Key Takeaways
- • Kwabena Boamah, Managing Director of Stanbic Investment Management Services Limited, called for stronger governance frameworks and structured investment policies to accelerate pension fund participation in private equity, addressing systemic barriers limiting capital deployment.
- • Pension funds face a critical capability gap, with many trustees lacking dedicated expertise to evaluate private equity opportunities, resulting in over-reliance on summarized outputs rather than deep analysis of underlying financial models and transaction assumptions.
- • Investment policy weakness remains a core constraint—many pension funds approach alternative assets on an ad hoc basis rather than within formalized allocation frameworks, slowing intentional capital commitment despite growing interest in the asset class.
- • While trustee adoption of private equity is accelerating, with some funds making repeat commitments, adoption remains uneven across the institutional investor base, indicating significant untapped capital potential that structured governance could unlock.
- • Boamah emphasized the need for stronger collaboration and trust between trustees and fund managers, positioning policy-driven participation and specialized internal capabilities as essential preconditions for sustainable private equity co-investment success.
Summary
Kwabena Boamah, Managing Director of Stanbic Investment Management Services Limited, delivered a stark assessment of institutional barriers limiting pension fund capital deployment into private equity at the 2026 Annual Conference of the Ghana Venture Capital & Private Equity Association. Speaking on pension fund co-investment processes and trustee-manager relationships, Boamah identified governance, policy, and expertise gaps as the primary constraints preventing broader participation in the asset class despite rising strategic interest among institutional investors.
The absence of specialized internal expertise emerged as a central impediment. Boamah noted that many pension fund trustees lack dedicated teams capable of rigorous private equity due diligence, creating a structural disadvantage in transaction evaluation. This capability deficit manifests in trustees receiving only summarized investment outputs rather than access to underlying financial models, limiting their ability to interrogate assumptions, stress-test projections, and build investment conviction. The reliance on surface-level assessments—rather than fundamental analysis—creates hesitation and extends investment decision cycles unnecessarily.
Weak or undefined investment policies compound the expertise challenge. Boamah stressed that many pension funds treat alternative asset investments episodically rather than within disciplined allocation frameworks. Without formal policy scaffolding, trustees lack clear mandates, risk parameters, and rebalancing disciplines, resulting in reactive rather than proactive capital deployment. This ad hoc approach contrasts sharply with the structured frameworks required to achieve sustainable returns and scale private equity exposure.
While adoption momentum is evident—some trustees have progressed to second commitments—Boamah cautioned that progress remains uneven across the institutional landscape. He advocated for a transition from surface-level interest to "intentional, policy-driven participation," requiring trustees to invest in internal capability building, formalize investment mandates, and establish stronger collaborative relationships with fund managers based on transparency and mutual trust. These structural improvements, he argued, are prerequisites for unlocking the capital locked within pension systems.
The absence of specialized internal expertise emerged as a central impediment. Boamah noted that many pension fund trustees lack dedicated teams capable of rigorous private equity due diligence, creating a structural disadvantage in transaction evaluation. This capability deficit manifests in trustees receiving only summarized investment outputs rather than access to underlying financial models, limiting their ability to interrogate assumptions, stress-test projections, and build investment conviction. The reliance on surface-level assessments—rather than fundamental analysis—creates hesitation and extends investment decision cycles unnecessarily.
Weak or undefined investment policies compound the expertise challenge. Boamah stressed that many pension funds treat alternative asset investments episodically rather than within disciplined allocation frameworks. Without formal policy scaffolding, trustees lack clear mandates, risk parameters, and rebalancing disciplines, resulting in reactive rather than proactive capital deployment. This ad hoc approach contrasts sharply with the structured frameworks required to achieve sustainable returns and scale private equity exposure.
While adoption momentum is evident—some trustees have progressed to second commitments—Boamah cautioned that progress remains uneven across the institutional landscape. He advocated for a transition from surface-level interest to "intentional, policy-driven participation," requiring trustees to invest in internal capability building, formalize investment mandates, and establish stronger collaborative relationships with fund managers based on transparency and mutual trust. These structural improvements, he argued, are prerequisites for unlocking the capital locked within pension systems.
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.