This presentation is a summary of the purpose, process and findings of a pilot study into the decision-making dynamics of institutional investors in South Africa.

1. INVESTOR GOVERNANCE
REVISITED:
The risk and reward of democracy in
institutional investment decision-
making
1
SAFA Conference
Colin Habberton
UCT GSB, Cape Town
16 January 2015

2. 2
My thoughts on the
conference…

3. 3
Framing Statement

4. 4
Positivism vs. Interpretivism

5. 5
Democracy
“If liberty and equality, as is thought by
some, are chiefly to be found in democracy,
they will be best attained when all persons
alike share in the government to the
utmost.”
Aristotle

6. 6
Introduction
• The paper investigates whether institutional
investors consider the interests and opinions their
individual capital contributors in their decision-
making.
• Institutional investors dominate the investment
activity within financial markets (Blume & Keim 2012;
OECD, 2014; ASISA, 2013).
• Predominant focus of investing is the risk-adjusted
maximisation of financial return.
• ‘Wicked’ problems – poverty, unemployment,
climate change – exist and ultimately, impact on risk
and return.

7. Research context
• The emergence of investment principles known as
Responsible Investing (e.g. UNPRI, CRISA)
• Assessment of the integration of ‘ESG’ criteria into
investment practices is the differentiator.
• ‘Active’ ownership (i.e. participation) is a common
feature of Responsible Investing processes.
• Disclosure and reporting (i.e. transparency) are
also recommended and increasingly required.
• The ‘G’ in particular the notion of stakeholder
governance offers a interesting lens for
investigation.
• South Africa was used as a focus.7

8. 8
Research Questions
• Is good governance applied and practiced by
institutional investors in taking responsibility for
investment decisions on behalf of stakeholder
communities?
• Should individual contributors participate in
decision-making processes, holding institutional
investors as their agents accountable to their
interests?
• Should institutional investors be more proactive in
providing access to information, education and
opportunity to participate in decision-making?
• What are the risks and rewards for a greater

9. Research methodology
• The analysis of the existing regulatory and
normative frameworks forms the theoretical
foundation of the paper.
• Secondary literature research refined the
conceptual framework to inform the selection of
population, sample frame for interviews.
• The consequent understanding of the theory and
industry information was integrated into the
design and execution of semi-structured
interviews with industry experts.
9

10. 10
Institutional Investors
• Blume, M. E. & Keim, D. B. 2012. Institutional Investors and
Stock Market Liquidity: Trends and Relationships. SSRN
• Gifford, E.J.M. 2010. Effective Shareholder Engagement: The
Factors that Contribute to Shareholder Salience. Journal of
Business Ethics. 92:79-97..
• David, P., Kochhar, R. & Levitas, E. 1998. The effect of
institutional investors on the level and mix of CEO compensation.
Academy of Management Journal, 41(2):200-208.
• Gillian, L.S. and Starks, L.T. 2002. Institutional Investors,
Corporate Ownership and Corporate Governance. Global
Perspectives: Discussion Paper 2002/9. WIDER: United Nations
University.
• Piotroski, J. D. 2004. The Influence of Analysts, Institutional
Investors, and Insiders on the Incorporation of Market, Industry,
and Firm-Specific Information into Stock Prices. The Accounting
Review, 79(4):1119-1151.
• Victoravich, L. M., Xu, P. & Gan, H. 2013. Institutional ownership
Literature

11. 11
Institutional Structure
• Clarke, G.L. 2000. The functional and spatial structure of the
investment management industry. Geoforum, 31(1):71-86.
• Vitali, S, Glattfelder, J.B. & Battiston. 2011. The network of global
corporate control. PLoS ONE. 6(10).
Responsible Investing in South Africa
• IODSA. 2013. CRISA disclosure by institutional investors and
their service providers. Sandton: IODSA
• Van der Ahee, G & Schulschenk, J. 2013. The State of RI in
South Africa:. Climate Change and Sustainability Services: E&Y
Africa.
• Viviers, S., Eccles, N.S., de Jong, D., Bosch, J.K., Smit, E. v.d.M
& Buijs, A. 2008. Responsible investing in South Africa – drivers,
barriers and enablers. Investment Analysts Journal. 69(1):3-16.
• Viviers, S. & Eccles, N.S. 2012. 35 years of SRI research –
General trends over time. SA Journal of Business Management.
43(4):15-31.
Literature

12. Institutional Investor dominance
12
• Over 67% of market capitalisation in the
USA
• Own 73% of the US’s 1000 largest
companies
• 33 OECD countries average is 40%
ownership
(Source: OECD, 2014)

13. 13
• Increasing support for normative
frameworks
• UN Principles for Responsible Investment
(PRI)
• CDP & Integrated Reporting <IR> Initiatives
Growth of Responsible Investing
(Source: UNPRI, 2014)
US$45tn
AuM
1300+
Signatorie
s

14. Principles for Responsible
Investing
14
(Source: UNPRI, 2014)

15. 15
“All retirement funds, long term insurers, collective
investment scheme (CIS) management companies
are treated as institutional investors…” (SARB, 2013)
• Asset Owners
• Public Sector: GEPF, Transnet, Eskom,
parastatals
• Private Sector: Over 5000 funds registered
FSB
• Asset Managers
• Public Sector: Public Investment Corporation
• Over 200 Retirement Funds & CIS
Institutional Investors in South Africa

16. 16
• Comparative Analysis: SAFI Relational
Matrix
• ASISA Membership Base
• UNPRI/CDP/<IR> Signatories
• SARB & FSB Registration
• Interim Findings:
• Of the 45 SA UNPRI Signatories
• 5 out of 5000+ Asset Owners, 1 Private
Sector
• 34 out of over 200 Asset Managers
Institutional Investors in South Africa

17. 17
• SA one of the leading countries on the
African continent in terms of
governance (Mo Ibrahim Foundation,
2013)
• King Reports & Institute of Directors SA
• Influencing business and legal practice
• King III – Sustainability & Stakeholders
“…characterised by the ethical values of responsibility,
accountability, fairness and transparency...”
“…how a company has, both positively or negatively,
impacted on the economic life of the community in
which it operated…” (IODSA, 2009).
Governance in South Africa

18. 18
Pension Funds: Stakeholder System
(Source: Clarke, 2000)

19. 19
• Role of Professional Investor
• Fiduciary responsibilities as an agent
• Accountability of pension fund trustees
• Skill vs. experience vs. representivity
• Appointed by wide range of
Stakeholders
• Transparency of decision-making
process
• Investor participation & inclusion
• Need for transparency & engagement
Observations on Investor Governance

20. Research sample
20

21. 21
• Institutional PRI/CRISA participation
• Perception of institutional ‘window-dressing’
• Unanimous acceptance of importance of ESG
• Investment decision-making
• Delegation of decision-making to skilled
specialists
• Influence of unregulated asset consultants
• Fee structures heavily geared towards
benchmarks
• Responsibility
• Different perspectives on definition of
responsibility
Findings: Institutional Investor
Interviews

22. 22
• Risks
• Resistance to concept by the professionals
• Requires additional resources and time
• Potential disregard for analysis and depth
• Inefficient, chaotic driven by sentiment
• Lack of investor literacy and prudence
• Rewards
• Increase institutional investor accountability
to ownership responsibilities
• Highlight the importance of ESG decision-
making
Findings: Individual Investor
Participation

23. 23
• Investment industry characterised by profit driven
strategic and systemic constraints.
• Limited access to information, transparency in
investment processes beyond professionals is
apparent.
• Role of asset consultants and their influence
over decision-making is admittedly significant.
(Research?)
• Investment mandates and fee structures are
drivers of professional investor activity (Bogle,
Ellis)
• Institutional investors may be pushed to assume
Conclusions & research opportunities

24. 24
Final Word

25. INVESTOR GOVERNANCE
REVISITED
25
Colin Habberton
colin.habberton@relativ.co.za
@relatomics