Important notes and reminders

Quarter 2 of 2018 SIH returns

The SIH return at 30 June 2018 is due to be submitted by 15 August (note that the 45 days period remains in place).

NAMFISA levies

Funds with year ends of April 2018 need to have submitted their 2nd levy returns and payments by 25 May; May 2018 year ends by 25 June 2018.

Funds with year ends of October 2017 need to have submitted their 1st levy returns and payments by 25 May; November 2017 year ends by 25 June 2018.

Newsletter

Dear reader

In this newsletter we on section 14 and how to deal with unclaimed benefits; we express our view that investment policies should not be subjected to the levy on long-term  insurance companies; we analyse FIM Bill standards RF.S.5.14 and RF.S.5.15, and in the Monthly Performance Review of 30 April 2018, we express our concerns over the likely impact on investment markets of America’s resolve to subjugate all countries in the Middle East that still do not toe the US line.

The topical articles from various media should not be overlooked – they are carefully selected for the value they add to the management of pension funds and the financial well-being of individuals...

...and make a point of reading what our clients say about us in the ‘Compliments’ section. It should give you a good appreciation of who and what we are!

As always, your comment is welcome, so open a new mail and drop us a note!

Regards

Tilman Friedrich

Tilman Friedrich's Industry Forum

Monthly Review of Portfolio Performance
to 30 April 2018

In April 2018 the average prudential balanced portfolio returned 3.4% (March 2018: -1.67%). Top performer is Namibia Coronation Balanced Plus (4.1%); while Stanlib (2.1%) takes the bottom spot. For the 3 month period, Investment Solutions takes top spot, outperforming the ‘average’ by roughly 1.23%. On the other end of the scale Stanlib underperformed the ‘average’ by 1.49%.

Are we heading towards a global show-down?

As stated previously, I believe one should not invest without considering the global political environment that will set the scene for global economic development. Speculating on the demise of the US Dollar as global trading and reserve currency, for example, to my mind is naïve as it does not take into consideration the means America has at its disposal to protect its economic interests, the ultima ratio being its military superiority – and the end to this is certainly not in sight barring the horror scenario referred to below materializing and ending in the demise of US hegemony!

President Trump’s election slogan was ‘America First’ – and he seems to mean it. This is probably to be understood to mean that America will not tolerate any challenge to its economic and military supremacy. His election apparently was the result of massive voter manipulation, without which Hilary Clinton would have won. She was part of the political establishment that may just have been the tail having tried to wag the dog for many years and the dog being business. Donald Trump in contrast seems to now be pushing the agenda of business unashamedly, doing all to re-establish American global economic dominance…

It seems that the US now believes that it can push through considering that it has withdrawn from the Iran agreement despite all opposition from all other signatories to the agreement. It is seemingly intent to deal with Iran. Once achieved, Syria will probably be the next domino to fall, followed by the demise of the Hezbollah as political factor in Lebanon and the fall of the Erdogan ‘regime’ in Turkey (ever noticed that every government striving for true autonomy is referred to as ‘regime’ in all Western media?). It will remove Russian presence in the Middle East and it will close potential transit routes for trade with China and it will close Russian access to the Mediterranean from the Black Sea. Russia will no longer need the Crimean peninsula or its Black Sea fleet. It will offer further means to throttle Russia economically until it submits itself. I believe there are two strategies the US may consider, the first will be a horror scenario unlikely to happen whereas the second scenario is very likely to happen. Investors must be on the alert and act according to how things are evolving.

Read part 6 of the Monthly Review of Portfolio Performance to 30 April 2018 to find out what our investment views are. Download it here...

Section 14 transfers and unclaimed benefits

When a participating employer in an umbrella fund is transferred to another fund by means of a ‘section 14 transfer’, the question arises whether the unclaimed benefits must also be transferred. Where they are not transferred one obviously cannot state that all assets and liabilities were transferred. Does this mean that the transfer contravenes the provisions of section 14 of the Pension Funds Act?

Firstly, a participating employer in an umbrella fund is not a fund as contemplated in the Pension Funds Act. Where the employer is transferred it will in the first instance be the active members that will have to be transferred as their contributions to the transferor fund will discontinue and will henceforth be made to the transferee fund. Section 14 states “…(2) Whenever a scheme for any transaction referred to in subsection (1) has come into force in accordance with the provisions of this section, the relevant assets and liabilities of the bodies so amalgamated shall respectively vest in and become binding upon the resultant body, or as the case may be, the relevant assets and liabilities of the body transferring its assets and liabilities or any portion thereof shall respectively vest in and become binding upon the body to which they are to be transferred.”

Clearly, upon the approval of a transfer or amalgamation i.t.o. section 14 by NAMFISA, only the relevant assets and liabilities as per the supporting certificate of the actuaries and principal officers will be transferred or amalgamated. In a similar fashion if a participating employer or an operation of large group is bought out by another person, only active members would normally be transferred while unpaid benefits, unclaimed benefits and pensioners would remain in the fund of the seller. Whether or not this is what should happen depends on what the rules state. Are unpaid and unclaimed benefits and pensioners tied to the employer or to the fund? If they are tied to the employer they should be transferred to the new fund as well. This comment of course only applies to transfers of portions of a fund (participating employer or an operation of a participating employer) to another fund. If a fund is transferred/ amalgamated with another fund ‘lock, stock and barrel’, then all assets and liabilities must be transferred else it will mean that the transferor fund cannot be deregistered until all remaining liabilities have been disposed of. This would still not be in contravention of section 14 though.

NAMFISA levies on insurance products

NAMFISA amended its levy structure with effect from 1 October 2017, as set out in Gazette 6438. Unfortunately the gazette is deficient in many ways as we have highlighted in previous newsletters.

One area that has caused some confusion and uncertainty is whether or not ‘premiums’ to an insurance policy wrapped investment product of insurance companies should attract the levy on insurance premiums that long-term insurers are required to pay. It seems most insurers have chosen to follow the path of expected least resistance and deduct the long-term insurance levy from investors who have invested in insurance policy wrapped investment product. Worse, they calculate the levy on inflows only and ignore any outflows.

In analysing this question let us firstly look at the Long-Term Insurance Act 5 of 1998. This defines ‘premium’ as “the consideration given or to be given in return for an undertaking to provide policy benefits and includes a deposit premium”. We do not believe an investment into an insurance policy wrapped product meets this definition, particularly in view of the fact that investors into such products often also withdraw moneys from the product for the payment of benefits and do not only ‘give consideration’ in return for policy benefits. There is no undertaking by the insurer to provide a benefit in return for the consideration the fund has given but merely and undertaking to return the investor’s capital as and when so requested by the investor. In fact the ‘benefits’ are hardly related to the ‘consideration given’. It is also highly questionable whether a withdrawal of capital can be considered a ‘benefit’ since it is only a repayment of moneys owed to the investor. This is quite unlike risk policies where the benefit payable is determinable up-front and the premium is a direct consideration for the undertaking to provide such risk benefits.

The Oxford English dictionary defines ‘premium’ as “amount or instalment (to be) regularly paid for an insurance policy”. Very clearly, the cash flows into and out of insurance policy wrapped investment products do not meet this definition, not being an instalment regularly paid.

Although we are not IFRS experts, we understand that amounts paid into a policy wrapped insurance product are not to be reported as ‘premiums’ in accordance with IFRS 4 (Insurance Contracts). Presumably the accounting experts have reached this conclusion on the same basis as we insinuate above.

We have studied a few of these insurance policy wrapped investment contracts and found that some refer to contributions as premiums while others do not. The policy wording cannot be the determining factor though even if there was reference to ‘premium’ instead of ‘cash flows’.

We do not know what NAMFISA’s stance is in this regard and we do not know whether NAMFISA has been queried. However, considering that NAMFISA has set the precedent of referring to accounting conventions when determining the value of ‘total assets’ of a pension fund for the purpose of calculating the levy on pension funds, NAMFISA should find it difficult to argue differently with regard to this subject matter. Finally, even if these arguments were flawed and NAMFISA clarified through an amendment of the Gazette, it would be totally unfair to levy cash inflows into, but ignore cash outflows from a policy for the purpose of calculating the levy.

Conclusion: It is our considered opinion that insurance companies should not deduct the levy on insurance premiums applicable to long-term insurance companies on insurance policy wrapped investment products.

New regulations and standards: comment on RF.S.5.14 and 5.15

In the second half of last year NAMFISA issued a number of new regulations and standards for comment. Although some comments were submitted these mostly did not address the substance of these but rather their form. Having considered these comments NAMFISA made some changes that we would consider superficial and not addressing the real concerns. Trustees are urged to pro-actively consider the possible implications of these regulations and standards and how to deal with these.  Funds are encouraged to liaise with RFS where these may impact the administration of the fund.

The following regulations and standards were issued and covered in the process:

Regulations:

• RF.R.5.3  Terms & conditions on which a board may distribute some or all of an actuarial surplus
• RF.R.5.7   The rate of interest payable on the value of a benefit or a right to a benefit  not transferred before the expiration of the applicable period pursuant to section 262(9)(c
• RF.R.5.8   The protection of unpaid contributions of an employer and the rate of interest payable on contributions not transmitted or received pursuant to section 262 (9)(a) and (b).

The above regulations were covered in the Benchtest 2018-02 newsletter issued in February.

Standards:

• RF.S.5.11  Alternative forms for the  payment of pensions for the purposes of defined contributions funds
• RF.S.5.12  The conditions pursuant to which a fund may be exempted from Chapter 5 or from any provisions of Chapter 5
• RF.S.5.13  Requirements for a communication strategy
• RF.S.5.14  Requirements for the annual report of the fund to its members
• RF.S.5.15  Requirements for the annual report of a fund to NAMFISA
• RF.S.5.17  Categories of persons having an interest in the compliance of a retirement fund with the provisions of section 262  and the requirements for reports that must be submitted to such persons
• RF.S.5.18 Matters to be included in investment policy statement
• RF.S.5.19  Matters to be communicated to members and contributing employers and minimum standards for such communication
• RF.S.5.20 Matters to be included in a code of conduct
• RF.S.5.22 Transfer of any business from a fund to another fund or from any other person to a fund
• RF.S.5.23 Fees that may be charged for copies of certain docs

In the Benchtest 2018-03 newsletter we addressed RF.S.5.11.
In the Benchtest 2018-04 newsletter we addressed RF.S.5.12 and RF.S.5.13.

RF.S.5.14

Requirements for the annual report of a fund to its members, deferred members and retired members

Requirements for the annual report of the fund to its member

This standard applies to –

• all retirement funds;
• members of the boards of retirement funds;
• principal officers of retirement funds and
• service providers for retirement funds to the extent their responsibilities require them to support the principal officer with regard to communicating with active members, deferred members and retired members.

Requirements applicable generally

• Annual report to active members, deferred members and retired members must be prepared within 6 months of year end and must at minimum –
  • Be prepared under supervision of board and provided to members in written and/or electronic format;
  • Include the following –
    • Overview of board’s activities;
    • Summary of developments re contributions and their break-down, investment income, benefits and expenses;
    • Summary of auditors report including summary of statement of financial position and statement of comprehensive income;
    • Summary of valuator’s report including explanation of solvency ratio;
    • Membership movement report including withdrawals, deaths, disabilities and retirements;
    • Summary of investment portfolios and portfolio options including major asset classes and net rate of return;
    • Summary of key administrative activities;
    • Description of special events that had a material impact on fund, e.g. surplus distribution;
    • Commentary on funds operations and developments;
    • Summary of fund’s financial and membership data at year end per Schedule 1 (part 1 financial data; part 2 membership data);
    • Benefit statement for each member as per RF.S.5.19;
    • Summary of any rule amendments made during year;
    • Gross and net annual rates of return on the fund for current and previous 4 years;

Our comments:

1. An extremely prescriptive, compliance based standard that will constitute law, for interpretation by the courts in case of a conflict or dispute.
2. The standard uses terminology that is not defined in section 1 or chapter 5 of the Bill such as ‘annual rate of return’ (gross and net), ‘benefits paid’, ‘investment expenses’, ‘administration expenses’ and ‘investment income’. This implies that this law is ambiguous and exposes stakeholders to risks outside their control. Being as prescriptive as it is, all terms must be defined.
3. It would appear that schedule 1 overlooked to make provision for transfers in and out of the fund.
4. It would appear the schedule 1 overlooked other types of fund members, such a spouses, children any other beneficiary in receipt of a regular income from the fund.
5. Schedule 1 evidently only refers to early withdrawals that remain members of the fund, although it does not explicitly say so and since it is such a detailed prescription, this is likely to cause problems to those required to comply.
6. The standard vests responsibility for complying with its prescriptions in 4 different parties each one of which are thus exposed to risk arising from non-compliance, although the Bill vests these responsibilities in the board of trustees of a fund. Although the standard directs that the reporting shall be done “…under the supervision of the board of trustees…” it still insinuates that the other parties are also responsible. This clearly creates untenable conflicts that must be resolved by NAMFISA.
7. Although the report must be prepared within 6 months, the standard does not prescribe by when it must be issued to the members.
8. It is gravely concerning to us that this law seems to still be deficient in many ways, after having been in process for such an extensive time, after having gone through all processes of technical scrutiny and now being about to be imposed as new law.
9. References to clauses in the Bill need to be updated to refer to the relevant sections in the latest version of the Bill.

RF.S.5.15
Requirements for the annual report of a fund to NAMFISA

This standard applies to –

• all retirement funds;
• members of the boards of retirement funds;
• principal officers of retirement funds and
• service providers for retirement funds to the extent their responsibilities require them to support the principal officer with regard to the annual report to NAMFISA.

Requirements applicable generally

• The report must be prepared in the form of schedule 1 to the standard within 6 months of the financial year end and must at minimum –
  • Be prepared under supervision of board and submitted to NAMFISA in written and electronic format;
  • Include the following, if not already included in annual financial statements –
    • Summary of activities of board with sufficient detail to provide an assessment of its management efforts (e.g. meetings, changes to board compositions, typical meeting agenda, interaction with service providers, reports received and how dealt with, changes in governance and administrative practices, change of service providers);
    • Summary of legal actions if any else to state ‘none’;
    • Summary of rule amendments;
    • Summary of all documented, approved and in force policies any material changes to these during the year;
    • Summary of key financial data reported on by auditor and commentary on results of operations and on management report findings by the auditors;
    • Brief analysis of funds gains and losses for the year;
    • Summary of changes in membership (active, deferred and retired members) and participating employers;
    • Summary of administrative activities (monitoring contributions , investment portfolios and performance, maintenance of member fund data and ensuring its integrity and security, benefit statements, processing of benefits, support to auditors, investment managers and valuator, managing member complaints, human resource administration training and development);
    • Description of any special events (mergers, sale of business, discontinuation of business segments that produce partial plan termination, contribution suspension or reinstatement, utilization of surplus (benefit improvements or refunds to employer or sponsor));
    • Summary of key risks facing the fund and risk mitigation actions taken or considered.
    • List of service provider SLA’s and their review periods;

Requirements applicable to defined contribution funds –

• Comply with the above;
• Disclose investment policy and member options;
• Report gross and net annual rates of return of each portfolio for current and preceding 4 years.

Requirements applicable to retirement funds other than defined contribution funds –

• Comply with the above;
• Report gross and net annual rates of return of the fund for current and preceding 4 years;
• Disclose results of most recent investigation re financial soundness and solvency;
• Disclose any issues or developments since most recent investigation into financial soundness and solvency other than resulting from a rule amendment

Our comments:

1. An extremely prescriptive, compliance based standard that will constitute law, for interpretation by the courts in case of a conflict or dispute.
2. The standard and its schedule uses terminology that is not defined in section 1 or chapter 5 of the Bill such as ‘annual rate of return’ (gross and net), ‘performance’, ‘benefits paid’, ‘investment expenses’, ‘administration expenses’ and ‘investment income’. This implies that this law is ambiguous and exposes stakeholders to risks outside their control. Being as prescriptive as it is, all terms must be defined.
3. It would appear that schedule 1 overlooked a number of requirements set out in the statement, e.g. details of interaction with service providers, reports received and how disposed of etc. (we have identified at least 5 other matters).
4. The standard vests responsibility for complying with its prescriptions in 4 different parties each one of which are thus exposed to risk arising from non-compliance, although the Bill vests these responsibilities in the board of trustees of a fund. Although the standard directs that the reporting shall be done “…under the supervision of the board of trustees…” it still insinuates that the other parties are also responsible. This clearly creates untenable conflicts that must be resolved by NAMFISA.
5. Although the report must be prepared within 6 months, the standard does not prescribe by when it must be submitted to NAMFISA.
6. Schedule 1 to the standard speaks about ‘gains’ and ‘losses’ that we do not believe are gains and losses. It does not define these terms as the result of which there is likely to be confusion amongst trustees and service providers. There are a number of other terms in the schedule that are not defined, e.g. ‘funds’.
7. Although the standard states in 3.(b) “…insofar as the following is not already included in the annual financial statements…”, NAMFISA should have rather taken the trouble to explicitly avoid making any reference to information in the standard that is provided in IFRS based annual financial statements, to avoid possible duplication and interpretation by funds as to what can be left out. In the same vein, IFRS based trustee reports in annual financial statements already require a considerable amount of information also required by this standard and RF.R.5.13. We suggest that NAMFISA liaises with ICAN to ensure that duplication of reporting is avoided and that the number of reports is reduced to avoid unnecessary proliferation of reports to NAMFISA and to members of the fund.
8. The standard insinuates that a surplus can be paid to employer or sponsor. This is contrary the provision of the Income Tax Act, which states in the definition of ‘pension fund’ that the fund rules must provide “…for the administration of the fund…to preclude the employer from…deriving any monetary advantage from moneys paid into or out of the fund…” The standard should not be in conflict with the Income Tax Act and NAMFISA should ascertain that either the Income Tax Act or the standard be amended.
9. It is gravely concerning to us that this law seems to still be deficient in many ways, after having been in process for such an extensive time, after having gone through all processes of technical scrutiny and now being about to be imposed as new law.
10. References to clauses in the Bill need to be updated to refer to the relevant sections in the latest version of the Bill.

• Download the privacy policy here...
• Download a draft rule dealing with the appointment of the board of trustees here...
• Download the code of ethics policy here...
• Download the generic communication policy here...
• Download the generic risk management policy here...
• Download the generic service provider self-assessment here...
• Download the generic conflict-of-interest policy here...
• Download the generic trustee performance appraisal form here…
• Download the generic investment policy here...
• Download the generic trustee code of conduct here...
• Download the unclaimed benefits policy here...
• Download the list of fund service providers duly registered by NAMFISA here...

Tilman Friedrich is a qualified chartered accountant and a Namibian Certified Financial Planner ® practitioner, specialising in the pensions field. Tilman is co-founder, shareholder and managing director of RFS, retired chairperson, now trustee, of the Benchmark Retirement Fund.

•  Jim Rickards has seen first-hand the bailout of hedge funds and has testified before congress about the 2008 financial crisis.
• He says another recession could hit before the Federal Reserve is done unwinding the processes put in places to save us from the crisis a decade ago.
• Rickards expects gold to go to $10,000 an ounce as some central banks may have to resort to the gold standard to restore confidence in the markets.

Interesting statistics


From Capricorn Asset Management Daily Brief of 24 April 2018.

Blackboard wisdom at a filling station

A  filling station has become quite a landmark in Gauteng, South Africa, with its daily #PetrolPumpWisdom, which are uplifting quotes written on a chalkboard. Some motorists say they deliberately travel this road just to read the quote which brightens their day. Here's one: