Potential investment manager for an Alberta pension plan—here are the facts

As discussions around Alberta’s potential withdrawal from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) continue, commentators have bombarded Albertans (and Canadians more generally) with sometimes misleading rhetoric, which can undermine the public’s understanding of this key issue. Albertans—and Canadians broadly—need facts to make well-informed decisions.

One key issue has been the potential investment manager for an Alberta pension plan. Specifically, commentators have implied that by leaving the CPP, Albertans retirement funds would no longer be managed by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) but rather by the Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo), which manages several public funds and pensions in the province.

This is not necessarily the case. The province has the option to retain the CPPIB as its investment manager, contract with AIMCo, create a new provider, or contract with the private sector. Put simply, an independent Albertan pension plan has options other than contracting with AIMCo.

But for argument’s sake, let’s assume AIMCo was chosen as the investment manager for an Alberta pension plan. There’s quite a bit of confusion regarding AIMCo that should be clarified. Perhaps most commonly, critics of AIMCo emphasize that the CPPIB has averaged 10 per cent annual returns over the past decade, higher than AIMCo’s 7.2 per cent.

While true, the CPPIB rate of return is distinct from the rate of return earned by contributors to the CPP. Put differently, an individual’s rate of return is not the same as the fund’s rate of return because of the way the CPP was originally designed. Some of the commentary written on this issue has implied that the lower rates of return at AIMCo would influence the benefits received by Alberta retirees. In fact, the retirement benefits Canadians receive from the CPP, and from a comparable Alberta pension plan, are based on several unrelated factors including how many years they’ve worked, their annual contributions and the age they retire. This is key since the CPP and a potential Alberta pension plan are largely based on current workers paying for current retirees, or what’s known as a pay-as-you-go system. Estimates suggest Canadian workers born in 1993 or later can expect a real rate of return of just 2.5 per cent from the CPP.

Given the pay-as-you-go nature of the plan, the key for the CPP, and one assumes for an independent Alberta pension plan, is that the fund earns a rate of return that allows for sustainable payments to retirees over time. The current required rate of return for the CPPIB is 6.0 per cent, which both it and AIMCo exceed.

Moreover, AIMCo, unlike the CPPIB, is constrained by the investment policies of each individual pension fund that it manages. Indeed, unlike the CPPIB, AIMCo is responsible for managing the funds of numerous pension plans, each with their own investment objectives, risk tolerances and asset mixes AIMCo must follow.

For instance, the Management Employees Pension Plan, one of AIMCo’s largest pension funds, requires that 20 per cent to 45 per cent of the market value of the plan’s assets be invested in “inflation sensitive” investments, which include real estate, renewable resources and other assets that may have lower returns compared to alternatives such as investments in private equity. These constraints can limit AIMCo’s overall rate of return, while the CPPIB, unencumbered by the investment policies of other pension funds, has the flexibility to invest according to its core objective, which is to maximize returns adjusted for risk. Put differently, Albertans could grant AIMCo the same flexibility—it all depends on the investment policy implemented if an Alberta pension plan were created.

Finally, opponents also argue that the CPPIB fund’s size (more than $575 billion) makes it superior to any potential provincial fund. Yet the evidence suggests that despite its size, the CPP is not a low-cost pension plan. In fact, according to an analysis by Philip Cross, former chief analyst at Statistics Canada, the CPP’s cost at 1.07 per cent of assets was higher than the other analyzed pension plans, which ranged from 0.34 per cent to 1.02 per cent. And the CPP’s costs have skyrocketed from $4 million in 2000 to 4.4. billion annually, largely due to an increase in staff and compensation. For perspective, the CPPIB had only five employees in 2000; by 2020 it employed nearly 2,000 people. And critically, these changes have not increased the fund’s net returns.

Ultimately, it will be up to Albertans to decide if they want to opt out of the CPP for an Alberta pension plan, but to make that decision, they must be armed with facts. That includes clarifying some misunderstanding on two potential investment managers—CPPIB and AIMCo.

Related Topics:#AIMCo #AlbertaPensionPlan #CanadaPensionPlan #CanadianPensionPlanInvestmentBoard #CPPIB #FraserInstitute feature

Up Next

Alberta’s Covid-19 Report clearly shows the way

Don't Miss

Danielle Smith partnering with Elon Musk’s Starlink to bypass federal internet censorship laws

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

With no will for political union, Canada should consider economic union with the U.S.

Business / 18 hours ago

Canadians should understand costs of Ottawa’s Emissions Reduction Plan

Alberta / 18 hours ago

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to consider halting COVID vaccines for healthy children

Alberta

Alberta government should rely on dividends—not ‘political will’—to grow Heritage Fund

Published on February 1, 2025

Duane Rolheiser

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The Smith government on Wednesday released its plan to grow Alberta’s Heritage Fund to at least $250 billion over the next 25 years, mainly by reinvesting all investment returns back into the fund. But even Smith recognizes her plan will “take political will over a long period of time.” Of course, political will is subjective and can change from government to government. If Smith wants to establish a sustainable plan to grow the Heritage Fund, it should pay dividends to Albertans.

First, some quick history. When the Alberta government created the Heritage Fund in 1976, it established a rule that the government must deposit 30 per cent of resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) into the fund annually. That quickly fell to 15 per cent by 1982/83, and after an oil price collapse the government eliminated the requirement in 1986/87. Since then, governments have routinely failed to make deposits into the fund, the fund’s value (after accounting for inflation) has eroded over time, and governments have spent nearly all of the fund’s earnings. Consequently, this fiscal year the fund will be worth less than $26 billion.

In other words, political will hasn’t been a successful strategy in growing the Heritage Fund.

Which brings us back to dividends. Here’s where Alberta can learn from Alaska. Alaska’s resource revenue savings fund (the Permanent Fund) was also created in 1976, but is now worth about US$80 billion (roughly CA$115 billion). What does the Alaska government do differently?

While various rules contribute to the fund’s success, the dividend rule is arguably the most critical. The Alaskan government pays a share of the fund’s earnings to Alaskan citizens via a dividend each year. Crucially, this gives citizens an ownership share in the fund. And therein lies the political will for governments to responsibly grow and maintain the fund. Any government that tried to use the fund for irresponsible purposes (e.g. raid the fund to spend money elsewhere) would likely face the wrath of Alaskan voters, given their understandable attachment to the dividend cheques.

Indeed, while the Alaskan government can reduce or eliminate the annual dividend, it has consistently allocated funds to the dividend for more than 40 years, even though this reduces the amount of money available for government spending. Overall, the fund has paid out more than US$30 billion to Alaskan citizens via dividends. Last year, each Alaskan received US$1,702.

According to its plan released on Wednesday, the Smith government will rely on “political will” to grow the Heritage Fund. But that’s not a recipe for success. Instead, the Smith government should learn from Alaska’s success and start paying dividends to Albertans who will provide the political pressure necessary to grow the fund over the long term.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to consider halting COVID vaccines for healthy children

Published on February 1, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said she will consider the findings of a report she commissioned that called for halting COVID shots for healthy children and teenagers, admitting there are questions about the “efficacy” of the jab in kids.

“I was pleased to see that we had a broad cross-section of doctors able to look at our previous COVID response, identify processes that were in place, identify things that may have gone wrong,” Smith said [24:50 min mark] while speaking to reporters on January 29.

Smith was responding to a question in response to the Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Data Review Task Force’s “COVID Pandemic Response” 269-page final report released last week.

She said she is looking to “identify things that are now under question, like the efficacy of masks and the efficacy of this vaccine in children.”

Smith added that her government is “going to take a look at” the report’s findings and “obviously we’ll, we’ll make some decisions about whether to move forward on any of the recommendations.”

The report was commissioned by Smtih last year, giving the task force a sweeping mandate to investigate her predecessor’s COVID-era mandates and policies.

The task force’s final report was released last week. It recommended halting “the use of COVID-19 vaccines without full disclosure of their potential risks” as well as outright ending their use “for healthy children and teenagers as other jurisdictions have done,” mentioning countries like “Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the U.K.”

Among the recommendations of the task force was the call to “(f)urther research to establish the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines is necessary before widespread use in adults and children,” the establishment of “a website and/or call-in center for the vaccine injured in Alberta” as well as establishing a “mechanism for opting out of federal health policy until provincial due process has been satisfied.”

The report also noted that “(c)hildren and teenagers have a very low risk of serious illness from COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccines were not designed to halt transmission and there is a lack of reliable data showing that the vaccines protect children from severe COVID-19.”

Smith: Doctors’ right to ‘speak their mind’ must be protected

While answering reporters’ questions on January 29, Smith also said the doctors in the province need to be able to “speak their minds without punishment from their colleges.”

“I think that’s going to be important too, otherwise, politicians only bad decisions,” she noted.

The report touched on how many doctors in Alberta who gave opposing views to the mainstream narrative regarding COVID jabs, masks, and the use of alternatives to treat the virus were wrongly vilified.

Smith mentioned that the point of the report was to find out what went wrong during COVID and to not repeat the same mistakes should there be another pandemic.

LifeSiteNews has published an extensive amount of research on the dangers of the experimental COVID mRNA jabs that include heart damage and blood clots.

The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children and all have connections to cell lines derived from aborted babies.

After becoming premier in late 2022, Smith promptly fired the province’s top doctor, Deena Hinshaw, and the entire AHS board of directors, all of whom oversaw the implementation of COVID mandates.

Under predecessor Jason Kenney, thousands of nurses, doctors, and other healthcare and government workers lost their jobs for choosing to not get the jabs, leading Smith to say – only minutes after being sworn in – that over the past year the “unvaccinated” were the “most discriminated against” group of people in her lifetime.