What Ghana Can Learn From Dutch Pension Funds: Pension Money Is Not Government’s ATM

There is an important pension lesson emerging from Europe that Ghana should not ignore. Dutch pension funds have successfully resisted an attempt to introduce rules that would have effectively required them to channel a minimum proportion of their enormous pension assets into high-risk European venture capital. The proposal was presented against the background of Europe's desire to mobilize more private capital to strengthen European businesses and competitiveness.

The Dutch pension funds did not say that they were opposed to investing in European companies or supporting economic development. Their objection was to being told how much of their members' pension savings they must place in a particular class of investment. That distinction is extremely important for Ghana. It raises a fundamental question which we should be asking about the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT): Who ultimately controls pension money --- the people whose contributions created it, or governments that may have development objectives they want pension funds to finance? The answer should be clear.

Pension funds can contribute enormously to national development, but their first responsibility must always be to the pensioners and contributors whose money they manage.

What Happened in the Netherlands?

According to a report by NL Times, a proposal in the European Parliament sought to require pension funds to invest at least 2% of their assets in high-risk European venture capital. The proposal encountered strong resistance from Dutch pension funds and members of the European Parliament. The argument was essentially that investment decisions should remain with pension funds and their fiduciaries rather than being determined by governments or politicians.

The scale of the issue becomes clearer when one considers the size of Dutch pension assets. The Dutch central bank says Dutch pension funds manage more than €1.17 trillion. For a fund such as ABP, a mandatory 2% allocation would amount to approximately €11 billion going into venture capital. ABP's chairman, Harmen van Wijnen, made the point forcefully: pension funds should not be treated as an ATM for companies or governments looking for money. This is not an argument against investment. Indeed, ABP had already committed about €1 billion voluntarily to European venture capital funds.

The difference is crucial. Voluntary investment based on an assessment of risk and return is one thing. Government-directed investment quotas are another. That is the lesson Ghana should take seriously.

Pension Money Must First Serve Pensioners

Ghana has no reason to reject the idea of using pension assets to support productive economic activity. On the contrary, SSNIT is potentially one of the country's largest institutional investors. Its investment decisions can support infrastructure, housing, agriculture, manufacturing, technology, energy and other productive sectors. But there is a danger whenever national development objectives become confused with pension investment objectives.

A government may legitimately say: "We need more affordable housing." Another may say: "We need more factories." Another may say: "We need to support Ghanaian businesses." Another may say: "We need capital for infrastructure." All of these may be perfectly legitimate national objectives. But the next question must be: Why should pensioners' money automatically become the financing mechanism?

A project can be socially desirable and still be a bad investment. That distinction cannot be ignored. If an investment produces inadequate returns, exposes the pension fund to excessive risk, becomes politically interfered with, or cannot be recovered when needed, the consequences do not fall on the politician who promoted it. They fall on the contributor and ultimately the pensioner.

Ghana Already Has the Right Investment Philosophy

Interestingly, Ghana's pension regulatory framework already contains principles pointing in the right direction. The National Pensions Regulatory Authority (NPRA) investment guidelines emphasize the safety of pension assets and fair returns. They also emphasize diversification and sound investment decisions.

The guidelines for pension fund managers similarly require pension assets to be invested in accordance with the law, diversified to minimize investment risk while achieving appropriate returns, and managed in the best interests of members. These are sound principles. The question therefore is not whether Ghana understands the principle. The question is whether the principle is sufficiently protected in practice.

If SSNIT is presented with a government-sponsored investment opportunity, the first question should not be: "How will this help the government?" It should be: "How will this protect and grow pensioners' money?" The two answers may sometimes be identical. But they will not always be.

National Development and Pension Investment Are Not the Same Thing

There is nothing wrong with government creating opportunities for institutional investors. Suppose government wants to develop affordable housing. It can establish a properly structured housing investment vehicle, publish its financial model, provide appropriate guarantees where necessary, appoint independent managers and invite institutional investors, including SSNIT, to consider participation.

SSNIT can then undertake its own assessment. It should ask:

• What is the expected return?
• What are the risks?
• Who guarantees the investment?
• What happens if the project fails?
• Who manages it?
• What are the management fees?
• What is the exit strategy?
• What independent valuation has been conducted?
• What alternative investments are available?
• How does the investment fit into SSNIT's overall portfolio?
• What happens to pensioners if the investment underperforms?

If the answers are satisfactory, SSNIT should be free to invest. If they are not, SSNIT should equally be free to say no. That is what an independent pension investment decision should look like.

The Dutch Lesson Is Not "Do Not Invest at Home"

This point deserves emphasis. It would be wrong to interpret the Dutch development as meaning that pension funds should avoid investing in their own economies. That is not what happened. ABP itself had already committed significant funds to European venture capital. The disagreement was about compulsion. This is precisely where Ghana should draw the line. SSNIT should be encouraged to invest in Ghanaian enterprises and productive economic activities where the investments meet proper fiduciary and risk-return requirements. But it should not be required to invest a predetermined percentage of pension assets in a particular sector merely because government considers that sector strategically important. The principle could be very simple: Government should create investable opportunities. SSNIT should decide whether those opportunities are good investments.

We Must Avoid Turning SSNIT into a Development Bank

Ghana already has institutions whose primary responsibility is economic development and financing. SSNIT is different. Its fundamental responsibility is social security. It collects contributions from workers and employers and uses the pension system to provide retirement income. That makes SSNIT fundamentally different from a government development bank. If government wants to finance agriculture, industry, housing or infrastructure, it should develop appropriate financing institutions and fiscal mechanisms.

SSNIT may participate where the commercial proposition is sound. But pension funds should not be transformed into instruments for filling financing gaps created elsewhere in the economy. Otherwise, the distinction between social security and government financing begins to disappear. And that is dangerous.

Pensioners Cannot Afford another Layer of Risk

This is particularly important in Ghana because the adequacy of pensions remains a major concern. Thousands of pensioners live on relatively modest monthly pensions. For such pensioners, the issue is not an abstract debate about financial markets. It is whether there will be enough money at the end of every month to pay for food, electricity, water, transportation, medicines and other basic needs.

When a pension fund makes a poor investment, therefore, the consequences are not merely figures on an investment statement. They can affect someone's ability to live with dignity in retirement. That is why every cedi invested by SSNIT should be treated with extraordinary care. Pension money is not ordinary government revenue.

It is not money that politicians have collected and can redistribute according to political priorities. It represents years of deductions from workers' earnings. A worker may have contributed for 20, 30 or 40 years. That worker has a legitimate expectation that the money will be prudently managed and that the pension system will provide reasonable security in retirement.

What Should SSNIT Learn?
There are several lessons:

1. Investment Independence Must Be Protected: SSNIT should have the institutional independence to reject an investment that does not meet its risk, return, liquidity and diversification requirements, even when the proposed investment has strong political or developmental support. The fact that a project is a government priority should never automatically make it a pension investment priority.
2. Developmental Investments Should Pass the Same Test: If SSNIT wants to invest in Ghanaian businesses, housing, infrastructure or other productive sectors, there should be no objection. But every project must pass the same rigorous investment test. The question should always be: Is this a good investment for pensioners? Not: Is this good for government?
3. Investment Decisions Must Be Transparent: Pensioners have a right to know how their money is being invested. SSNIT should periodically publish meaningful information about its investment portfolio. Not merely the total value of assets. Pensioners should be able to understand the broad categories of investments, their performance, major risks, income generated, costs and significant exposures. Confidentiality may be necessary for certain commercial transactions, but confidentiality should not become a blanket excuse for lack of accountability.
4. Conflicts of Interest Must Be Controlled: Where government officials, politically connected individuals, contractors or companies associated with public officials stand to benefit from pension-funded investments, the highest standards of conflict-of-interest management should apply. The more politically sensitive an investment is, the stronger the independent scrutiny should be.
5. Pensioners Must Have a Meaningful Voice: Pensioners should not be expected to manage SSNIT's investment portfolio. That is the job of professionals. But pensioners and contributors should have an institutional voice on matters affecting the governance, accountability and long-term sustainability of the scheme. This is why the consultation process surrounding pension policy deserves attention. When P4R, CSPF, and NPA speak, SSNIT and NPRA must listen to them with rapt attention. It is enough for SSNIT to say that they only listen to the concerns expressed by pensioners’ representatives on the SSNIT board. SSNIT must take seriously, a letter from a pensioner in Bunkpurugu, Fankyinikor, Nzolezo, or Amedzofe. Pensioners are not simply beneficiaries waiting for government benevolence. They are the people whose contributions built the system. Their organizations should therefore have meaningful opportunities to participate in discussions about the future of the pension system.

A Principle Ghana Could Adopt
Ghana could consider putting a very clear principle into pension governance: No government, political authority or public institution should compel SSNIT to make an investment solely to achieve a government policy objective unless that investment independently satisfies the applicable fiduciary, actuarial, risk, return, liquidity and diversification requirements. This would not prevent SSNIT from supporting national development. It would simply ensure that national development does not come at the expense of pension security. That is an important distinction.

Let Government Bring Opportunities --- Not Instructions

There is perhaps an even better way to approach the issue. Government should identify national development opportunities and make them attractive to investors. If government believes Ghana needs affordable housing, let it create a bankable housing programme. If it wants industrialization, let it create commercially viable industrial investment opportunities. If it wants renewable energy, let it create transparent projects with credible revenue models. If it wants infrastructure, let it structure projects that can withstand independent financial scrutiny. Then let SSNIT and other institutional investors compete with other investors to determine whether they want to participate. That approach respects both national development and pension governance. Government gets the investment it needs. SSNIT gets investment opportunities. And pensioners get protection. Everybody wins.

We Should Also Ask a Bigger Question

The Dutch debate should prompt Ghana to look beyond individual investments and examine the entire philosophy of pension governance:

1. Are we managing pension assets primarily to maximize long-term retirement security?
2. Are investment decisions sufficiently independent?
3. Are pensioners adequately informed?
4. Are investment performances transparently reported?
5. Are unsuccessful investments properly investigated?
6. Are the lessons from unsuccessful investments incorporated into future decisions?
7. Are investment managers sufficiently accountable?
8. Are fees reasonable?
9. Are conflicts of interest adequately controlled?
10. And most importantly: Would we make the same investment decision if nobody in government knew about it?

That last question may be one of the simplest tests of investment independence.

Pension Money Is Patient Money --- but It Is Not Free Money

There is another lesson worth emphasizing. Pension funds are attractive to governments and businesses because they possess large pools of long-term capital. That is precisely why they must be protected. The long-term nature of pension savings should not be interpreted as permission to take excessive risks. Pension money is patient money. But patient money is still somebody's money. It belongs to workers and pensioners. It must therefore be invested with the understanding that today's decision may affect somebody's retirement income decades later.

Ghana Can Do It Better
The Netherlands has shown that pension funds can stand firm when governments or political institutions seek greater control over pension capital. Ghana does not need to copy the Dutch pension system. Our economic circumstances, pension structure and institutional arrangements are different. But the principle is universal: Pension investment decisions must ultimately be guided by the interests of the people whose money is being invested. SSNIT can invest in Ghana. It can support Ghanaian businesses. It can participate in infrastructure. It can invest in housing. It can support productive sectors. It can even help finance innovative Ghanaian enterprises. But the decision should be based on sound investment principles, not political pressure, patriotic appeals or government financing needs.

My Thoughts: The Pensioner Must Come First

The debate ultimately brings us back to a simple question. Why does SSNIT exist? It exists to provide social security and retirement income. Therefore, everything else must come after that fundamental responsibility. Economic development is important. Government financing is important. Infrastructure is important. Industrialization is important. But the pensioner's retirement security is not less important because the government has a development agenda. Indeed, it is precisely because pensioners have already spent their productive years contributing to the economy that their retirement security deserves protection. The lesson from the Dutch pension funds is therefore not that pension funds should refuse to invest in national development. It is that national development should not dictate pension investment.

Ghana should welcome productive investment by SSNIT, but only when the investment makes financial sense for the pension fund. Government should create the opportunities. Professional pension managers should evaluate them. Independent regulators should enforce the rules. And pensioners should be able to demand accountability. That is how pension money can serve both the economy and the people who earned it. But there must never be any confusion about whose money it is. Pension money is not government money. Pension money is not an ATM. It belongs to the people whose contributions created it. And ultimately, pension money must work for pensioners first.

Before I go, let me ask the NPRA one simple question: Why a 10-storey building for an office? And I am still trying to understand the rationale behind the proposed Pensioners College. But there is one thing I know: whoever mismanages pension funds must never forget that behind every cedi is a human being whose life and dignity may depend on that money. The pensioner who is suffering today was once strong, handsome, intelligent, energetic and full of dreams. He or she worked, contributed and helped build this country, believing that one day there would be something to fall back on in old age. When pension funds are mismanaged, squandered or diverted from their intended purpose, the consequences are not merely figures on a balance sheet. They can translate into hunger, inability to afford medicines, despair and, ultimately, the premature death of someone who once had a whole lifetime ahead of them.

Life is like the wheel of a bicycle. Today you are up; tomorrow you may be down. No condition is permanent. So, while we are strong, powerful and in positions of authority, let us remember that we too will grow old. The offices we occupy today will eventually be occupied by others. The privileges we enjoy today will pass. And the decisions we make today may one day affect us, our children or the people we love. Above all, let us remember that there is a day of reckoning for every one of us --- a day when we shall account for every pesewa we made, how we made it, and how we spent it. Judgment Day is real. That day you go down six feet in the belly of the earth, alone and surrounded by darkness, that day, you will say: had I known. When that day comes, there will be no office, no title, no position, no political party and no amount of money that can shield us from accountability. We should all know this and reduce the suffering of poor pensioners.

FUSEINI ABDULAI BRAIMAH
+233208282575 / +233550558008
[email protected]