Innes Ferré of Yahoo Finance reports on 'the dark side of AI', Wall Street weighs recent stock sell-off over disruption fears:

The stock market just got a look at how disruptive investor concerns over AI could become across multiple industries.

What began as a shake-up in software stocks spread to the wealth management, transportation, and logistics industries last week, raising questions about just how deeply AI could transform not only tech but also high-fee service businesses.

The S&P 500 (^GSPC) and Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC) both ended the week down more than 1% as Financial Services (XLF), Consumer Discretionary (XLY), and tech stocks sold off on AI concerns. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI) was down 1.2% for the week, while the Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC) dropped 2% and the S&P 500 (^GSPC) slipped 1.4%

"That's the dark side of AI," Innovator Capital Management chief investment strategist Tim Urbanowicz told Yahoo Finance. "We need to pay attention to that because I do think there's going to be other industries that are disrupted, and this is certainly a threat."

Shares of C.H. Robinson (CHRW) and Universal Logistics (ULH) closed out the week with losses of 11% and 9%, respectively, after a Florida-based company announced a new tool that would scale freight volumes without increasing headcount.

The sell-off echoed a drop in wealth management stocks like Charles Schwab (SCHW) and Raymond James (RJF), which fell 10% and 8%, respectively, for the week, after the launch of an AI-driven tax tool that allows advisers to customize strategies for clients. The tool raised fears that automation could put pressure on the industry's high advisory fees.

The "AI scare trade" has now spread across multiple industries, with software stocks getting hammered in recent weeks amid fears that AI will take over tasks traditionally handled by enterprise giants like Salesforce (CRM) and ServiceNow (NOW) and disrupt their revenue models.

The Tech-Software Sector ETF (IGV), which also includes heavyweights like Microsoft (MSFT) and Palantir (PLTR), is down 22% year to date.

Many on Wall Street consider the sell-off overdone.

"I don't necessarily think the bottom is in here," Urbanowicz said. "Margins are through the roof in this category of stocks. Those haven't come down yet, and valuations still are pretty elevated."

That said, Urbanowicz still sees a "very supportive backdrop" for stocks, forecasting the S&P 500 at 7,600 by the end of the year.

Part of that has to do with a supportive regulatory backdrop from the Trump administration, corporate tax incentives from the Big Beautiful Bill Act, and leadership in other sectors, like Energy (XLE), Consumer Staples (XLP), and Materials (XLB), which are all up double-digit percentages year to date, compared to Technology (XLK), down 2.5% during the same period.

Amanda Agati, chief investment officer of PNC Asset Management Group, recommends looking past the volatility and focusing on the broader theme.

"I think this is a short-term blip, and the fact that we're seeing pretty significant market breadth outside of these one-off names ... really gives me confidence that the rally is sustainable even though it's going to be a choppy year," Agati told Yahoo Finance.

UBS strategists recently said investors should look beyond tech as a way to navigate potential risks and fully capture the upside AI could bring across industries.

"We also believe companies that actively use AI to enhance operations and evolve their business models should benefit, especially those in the financials and health care sectors," Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi, CIO Americas and global head of equities at UBS Global Wealth Management, said in a recent note.

John Towfil of CNN also reports on why the 'AI scare trade' might not be done:

A sell-off rippled through software, real estate and trucking stocks this past week as investors worried artificial intelligence could upend some industries — and analysts say the white-knuckle drops might not be over yet.

Software stocks bore the initial brunt of AI disruption nerves. But those fears soon spread to insurance companies, brokerage firms, real estate services — even logistics and trucking.

“Market is in shoot first, ask questions later mode, with any names/sectors that could be impacted by AI disruption taking a hit,” Mohit Kumar, a strategist at Jefferies, said in a note.

The slump in shares points out a major change for investors going forward: AI, which had been powering big rallies in tech and other stocks for months, could now actually drag on some parts of the market.

Financial services

Shares of major insurance brokers fell on February 9 after Madrid-based startup Tuio unveiled a new insurance app built with ChatGPT, according to UBS.

That sparked fears that AI tools could eat into existing companies’ business models and customer bases. Shares of professional services and insurance companies sank. Marsh shares (MRSH) tumbled 7.5%. Arthur J. Gallagher shares (AJG) dropped 9.85%.

But Brian Meredith, an analyst at UBS, said in a note that he thinks the sell-off was “meaningfully overdone,” noting that insurance brokers remain “essential intermediaries” for household financial decisions, and it is unlikely AI will ultimately upend the industry.

On Tuesday, tech startup Altruist announced a new tax planning feature for Hazel, the company’s AI tool. That stoked fears that the specialized client services offered by brokerage and wealth management firms could face increased competition.

Charles Schwab (SCHW) shares dropped 7.42% Tuesday. Shares of financial services company LPL Financial (LPLA) and Raymond James (RJF) slumped 8.75% and 8.31%, respectively.

Real estate

Real estate services found themselves in the barrel on Wednesday and Thursday.

Cushman & Wakefield shares (CWK) tumbled 13.8% Wednesday and 11.5% Thursday. Shares of real estate service companies CBRE Group (CBRE) dropped 12.2% and 8.8% across the two days. Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) fell 12.5% and 7.6%. 

“We believe investors are scrutinizing high-fee, labor-intensive business models viewed as potentially vulnerable to AI-driven disruption,” Jade Rahmani, an analyst at Keefe, Bruette & Woods, said in a note.

And AI has the potential not just to compete with traditional real estate brokerages and agents, but to slash demand for office space in general, as AI executives predict their technology will eliminate swaths of the economy.

“If there are less office workers in the long run as a result of AI, there will be less demand for office space,” CBRE Group chief executive Bob Sulentic said on the company’s earnings call on Thursday morning. “That would be a long-term trend to unfold.” 

Logistics

The Dow Jones Transportation Average — an index of 20 companies in the transportation industry — sank 4% Thursday and had its worst day since April. 

The culprit was Algorhythm Holdings, which announced a new tool that could improve efficiency and better optimize the trucking business.

The reaction was swift: Shares of RXO (RXO), a freight company, plummeted 20.45% on Thursday. Shares of logistics company C.H. Robinson Worldwide (CHRW) dropped 14.54%.

“While perceptions of artificial intelligence are influencing recent market activity, C.H. Robinson has been a leader in AI for more than a decade and we believe AI will only continue to strengthen our performance and widen our competitive moat,” C.H. Robinson said in a statement.

Algorhym’s announcement was all the more surprising considering the company once specialized in selling karaoke machines before pivoting to become an AI and logistics company. 

“It’s perhaps indicative of the state of markets at the moment that a $6 million market cap company that until recently specialized in karaoke helped wipe tens of billions off logistics stocks to add to the weakness,” Jim Reid, global head of macro research at Deutsche Bank, said in a note.

Algorhythm shares (RIME) rose almost 30% last week.

Where do stocks go from here?

Angelo Kourkafas, senior global strategist at Edward Jones, told CNN that “fear of AI disruption” has been a dominant theme in markets over the past two weeks. But the ripples permeating the stock market right now are themselves based on hypothetical scenarios, he said.

Kourkafas said the fears are more “speculative in nature” rather than based on immediate, fundamental changes to companies’ revenue streams. 

“Yes, in the near term there could be fears of disruption across many different industries, but we know these companies are actively investigating ways to evolve and offer better platforms, products and services as a result of that,” Kourkafas said.

But Jonathan Krinsky, chief market technician at BTIG, said in a Thursday note that single-stock moves based on AI nerves are “getting more and more extreme.”

“At a certain point … we begin getting concerned that the weakness supersedes the strength and the broad market becomes vulnerable,” Krinsky wrote. 

And Crystal Kim of Investopedia reports investors are dealing with AI fears by 'shoting first, asking questions later':

• Companies in the financial sector were the latest casualty of perceived AI-disruption fears.
• While some fears may appear overblown, it doesn't help that AI impact has become more measurable recently, making those concerns easier to quantify.

This week it was financials. Last week it was software and legal services. Perhaps next week something else will be crushed by fears of AI disruption.

Investors appear to have pivoted from worrying about AI getting over its skis in valuation terms, to fretting about what it could displace—and selling it.

Between Anthropic's unveiling of an AI model the company said would be better at tasks including financial analysis, research, and work involving spreadsheets, and with tech platform Altruist launching an AI-powered tax planning tool, investors have panned shares of financial companies like Charles Schwab (SCHW) and LPL Financial (LPLA) this week. The SPDR S&P Software & Services (XSW) and Financial Select Sector SPDR (XLF) ETFs are down 19% and 3%, year-to-date, respectively, while the benchmark index is in the green.

AI-related disruption, real or perceived, would appear to be entrenched in market vibes. That may, in part, be driven by the impact of the technology becoming more quantifiable. And it could be a source of indiscriminate selling going forward, with equity strategists saying "disruption-related volatility" is likely to be "recurring." 

In a broader swath of companies tracked by Morgan Stanley, 30% cited at least one measurable impact of AI adoption in the fourth quarter of last year, the firm's equity analysts wrote Wednesday.  That's up from 16% over the same period in 2024. That said, the perception of disruption has "unfairly" dinged companies, including those in the software and services sectors, the analysts said.

The firm listed a set of stocks that have been subsequently "mispriced"—including Microsoft (MSFT), Intuit (INTU), and Palo Alto Networks (PANW) as well as Sony Group (SONY), Tencent Holdings, and Spotify (SPOT). 

Analysts across various firms are picking through their respective coverage universes to find stocks that deserve to be rescued because even valid concerns may have landed too early and too roughly.

"While difficult to disprove the bear narrative in software given fears are more about genAI implications for the industry in the out years, we contend that any meaningful disruption will likely play out over a much longer timeline than investors anticipate," Deutsche Bank's Brad Zelnick said in a Wednesday note.

Meanwhile, Ed Yardeni of Yardeni Research, reaffirmed his "overweight" recommendation, effectively a bullish posture, for financial stocks, characterizing the recent decline in the sector as a "sell first, ask questions later" reaction.

Alright, Monday February 16th, President's Day in the US, Family Day in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick.

Most people are off today so it's a good time to tackle this "AI disruption fear" mania gripping investors and traders alike.  

I can sum it up like this: "The 'AI tsunami' has arrived, it will rip apart many industries, not just software, it will decimate everything in its path, capitalism as we know it is ending, be prepared for massive structural changes the likes of which you've never seen before, yada yada yada"

Complete and utter horsesh*t if you ask me but proponents of the AI disruption trade are pounding the table and truth is the market is definitely in a "shoot first, ask questions later" mode.

Well folks, the market isn't always right, it wasn't right heading into the GFC, it wasn't right about the pandemic destroying the world and in my humble opinion, it's not right about Saas-Pocalypse.

But Wall Street always needs a story, brokers gang up to hit stocks so they can turn around to sell them on the cheap to their long list of elite hedge fund clients and by the time the tide turns and everyone breathes a collective sigh of relief, it's over, the elite hedgies made off like bandits and everyone else is still too scared to jump back into the market.

Now, I can't state for sure the software selloff on Wall Street is overdone but it sure feels like that to me:

Below, look at the list of the worst-performing US large cap stocks year-to-date (full list here): 

It's mostly the sheer annihilation of software shares and the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater.

Next, check out the 5-year weekly chart of the iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF (IGV):

 And really dig deep into the top ten holdings of this ETF which make up 60% of the assets:

Also keep in mind many names like Snowflake and others I covered above don't appear on this list of the top ten:

I can go on and on but you get the picture, total destruction, multi-year lows, software is dead, long live hardware in the AI renaissance era.

Now, to be clear, the trader in me says stay away from this sector until things stabilize but I nibbled on IGV because I truly believe people are losing their marbles over this AI disruption trade and fears of a Saas-Pocaplyspe are way overblown.

I know, the speed at which AI is transforming the world is unparalleled and I have no idea of what is coming next.

No, I don't and neither do people who claim AI is taking over the world and hyperscalers are toast.

When I ask all my doctor friends if AI is taking over medicine like Elon Musk is warning of, they all tell me: "I wish he was right but it's the opposite, we have more work than ever, it's depressing."

Last night I wasted an hour going to put gas in my wife's car and waiting patiently to wash the exterior.

A whole goddamn hour which I used productively to watch Jordi Visser's latest weekly clip on how the Supersonic Tsunami Hits SaaS (embedded below).

Good clip, don't agree with a lot of his insights/ recommendations, think he's more interested in being right than making money but I always listen to his insights even if I don't agree with him (there is a lot of good stuff here worth noting).

Then I had a eureka moment: "If AI is taking over the world, where are the robots that fly to my house to put gas in the car and wash its exterior? Where are the robots taking over plumbers, electricians, landscapers and greedy contractors?"

Goddammit, AI isn't moving fast enough in areas that count!! -:) 

I'm being facetious, of course, I know AI is moving fast and will change the way we live, hopefully for the better, but there's SO MUCH AI BS out there that I just had to wrote this comment and tell people to cool down and don't be swept into the AI hysteria.

Are hyperscalers spending a ton of money to be AI leaders? Are they incurring massive debt? You bet and it will impact their buyback power but maybe they know something others don't and when this AI revolution begins and they start monetizing on it in a massive way, maybe they will be proven right.

Are there going to be winners and losers in AI? Absolutely, there always are winners and losers after every technological disruption. Jordi Visser brought up Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction" and it's happening as we speak.  

Still, this isn't gong to happen in a year, it will take ten years before we figure out how this AI disruption plays itself out. 

Again, do not get swept up by the AI hysteria, listen carefully to all views but always ask yourself "are they talking up their book or do they really know what's going on?"

On that note, watch the clips I embedded below and enjoy the rest of your Monday, I will cover top funds' Q1 activity on Friday as rest of week is reserved to pensions.

First, in this week's video, Jordi Visser breaks down why he thinks we are now in the midst of what Elon Musk called the "supersonic tsunami", and why the acceleration phase of AI is rewriting market structure in real time. "Over the past week, the disruption spread beyond SaaS into insurance brokers, wealth management platforms, commercial real estate services, and trucking stocks. 115 S&P 500 names fell at least 7% over a rolling 8-day window, many near 52-week highs, a dispersion pattern we haven't seen since the dot-com rotation in 2000."

Next, $285 billion in market capitalization. Vanished in a week. Capgemini -9%. Publicis -9.2%. Teleperformance -5.8%. And it's not a general crash, it's surgical. A single company triggered the movement. Anthropic has just launched a two-pronged offensive that changes the rules of the game: Cowork (an autonomous agent that works within your existing systems) and Opus 4.6 (the smartest model on the market). SaaS, IT services companies, consulting firms: all in the crosshairs (Feb 7th).

Third, Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks and David Friedberg jon the All-In podcast to discuss AI trends and whether thisis a debt spiral or new golden age.

Fourth, Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities says the recent software selloff is overblown. He says major players like Microsoft, Google, and Oracle will benefit from the ongoing AI infrastructure buildout and he sees many buying opportunities.

Fifth, Jonathan Golub of Seaport Research Partners says the tech basket of stocks is "incredibly attractive."

Lastly, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Portfolio Solutions CIO Jim Caron says the chance of the recent selloff in software-related stocks to create contagion is relatively low and it's a great time to be a stock picker instead of a passive investor.

James Bradshaw of the Globe and Mail reports CAAT puts CEO on leave, names new chair and vice-chair amid governance crisis:

The CAAT Pension Plan has placed chief executive officer Derek Dobson on administrative leave, installed an acting CEO and appointed a new chair and vice-chair to its board of trustees as a governance crisis at the $23-billion pension plan has spurred an overhaul of its leadership.

Mr. Dobson is being sidelined, effective immediately, after some of the plan’s top executives raised concerns about his conduct as well as oversight by CAAT’s board of trustees, setting off multiple investigations into possible governance failures.

Kevin Fahey, who was promoted to chief investment officer in late January, has been appointed as CAAT’s acting CEO and plan manager, CAAT said in a statement on Friday.

The pension plan also named trustee Audrey Wubbenhorst as its new board chair, and Janet Greenwood as vice-chair.

Previous board chair Don Smith was removed from his role earlier this month by the labour group that appointed him, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), days after The Globe and Mail reported that concerns about board oversight and decision-making had spurred investigations into the plan’s governance.

Kareen Stangherlin, the previous vice-chair, has resigned as a CAAT trustee, the pension plan said Friday.

“The CAAT board of trustees has determined that these changes are in the best interests of the plan and are necessary to restore stakeholder trust in CAAT’s leadership, governance and plan management,” Ms. Wubbenhorst said in a statement.

She added that Mr. Fahey is “a veteran CAAT executive” who has worked at the plan for more than 16 years and is well suited “to lead the organization through the current period of significant change.”

As recently as last week, a CAAT spokesperson said the pension plan’s board of trustees continued “to have confidence” in Mr. Dobson and his ability to lead the organization.

But CAAT’s board met on Wednesday evening, two sources said, setting in motion the latest changes to the pension plan’s leadership.

The Globe is not identifying the sources because they are not authorized to discuss internal matters.

CAAT is a multiemployer pension plan that serves Ontario’s colleges and more than 800 public- and private-sector employers. It has a total of about 125,000 members. The Globe has been a participating employer in CAAT since 2022.

Mr. Dobson had been CAAT’s CEO since 2009, and faced scrutiny over a $1.6-million vacation payment he received last year that was at odds with company policy, as well as the handling of a personal relationship he had been having with a CAAT employee for more than a year.

The vacation payout, made as compensation for unused time off, was the third such payment Mr. Dobson received over a period of several years, sources said. The board approved those payments despite internal guidelines that limit how much vacation time CAAT employees can carry over or have paid out.

CAAT’s board also allowed Mr. Dobson’s workplace relationship to continue, putting guardrails in place to try to prevent perceived conflicts of interest, but it remained a point of tension among the plan’s staff.

An external expert hired by CAAT in December has been conducting a governance review that is expected to be completed later in February.

“The governance-related issues subject to the review do not affect the Plan’s financial health or its ability to deliver secure, predictable pensions to members,” CAAT’s statement said.

The most recent financial disclosures for CAAT said the plan has a 124-per-cent funded status, meaning that it has $1.24 in assets for every dollar it expects to pay to members in pension benefits.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario – which oversees the province’s pension plans – has also been probing what took place at CAAT and speaking with employees in recent weeks, two sources said.

With Mr. Dobson on leave, nearly all of CAAT’s senior leadership team has changed or left the plan over the past four weeks, leaving a leadership void that must now be filled by a board that has also come under pressure.

It has been a jarring period for CAAT, as Mr. Dobson has been the public face of the plan through a period of ambitious expansion that brought employers from a number of different industries on board. Morale at the plan has taken a major hit as long-tenured, senior leaders departed with little explanation, four sources said.

“We have gone through a lot recently, and many CAATsters have been understandably upset by it all,” CAAT said in an internal e-mail to employees on Friday. “The board determined the best way to restore stability was through this change.”

The turmoil at CAAT first came to a head internally in November, when three of the pension plan’s top executives approached the board with a number of concerns about governance, urging trustees to investigate them, multiple sources said.

The internal tensions only spilled into public view in January when those three executives – chief investment officer Asif Haque, chief financial officer Mike Dawson and chief pension officer Evan Howard – abruptly left the plan on Jan. 19.

CAAT promoted Mr. Fahey to CIO and appointed Scott Blakey, who had only recently stepped down from CAAT’s board, as interim executive vice-president and chief people and culture officer. Chief strategy officer Jillian Kennedy remained in place. 

Matthew Sellers of HR Reporter also reports CAAT Pension Plan CEO put on leave as board launches governance overhaul:

CAAT Pension Plan has sidelined its long‑time CEO and reshuffled its board leadership as it navigates an ongoing governance review tied to a vacation payment made to the top executive.

The board of trustees confirmed that CEO and plan manager Derek Dobson has been placed on administrative leave, effective immediately, while it moves to “restore stakeholder trust in CAAT’s leadership, governance and plan management.”

To provide continuity, the board has elevated chief investment officer Kevin Fahey to acting CEO and plan manager. Fahey has spent more than 16 years with CAAT and has been a key figure in building the plan’s investment strategy.

CEO removed, CIO steps in at CAAT

In addition to his role at CAAT, Fahey sits on the investment committee for the Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, and has previously chaired both the Pension Investment Association of Canada and the Salvation Army of Canada’s Investment Advisory Committee. He holds a commerce degree from Queen’s University, an LL.B. from Osgoode Hall Law School and is a CFA charter holder.

Board chair Audrey Wubbenhorst said the leadership changes are intended to steady the organization through a sensitive period.

“The CAAT Board of Trustees has determined that these changes are in the best interests of the Plan and are necessary to restore stakeholder trust in CAAT’s leadership, governance and plan management. Kevin is a veteran CAAT executive with a strong track record of high performance and his extensive experience and institutional knowledge make him ideally suited to lead the organization through the current period of significant change.”

The recent exits follow other changes in CAAT’s leadership. The plan’s CHRO left in June 2024, and its senior vice‑president of technology and IT services management as well as its head of policy and government relations departed earlier this year, according to the Globe.

Julie Giraldi was CHRO at CAAT from 2020 to 2025, according to her LinkedIn profile

New chair and vice‑chair take the helm

The governance shakeup extends beyond the CEO’s office. Wubbenhorst, an employee‑appointed trustee since 2023 and co‑chair of the finance and administration committee, has been named chair of the board, succeeding Don Smith.

Wubbenhorst is a communications faculty member at Humber Polytechnic and previously spent more than a decade at BMO Bank of Montreal in HR, communications and commercial banking. She has also served as a school trustee and on multiple boards, including Humber Polytechnic, Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Holland Bloorview Hospital’s Research Ethics Board and CNIB Lake Joe’s Advisory Board. She holds an MA, an MBA and the ICD.D designation.

Employer‑appointed trustee Janet Greenwood, who joined the board in 2023, steps into the vice‑chair role following the resignation of former vice‑chair and trustee Kareen Stangherlin.

Governance review tied to CEO’s vacation pay

The leadership changes come as CAAT’s board oversees an independent review of its governance policies, procedures and practices. The review was initiated after concerns surfaced over a vacation payment involving the CEO.

The board has emphasized that the governance issues under examination are not related to the plan’s funding strength or its ability to pay benefits, and says it expects the external review to wrap up later in February.

“Good governance is the backbone of a pension plan’s stability and strength, and the foundation for trust between the plan and its sponsors, members and all other stakeholders,” said Wubbenhorst. “The Board will carefully consider findings and recommendations of the independent review and remains focused as always on strengthening Plan governance to ensure it aligns with industry best practices.”

Financial position remains robust, says CAAT

Despite the turmoil at the top, CAAT is underscoring that its financial footing remains solid. Recent independent valuations show the plan 124 per cent funded on a going‑concern basis, meaning it holds $1.24 in assets for every dollar of pension promised to members. With more than $23 billion in assets and over $6 billion in funding reserves, stress testing indicates a greater than 99 per cent probability the plan will stay fully funded over the next two decades.

Founded in 1967 to serve Ontario’s college system, the CAAT Pension Plan has since expanded to more than 800 participating employers across 20 industries in the for‑profit, non‑profit and broader public sectors, and now counts over 125,000 members.

As the governance review proceeds and the new leadership team settles in, the board says its priority is maintaining benefit security for members while reinforcing confidence in how the plan is overseen.

Earlier today, CAAT issued a statement stating the CEO has been placed on leave and new acting CEO and new Chair and Vice Chair have been appointed:

• Derek Dobson placed on administrative leave effective immediately
• Kevin Fahey, current Chief Investment Officer, appointed as acting CEO and Plan Manager
• Audrey Wubbenhorst and Janet Greenwood appointed Chair and Vice Chair, respectively

Toronto, February 13, 2026 – The Board of Trustees of the CAAT Pension Plan (“CAAT” or “the Plan”) today announced the appointment of a new acting Chief Executive Officer and Plan Manager, and that Derek Dobson has been placed on administrative leave. CAAT also announced it has appointed a new Chair and Vice Chair of its Board of Trustees.

Mr. Dobson’s administrative leave is effective immediately, and Kevin Fahey, who most recently served as CAAT’s Chief Investment Officer and has spent more than 16 years at the Plan, has been appointed as acting CEO to ensure CAAT remains focused on executing its strategy and serving its sponsors and members.

Audrey Wubbenhorst has been appointed as Chair. Ms. Wubbenhorst succeeds Don Smith. Janet Greenwood has been appointed as Vice-Chair, replacing Kareen Stangherlin, who was Vice-Chair and who has resigned as a CAAT trustee.

Speaking about Mr. Fahey’s appointment, Ms. Wubbenhorst said: “The CAAT Board of Trustees has determined that these changes are in the best interests of the Plan and are necessary to restore stakeholder trust in CAAT’s leadership, governance and plan management. Kevin is a veteran CAAT executive with a strong track record of high performance and his extensive experience and institutional knowledge make him ideally suited to lead the organization through the current period of significant change.”

In addition to his service at CAAT, Mr. Fahey sits on the Investment Committee for Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador. Previously, he was the Chair of the Pension Investment Association of Canada and also chaired the Salvation Army of Canada’s Investment Advisory Committee. Mr. Fahey holds a BCom from Queen’s University, an LL.B from Osgoode Hall Law School at York University and is a CFA Charterholder.

Ms. Wubbenhorst has been an employee-appointed Trustee since 2023 and is Co-Chair of the Finance and Administration Committee. Ms. Wubbenhorst is a faculty member at Humber Polytechnic where she teaches communications. Prior to joining Humber, she worked for more than a dozen years at BMO Bank of Montreal in human resources, communications and commercial banking.  She has also served as a school trustee and on several boards including Humber Polytechnic, Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Holland Bloorview Hospital's Research Ethics Board and CNIB Lake Joe's Advisory Board.  Ms. Wubbenhorst has an MA, MBA and ICD.D designation.

Ms. Greenwood has been an employer-appointed Trustee since 2023 and has served as a Co-Chair on the Investment Committee and a member of the Governance Committee. She has more than three decades of global wealth management expertise in corporate and pension fund management, institutional investment, governance, business development and risk management. Her portfolio career includes roles as Committee Chair, Co-Chair, Independent Director, Director of Special Purpose Corporations, and also at charitable and not-for-profit organizations. Ms. Greenwood holds business degrees, investment certifications and holds the ICD.D designation.

In addition to the appointments of Mr. Fahey, Ms. Wubbenhorst and Ms. Greenwood, CAAT also provided an update on its independent governance review, which was established by the Board after it became aware of concerns related to a vacation payment to Mr. Dobson. The governance-related issues subject to the review do not affect the Plan’s financial health or its ability to deliver secure, predictable pensions to members, and CAAT continues to expect that it will be completed later in February.

“Good governance is the backbone of a pension plan’s stability and strength, and the foundation for trust between the plan and its sponsors, members and all other stakeholders,” Ms. Wubbenhorst said. “The Board will carefully consider findings and recommendations of the independent review and remains focused as always on strengthening Plan governance to ensure it aligns with industry best practices.”

CAAT's most recent independent valuations show the Plan at a 124% funded status. This means for every $1 of pension benefits CAAT has promised to members, the Plan has $1.24 in assets. With more than $23 billion in assets and over $6 billion in funding reserves, the Plan is well positioned to withstand market volatility, demographic change, and other risks. Stress testing confirms a greater than 99% probability that the Plan will remain fully funded over the next 20 years.

About CAAT:

Established in 1967, the CAAT Pension Plan is an independent, jointly governed plan that offers highly desirable modern defined benefit pensions. Originally created to support the Ontario college system, the CAAT Plan now proudly serves more than 800 participating employers in 20 industries, including the for-profit, non-profit, and broader public sectors. It currently has more than 125,000 members. The CAAT Plan is respected for its pension and investment management expertise and focus on stability and benefit security. On January 1, 2025, the Plan was 124% funded on a going-concern basis. 

It's Friday, I typically reserve Fridays to discuss market action and I enjoy that but sometimes you need to cover important pension matters and this is definitely important for CAAT members.

I'll try to be brief but in a nutshell, I'm not surprised and the Board led by a new Chair and Vice Chair is doing the right thing and issued a perfectly worded statement.

Importantly, given the events that have transpired which I covered in detail here and here, I am not shocked that Derek Dobson was placed on administrative leave effective immediately.

The Board led by new Chair Audrey Wubbenhorst and Janet Greenwood also did the right thing naming Kevin Fahey, the CIO, as acting CEO and Plan Manager.

Kevin is a seasoned professional with impeccable credentials, CAAT members and employees know and trust him and in doing this, they're restoring trust at the organization. 

This is your number one job as a Board when a governance crisis erupts, restore trust as soon as possible as you await the findings of an independent governance report.

I'm actually impressed at how swiftly and diligently the Board responded, they immediately went into action naming a new Chair and Vice Chair, called an urgent meeting Wednesday evening and then moved to place the CEO on administrative leave while naming a new acting CEO. 

Take note all board members, this is exactly what should have happened when the three senior execs expressed a loss of confidence in their leader: everyone should have immediately been placed on administrative leave pending the findings of an independent governance report.

I also like what the new Chair Ms. Wubbenhorst said in the statement:

“Good governance is the backbone of a pension plan’s stability and strength, and the foundation for trust between the plan and its sponsors, members and all other stakeholders. The Board will carefully consider findings and recommendations of the independent review and remains focused as always on strengthening Plan governance to ensure it aligns with industry best practices.”  

This isn't only a CAAT specific issue, everyone needs to make sure their governance is reviewed periodically and changed to reflect industry leading standards.

In my opinion, great fiduciaries are also champions of great governance.

So where does CAAT go from here? I think Kevin Fahey will be extremely busy over the next few weeks and we will all have to wait for the independent governance report to see the next steps. 

I can confidently tell CAAT members however to be patient, what is happening now seems like abrupt change and it is but the organization will come out of this a lot stronger.

That's all I have to say on this matter today, I am fully supportive of CAAT's new Chair and Vice Chair and acting CEO Kevin Fahey and think over the long run, this will be a governance blip and the organization will thrive over the coming years.

What about markets, Leo? Aren't you going to cover markets? I had a whole topic titled "Is the AI Disruption Trade Overdone?" and maybe I'll do something over the weekend but I'm tired and need a break from these crazy volatile markets.

Below, AI disruption fears hit Wall Street, sending the S&P 500 and Nasdaq lower with tech and software stocks under renewed pressure. But Wedbush Securities Global Head of Tech Research Dan Ives tells CNBC AI is a headwind for software, but that “software armageddon” is overblown.

Next, the CNBC Halftime Report Investment Committee debate how they are navigating the "Sell U.S." trade as emerging markets beat the S&P last year how you should position your portfolio.

Lastly, Tom Lee, Chairman of Bitmine Immersion and Co-Founder & Head of Research at Fundstrat, says that while the US jobs report was better than expected, job losses might follow due to the recent tech sell-off. He also expects the new Federal Reserve under Trump nominee Kevin Warsh to be more dovish.

The Canadian Press reports CPP Investments buying 50 per cent stake in Peruvian power company Inkia Energy: 

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has signed a deal to invest in Peruvian private power generation company Inkia Energy alongside I Squared Capital.

Under the agreement, CPP Investments has agreed to acquire a 50 per cent stake in Inkia at a total enterprise value of US$3.4 billion.

I Squared, which has been invested in Inkia since 2017, will hold the other 50 per cent.

Inkia operates a diversified portfolio through its subsidiaries Kallpa Generación S.A. and Orazul Energy Peru S.A.

Bill Rogers, managing director and head of sustainable energies at CPP Investments, says Inkia operates a resilient power generation platform that aligns well with the fund's long-term approach to investing in high-quality businesses.

The deal is subject to closing conditions and government approvals.

Earlier today CPP Investments issued a press release stating it will invest in Inkia alongside I Squared Capital: 

TORONTO, CANADA & MIAMI, FLORIDA (February 12, 2026) – Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (“CPP Investments”) today announced that it will invest alongside I Squared Capital (“I Squared”) in Inkia Energy (“Inkia”), a Peruvian private power generation company in Peru. Under the terms of the transaction, CPP Investments has agreed to acquire a 50% ownership interest in Inkia at a total enterprise value of US$3.4 billion, with the remaining 50% ownership stake to be acquired by an I Squared-led continuation vehicle.

Inkia operates a diversified and reliable generation portfolio of 2.6GW through its subsidiaries Kallpa Generación S.A. and Orazul Energy Peru S.A., and plays a critical role in supporting Peru’s energy demand driven by a world-class mining sector. CPP Investments and I Squared share a long-term strategic vision to partner in the development of Inkia’s more than 4GW pipeline of wind, solar, gas, and battery storage projects, supporting its continued growth

“Inkia operates a highly resilient power generation platform that aligns well with our long-term approach to investing in high-quality businesses that can deliver attractive risk-adjusted returns for the CPP Fund,” said Bill Rogers, Managing Director, Head of Sustainable Energies, CPP Investments. “The transaction reflects CPP Investments’ continued focus on long-duration power generation assets with strong governance and sustainability practices, alongside our experienced partner I Squared.”

I Squared has been invested in Inkia since 2017, supporting the company’s transformation into a scaled, diversified and strategically important generation platform. Under I Squared’s leadership, Inkia successfully divested all non-core assets across 10 jurisdictions in Latin America while expanding its core Peruvian generation business from 1.6GW to 2.6GW today. I Squared will continue to play an active role in Inkia’s governance and strategic direction.

“Inkia is a developer at its core and represents exactly the kind of essential infrastructure platform we seek to build and grow over the long term,” said Gautam Bhandari, Global Chief Investment Officer and Managing Partner, I Squared. “This partnership with CPP Investments reflects our shared conviction in the long-term fundamentals of Peru’s power market and Inkia’s ability to play a leading role in meeting the country’s evolving energy needs. Together, we see significant opportunity to continue investing in the platform and supporting Peru’s energy transition.”

CPP Investments has been investing in Latin America since 2006 and has a disciplined approach to investing across asset classes in the region. I Squared has a long-standing presence in Latin American infrastructure, with deep operating experience across energy, utilities and transportation.

The transaction is subject to closing conditions and government approvals.

About CPP Investments

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPP Investments™) is a professional investment management organization that manages the Fund in the best interest of the more than 22 million contributors and beneficiaries of the Canada Pension Plan. In order to build diversified portfolios of assets, investments are made around the world in public equities, private equities, real estate, infrastructure and fixed income. Headquartered in Toronto, with offices in Hong Kong, London, Mumbai, New York City, San Francisco, São Paulo and Sydney, CPP Investments is governed and managed independently of the Canada Pension Plan and at arm’s length from governments. On September 30, 2025, the Fund totaled C$777.5 billion. For more information, please visit www.cppinvestments.com or follow CPP Investments on LinkedIn, Instagram or on X @CPPInvestments.

About I Squared Capital

I Squared Capital is a leading independent global infrastructure investor dedicated to the mid-market, managing more than $50 billion in assets. Founded in 2012, I Squared has evolved into one of the most diverse infrastructure investors in the world with investments across power & utilities; transportation & logistics; digital infrastructure; environmental infrastructure and social infrastructure, providing essential services to millions of people around the world. Today, our portfolio includes over 100 companies operating in more than 70 countries. Headquartered in Miami, the firm has a global team across offices in Abu Dhabi, London, Munich, New Delhi, São Paulo, Singapore, Sydney and Taipei. Learn more at www.isquare Capitaldcapital.com. 

When you think of Peru, you think of Lima, Machu Picchu, Cusco, Arequipa, the Sacred Valley and other beautiful sites to visit for the ultimate digital detox.  

You don't think "power generation" but Peru is growing fast and needs power to eep up with growing demand.

 It's an interesting asset for CPP Investments to acquire and they obviously did their homework:

“Inkia operates a highly resilient power generation platform that aligns well with our long-term approach to investing in high-quality businesses that can deliver attractive risk-adjusted returns for the CPP Fund,” said Bill Rogers, Managing Director, Head of Sustainable Energies, CPP Investments. “The transaction reflects CPP Investments’ continued focus on long-duration power generation assets with strong governance and sustainability practices, alongside our experienced partner I Squared.”  ...

“Inkia is a developer at its core and represents exactly the kind of essential infrastructure platform we seek to build and grow over the long term,” said Gautam Bhandari, Global Chief Investment Officer and Managing Partner, I Squared. “This partnership with CPP Investments reflects our shared conviction in the long-term fundamentals of Peru’s power market and Inkia’s ability to play a leading role in meeting the country’s evolving energy needs. Together, we see significant opportunity to continue investing in the platform and supporting Peru’s energy transition.”

CPP Investments loves long duration power assets, just ask Bill Rogers, his team is always looking to acquire more all over the world.

The biggest risk I see here is currency risk which CPP Investments can hedge if it wants (don't know much about the Peruvian sol).

As far as I Squared Capital, it has experience mid-market experience and an innovative approach to building investment platforms.   

The firm invests globally including emerging markets and has a long list of successful investments.

In short, CPP Investments chose the right partner to enter into Peru's power generation business.

Below, Dr. Sadek Wahba, Chairman & Managing Partner of I Squared Capital, Juan Carlos Monterrey, Special Representative for Climate Change & National Climate Change Director of the Ministry of Environment of the Government of Panama, Gregorio Esteban, Vice Chairman of Santa Ana Global, and Stephen Keppel, President of the PVBLIC Foundation, join Jill Malandrino on Nasdaq TradeTalks to discuss sustainable and scalable infrastructure and climate investing solutions (4 months ago).

Next, I Squared Capital’s Sadek Wahba on why governments must set the rules but let private investors take the risk in future infrastructure projects (8 months ago).

Third, Sadek Wahba talks to CNBC's Diana Olick on how sustainable infrastructure is critical to deal with an earth in crisis (2 years ago).

Lastly, Machu Picchu is a testament to the power and ingenuity of the Inca empire. Built without the use of mortar, metal tools, or the wheel, Machu Picchu stands as an archaeological wonder of the ancient world. But why was it built—and deserted?

Eduard van Gelderen, former CIO of PSP who served as the head of research at FCLTGlobal in 2025 wrote an article for Chief Investment Officer on whether the technology payoff is well understood:

During my career in finance, I’ve attended many conferences, summits, roundtables and other events. Most of the time, topical developments were discussed, helping investors make sense of the world around us. In essence, these developments have remained the same over the years; it is the actual manifestation that attracted attention.

We’ve always had wars, economic setbacks and innovation, and we certainly have had market bubbles. Experience is a powerful resource that can help us deal effectively with these forces. But one development stands out to me: technological innovation.

Investors have had a love-and-hate relationship with technology for as long as I can remember. Interests hardly ever seemed to be aligned: Either quant investors asking for more technology were not fully understood by the technology group, or the technology group pushed for systems the investors found too rigid.

This debate was on the agenda of every event and oftentimes met with mixed emotions. Yes, technology was generally considered a must to advance the institutional investment industry, but the experience was also that technology makeovers were always more costly than expected, planning cycles were pushed out constantly, and—due to scope drift—projects were not delivering the promised advances that were so badly needed.

It was a bit of a catch-22: If you didn’t invest, you would certainly fall behind. But if you did invest, the project would start to claim a large part of your budget with hardly any real benefits—at least, any perceived as such—for the investor.

Technology Affects All Inputs

The problem can be related back to the positioning of technology. In his 2023 paper, “‘The Investor Identity’: The Ultimate Driver of Returns,” Ashby Monk described an institutional investor’s organizational capabilities as establishing the organization’s identity, and he distinguished the roles of inputs and enablers in producing returns. The fundamental inputs he identified were the four ingredients required to produce investment returns: capital, people, processes and information. The enablers he identified were governance, culture and technology.

Enablers and inputs interact, but the interplay between them might be misunderstood. As mentioned, if technology is seen as a stand-alone enabler and not integrated into a business strategy, it certainly will lead to a costly experience, along with a lot of frustration, because it will not match the investor’s needs. That outcome is equally true for the other enablers. But a common mistake is linking technology to information alone and not to the other inputs. A more holistic approach is needed.

Technology helps an investor operationalize intelligence and better understand the characteristics and sensitivities of the existing portfolio (capital). As such, it helps investors make better decisions (people), and it links the different steps in the value chain (process). In that respect, labelling technology as an enabler might be misleading. Perhaps it is better to talk about technology as the driver of an integrated investment process.

Development topics remain the same over time, but where things differ is the manifestation, and that makes the discussion of artificial intelligence unique.

How, Where AI Fits In

An increasing number of academic and popular articles are published showing the benefits of AI applied to investment management. But the reality is that the scope of these applications is rather limited, as most are focused on productivity gains. Using AI to monitor the news to generate investment ideas is, first and foremost, a productivity gain. Using AI to compare bond documentation and/or produce investment reports—the same. An interesting next step is to let AI check whether investment proposals are in line with an organization’s investment beliefs. Obviously, we should embrace this type of efficiency, because they do matter.

But the real impact of AI starts to become clear when we think holistically about an investor’s identity. Ajay Agrawal, an economist and professor at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management and a leading AI expert, distinguishes point solutions from system solutions. It is not just the productivity gains found in the separate steps of the investment process that matter (point solutions), but also the interactions between the different steps (system solutions)—including all those involving service providers (such as the custodians, valuation agents and data platforms).

Many investment organizations do not think about system solutions yet. But it is not unreasonable that with AI, the sequential steps in the investment process (idea generation, execution, performance measurement, attribution and risk management) will become parallel processes influencing decisionmaking instantaneously instead of with a time lag of several weeks or even months.

This would require a complete redesign of the investment process. According to Mohamed Khalfallah, a partner in Emerton Data, the goal is to leverage all the value trapped in data platforms by implementing an ecosystem of specialized agents, orchestrated by a central engine. This will elevate investment professionals from “information aggregators” to “data-empowered decisionmakers.”

Full Adoption Is a ‘Must’

On a strategic level, those in the C-suite need to start thinking about the “AI North Star” and how technology and AI are going to support the mission of the organization. This is different for every organization.

A low-cost beta investor is probably more interested in productivity gains than a pension fund managing the solvency of the fund and trying to match liabilities. In case of the latter, resilience is the name of the game, and it is likely that the true value of AI is related to the fund’s risk management function. It is important to realize that this is a C-suite responsibility, not simply the responsibility of a chief technology officer, as it requires taking into account all the inputs and enablers.

This is where the shoe might pinch: The C-suite of many organizations just started the AI journey. (In fact, not long ago, many C-suites did not even include a chief technology officer.)

Is the pay-off of technology well understood? I think we can and must do better. As Peter Strikwerda, global head of digitalization and innovation at the Netherlands’ APG Asset Management, stated, “New technology on top of an old organization will only lead to a more expensive old organization. With the advent of AI at scale, it’s now time to ask how systems need to be adjusted.”

Effective and timely decisionmaking in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world is only becoming more challenging—making the full adoption of technology and AI a must. Yet a strategic plan understood and supported by an organization’s C-suite is necessary to focus on what really matters—results—and to avoid the feeling that improving technology only as an enabler leads instead to budget overruns and late delivery, never producing the needed increase in long-term value.

Eduard van Gelderen served as the head of research at FCLTGlobal in 2025 after spending more than six years as the CIO of PSP Investments in Montreal. Prior to his role at PSP, he worked for the investment office of the University of California and was CEO of APG Asset Management in the Netherlands. He recently launched Brave Foresight, an investment management consultancy company.

This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal or tax advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice. Any opinions of the author do not necessarily reflect the stance of CIO, ISS Stoxx or its affiliates. 

Fantastic article by Eduard van Gelderen who I want to publicly commend as he recently sucessfully defended his PhD thesis on AI and the Canadian model.

Eduard writes exceptionally well, but let me dummy down his main insights above.

We live in a very uncertain, complex and volatile world where decisionmakers need to adopt technology and AI.

However, adopting new technological platforms and AI without the full C-suite and a clear understanding of where you are heading with all this will just end up being a costly exercise that fails to achieve desired results, namely, increasing long-term value.

Eduard makes the important point that a common mistake is linking technology to information alone and not to the other inputs. "A more holistic approach is needed."

What does he mean? You can adopt the latest and best platforms on performance attribution, risk, whatever but if you don't link it up to all inputs and make sure your teams are leveraging this information to obtain better investment outcomes consistently, then what's the point?

I've personally seen many large and small pension funds migrate from one system to another without fully understanding all the risks and without benefiting from the operation in any meaningful way.

Oh, you paid millions to get the latest risk, CRM, performance attribution system? Good for you, and what do you have to show for it? Nada.

We are all in the investment business, adopting technological change whether its old or new like AI sounds great but in the end the only thing that matters is better outcomes.

As Eduard eloquently states:

Is the pay-off of technology well understood? I think we can and must do better. As Peter Strikwerda, global head of digitalization and innovation at the Netherlands’ APG Asset Management, stated, “New technology on top of an old organization will only lead to a more expensive old organization. With the advent of AI at scale, it’s now time to ask how systems need to be adjusted.”

Effective and timely decisionmaking in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world is only becoming more challenging—making the full adoption of technology and AI a must. Yet a strategic plan understood and supported by an organization’s C-suite is necessary to focus on what really matters—results—and to avoid the feeling that improving technology only as an enabler leads instead to budget overruns and late delivery, never producing the needed increase in long-term value. 

I alluded to this earlier this week when I looked inside HOOPP's total portfolio approach and stated while TPA and integrated total fund management (TFM) sound sophisticated, in the end all that counts is are they delivering better outcomes for organizations and is there a way to measure this relative to the old model based on beating benchmarks?

I can say the same thing about AI, it sounds promising especially in terms of integrating responsible investing but will it deliver better outcomes for pensions over the long run and can we measure this clearly? 

The jury is out, it's too soon to make big proclamations but people like Eduard van Gelderen are asking the right questions and helping investors think through these complex topics. 

Below, Eduard van Gelderen is Head of Research for Focusing Capital on the Long Term (FCLT), an organisation that was established in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, or Great Recession as it is known in the US, to move away from a so-called "quarterly capitalism", which arguably contributed to the crisis, and towards a true long-term mind-set (eight months ago).

Also, Jonathan Webster, the senior managing director and chief operating officer of CPP Investments. Jon discusses his career journey, his experience at Boston Consulting Group and Lloyds Banking Group, and the transition from the CIO role into the COO role. Jon talks about the strategic importance of technology and data in driving investment strategies, the shift towards a product-based technology delivery model, the implementation of a modular architecture, and the potential of generative AI to revolutionize workflows. 

Jon emphasizes the significance of being software-defined for security, integrating user-centric design, and the necessity of fostering a culture of curiosity, dissatisfaction with the status quo, and thorough understanding within his team. Finally, Jon reflects on the kets to his career success and looks ahead at the trends in generative AI and other technologies (April 2024). 

Great discussions, take the time to listen. 

…

Kieran Smith and Mary McDougall of the Financial Times report top bosses depart Canadian pension fund after Thames Water fiasco:

One of Canada’s biggest pension funds has parted ways with two top infrastructure executives after writing off its stake in Thames Water and the souring of another high-profile European investment.

Alastair Hall, senior managing director for Europe, and Chris Hogg, a director who led the firm’s digital infrastructure investments, have left Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System in recent weeks, according to three people familiar with the matter.

The exits follow struggles at two of Omers’ top investments. Hall, who joined in 2014, was involved in the fund’s investment in Thames Water. The fund was the utility’s largest shareholder and wrote off its entire 31 per cent stake in 2024.

Hogg, who joined in 2023, was one of the lead executives on Deutsche Glasfaser, a heavily indebted German broadband provider now scrambling to secure its financial future. Omers jointly bought Glasfaser with EQT in 2020 and holds a 49 per cent stake.

In December, the pension fund proposed a €1.7bn refinancing deal to Glasfaser’s creditors alongside EQT under which the owners would inject €1.1bn of “preferred” equity in exchange for €600mn of “super senior” debt.

Holders of the “super senior” debt would be the first to be repaid in the event of a bankruptcy, while “preferred” equity investors would get priority over the previous equity put into the business.

The shareholders have already invested €4bn into Glasfaser since purchasing it from KKR in 2020. Last year, they were forced to scale back the company’s original goal of serving 6mn homes by 2032 to just 3.2mn, in an effort to cut costs and stabilise the business.

A person familiar with the matter said Hogg was not the most senior Omers executive responsible for Glasfaser.

Omers manages C$141bn (about $104bn) of assets on behalf of 640,000 current or former public-sector and community workers in Canada’s Ontario province.

Some 22 per cent of the fund was invested in infrastructure at the end of June, with 19 per cent in private equity and 13 per cent in private credit. European investments account for 18 per cent of the total portfolio.

The fund is exploring the sale of its 33 per cent stake in Associated British Ports in a deal it hopes will complete in the second half of this year and value the UK’s biggest ports operator at more than £10bn.

It also sold its stake in London City Airport to Macquarie last year alongside Alberta Investment Management Corporation, following Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan’s sale of its holding in the airport to Australia’s largest infrastructure investor last June.

A person familiar with Omers said the sales and the departure of executives did not indicate that Omers was looking to scale back its European infrastructure investments. They cited the fund’s acquisition of a network of Italian railway stations, Grandi Stazioni Retail, alongside DWS in 2024.

The same year, Omers restructured its European private equity team as it announced it would no longer invest directly in private companies in the region.

Michael Hill, global head of Omers Infrastructure, said Europe remained an integral part of its diversification strategy. He thanked Hall for his “significant contributions” and said recruitment for a new European infrastructure head was under way.

Siqalane Taho of Infrastructure Investor also reports OMERS Infrastructure’s European head Hall resigns:

The infrastructure investment division of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) has seen the head of its European business exit the organisation, Infrastructure Investor has learned.

Sources with knowledge of the matter said that Alastair Hall has resigned from his position as senior managing director and head of Europe at OMERS Infrastructure.

Michael Hill, executive vice president and global head of OMERS Infrastructure, confirmed the news in a statement to Infrastructure Investor.

“Alastair Hall has decided to leave OMERS. We want to thank him for his significant contributions to our team and growth of the infrastructure asset class in the region. We wish him all the best for his next career chapter,” he noted.

Infrastructure Investor understands that the firm is to embark on a recruitment drive to fill the vacant position, with managing directors reporting to Hill in the interim.

Hall joined OMERS in 2014, rising through the ranks to oversee the firm’s European investment activities and team from London in 2021.

Prior to that, he was global head of investment strategy and partnerships, where he was tasked with advancing the Canadian-headquartered manager’s international investment strategy and leading third-party capital formation initiatives.

Previously, Hall was responsible for allocating capital across the European energy, renewables and utilities value chain, including leading key investments in Thames Water, Ellevio, Net4Gas, Associated British Ports, Caruna, High Speed 1, SGN and MapleCo.

OMERS Infrastructure was forced to write off its entire 31.7 percent stake, valued at £990 million ($1.3 billion; €1.2 billion), in the beleaguered UK utility Thames Water in May 2024. The water company was then placed in special measures by the UK water industry regulator Ofwat in July 2024.

At the time, the utility had a net debt of £18 billion, up from £11 billion when OMERS Infrastructure made its investment in 2017.

In an interview with Infrastructure Investor in July 2024, Hill said of the Thames Water episode: “Obviously, we’re very disappointed with the outcome. You don’t go into an investment like this expecting this outcome. We’re very disappointed on behalf of customers in London and all of our stakeholders that we represent.

“Our team gave a tireless effort to try and get us to a better outcome and, in the end, I think we made a decision that was based on our fiduciary obligations to not continue to invest.”

At the end of 2024, OMERS’ annual report revealed that its infrastructure unit’s performance had recovered to an annualised 8.8 percent net IRR, up from a net return of 5.5 percent in 2023, but below the 12.7 percent achieved in 2022. It has a 10-year average return of 10.5 percent.

Before joining OMERS Infrastructure, Hall, an Oxford PPE graduate, worked for more than three years as an investment banker in Deutsche Bank’s London office, where he was a director in the natural resources unit.

His career began at Bank of America Merrill Lynch where he spent six years in the investment banking team, advising on energy and power sector deals.

Hall did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Alright, never a dull moment in the Canadian pension world, more executive shakeups to report on, this time at OMERS Infrastructure.

I can't say I'm surprised, Thames Water was a disastrous investment for OMERS which it ended up writing off completely and someone had to take the fall.

I want to make it clear however that Alastair Hall worked on many exceptional investments at OMERS Infrastructure and it's too bad Thames will be associated with him. 

I hated that investment from the time Macquarie sold it and it was an impossible task to turn that sinking ship around.

As far as Chris Hogg, who joined OMERS Infrastructure from Amber Infrastructure back in 2023 to lead the investment efforts in digital infrastructure in Europe, I honestly don't know much about him or what exactly happened with the Glasfaser investment.

But he was just a director so a senior managing director approved that investment.

If I'm not mistaken, he reported to Alastair Hall who hired him. 

Anyway, OMERS Infrastructure is a lot bigger and stronger than these two investments, they will recruit new people and move on (I'll pass on some names to Michael Hill but I'm sure he has a short list already).

Executive shakeups happen all the time at the Maple 8 but lately they've been happening more frequently all over.

From the outside it doesn't look good but they're running a business, they need to make sure they have the right people at the top spots to continue delivering stellar long-term results.

And in the case of OMERS Infrastructure, they're also managing third-party money so they need to be on their A game all the time. 

It doesn't mean Alastair Hall and Chris Hogg are bad infrastructure investors, they're both sharp and experienced, it just means it's time for a change to introduce new blood to the organization. 

Alastair knows Annesley Wallace very well as they both worked on strategy in the past, so wouldn't be surprised if he helps HOOPP map out its European strategy.

We shall see, I obviously have no clue but wish Alastair Hall and Chris Hogg all the best, onward!

As for OMERS Infrastructure, Michael Hill will get busy recruiting top talent and moving on as well.

That's part of the business, not pleasant but sometimes necessary.

Below, from sewage spills to owing billions in debt, the UK’s biggest water company has come under a lot of heat recently. And, its grand rescue plan has just fallen through. Here’s a breakdown of the whole scandal from start to finish.

Quratulain Tejani of EQD Intelligence reports inside HOOPP’s total portfolio thinking; Jacky Lee talks approach, widespread adoption:

Total portfolio approach, once an academic framework, is becoming the go-to operating system for large asset owners grappling with a more fragmented, inflation- prone world.

MAIN TAKEAWAYS

• TPA has existed for decades, but adoption is accelerating as allocators reassess whether stable correlations, mean reverting growth and long run risk premia still hold
• HOOPP’s portfolio won’t drastically change if the long term outlook hasn’t changed, but when it does, the total portfolio framework ensures they are prepared
• Boards define risk guardrails while investment teams position the portfolio

Total portfolio approach, once an academic framework, is becoming the go-to operating system for large asset owners grappling with a more fragmented, inflation-prone world.

Jacky S. Lee, senior managing director and head of total portfolio management at the USD88 billion Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan in Toronto, said TPA has existed for decades in research and practice.

Adoption is accelerating now as allocators are increasingly questioning whether the assumptions underpinning strategic asset allocation, stable correlations, mean reverting growth and long run risk premia, still hold after decades of falling rates and globalization. In response, some are reorganizing around TPA, a framework that prioritizes total fund outcomes over static asset class silos.

“TPA does not offer a recipe, but a way of adapting when the assumptions of markets themselves may be changing,” Lee said, highlighting concerns that economic regimes may now persist rather than revert. Inflation dynamics, supply-chain realignment, currency volatility and geopolitics are forcing investors to think in probabilities, not averages.

At HOOPP, the total portfolio approach officially came into effect in January but dates back to the early 2000s with the liability driven investing strategy. Lee said HOOPP’s success during that time, in large part, was a result of successfully positioning the fund to take advantage of market re-pricing of risk premiums. “Just like other funds, HOOPP continues to evolve its governance approach, and we now describe HOOPP’s TPA framework as an investment mindset centered on preparedness, and guided by integration and adaptability. [We have] investment teams working together as one fund and we are prepared to adapt the portfolio when market conditions change.”

At its core, TPA reframes portfolio management as an organizational system rather than a static allocation exercise, shifting focus toward total fund outcomes and aligning governance and incentives around that objective. “Investment is about judging odds and positioning portfolios so the odds play in your favor. TPA is a framework that gives skilled teams a better chance of achieving that outcome,” Lee said.

Boards set total fund risk tolerance and constraints, such as liquidity and concentration, while investment leadership determines positioning within those limits, he said. The focus shifts from asset allocation targets to how the whole portfolio behaves across scenarios.

That shift is also reshaping incentives and benchmarking. Traditional benchmarks have long doubled as both passive exposure proxies and performance yardsticks. Under TPA, Lee said those roles are increasingly split. Asset allocation models help understand portfolio risk, while performance is judged against strategy-specific objectives rather than index relative returns, he said. “We are not trying to answer whether [the managers] beat an index but whether they did a good job based on what [they] were asked to achieve.”

Diversification, too, is treated as dynamic, Lee added. Rather than relying on historical correlations, teams stress test portfolios across regimes, questioning whether assets that once offset equity risk would do so under different monetary or currency backdrops.

To support that approach, TPA teams monitor a broader set of signals beyond traditional capital market assumptions. These include business cycles, credit cycles and liquidity cycles, alongside policy direction, market positioning and sentiment. Teams also incorporate qualitative inputs such as geopolitical developments, expert views and company level operating data. The goal is probability assessment across multiple potential futures rather than precise forecasting, Lee said. “Forming a view is hard...Understanding what is already [priced in] is even harder,” he said.

Lee said implementation varies. Some funds lean into dynamic allocation, others build portfolios designed for robustness, while some retain strategic anchors but act aggressively in dislocations. What unites them is a single objective: improving long term risk adjusted outcomes by aligning governance, incentives and portfolio construction around the total fund, not its parts. “At HOOPP, our philosophy is to maintain what we believe is the most appropriate portfolio based on our current long term outlook,” he said. “The portfolio would not drastically change if that long term outlook hasn’t changed, but when it does, we are prepared,” he said. “We can think of our approach as ‘event driven’, where our portfolio can remain stable for a long time, but we are ready to pivot when our long term outlook materially changes,” he said.

Excellent interview with Jackie Lee, senior managing director and head of total portfolio management at HOOPP.

Jackie is obviously a very sharp guy who understands the total portfolio approach (TPA) inside out.

In this interview, he doesn't just get into HOOPP's TPA thinking he also discusses the different approaches others implement but with the same objective, namely, "improving long term risk adjusted outcomes by aligning governance, incentives and portfolio construction around the total fund, not its parts."

At its heart, TPA is really all about obtaining the Fund's investment objective by finding the best risk-adjusted returns across public and private markets.

It requires breaking down the silos and groups working collaboratively to find the best opportunities to invest over the long run.

When severe dislocations happen, typically the best opportunities lie in public markets, and here I'm specifically thinking of HOOPP when the pandemic first hit and senior managers were jumping in on a morning Teams meeting to discuss where to invest.

But sometimes you get massive dislocations in private markets as well and need to react quickly.

TPA embodies a lot more than what I'm discussing above.

A few years ago, my former PSP colleague, Mihail Garchev who is now Head of Total Fund Management at BCI had written a seven part series on integrated total fund management for my blog which was very popular at the time (see Part 1 here and Part 7 here).

Mihail once told me we should get all the total fund guys and gals in a room and I should interview them for my blog ("so, what exactly do you do and why do you consider it so important?").

I must admit, I take all this total portfolio approach and integrated total fund management stuff with a pinch of salt -- it makes sense, sounds sophisticated but like all the hype in AI, where's the beef?

I'm not saying these people aren't doing important work, they are, but I need to evaluate it relative to the old approach where groups don't talk to each other, couldn't care less about total fund and only focus on beating their benchmark.

On this issue, notice this part from the interview above:

[...]while performance is judged against strategy-specific objectives rather than index relative returns, he said. “We are not trying to answer whether [the managers] beat an index but whether they did a good job based on what [they] were asked to achieve.” 

Critics may claim TPA is a way for underperfoming managers to get paid based on soft objectives rather than hard objectives. 

But in TPA, teams are aligned and focused on fund objectives and this requires a different way of thinking altogether and objectives cannot be measured solely on beating a benchmark.

It's also worth noting TPA or TFM is better suited for plans that have one client like Teachers' or deal with one sector like HOOPP.

In a recent interview discussing their new strategy, AIMCo's CIO Justin Lord said this about TPA:

“If anything, TPA is at a client level at AIMCO where we are focused on portfolio management for individual clients to reflect their circumstances regarding risk, portfolio construction and strategies like rebalancing and hedging.”  

Anyway, there's a lot to digest here, I would love to dive a lot deeper into TPA one day with experts across all of Canada's major funds.

Below, Stephen Gilmore, CIO of CalPERS, joins Capital Allocators with Ted Seides to discuss CalPERS' Total Portfolio Approach.

This is a great in-depth discussion and Stephen Gilmore is experienced and explains difficult concepts very well. Take the time to listen to his insights and how they're implementing TPA.