Key Takeaways
- • The Public Servants Association (PSA) has called on the GEPF Board to urgently review and amend the Investment Mandate Policy governing investments made by the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) on behalf of the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF).
- • The PSA expressed "extreme concern" over reports of significant losses on certain PIC-managed investments, including concerns about the performance of the Isibaya Fund portfolio and oversight of unlisted investments.
- • The union demands stronger GEPF intervention powers over high-risk private equity, developmental and unlisted assets, mandatory independent due diligence, and independent reviews of failed investments.
- • The PSA has also asked the Minister of Finance to consider whether the PIC remains the most suitable vehicle to manage public servants' retirement savings.
Summary
The Public Servants Association (PSA) has raised serious concerns over reported losses on investments made by the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) on behalf of the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF), according to a statement issued by the union and distributed via Novus Press Bulletin and Polity.org.za. The content was supplied by a third party and does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.
The PSA says reports have raised questions about investments in unlisted entities, particularly the performance of the Isibaya Fund portfolio and the level of oversight applied to those investment decisions. The union stresses that pension savings belong to public servants and should not serve as a source of unlimited capital for risky investments without accountability, transparency and consequence management. While acknowledging the PIC's role in asset growth and economic development, the PSA argues that protecting and growing members' retirement savings must remain the primary responsibility.
The union calls on the GEPF Board to urgently review and amend the Investment Mandate Policy to strengthen oversight, require rigorous risk assessments and independent due diligence, and give the GEPF stronger intervention powers over high-risk investments, particularly in private equity, developmental investments and unlisted assets. It also seeks greater transparency on investment decisions, clear accountability where failures occur, independent reviews of failed investments, and stronger reporting obligations from investment managers to the GEPF Board and members. The PSA further asks for a review of the balance between developmental objectives and pension preservation.
The PSA states it is not opposed to investments that support South Africa's economic growth, but says such investments must not compromise retirement security. The statement did not specify loss amounts beyond the reference to significant losses; supplementary publisher context references a reported R18 billion loss in pension investments and a call for an independent forensic investigation, but these figures are attributed to reports cited by the PSA and were not independently verified in the primary source.
The PSA says reports have raised questions about investments in unlisted entities, particularly the performance of the Isibaya Fund portfolio and the level of oversight applied to those investment decisions. The union stresses that pension savings belong to public servants and should not serve as a source of unlimited capital for risky investments without accountability, transparency and consequence management. While acknowledging the PIC's role in asset growth and economic development, the PSA argues that protecting and growing members' retirement savings must remain the primary responsibility.
The union calls on the GEPF Board to urgently review and amend the Investment Mandate Policy to strengthen oversight, require rigorous risk assessments and independent due diligence, and give the GEPF stronger intervention powers over high-risk investments, particularly in private equity, developmental investments and unlisted assets. It also seeks greater transparency on investment decisions, clear accountability where failures occur, independent reviews of failed investments, and stronger reporting obligations from investment managers to the GEPF Board and members. The PSA further asks for a review of the balance between developmental objectives and pension preservation.
The PSA states it is not opposed to investments that support South Africa's economic growth, but says such investments must not compromise retirement security. The statement did not specify loss amounts beyond the reference to significant losses; supplementary publisher context references a reported R18 billion loss in pension investments and a call for an independent forensic investigation, but these figures are attributed to reports cited by the PSA and were not independently verified in the primary source.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.