The Long-Short is a podcast by the Alternative Investment Management Association, focusing on the very latest insights on the alternative investment industry.

Each episode will examine topical areas of interest from across the alternative investment universe with news, views and analysis delivered by AIMA’s global team, as well as a host of industry experts.

This week, we go to the source of hedge funds' capital and speak to a major allocator. 

Eduard van Gelderen manages PSP Investments, one of the largest public pension plans in North America, and joins us to provide his insight into the very unusual Canadian pension model and how it compares to others globally. We discuss the reasons why a pension plan may or may not be able to allocate to all sorts of alternative investments and learn how PSP avoids the liquidity trap that so many other pension plans are falling into. 

Additional resources:

The mission of the AIMA Global Investor Board (GIB) is to be an advisory body to channel the ideas of the allocator community back to alternative asset managers and industry participants so that they can continue to evolve and meet the changing needs of investors. 

For more information click here.

Listen to this episode and subscribe on Spotify

Listen to this episode and subscribe on Apple Podcasts

Listen to this episode and subscribe on Google Podcasts

Listen to this episode and subscribe on Amazon Music

Read the transcript 

Hosts: Tom Kehoe, AIMA; Drew Nicol, AIMA

Guests: Eduard van Gelderen, PSP Investments

Interlude: Claire Van Wyk-Allan, AIMA

Tom Kehoe, AIMA  00:03

Hello and welcome back to The Long Short – a happy new year to all of you from all of us at The Long-Short.

Drew Nicol, AIMA  00:09

We look forward to bringing you more insights into the world of alternative investments over the coming year. And more about that over the coming weeks. But firstly, let’s introduce our first guest of this year.

Tom Kehoe, AIMA  00:20

Regular listeners of The Long Short will have heard our conversations with fund managers from across the alternative investment industry, but we have had very few allocators speak to us – until now.

Drew Nicol, AIMA  00:29

Eduard van Gelderen is responsible for managing one of the largest public plans in North America, the Public Sector Plan in Canada. We are delighted to have him speak to us today.

Tom Kehoe, AIMA  00:39

Eduard covers everything from the Canadian pension model and the case for allocating to alternatives, as well as his view on digital assets, and the liquidity challenges of managing pension plans today.

Drew Nicol, AIMA  00:49

As well as that, he’s also the inaugural chair of AIMA’s Global Investor Board which launched last year and brings together a variety of allocators to facilitate knowledge sharing and positive dialogue with alternative investment management. Eduard – you are very welcome to The Long Short.

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  01:05

Thank you very much.

Drew Nicol, AIMA  01:06

So, you are the Chief Investment Officer of one of Canada's largest pension plans. Would you say investing is something that you've always been interested in? And, can you explain a little bit about the journey you've been on to reach the heights of the role that you're in?

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  01:19

Yes, certainly Drew. Interestingly enough when I was around 14/15 years old, my parents had one of their best friends coming over regularly. And he was head of investments at NN Group, a Dutch insurance company. And whenever he was over, he talked about his job, the investments he was making, and the rationale for making those investments. I thought it was fascinating to listen to him, why he was doing it, and what his role was. It was so different from what my father was doing,  my father was a mathematics professor at a university, which I always felt was very dry and boring. And then this guy came over to our place telling all these wonderful stories. So, by the age of 14/15, I was actually really intrigued by investments.

I decided to study economics, or more specifically, mathematical finance in the Netherlands, to prepare myself also for an investment role. But the journey to the current role is actually a journey with a lot of different steps. And it almost feels like job hopping. But in all fairness, I think I learned, whenever I was in a new job, what I liked and what I didn't like. So, in my first 10 years, I worked for an investment bank, doing partly research, but also trading. And, although I was really interested in trading, and the challenges that you face every single day, the one thing that bothered me was the short-term focus of that activity.

So, after 10 years, I moved to the buy side and started to work for commercial asset managers. And I liked that, to be honest, much better than I did investment banking. But there were still the same elements of short-termism, always trying to beat the benchmark in a relatively short period of time, and not having a very long-term outlook on the portfolio.

I think the most important step I made was roughly 10 years ago when I joined APG in Amsterdam, which is the civil workers’ pension plan. Because there was the freedom of investments, and the long-term focus was certainly there. And I actually felt that this is what I really love to do. Being able to think long-term, you know, taking positions in the portfolio long-term, because I believe in the business case, or I believe in the long-term trends, and not too much bothered about short-term considerations, like a benchmark or tracking hours, etc. So since then, I moved from APG to the University of California to the Investment Office there, and then roughly five years ago to PSP in Montreal. And that was, to be honest, a decision I think was probably the best in my career, because I really love the environment of the Canadian markets and PSP in particular.

Tom Kehoe, AIMA  04:59

So Eduard, as you say, in your current role, you have responsibility for managing the investments of the public sector pension plan of Canada, or PSP for short. So, who then or what is the PSP?

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  05:17

Yeah, so PSP is indeed the public sector pension plan, which basically runs the pension assets for the Canadian government. There are four different pension plans run by the Canadian government, one for the public service, one for the Canadian Forces, the Mounted Police and the reserves. But all four are basically managed as if it's one big pension plan. PSP is the only manager of those assets. It was established in 1999, and to be honest, in line with many other plans in Canada, it was set up in the spirit of the Canadian model. Since then, it has shown an enormous growth from literally zero in 2000, when we started, up to 230 billion Canadian dollars nowadays, so phenomenal growth over the last, let's say, 20 years.

Tom Kehoe, AIMA  06:25

And as you say, this is now a several hundred-billion-dollar pension plan. When we think about the size of this plan, where would it feature in terms of the largest plans in North America, roughly?

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  06:43

Yeah, so in a Canadian context, we would rank probably number four in terms of size. Clearly, CPPIB and CDBQ are way bigger. But then there's the Ontario teachers’ pension plan as probably the number three, and then we will be number four. But interestingly enough, because we are still a growing fund, and the plans are still open, the defined benefit plans, we do expect to be around CAD$300 billion AUM in the next seven to eight years. And that would certainly bring us up to a third position in the Canadian market. But considering North American investors, I'm not sure what the position really is, but it is definitely among the larger ones.

Drew Nicol, AIMA  07:33

And how does PSP differ, both in terms of in Canada and other sorts of comparative plans, but also globally in terms of the model that you use?

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  07:44

Yeah, so what I find interesting about PSP is, first, it works for the Canadian government, exclusively. It's actually by law that we are managing the pension assets for the Canadian government. To me, there is a clear resemblance with the job ahead at the APG, which is also a Dutch investor in the public sector. So, there is a familiarity here that I see between APG and PSP.

When I think about PSP, and in all fairness, when you had asked me six years ago about PSP, I would have said to you, I don't know PSP, I have never heard of it. But when I started to dive into PSP, and what it was all about, I was really very surprised in a very positive way. It has a very strong relationship with the government. The pension plans and the defined benefit pension plans are still open. In contrast to many other plans around the world, the defined benefit plans are still there. They're still open and still growing. And I think that is actually very interesting because I firmly believe in that system. I firmly believe in the solidarity that's actually within defined benefit schemes. So, I think it's quite important to maintain that system. And for the Canadian government, it's actually very important because the compensation, in general, working for the Canadian government is not the highest, but at least they can show to their employees, when you retire, you have a very solid pension plan that is waiting for you.

The other interesting thing about it is that we only manage the pension liabilities post-2000. So, all the pre-2000 liabilities are paid in a pay-as-you-go system. But it means if we only cover the post-2000 liabilities, it really means that our investment horizon is truly long-term. And that actually helps us in our specific investment strategies. For example, we do have to care less about liquidity because we don't pay out anything yet, in liabilities. We're still receiving a positive cash flow for the next eight to nine years, and even then, after that point, we are in a breakeven position. But it means we don't require a lot of liquidity in the next decade, which really helps us in our investment strategy. And then, we touched on it already a couple of times, it's set up in the spirit of the Canadian model, which basically means it's very clear in terms of who's responsible for what, but also in terms of your investment strategy. In contrast to what I've seen before in my career, the Canadian model is very entrepreneurial. So, it does allow pension plans to really build up new business models, even set up companies, as long as it's in the best interest of the beneficiaries. And that's very, very appealing.

Tom Kehoe, AIMA  11:14

So, I'd want to just clarify then, when you talk about the Canadian model, are you referencing the Maple Model eight?

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  11:21

So, the Canadian model actually started with the reforms of the Ontario pension plan. So, Ontario teachers’ pension plan is actually the first one, and then a lot of others actually followed. The biggest eight pension plans in the Canadian market, we call the Maple Eight, but they all adopt some form of the Canadian model, which is basically three pillars. That's governance, it's in-house investments, and it's a large allocation to alternatives. Now, they're not all the same, but they kind of use similar approaches to their investment strategy.

Tom Kehoe, AIMA  12:04

How would that distinguish then the model that you described versus how things might be done elsewhere? You would obviously look at what others are doing. There are obviously models in place here in the UK as well, and they're looking to copy the successful models like your Canadian model.

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  12:25

Yeah, there are certainly different models around. So, the Canadian model is one. But we all know Yale University, the endowment model, which is another type of model, and the more traditional models that we used to have in the past. I think if you just look at the three different pillars, in terms of governance, it's quite interesting that you can distinguish a sponsor, a board, and daily management. All three have their own specific responsibilities.

But there's one overarching goal or objective, and that is to do everything that's in the best interest of the pension beneficiaries. And that sounds very straightforward. But, it’s not. I've seen very different models in my career, where interests were not aligned, or, where the different parts of the governance were not as professional as we see in the Canadian markets. For example, there are many pension plans with a board where basically different stakeholders are part of the board, like the unions. And I'm not saying that unions, by definition are not, capable of doing the job. But there's clearly a risk that people will enter the board with different agendas than what you would expect. And in the Canadian model, it's very clear. Also, the board members are selected based on their careers, based on their expertise, and how they can add to the overall arching objective of generating the returns needed for the pension plan. I think that's very clear in the Canadian model, and it is very blurry at times in other parts of the world. So that is concerning governance.

Then in-house investments, you need to have the skill to do in-house management. What you see in the Canadian model is, especially the Maple eight, they all have to size, and they all have the skill to move investments from external managers internally. And that not only brings a huge cost benefit, but it also builds up the internal expertise to be more innovative and to work on different strategies going forwards. And then the third one is a significant allocation to alternatives. What you see around the world is still a huge reliance on 60-40 models, where the strategic portfolio is driven by equities and bonds, and then just an add-on to alternatives by just a few percentage points. In the Canadian model, the alternative investments are a very large part of the total funds, and therefore that really distinguishes the Canadian model from other models.

Drew Nicol, AIMA  15:37

I just wanted to go back to that liquidity point there and just sort of bring that into this point about a greater allocation to alternatives because that is an extremely unusual situation to be in to have almost a decade of no liquidity concerns to worry about. I'm sure many people, many CIOs are envious of that position that you're in there. So, if we look sort of at the global landscape, and the issues that pension funds elsewhere in the world are having about, obviously, ageing populations in certain countries and more liabilities than the inflows, you guys seem to be in the opposite situation, or at least, have a significant buffer against this problem that others are facing, as well as that allowing you to have this much greater diversification into alternatives.

Can you just talk about what sort of an advantage that brings you? And just to take, maybe last year as an example, given the pretty horrid time that a lot of equities and fixed income had.

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  16:41

Yeah, so I'm actually glad to bring this forward because last year, was a very good example. So, when you look at last year, where public markets really took a nosedive, and with equities -20%, and even fixed income coming down like 10-15%, that would have hurt you in a traditional portfolio of 60/40.

Now, when you start to add alternatives to the mix, you can have all kinds of arguments like well, the valuation is biased, etc. But definitely, the alternatives did better than some of the public markets. So, therefore, if you really start to add alternatives to the mix, it really helps you in diversifying the portfolio, and also to basically mitigate the downside risk that is there if you only rely on public markets. But in our case, having no liquidity issues is actually an additional benefit. Because what happened last year is that we saw the public markets really going down, and the private assets actually staying rather stable. But the end result was that the strategic mix was actually a bit out of whack. There was way more allocation to the privates than we had in mind in our strategic mix. But the question was, should we adjust for this? Or, can we let this just stay on for the time being? But, knowing that we do not have any liquidity issues, we can actually accept that illiquidity in the private markets. So, our point was like, we're going to keep it and of course, we're going to monitor it very carefully. But we're not forced to do anything. We are not forced to sell the privates, because there's a liquidity need for the fund. No, there isn't. And I think that is a very nice position to be in. So, I think again, that's why I think PSP is in a very beneficial position compared to others.

Claire Van Wyk-Allan, AIMA  18:51

AIMA’s Global Investor Board was created to further strengthen AIMA’s engagement with the allocator community, and better support our growing investor membership. AIMA’s Global Investor Board comprises of nearly 20 senior leaders at institutional investors from across the world, from Sydney to Toronto, California to Sweden, Abu Dhabi to Hong Kong and beyond. Chaired by Eduard van Gelderen, CIO at PSP investments in Montreal, AIMA’s Global Investor Board provides educational insights on topics such as alignment of interests, GP and LP strategic relationships, ESG, and trends impacting asset allocation, all while advancing sound practice excellence for our members and the Alternative Investment Industry. AIMA offers qualified institutional investors complimentary affiliate membership, granting allocators full access to AIMA due diligence questionnaires, operational sound practice guides, events, allocator-only peer groups and more. Full paid membership with the option to remain private is also available. To learn more about investor membership options for AIMA’s Global Investor Board work and their perspectives, please visit aima.org.

Tom Kehoe, AIMA  20:09

Dare I say it Eduard, somewhat unique to what other pension plans are having to deal with because you talk about this liquidity issue. And certainly, because you don't have to go very far and hear about what has happened in the past year, for 60/40 portfolios, you had record precipitous falls in fixed income, and the equity markets have had a terrible year. So, just to clarify that point, you say you have no liquidity issues, do you mean that there's enough in your fund to be able to pay out to beneficiaries?

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  20:51

So, when you think about liquidity, you can think about three factors. Why do you need liquidity? Well, one is because you need to pay for the liabilities that you face, we don't have that issue. And we will not have that issue in the next coming years. But, the vast majority of pension plans do pay out more than they actually receive in contribution. So that's quite unique.

But then the other two factors are basically, your commitments that you've already done to, for example, private assets. So, you commit yourself, let's say last year, this year the general partner will come to you and say, oh, now I need the investment. So, you need to come up with liquidity for the general partner. But we know our commitments, so we know what kind of liquidity is needed for that element.

And then the third one is basically the liquidity you need for your margin calls. So, if you use a lot of derivatives, and clearly your margin calls will require liquidity. Again, you could argue, well you know the number of derivatives that you have in your funds, so you can calculate what kind of liquidity is needed. But there is an element of uncertainty around this. The more market volatility there is, the more liquidity requirements you have, but at least you can manage that as well.

So, of the three factors, the very important one, the first one, paying out more in liabilities than you're receiving in contributions. With us, it's exactly the opposite. We still receive more in contributions than we actually pay out in venture liabilities.

Tom Kehoe, AIMA  22:37

That's very helpful. And you've mentioned already, but it would be remiss of us not to have you react to the view around alternative investments, given the title of this podcast. Alternative investments have done reasonably well. Certainly, over the past year, hedge funds and private credit have withstood that market turbulence better than most we would argue, the case for investing in private markets, you've already put that to us. So, how do you then view the role of hedge funds and private credit in your portfolio? And what lessons then can investors take from the past year into how better to manage risk in a portfolio?

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  23:18

Let me take one step back before answering that specific question. I've been always wondering about the outcome of ALM studies because, in all fairness, liability structures are different per pension plan. Moreover, the risk tolerance definitely is different per pension plan. And yet, whenever I saw an ALM study, most of the time, the outcome drifted towards a very standard mix of equity and bonds always around the same percentages.

Now, what we do is slightly different, because we really dive into the structure of the liabilities, and, more importantly, the risk tolerance that our sponsor is giving us, and that's the Canadian government. And the risk tolerance statement is very clear about mitigating extreme events. So, if you think about investment returns as a normal distribution, then you can think about the middle part of that distribution. But what will the portfolio do when you actually move to the top of that distribution? And that's where alternatives come in. When we think about alternative investments, we think about a very broad set of asset classes. So, it includes infrastructure, natural resources, private equity, private credit and hedge funds. So, a very broad group of alternatives. But then we basically analyse what is the behaviour of these specific asset classes under different market circumstances. How do they behave? Are they truly there as a return enhancement? You could argue private equity is in comparison to public equities. Does it provide any liquidity if you need any at all, but we don't. Is it really lowly correlated with standard asset classes? But maybe more importantly, what does it do when you move into an extreme event?

So we look at alternatives from that angle, what will the alternatives adds to a standard mix of equity and bonds, when we move to different parts of a distribution, and that's where the value of alternatives really start to show, and not just over last year, we've seen that already over the last decade. It is a very interesting element to a total fund because it allows you, to be honest, to take more risk in the more traditional asset classes because that risk is mitigated by the alternatives from a total firm perspective. So, for us, alternatives are a very solid building block of our total fund approach, and I'm sure that's going to stay that way.

Drew Nicol, AIMA  26:22

If you allow me, I just want to get back to something you said earlier, because I believe you described the Canadian model as fostering something of an entrepreneurial spirit in the way you invest. And obviously, that's connected to the very enviable liquidity situation you're in. But that strikes me as very, not bizarre, but just interesting in the sense that it's not something you hear in connection to pension funds, an entrepreneurial spirit. I mean, speaking from here in London, pension funds, when they’re connected to anything exciting, that's usually because something's gone wrong. So, we usually like to see our pensions very much not on the front pages or doing anything exciting, could you just expand on that a bit and explain sort of the types of ventures that you might go into?

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  27:17

It's interesting Drew that you bring this up because I clearly had a long history in the Dutch market. And, as you probably know, there are a lot of discussions, like in the UK, about pensions, and also the risk-taking around pensions, etc. I think there is this idea that pensions should be almost like guarantees. But you can only guarantee a pension when your expected returns are relatively low. And that low return, if you cannot work with higher contributions, that very low return is not going to give retired people enough money to live on, something has to give. And I think in general, there was always the feeling well, as long as there is solidarity within the pension plan, we can actually take more risk and generate long-term returns that we need to keep pensions alive. And I'm puzzled, to be honest with some of the discussions, especially in Europe, where a lot of focus is not so much on those return elements but is really about the risk elements of not losing money. But we all know that that’s not going to generate enough returns.

So, what I like about the Canadian model is, like I said in the beginning, the solidarity that's still there in the system, you can take a bigger risk, if you know that one generation might be supported by another generation, and more importantly, where the group as a whole is responsible, and not the individual. So, in terms of defined benefits, and collective schemes into individually defined contribution schemes, I think moving to an individual-defined contribution scheme is not the way to go. I actually think the benefits of a collective defined benefit are still the superior model. But, in order to do so, you have to have a mindset that is willing to take a risk and willing to take long-term bets or think about long-term return results. And, that's what I like about the Canadian model. It comes back to governance. If all the different stakeholders agreed that at the end of the day, it's all about the benefits paying out to the beneficiaries, then you can take longer-term bets in the markets and you can be more entrepreneurial because that's how you generate the returns. So, I totally agree with you Drew, it's certainly not the mindset we see currently in Europe. But I'm very happy to see it's still in Canada.

Drew Nicol, AIMA  30:07

I can't help but ask then, in the spirit of potentially venturing into more exotic or areas with more movement than gilt, say, digital assets had a tricky year, to say the least, just simply put it to you, what's your view on this space? Do you see any opportunities or value there? Is it something that a pension fund should be involved in?

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  30:38

So digital assets are definitely part of our thinking process. We are currently exploring the landscape to get a better understanding of what makes sense or not. And, I firmly believe that the technology or blockchain technology is here to stay. And it will find its way into many business applications going forward. So, therefore, I think it's very important for us to really focus on digital assets because it will be a game changer.

But at the same time, I think a lot of people use basically digital assets, or basically trading the coins, to make an investment profit, or to generate alpha. That is actually something I'm not particularly interested in. I don't believe there's any substance to justify that type of strategy. But again, the technology is here to stay. And I'm sure it's going to change business models going forwards. Given the more recent events, I think a lot of people have a lot of opinions, but not necessarily the appropriate insights. And, we're still on a journey to fully understand the potential and the impact of digital assets. And from that perspective, we at PSP are also looking into it, and definitely not turning our back on digital assets as if it's just one big hoax or whatever terms are used in the public domain. I don't think it is, I think the technology is very interesting.

Tom Kehoe, AIMA  32:25

Another area, Eduard, that has also witnessed a significant challenge, certainly over the past six months has been ESG and sustainable investment. What do you think about ESG in the context of managing the risk in your portfolio and climate change?

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  32:46

So, first of all, I would like to say that ESG is not as new as we sometimes like to suggest, right? We touched on my career when I started as an Investment Analyst for an investment bank in Amsterdam, and that was in the 90s. Whenever we visited a company, we did ask questions related to their governance related to their turnover, sickness, numbers, etc. We did so not under the label of ESG, but because we really felt that these are important elements of a company that we need to know of when we make an investment judgment or not. Now, we place it more formally under an ESG umbrella, and that's good because I don't think it will go away.

I think there's a fundamental change. I think ESG, as you suggested, as well is no longer just a risk and an afterthought. ESG is actually an investment factor that we need to take into account in our investment decisions. But it will also lead to investment opportunities. So, it's not just like, I've got an investment and then when I've made a decision, I start to think about ESG and think like, oh, is there any ESG issue there? No, actually ESG is part of the investment process and it might actually open up opportunities going forwards. Climate change in that respect is a very specific case, I think it's real. It requires a lot of investment. And the path to net zero is less clear than many people suggest. But it also offers a lot of opportunities, especially for long-term investors PSP. Because, if we get it right, if we got a good sense of where this positive net zero will go, then that could be the next competitive edge that we as long-term investors, as asset owners, can actually put in place.

Drew Nicol, AIMA  34:56

If you'll forgive the fairly abrupt segue, I just wanted to use our final few minutes just to touch upon your other role, which is, of course, Head of AIMA’s investor outreach efforts. And just for any listeners that don't know, roughly a year ago, Eduard, along with several other global institutional investors set up our Global Investor Board. So, could you just tell us a little bit more about how that's developed over the past year?

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  35:24

Yeah, I’d love to. The Global Investor Board is basically a think tank, where different investors meet. We're truly a global platform with participants from Japan, New Zealand, Australia, the Middle East, Europe and North America. We also have different investors, like pension plans, family offices, and sovereign wealth funds. Now, you could argue, gosh, there are many of those platforms around, so why is this one specific? Well, I think it is specific, because the Global Investor Board is part of AIMA, which places this board in the context of alternative investments, and I think that was missing. Allocators, institutional investors and alternative managers can learn a lot from each other but can also work together to further professionalise the alternative market space. So, given the impressive group that we formed over the last 12 months, I'm sure that looking forwards, we can do a lot of good stuff here.

Tom Kehoe, AIMA  36:32

Looking ahead then to this year, what are your plans for the GIB (Global Investor Board)?

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  36:38

Yeah, so next year, there's only one area, and that is Latin America, that is still missing. So, one of my personal ambitions is to get an investor from Latin America to join the group. But more importantly, now that we are an established board, we can really start to basically continue our discussions, but also start to add value to the members of AIMA and others, by means of discussions, participating in AIMA’s research projects, but also to attend and be part of AIMA's multiple seminars around the world, and show that we have a certain knowledge related to alternatives, not just from a GP perspective, but also from an allocators perspective, that we actually can share with the rest of the investment community.

Drew Nicol, AIMA  37:44

Well, this has been a really educational conversation for me, because I was not as aware of the Maple Eight Model, which is an excellent name by the way, as I should have been. So, thank you so much for your time. And, of course, your leadership of GIB, and I'm sure we'll have you on again soon.

Eduard van Gelderen, Chief Investment Office at PSP Investments  38:01

Tom and Drew, thank you very much for having me, it was a pleasure to do this with you.

Tom Kehoe, AIMA  38:11

A really insightful interview with Eduard. And great to get insights from someone like him who has the responsibility to manage the investments for one of the largest pension plans globally.

Drew Nicol, AIMA  38:21

It's really interesting to hear how much stock he holds in the value of alternative investments too and the increasing role that he advocates for alternatives across their pension plan.

Tom Kehoe, AIMA  38:31

We are very grateful for Eduard’s leadership of our Global Investor Board, very much the engine room of a growing investor membership within AIMA. For further insights into the work of this board, please visit the Global Investor Board page, and this information will also be available to you in the program notes.

Disclaimer
This podcast is the sole property of the Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA). This audio production and content are intended as indicative guidance only and are not to be taken or treated as a substitute for specific advice, whether legal advice or otherwise. AIMA permits use or sharing of the content in media or as an educational resource, provided always that proper attribution is made. The rights in the content and production, including copyright and database rights, belong to AIMA.