Private market investments and the umbrella fund dilemma
For many large employer groups that offer retirement benefits for their employees, investing in umbrella funds is a cornerstone of capital stability and growth. By pooling resources from multiple employers, umbrella funds offer economies of scale, professional governance, and administrative efficiencies that individual corporate funds often cannot achieve. Yet, as Raazia Ganie, Executive Head of Investments at advisory firm NMG Benefits, points out, the decision to invest or disinvest in an umbrella fund requires careful consideration: “Umbrella funds are designed to grow capital efficiently over the long term, and the process of moving between funds for short-term gains can be far more costly than many employers realise.”
Umbrella funds are structured to provide both scale and flexibility, often enabling exposure to a broader range of asset classes than smaller standalone funds. Increasingly, these funds are allocating capital to private market investments like infrastructure projects and private equity, which carry the dual appeal of higher returns and tangible economic impact. As an example, some funds have invested in truck stops along key national routes, which generate real returns, provide services for drivers, and create ongoing employment opportunities in the surrounding communities.
However, the illiquid nature of such assets introduces challenges. Unlike publicly traded equities or bonds, infrastructure and private equity investments cannot be easily sold or transferred, particularly in South Africa, which lacks a developed secondary market for such holdings.
“The problem is not that the investments are bad,” says Ganie. “It is that the mechanics of moving them require careful planning to avoid unnecessary costs and operational risks. When assets in one umbrella fund are sold, and then repurchased in another, they incur trading fees, buy-sell spreads, and days of out-of-market exposure, all of which directly impact investment returns. And, ultimately, the employees end up bearing the bulk of these costs.”
Another subtle but important consideration is the overlap of underlying assets. In South Africa’s relatively small market, moving from one umbrella fund to another often results in owning the same equities and bonds on the new platform. You are essentially buying and selling the same assets – the provider may change, but the trading and administrative costs remain real and measurable.
Ganie stresses that disinvesting from an umbrella fund is rarely warranted purely due to investment performance or minor administrative frustrations. Valid reasons include serious governance concerns or persistent, unresolved servicing issues that cannot be rectified.
Ultimately, investing in umbrella funds, especially those with exposure to private markets, requires careful deliberation, patience, and professional guidance. While the rewards, including enhanced returns, social impact, and alignment with national policy objectives, are substantial, the hidden costs of poorly considered fund switches can erode value and undermine long-term outcomes.
By prioritising informed, strategic decision-making and working with expert advisers, employers can safeguard their employees’ retirement savings while participating in the growth of the broader economy. For employers and trustees, the strategic choice is clear: work with established employee benefits and investment advisers who understand both the operational nuances and the long-term horizon.
“An experienced partner helps employers and trustees to evaluate not just the returns of a fund, but also the full cost and implications of moving funds. A long-term relationship with a trusted adviser ensures decisions that are based on knowledge and alignment with the employees’ best interests over decades, rather than short-term performance,” ends Ganie.