2001, Paul Myners published his Review of Institutional Investment. It was a wide ranging report on how some of the main players - trustees, actuaries, investment consultants and fund managers - carry out their roles. The Government supported the report’s conclusions, and in October 2001, it issued a revised set of 10 investment principles.
In December 2004, HM Treasury published a consultation document reviewing progress made with the recommendations in the Myners Report. GMPF officers had participated in the review and GMPF considered the consultation document to be positive in terms of the Local Authority ‘model’ of appointing lay councillors working with Fund officers giving expert advice.
The National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF), of which GMPF is a member, was also generally supportive of the review’s findings and the revisions proposed to the current principles. NAPF undertook to carry out a further review in 2007 to assess progress. This NAPF review was published in November 2007 and a number of recommendations were made to update the Principles to ensure the continued spread of best practice.
The Government welcomed the NAPF review, launched a consultation paper in March 2008 and published a response to that consultation in October 2008 setting out a revised set of six investment principles. As required by the Regulations, the publication of CIPFA’s Guidance on the Application of the revised Myners Principles in December 2009, prompted GMPF to consider its position in relation to the six revised principles in the context of its Statement of Investment Principles (SIP).
This section summarises the current Fund position on the six revised best practice principles. Further comment is incorporated in the Statement of Investment Principles, the latest version of which was adopted by GMPF on 11 June, 2010.
- Effective decision making: Key strategic investment decisions are taken by the Pension Fund Management Panel, for example asset allocation and investment management arrangements. In taking such decisions, the Panel receives advice from its Actuary, other external Advisors and in house staff. The Fund also incorporates specialist advice where appropriate, for example on private equity and corporate governance issues. Implementation decisions are delegated to the Executive Director of Pensions and external Managers. The training needs of Panel members are periodically considered by the Management Panel and suitable training arrangements are made. The Fund is developing its approach to the CIPFA skills and knowledge framework for members of the Management Panel and to the adoption of training plans.
- Clear objectives: The Fund’s investment objective is to help deliver low and stable employer contribution rates. This equates to a long term real rate of return of approximately 3.5%. An asset liability study undertaken during 2000 culminated in the adoption of a Fund specific benchmark, the current version of which is described on page 11. The Management Panel is developing a performance measurement framework to measure the overall performance of its Advisors.
- Risk and Liabilities: The Management Panel has an active risk management programme in place. The overall approach to risk and the key risks and the measures to control them are detailed in the Fund’s Statement of Investment Principles and its Funding Strategy Statement. The Fund continues to consider how to further develop its approach to assessing overall risk, mitigating unrewarded risk wherever possible, and identifying any residual risk.
- Performance Assessment: The Management Panel currently undertakes informal assessment of its own decisions and the advice of the Advisors to, and officers of, the Fund and is developing its approach to formal assessment in these areas. The performance of external Managers is monitored on a quarterly basis (annually for property).
- Responsible Ownership: Each external fund active manager is required to report their policy and activity in this area to the Fund’s specialist ‘Ethics and Audit Working Group’ on an annual basis. The Fund is developing its approach to measuring the effectiveness of its strategy. The Fund is a member of the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF) which promotes the investment interests of local authority pension funds and seeks to maximise their influence as shareholders while promoting corporate social responsibility and high standards of corporate governance among the companies in which they invest. The Fund is considering its position on the Institutional Shareholders Committee’s Code on the Responsibilities of Institutional Investors.
- Transparency and Reporting: The Fund’s Statement of Investment Principles, Funding Strategy Statement, Core Belief Statement and Governance Compliance Statement are published on the Fund’s website together with a full list of holdings at the year end. The results of monitoring the Fund’s investment managers are contained elsewhere in this Annual Report and Accounts which is also published on the website. All four documents are freely available in hardcopy to interested parties and their availability is publicised widely amongst scheme members. The Fund communicates at least annually with all its members. Pensioners are also invited to an Annual Forum.
Click here to view the Funding Strategy Statement (241 KB)
Click here for the Statement of Investment Principles (159 KB)