NEWS

What to consider if there is a U.S. China divestment mandate?

By Muskan Arora

States around the US, are taking the initiative to divest from China and prohibiting pension plans from making new allocations.

However, in a surprising turn of events, the second-time-President Donald Trump held off on imposing tariffs on China during his first day back and did not single the country out as a threat. Furthermore, he also delayed the ban on the Chinese-owned short video app TikTok. This might be indicative of a new beginning.

While that still remains a question, multiplepension plans chimed in to divest from China last year.

At the January 10th investment meeting of $23.15 North Dakota Retirement and Investment Office, the CIO and staff, discussed their China exposure, how the portfolios are structured, how they might be structured in the future and what the impact of any China divestment mandates might be.

In 2023, pensions plan in Florida, Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma divested from China after governors of the state raised concerns.


Please Click Here for More Information


“Governor Greg Abbott of Texas sent a letter to state agencies prohibiting them from making any new investments of public funds in China and directing them to divest their current holdings at the first available opportunity,” as stated in the North Dakota meeting materials.

Kansas received a countries of concerns divestment bill which stated divestments from China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela within two years.

However, due to the size of the Chinese economy, its exposure to the markets and its prominence in the indexes, it is difficult as a fiduciary to exclude China from the portfolio if there is no directive from U.S. Treasury or legislation.

Further, if there is a China mandate in place – it would need to specify the regions and would have to allow plans time to divest to minimize transaction cost impact.

“Without grandfathering of existing private markets China investments, there would be a high cost of exit even for portfolios that have a very small exposure,” stated the meeting materials.

This led most pension plans to begin considering different options to manage their international portfolios.

Two main options highlighted by North Dakota include Separately Managed Accounts (SMAs) and a Fund of One platform.

Through SMAs, the system uses indexed and Global Depository Receipts (GDRs) to gain exposure to markets that have not been yet opened. This approach would allow the system to have direct custody of assets, a cheaper option, and it can be implemented immediately.

However, SMAs would limit market access and limit strategies which can impact returns, and it also takes time to open markets.

The Fund of One platform would allow the pension plan to identify a third-party vendor, which would help with a faster access to the market and potential to offset some costs including fee negotiations.

However, this approach would also mean an additional fee to the third-party vendor, additional administrative and operational fee along with complex/less direct control.