Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackArcher101
So basically trying to turn the biggest perceived negative that people have with the APP (will be used to invest in alberta companies), and apply it to the CPP. Therefore driving a dilemma of "would you rather have your money invested in the rest of Canada, or invested in Alberta on Albertans". I can see this as a question in the referendum.
I have zero clue what this dual-mandate thing is that he speaks of, and I'm sure most of the people that will see quotes from this won't either, but believe it to be bad.
This is an interesting comment. While they admit that a large chunk of their portfolio is within Canada, they must not be restricted to be diverse and invest globally..... Well..... Why didn't you? The CPP is at 14% within Canada, you are near 50% and are complaining that you shouldn't be directed (I don't think there is a direction?) to invest within Canada, but clearly you don't have problem with that already.
|
Well to me, this just speaks to some of the difficulty in comparing mandates and investment policies. People think that the factors determining a suitable investment for the two are the same, therefore you just look at the returns and properly judge who came out ahead. That's just not the way things work. CPPIB not only has different parameters because of the specifics for CPP as compared to the pensions that Aimco is running, but they have different fund characteristics (such as size) that afford them different opportunities in the first place.
It doesn't mean Aimco is terrible, and it doesn't mean that they don't do their job properly. It's just not as easy to compare as just looking at where they're invested and what the return is to make that decision.