Countries 2023

Brazil ranked 13th globally overall with an overall average country score of 43. The range of overall scores across funds was fairly narrow: from 30 to 56. Brazil scored in the bottom quartile of countries on three factors: governance and organisation, performance and responsible investing. In contrast, cost disclosures were relatively good and Brazil ranked in the top half of country scores.

Cost

Brazil ranked 8th globally with a factor score of 49. Individual scores ranged from a low of 40 to a high of 58. Scores have fallen overall since last year and declined at four of the five funds reviewed. These changes were primarily driven by poorer disclosures of member service costs and funding information, as well as less detailed external management fee discussions. Despite the decline, disclosure of member service scores remained strong, the 5th best among countries reviewed. Disclosures at the total fund level were also strong.

Governance

The Brazilian funds did not do well on this factor with an average overall score of 51 and a global ranking of 13th. While the overall score was a slight improvement on last year, Brazil’s global rank fell one place. The range of scores increased slightly, with a low of 40 to a high of 60, reflecting improvements at some funds. Compensation, HR and organisational disclosures continued to be weak. Disclosures related to organisational strategy saw the largest year-on-year improvement and Brazil’s score in this regard is now close to the global average.

Performance

Performance disclosure for Brazilian funds were lacking relative to the other countries. Funds had an average score of 43, the lowest in the review. Individual fund scores ranged from 27 to 69, with only one of the five funds receiving a score above the average. Of the nine areas scored, Brazilian funds scored the lowest in two, and had no areas in which they excelled. Risk disclosures were notably lacking.

Responsible Investment

Despite an increase in the average funds score and more fulsome disclosures in all but two areas reviewed, Brazilian funds continue to rank 13th in the RI disclosures. Individual fund RI scores ranged from 3 to 46. Exclusion was the weakest component with only one fund providing disclosures in this area, however improvements were made within active ownership and ESG integration reporting. Despite improvements in many areas, scores trailed global averages in each area reviewed.

Examples

Canadian funds continued to have impressive public disclosures. They ranked 1st globally with an average total score of 74. By factor they ranked 1st in governance; 2nd in performance; 3rd in cost and 3rd in responsible investing.

Most of what was scored focused on ‘what’ was disclosed. Canadian funds also excelled on communication dimensions that were not scored. Their annual reports were well organised, cohesive and packed with important information for stakeholders. The narratives typically went beyond just ‘what we do’ to add insights about ‘how we do things’ and ‘why we do it this way’. They also realise that less can be more, making good use of infographics, summaries, pictures, charts and less text to add impact and keep readers engaged.

Cost

The average score for cost disclosure was 64 and scores for funds ranged from a low of 49 to a high of 81. Disclosures were consistently good for total fund level and for external manager fees. Asset class and transaction cost disclosures were inconsistent across the funds and scored low on average. Disclosures for external manager fees increased from last year from an already impressive base, unfortunately already spotty disclosures on transaction costs became even less prevalent.

Governance

The biggest Canadian public funds collectively have a global reputation for superior performance and governance excellence is often cited as a key driver (the Maple Model). The CEM benchmarking database provides empirical evidence that the Maple Model funds do indeed outperform over the long term. Building on last year’s first place performance, four of the five funds reviewed increased their governance disclosure year over year. Given the overall high scores last year, these improvements are best described as “completing the picture” and occurred across all areas of review.

Performance

The average score of 81 for Canadian funds marked a slight improvement in disclosures from last year. Funds continued to score consistently well across the various components with no areas seeing a reduction in score. Risk, asset mix and portfolio composition, as well as total fund return and value add disclosure were especially good. Canadian funds also typically provided clear and detailed disclosures of the basis for their return and valued added reporting. Returns were explicitly stated as time-weighted for the total fund and most asset classes and occasionally as IRR for private market asset classes. Total fund returns were consistently and explicitly stated as net of all investment costs and the cost basis for asset class returns was clear. Surprisingly, this level of detail for returns and value added was not universal. Return basis disclosures were often cryptic or non-existent. This makes understanding and comparing results across funds very difficult.

Responsible Investment

In last year’s review Canadian funds received their lowest relative score among the four factors in RI. A somewhat surprising result given that RI is most certainly a focus of many large Canadian funds. The Canadian funds partially addressed this in 2020 and improved their score from 58 to 70, the largest improvement in any factor. This improvement was apparent in all funds, but particularly among the couple that achieved lower scores last year and in areas that were lower scoring. Disclosures on RI governance as well as exclusion principles continued to be relative weak spots, but to a lesser extent. Four of the five Canadian funds achieved a score of 70 or higher this year as compared to only one last year.

Examples

Chile was one of two countries that saw its rankings improve by two places, moving from 14th place to 12th. The improvement in ranking was down to much improved cost disclosures where the Chilean AFP’s moved from being the 12th ranked country to 4th place, an impressive improvement. Governance disclosures also improved slightly, while performance and RI disclosures continued to be lacking. AFP websites were focused on engaging with members and attracting new business and were generally appealing. However, disclosures for many of the transparency elements in the benchmark were often missing or minimal, both on websites and in public documents like annual reports. Most AFPs are part of larger commercial organisations. Only disclosures specific to the AFPs themselves were scored. Disclosures of parent companies were not scored.

Cost

Chile ranked 4th globally with a cost factor score of 56. These results are in stark contrast with last year, where Chile ranked 12th. The spread is narrowly banded, with a low of 47 and a high of 63. The change in score is a result of improvements across all reviewed cost components, except for member service cost disclosures, which were materially similar. Notably, all AFPs have significantly improved both their asset class level disclosures as well as the completeness of their external management fee disclosures.

Governance

Overall, there was little year-over-year change in governance disclosures for the AFPs. Despite an increase in average score to 60, the global ranking of Chilean funds slipped to 10th, down one place from last year’s ranking. The range in scores was quite wide: from a low of 46 to a high of 72. Organisational strategy disclosures saw the largest improvement. In many cases it was necessary to review several different documents in order to find information. Information could be summarised in a more cohesive and useful format.

Performance

Unlike cost disclosures, performance disclosures were largely unchanged from last year’s review. An average score of 55 meant that Chilean AFPs continued to rank 13th globally. Disclosures of investment option returns and value added continued to uniformly complete and presented with great clarity. Much of this reporting was found on the regulator’s website. Disclosure of asset class performance and benchmarks as well as risk continued to be poor.

Responsible Investment

While disclosures in this area did improve somewhat from last year’s review, RI continued to be a weak spot for the Chilean AFPs. The average score was 11 and their global rank slipped one place to 15th. Scores were low for all RI components, though there were some minor improvements in areas such as impact investing and RI framework.

Example

Danish funds maintained their 5th place ranking in this year’s review with an average overall score of 60. The Danes did not perform well across all four factors however. Governance and RI factors continued to be bright spots, with the Danish funds ranking 4th overall in each component. Scores for cost discloses and particularly performance lagged their global peers.

Cost

Denmark ranked 9th globally in the cost factor with an average score of 45. Fund scores ranged from 20 to 65, a larger spread than last year, with the majority of the differential attributable to how prominently cost disclosures were featured and the completeness of external management costs. The Danish funds continue to score strongly in their member service disclosures but continue to fall short in detailed asset class and transaction cost level disclosures, though the asset class disclosures have improved slightly since last year.

Governance

The Danish funds continue to score well in this factor with an average score of 78, 4th highest globally. While the range of scores was fairly wide, from a low of 69 to a high of 93, overall funds scored consistently well in all areas except disclosures on board competencies and qualifications. Of particular note were much improved disclosures of organizational strategy, which are the most complete for the countries reviewed. The Danes continue to score well with their organizational and HR disclosures including details of internal headcount, diversity initiatives and board compensation.

Performance

Performance continued to be the weakest factor for the Danish funds, with an average country score of 56 and a global ranking of 12th. Overall we observed little change in disclosures in this area year-on-year with small improvements notes in several areas. Disclosures for total fund and asset class returns as well as benchmarks continued to be lacking or minimal. Disclosures on risk management policies and practices were excellent. Explanation of results were also good.

Responsible Investment

RI continued to be a relatively strong factor for the Danish funds, despite a drop in global rank from 3rd to 4th. The average score increased from 62 to 68 with improved disclosures observed at four of the five funds reviewed. Improvements were largest for funds that scored the lowest last year, which led to the tightening of the range of scores. The improvements largely came about due to funds releasing more documentation around active ownership policies and more detail around impact investments. All five funds received a perfect score an disclosure of exclusion policies. While RI governance scores did improve slightly, they are still low compared to other funds that score similarly on RI at the total level.

Examples

Cost

Finland ranked 14th globally in cost disclosures, with an average factor score of 27, maintaining last year’s ranking however improving slightly in score. None of the Finnish funds performed well and individual scores were close to each other, with a low of 21 and a high of 43. There were slight improvements in what is disclosed regarding reported external management fees and accounting methodologies. Disclosures of member service costs declined but continued to be the only area where the Finns scored better than the global average. Transaction cost disclosures continued to be nonexistent.

Governance

Scores within each area reviewed increased year-on-year resulting in the Finns ranking 6th in governance disclosures, up from 7th in last year’s review. Organisations scored very highly in governance structure and mission disclosures with an average score of 96, ranking 2nd overall in this area; three funds scored a perfect 100. There was generally little information on board competencies and qualifications, perhaps due to the multiple layers of governing bodies and the relatively large number of individuals in each layer. The organisational strategy disclosures improved considerably relative to last year, with the Finns now ranking 3rd in this area.

Performance

The performance disclosures of the Finnish funds continued to be solid if unspectacular. Despite a slight drop in the average fund score to 62, their relative position moved up one place to 6th among the countries reviewed. Disclosures of fund solvency, member service and overall explanations of results continued to be areas of strength. Despite improvements, asset class level disclosures were still lacking, as were disclosures of benchmarks.

Responsible Investment

The Finnish funds continued to score well on this factor, improving their score from 59 to 67. Due to the fact RI disclosures improved in many countries, this increase in score was not enough to improve their 5th place ranking. The range of scores was again exceptionally wide from a low of 14 to a high of 88. Three funds scored very well and were among the top five scoring funds in the world. Improvements in scores were found across all areas but improvements in active ownership and ESG integration disclosures stood out.

Examples

The annual reports and other documents produced by the Finnish organisations were generally very readable, succinct and well organised with effective use of graphics. Four of the five funds comply with the Global Reporting Initiative which makes finding information, particularly around responsible investing, quite easy.

The overall ranking of the Japanese funds dropped from 13th in last year’s review to 14th. This betrays the fact that we saw improved disclosures in three of the four components and three of the five funds. Disclosures on fund performance, while still the strongest area for the Japanese funds saw a decline in completeness relative to last year.

Cost

The Japanese funds continued to rank 13th globally with an average score of 36. Individual scores ranged from a low of 26 to a high of 54. Disclosures of external management fees was the area in which the Japanese funds received their highest score, albeit still below the global average. Last year we observed no disclosures for either member service costs or transaction costs. One fund disclosed transactions costs in our most recent review.

Governance

We observed improvements in all areas of governance disclosures from last year’s review. Unfortunately, given the low starting point, the average score of 46 continued to be the second lowest of the countries reviewed. Despite improvements, disclosures related to compensation, HR and organisation were particularly poor, with two funds scoring zero in this section. We were heartened to see the improved results, although further improvements will be required for the Japanese funds to improve their overall ranking.

Performance

Performance continued to be the area in which the disclosures of Japanese funds were most complete. Unfortunately, disclosures this year were less comprehensive overall and Japan’s rank dropped four spots to 11th with a score of 56. One positive was that return and benchmark disclosures were clear. Disclosure of benchmarks in particular were good, in some cases disclosed at the mandate level. 

Responsible Investment

Japanese funds scored an average of 23 on responsible investing with a global rank of 12, a slight improvement in score but the same ranking. There was wide disparity in the fund scores, from a low of nil to a high of 67. Two funds made disclosures related to RI governance where none did last year. Disclosure of active ownership policies were the strongest component, however given the overall low score, all components scored below the global average. Disclosures relating to impact investing were particularly low with 4 out of the 5 funds scoring nil.

Example

Several of the Japanese funds showed very detailed performance and value added information at the manager/mandate level, one fund even showed this information for 1, 3 and 5 year periods. These disclosures allow stakeholders to see exactly which managers have successfully beaten their benchmarks and added value, as well as those managers which have not been as successful.

Cost

Dutch funds continue to be global leaders in cost disclosures, ranked 1st globally with a score of 77. Individual scores were narrowly banded, with a low of 71 and a high of 89. Much of this positive showing is the result of strict cost disclosure recommendations promulgated by the Pensioenefederatie. However, while these guidelines from their regulatory authority drive much of what is disclosed, how it was disclosed was also commendable; independent from the content, the reporting and disclosures were clear and of high communication quality. Transaction cost reporting remains one of the Netherland’s strengths relative to the global universe. Relative to last year, member service and asset class cost disclosures improved, the positive impact of which was offset by lower scores for total fund cost disclosures.

Governance

With an average score of 66 and a global rank of 8th, the same ranking as last year, governance continued to be the weakest factor for Dutch funds. All of the individual fund scores increased year over year and ranged from a low of 54 to a high of 78. Despite very robust governance structures, few Dutch funds disclosed much information on either board member skills and competencies or actual board activities or meeting attendance. Disclosures on compensations, HR and organisation were also quite limited. Organisational strategy was disclosed relatively well with Dutch funds ranking 5th globally.

Performance

Performance disclosures saw little change year over year. While the average score declined slightly to 65, Dutch funds now rank 5th globally, an improvement from last year’s 6th place ranking. Scores were tightly banded with a low of 59 and high of 73. Explanation of results were excellent, as were disclosures of risk practices and funded status. Asset class level disclosures were spotty and disclosures of benchmarks were only observed at one of the five funds.

Responsible Investment

Dutch funds continued their excellent showing in RI disclosures with an average score of 77, good enough to move up to 1st place globally. Individual fund scores again ranged in a narrow band from a low of 62 to a high of 83. Scores in each component measured exceeded global averages. The weakest RI component area was RI governance disclosures. RI implementation was a clear area of strength: disclosures related to exclusion policies, active ownership and impact investing disclosures remain consistently high.

Examples

Norway had an average country score of 55, a small improvement from last year. As a result, Norway’s global ranking improved from 11th to 9th. Individual fund scores ranged very widely, from a low of 39 to a high of 75. A similarly wide dispersion of results was recorded for all the factors. The total scores for each of the five funds reviewed improved year-on-year. Governance and cost continued to be the weakest factors however both factors, particularly governance, saw improvements. Responsible investing was an area of relative strength and where Norwegian funds ranked 7th globally.

Cost

Norway maintained its 10th place ranking globally with a score of 44. Individual scores ranged widely, from a low of 19 to a high of 78. This range was even wider than that observed in last year’s review with the highest scoring fund improving its disclosures and the lowest ranking funds regressing slightly. No areas of disclosure stood out. Asset class level disclosures were the only area where the Norwegian funds scored better that the average fund globally. Scores in each other area were below global averages, with most commensurate with their 10th place overall ranking.

Governance

The Norwegian funds ranked 9th in governance disclosures with an average country score of 65, a slight improvement from last year’s ranking. The range of scores was wide, with a low of 35 to a high of 83, but more positively the scores of each of the five funds improved year-on-year. Average scores in each factor also improved from last year. With the exception of one fund, disclosures of compensation, human resource and organisational items was quite strong. Disclosures of governance structure improved the most from last year. Despite improvements, disclosures of board competency and qualification continued to be generally lacking.

Performance

Disclosures of performance by the Norwegian funds continued to be a mixed bag. Their global ranking stayed 9th overall, but the average score declined slightly to 58. The range of scores was fairly wide with the highest scoring fund receiving a score of 82, the lowest scoring fund 34. Asset class level disclosures were the only area of relative strength. Risk disclosures, a high point in last year’s review were less fulsome this year.

Responsible Investment

Norway improved on its score slightly this year, moving from a 56 to a 59. This placed them near the middle of the pack once again with a global ranking of 7th. Similar to other factors, there was a wide range in scores from a low of 38 to a high of 79. Scores for the Norwegian funds exceeded global averages in most components reviewed. Most of the improvement in scoring was due to the increased disclosure on impact investing. Disclosures on ESG integration and impact investing continued to lag other global funds.

Examples

Cost

The South African funds ranked 12th globally with a score of 42, a drop from last year’s 9th place position in this factor. Individual fund scores ranged from 36 to 51. In line with last year, total fund cost disclosures and the completeness of external management fees are relative strengths. Asset class level costs and transaction costs were areas of particular weakness relative to the global universe.

Governance

Despite an average score that increased from 62 last year to 68 in this year’s review, South Africa’s rank for governance disclosures remained at 7th place. The range was quite wide: from a low of 49 to a high of 84. Disclosures related to governance structure and mission were very good, as were organisational strategy disclosures. Disclosures for compensation and HR were weaker. For most funds, disclosures related to board competencies and composition as well as organisational strategy are significantly improved compared to last year.

Performance

Despite a small drop in overall score, now 62, the South African funds moved up one place to 7th globally in performance disclosures. Scores showed only a modest range, from a low of 55 to a high of 79; four of the five funds scored between 55 and 59. Total fund performance disclosures were good, asset class level disclosures less so, albeit improved from last year. Apart from risk disclosures, which trailed global peers, disclosures in other areas were largely in line with global averages.

Responsible Investment

Like most countries, the RI disclosures of South African funds improved from last year while their 9th place ranking was maintained. Individual fund scores showed wide variation, from a low of 17 to a high of 67. The South African funds acquitted themselves well in most areas reviewed. The weakest area overall was exclusion. The largest increase was seen in impact investing as a result of one fund that began disclosing in this area reflecting the initiation of investments in sustainable development projects.

Examples

Cost

Sweden maintained their 5th place global ranking with a score of 54. Scores continued to be widely dispersed, from a low of 35 to a high of 66. Total fund level cost disclosures continue to be a strength of the Swedish funds and to a lesser extent, asset class level and external manager fee disclosures. Member service and transaction cost disclosures were poorer than the global average.

Governance

The Swedish organisations did quite well on this factor with an average score of 81, good enough for a global ranking of third. The range of scores was tight: from a low of 77 to a high of 87. Disclosures in all four areas of our governance review improved over last year as did the scores of four of the five funds. The Swedish organisations performed relatively well in all area of our governance review, ranking 6th or higher in each area.

Performance

Despite a slight increase in score, Swedish funds dropped one place to 4th globally with an average score of 71. Scores were again tightly bunched, ranging from a low of 67 to a high of 75. Asset mix and portfolio construction disclosures were second globally. Risk disclosures were also very well done. Fund level disclosures were quite good, asset class level disclosures less so. Explanation of results saw the biggest year over year improvement.

Responsible Investment

Despite their average score increasing from 74 to 76, the Swedish funds lost their first place position to funds in the Netherlands, who has an average score of 77. The range of individual fund scores are again quite narrow, ranging from 67 to 88. The Swedes were particularly good at providing information on their RI framework and reporting as well as their active ownership policies. Improvements were also made in the disclosures on ESG integration, which continues to be the Swedes weakest component. All funds followed the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines, making it easier to find information.

Examples

The annual reports and other documents produced by the Swedish funds were generally very readable, succinct and well organised with effective use of graphics. All five funds comply with the Global Reporting Initiative which makes finding information, particularly around responsible investing, quite easy.

Swiss funds ranked 11th globally with an average country score of 53. The range of fund scores was quite wide, ranging from a low of 44 to a high of 68. It was nice to see the scores of all five funds increase from last year’s review, even if some improvements were very marginal. Average scores for each factor also improved. Governance and responsible investing continued to be areas of relative weakness. The improvement in cost disclosures mean that this Swiss funds are now ranked 2nd globally in this factor.

Cost

Switzerland ranked 2nd globally with a cost factor score of 65, both an improvement over last year. The range of scores decreased compared to last year, with a low of 57 and a high of 79, reflecting material improvements in the disclosures of the fund that had the lowest score last year. Swiss funds continue to outperform across most components except for asset class level disclosures, where they slightly lag the global universe. The completeness of external management fee disclosures saw the biggest improvement. One fund that previously did not disclose this information now does, and did so this year.

Governance

This was the weakest factor for the Swiss funds. The country average score was 54, ranking 12th globally. The range of scores was particularly wide: from a low of 30 to a high of 82. The two public sector funds, scored much better than the three corporate pension entities which was consistent with what we saw in other countries. Scores related to board competencies and qualifications, though marginally better than last year, continued to be especially weak – two funds received a score of zero and a third only marginally better. Disclosures on organisational strategy were also weak, particularly among the corporate pension entities, ranking last globally.

Performance

Despite little change to the average score at 61, tight bunching of scores meant that the global rank of the Swiss funds increased from 11th to 8th in this factor. Disclosures or risk management practices and explanations of results were highlights. Disclosures of benchmarks and value add, a notably positive area last year regrettably regressed, although the Swiss still exceed global averages in this area.

Responsible Investment

The average score of Swiss funds improved from 29 to 40 this year. Due to improvements in most countries’ disclosures there was no change in the global rank of 11th. All Swiss funds saw an improvement in their RI from last year’s review. We also observed improvements in each area scored. The biggest improvements were seen in disclosures of exclusion policies and RI framework and reporting. Despite the improvements it is only in disclosure of active ownership and exclusion policies that the Swiss exceed the global average.

Example

The UK continued to rank 6th globally and was in the top half of scores in three of the four factors. The range of scores across the organisations was fairly narrow, from a low of 48 to a high of 70. That the UK scored as well as it did when three of the five funds scored were corporate pension funds is testament to the robust governance and disclosure standards of corporate pension schemes in the UK. The UK funds had good disclosures in many areas without excelling in any specific topic. It was great to see the scores of all five funds increase year over year, even if the improvements were minimal.

Cost

The UK ranked 6th globally with an average score of 53 and improvement of last year’s 7th place ranking. Individual scores were very dispersed, with a low of 32 and a high of 74. Partially driven by the disclosure requirements in the UK, transaction cost disclosures were a relative strength of the country relative to the universe. The positive impact of better asset class disclosures was partly offset by poorer member service cost disclosures.

Governance

The UK funds did quite well on this factor with an average score of 73, ranking them 5th globally, the highest ranking of the four factors. The range of scores was quite wide: from a low of 57 to a high of 90. The story here is not the corporate funds did poorly but rather the public funds scored quite well. The two public funds are ranked in the top quartile globally. Year over year, the scores of all five funds improved as did the average score in each of the four components scored. Disclosure on board competencies and qualifications continues to be a strength, earning the third highest score globally with one fund receiving the 2nd highest score in this area.

Performance

The average performance factor score was 57 and the range in scores was fairly narrow, from a low of 52 to a high of 66. The UK maintained its ranking of 10th globally, the country’s lowest relative score. In most areas, the UK funds scored slightly below global averages. The two areas in which the UK funds exceeded the global average were total fund performance disclosures and disclosure and quality of benchmarks. Unfortunately, these areas were offset by a near complete lack of asset class level performance disclosures.

Responsible Investment

The UK funds scored an average of 60 on responsible investing with a global ranking of 6th, the same as last year. There was no change in rank despite significantly improved results compared to last year when the average score was 47. The range in individual scores was quite high, from a low of 33 to a high of 75. The scores of all five funds increased as did the average scores in all but one area. The increase in the overall RI score is mainly driven by score increased disclosure of impact investing and active ownership policies, both now scoring better than the global average.

Examples

Although not much to look at, the Annual Report and Accounts that pension schemes in the UK are required to produce do contain a lot of good information on a wide range of issues. More complete in many ways than the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports that US public sector systems are required to produce, they are much more condensed and user friendly. Were it not for these documents, the UK’s global rank would have undoubtedly been much lower. It is unknown what other jurisdictions require this level of disclosure for corporate pension plans.

Disclosures of American public pension funds are heavily influenced by GASB standards and the disclosures required as part of their Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (ACFR’s). The higher scoring funds supplement information in their ACFR’s through their websites. Like the ACFR’s though the information could be better organised. American systems scored first overall in performance disclosures but did less well in other areas, 10th in responsible investing, 11th for cost, and 11th for governance disclosures. Their overall score was 54, an improvement over last year and now equal to the global average. The range of scores was from a joint low of 35 to a high of 72.

Cost

American funds ranked 11th with an average score of 43. Individual scores varied significantly, with a low of 4 to a high of 68. The average score has improved slightly compared to last year, led by two funds who have revamped their disclosures and provided more fulsome discussion of costs. However, the standardized financial reports from the US funds generally did not provide much salient cost information. Total fund cost disclosures and transaction cost disclosures remain a weakness relative to the global universe.

Governance

The American funds scored poorly on governance disclosures with an average score of 54. Scores were up slightly year over year, and their position in the global ranking improved one placing to 11th. The range of scores was wide: from a low of 35 to a high of 71. While two funds made improvements to their disclosures in the area of compensation, HR and organisation, this area continued to be an issue. The US funds were reticent to disclose actual compensation for board and management. The US was one of three countries where no disclosures were made of individual board member compensation and similarly, one of five countries with no disclosure of management compensation. Even for higher scoring funds, it was often necessary to refer to several documents and/or web pages to find all relevant information.

Performance

The American organisations held on to their first place ranking in this factor. The average score increased slightly to 84 and the disclosures of three of the funds were more complete than last year. The top three fund scores in cost belonged to US funds. While there was a lot of information disclosed across all components, it was not always done in the most cohesive and convenient manner. Unfortunately, it was often necessary to refer to several documents and/or web pages to find all relevant information. 

Responsible Investment

This continued to be a weak factor for the American organisations. The global rank of 10th  was maintained with an average score of 43. There was a wide disparity in the scores, from a low of nil to a quite respectable 71. Disclosure of active ownership policies was the highest scoring area, both nominally and relatively, having seen the highest increase in score year on year. Consistent with last year, disclosure of exclusion policies remained the weakest for US funds with all but one fund silent in this regard.

Example

The performance disclosures required under GASB as part of the CAFRs resulted in a wealth of performance information being disclosed. We would have liked the information to be have been better organised. It is unfortunate that more governance, cost and responsible investing disclosures are not required by the GASB.