Should Canadian Pension Funds Cushion the Blow of a Trade War?

Recently, during my visits to the local grocery store, I’ve observed a recurring trend: Shoppers picking up a product, peering closely at the label and then putting it back with a frown or wrinkled nose. I can tell what they’re thinking: That’s not made in Canada! I’ll exchange a knowing nod to acknowledge we’re doing our part as consumers to fight back against an economic attack on our country.
Now it’s time for our country’s world-class pension funds to do the same. It is the perfect time to put that American stock back on the shelf and buy Canadian.
This isn’t a new idea. At the beginning of March, 2024, an open letter by executives pushed for our pension funds to invest more in Canada. Across a wide range of industries, business leaders such as Darren Entwistle of Telus, Eric La Flèche of Metro, Laurent Ferreira of National Bank and Alex Pourbaix of Cenovus Energy agreed that the government should take action to encourage pension funds to make this change.
Now there is additional impetus for more domestic investment by pension funds. In essence, this mirrors the support we are providing to local businesses, artisans and farmers. When our pension funds invest in domestic equities, they’re investing in the very companies that employ people in the local economy. When those companies succeed, so does Canada. It’s a virtuous cycle – better stock market valuations allow companies to raise money and compete on the world stage, and success draws in further investment dollars and drives better returns.
Following last year’s open letter, the federal government announced some small steps in its Fall Economic Statement to encourage investment in Canada, including removing restrictions on holding more than 30 per cent of voting shares of Canadian companies, as well as relaxed rules for investing in airport infrastructure. While these policy changes were incrementally positive, the environment has changed dramatically since then and requires more broad and impactful policy action. This is the perfect time to make changes to ride the wave of patriotism sweeping across the country.
We can enable more of this activity by explicitly urging our pension funds to invest locally through a dual objective mandate. The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is a great example of a fund that already does this. In 2004, Quebec passed a bill to amend the Caisse’s mandate to generate optimal returns while at the same time invest in Quebec’s economic development. This reinforces the idea that investment returns and local investment are not competing priorities but rather can support one another.
Many pension funds and observers are resistant to this. Last year, faced with pressure from business leaders for more domestic investment, the response from pension managers such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System was to hide behind the curtain of fiduciary duty, arguing they need to place returns above all else.
There is merit to that idea, and it made sense at the time. But now we are in a trade war and facing an existential threat. I’d argue that, at its core, fiduciary duty means that Canadian fund managers must act with a duty of care and loyalty to all Canadians. I cannot see how making prudent investments in businesses at home is anything other than an act of loyalty.
Of course, a balanced approach is key. Just as a tasty and nutritious dinner plate needs some foreign spice along with Canadian ingredients, the recipe for long-term investing success is to have a mix of Canadian and international investments.
On average, the eight largest Canadian pension plans with more than $2.3-trillion in assets invest only 25 per cent of their assets in Canada. The largest of them, the Canada Pension Plan, invests only 11 per cent in Canada. This compares with an average of 41 per cent invested in the United States.
If we make just a small adjustment to bring this back in balance over a reasonable period, for example to 33 per cent in each country, that would be a massive investment of $184-billion back into Canada. This would greatly contribute to a stronger and more resilient domestic investment environment.
It’s not about blind patriotism; it’s about sound economic strategy. It’s about recognizing that strong homegrown companies are the best foundation of a robust and independent economy – and to strengthen that, we must buy local.
As I read this opinion piece which sounds very reasonable to informed readers of the Globe and Mail, I once again bow my head in frustration sighing.
I can sum it up like this: We have a crisis, we need to act now, our pension funds must invest more in Canada to save our economy from Trump's tariffs.
Let me let you in on a little secret, all of our large pension funds already invest a lot in Canada, more than they need to, across all asset classes but mostly fixed income, real estate and infrastructure.
Mr. Thai states on average they invest 25% of their assets in Canada but notes our largest pension fund, CPP Investments, only invests 11% domestically. And this compares to an average 41% in the United States.
He wants our large Canadian pension funds to gradually increase their domestic investments to 33% that would translate to an additional massive investment of $184 billion back into Canada.
What else? He cites CDPQ's success with its dual mandate and an example of how investment returns and economic development can co-exist and thrive.
He admits many large pension funds are resistant to this idea and states the following:
Many pension funds and observers are resistant to this. Last year, faced with pressure from business leaders for more domestic investment, the response from pension managers such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System was to hide behind the curtain of fiduciary duty, arguing they need to place returns above all else.
There is merit to that idea, and it made sense at the time. But now we are in a trade war and facing an existential threat. I’d argue that, at its core, fiduciary duty means that Canadian fund managers must act with a duty of care and loyalty to all Canadians. I cannot see how making prudent investments in businesses at home is anything other than an act of loyalty.
This really irked me because he obviously doesn't understand the mission and objective of a pension fund, nor does he understand what fiduciary duty is all about.
Again, our pension funds already invest in Canada across all asset classes, public and private.
It has nothing to do with loyalty or patriotism, when it makes sense they will jump on the opportunity to invest at home, foregoing currency and regulatory risk of investing abroad.
Their fiduciary duty, however, is to make sure they are properly diversified all over the world to withstand a global shock which will knock the Canadian economy down.
Let me repeat that: when there's a global shock, the Canadian economy feels the brunt of it and our equity markets which have a lot of resources tend to go down a lot more than the US market.
And our Canadian loonie declines hard during a global downturn.
We also lack the mega cap tech names in Canada which is good during times when they sell off hard (like now) but bad over the long run because these are the companies of the future.
All this to say, it would be very unwise for our large Canadian pension funds to decrease their exposure to US stocks to invest more in Canadian equities over the long run, and I do stress over the long run.
What else? This isn't the governments' money, it belongs to members and we need to have their full support if governments want to tinker with the way they invest.
Norway's mammoth sovereign wealth fund invests all of its trillion plus assets outside the country, precisely to diversify its investments over the long run.
True, it invests almost everything in global (and mostly US) equities but it's still diversifying outside its country.
What are the other issues I have with investing more domestically?
A ton. Let's take CDPQ's dual mandate, it's going well now because they got the governance right but some critics argue that "big daddy Caisse" is subsidizing Quebec companies and that leads to them being less productive and less competitive.
I'm not in agreement there but I get the criticism, sort of like Trump's tariffs, it's going to promote less innovation and competition in the US.
And there was a time when CDPQ's Quebec portfolio was in shambles, bribes were rampant, it was the Wild West.
Michael Sabia cleaned that all up and it's on solid footing now but this dual mandate isn't always easy and I can understand why most other large Canadian pension funds aren't on board to implement it.
Having said all this, there's an argument to be made that the success of our large Canadian pension funds can benefit the Canadian economy.
How? Well, take PSP Investments for example, our third largest pension fund which manages the assets of the public service, Canadian Forces, RCMP and the Reserve Force.
Its former CEO, Neil Cunningham made a persuasive case that the $9-billion from surpluses in public-service pension fund should be invested in a new "Canada Fund" with a similar governance structure as the Canada Growth Fund Inc. (CGF) which PSP Investments manages:
As a follow up to our conversation yesterday it occurred to me that it might to useful for me to differentiate between the Canada Growth Fund (CGF) created a few years ago and my suggested Canada Fund (CF).
CGF as you know was created by the federal government in 2023 with a mandate to make investments that take on higher risk than what the private sector will invest in to fill the funding gap on innovative investment in Canada that are expected to reduce emissions, preserve Canadian IP in Canada, create long-term employment in Canada and leverage our natural resource assets. It has a venture capital element to it, but the long-term target return of the fund is to break-even - which would be considered a success if the other objectives were achieved. It’s funded by a specific $15 billion commitment by the federal government, its mandate being in line with current federal government objectives, especially on climate.
The CF in contrast would be funded by the excess returns generated by the PSPF (and potentially the other funds managed by PSP) and therefore would not have any impact on Canada’s annual deficit or national debt. Its mandate would be to invest exclusively in Canada - the mandate and target return to be established but could be similar to the CGF but with a broader range of industry sectors. I would suggest that it have a focus on early to mid-stage Canadian companies that often have to look to the US or elsewhere for the capital required for the development of their IP and to move their business to the next level.
The similarity of the two funds would be the governance structure wherein the federal government sets the mandate but is NOT in any way involved in the actual investing decisions, both funds to be managed by an independent investment manager.
By having a long-term funding source that is independent of future government finances, the CF would be a permanent source of capital to promote strategic Canadian private sector investment.
Neil is right that with PSP Investments, the federal government can do whatever it wants with the surpluses.
With our other large pension funds, it's trickier, members and provincial governments have to sign off on what to do with surpluses and they typically increase benefits and I doubt they will want to invest that money in a separate account to bolster the Canadian economy.
Also, I keep stating that all our governments need to create winning conditions to allow our large pension funds to invest large sums in our domestic infrastructure.
I sound like a broken record but that's where pension funds would get the biggest bang for their long duration buck but we are so far behind there compared to the UK, Australia and other countries, it's pathetic.
Lastly, read my last comment on how Canada's $2-trillion pension giants are struggling with Trump's policies.
The inclination is to divest out of the US into Canada but our large pension funds have to resist making impulsive decisions.
Policy uncertainty isn't a good thing but making rash decisions now can lead to terrible long-term outcomes.
A lot to digest here but it's really important to look at things objectively and realize our large pension funds already invest a lot in Canada and shouldn't be forced to invest more domestically or do anything else that can jeopardize their long-term success.
Below, Mohamed El-Erian, Allianz chief economic advisor and president of Queens' College, Cambridge, joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss President Trump's tariff agenda, impact of reciprocal tariffs, state of the economy, inflation concerns, and more.
Next, Ron Temple, Lazard chief market strategist, joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the latest market trends, impact of tariff uncertainty, where investors can find opportunities right now, and more.
Third, Mike Wilson, chief US equity strategist at Morgan Stanley, sees the possibility of reciprocal tariffs due this week from President Donald Trump pushing the S&P 500 below 5,500 in the short term, but is “not willing to throw in the towel yet on the full year” target.
Fourth, Julie Biel, Kayne Anderson Rudnick chief market strategist, joins 'The Exchange' to discuss market uncertainty and how to position from here and also mentions a Canadian company that will benefit from trade disruption.
Lastly, Oren Cass, chief economist at American Compass, who writes the “Understanding America” newsletter, sits down with Jon Stewart to discuss conservative economic policies of the New Right, which will be outlined in his forthcoming book, “The New Conservatives.”
Cass describes a conservative shift from faith in markets, using tariffs as incentives to pursue profit that supports society, how livable wages are the key to a strong economy, and the US’s ideal economic and security alliance that includes balanced trade, owning defense burdens, and keeping China out.
Recent comments