Barbara Shecter of the National Post reports AIMCo assets top $200 billion as public equities drive gains:

Alberta Investment Management Corp. surpassed $200 billion in assets under management with a 7.1 per cent net investment return in the first half of the year marked by conflict in the Middle East, U.S. trade policy uncertainty and evolving inflation expectations.

The provincial Crown corporation that invests on behalf of pensions, endowments and government funds had $210.7 billion in assets under management as of June 30.

Chief investment officer Justin Lord said the trade situation and other geopolitical and macroeconomic developments are front and centre for the globally invested fund, which has a strong presence in North America. About 40 per cent of AIMCo’s assets are invested in Canada.

“A prolonged dispute, whether it’s in the Middle East (or) whether it’s trade-related, certainly could create headwinds for the Canadian economy, for the equity market,” he said. “And that’s something we’re monitoring closely.”

Public equities were the strongest contributor to AIMCo’s performance in the first half of the year, benefiting from resilient corporate earnings and continued strength in AI-related sectors and global equity markets. The results were moderated, however, by private equity, where there was lower transaction activity and valuation pressure in software-related investments.

“Private equity, perhaps even more so today, is playing a vital role in diversification across our equity exposures,” Lord said.

“A number of of equity markets, be it global or emerging markets, are really reliant on a couple of very similar underlying themes with respect to where we’re seeing earnings growth and price appreciation contributing to that strong performance,” he added.

AIMCo’s private equity program is focused on fund and co-investment, and Lord said the team is seeing a number of opportunities that align with the fund’s strategy, as well as an increase in secondary deal flow.  

Public equities and absolute return strategies make up the bulk of AIMCo’s portfolio, at 38 per cent. The balance is split between private markets and money market and fixed income.

Lord said he plans to connect next month with “peers” and “partners” attending the Canada Investment Summit on Sept. 14 and 15, a conference convened by Prime Minister Carney that has a guest list of large global investment funds.

“We do have a significant amount of our assets invested here across a number of different asset classes and, should compelling opportunities arise, we’d be happy to … underwrite those transactions, much like we would in any other jurisdiction,” he said.

Lord said there are no hard targets or caps on AIMCo’s investments in Canada.

“We have a strong interest in seeing, obviously, a competitive and attractive investment environment here in our own backyard,” he said, “but we do invest globally on behalf of our clients and … ultimately, our responsibility is to deliver that long-term return for clients, and that means investing where we see the best opportunity to create value over time.”

Today, AIMCo issued a press release stating it has surpassed $200 billion in assets under management: 

AIMCo reached a significant milestone in the first half of 2026, surpassing $200 billion in assets under management while continuing to deliver strong long-term investment results for clients.

At the halfway mark of 2026, AIMCo’s Balanced Fund earned a 4-year annualized net investment return of 9.9% and a 10-year annualized net investment return of 7.8% for clients.

For the six-month period ending June 30, 2026, the Balanced Fund’s net investment return was 7.2%.

Chief Investment Officer Justin Lord shares more details on the results (watch below and here).

You can also read the brief report AIMCo put out at the bottom of the page under Justin's video here.

Below, I provide the details:

 

Some quick points. Overall, the results are solid and better than most of its peers, reflecting AIMCo's higher exposure to public markets.

Public Equities led the gains but there were positive contributions from Public Fixed Income, Private Mortgages, Private Debt and Loan, and Infrastructure.

Performance in private market portfolios, particularly Private Equity, moderated overall results amid lower transaction activity and valuation pressure in software-related investments.

Discussion With Justin Lord, AIMCo's CIO, On Mid-Year Results

Earlier today, I had a chance to catch up with AIMCo CIO Justin Lord to go over mid-year results. 

I want to begin by thanking him as well as Sabrina Bnaghoo and Alexandra Zabjek for setting up this Teams meeting, sending me material and assisting the meeting.

Keep in mind, I spoke with Justin in late March when I covered AIMCo's 2025 results here.

At the time, AIMCo's corporate annual report was not available, but it has since been released and is available here.

Justin began by giving me an overview of the results:

Yeah, certainly a couple of main points: Our mid-year updates tend to focus on the broader portfolio, the amalgamation of the client portfolios across the balanced fund. As you'll see, the net investment return was 7.2% for the first half of the year. That's $13.6 billion in net investment return across our client accounts.

Our four-year annualized number is 9.9%, reflecting that strong long-term performance that our clients depend upon and certainly positively impacting the 10-year annualized net return of 7.8%. As a long-term investor, we’re focused here with respect to fulfilling our mandate and meeting clients' needs. The other point to note, AIMCo did surpass $200 billion in assets other management as well, just reflecting that continued growth and collective scale of our clients across pension, insurance and government funds that are entrusted to us to manage.

But just owing to that scale that does position us to continue to access compelling investment opportunities that enhance that ability to deliver the long-term value on behalf of our clients and all Albertans. This is really key to our mandate, and I think we're demonstrating that we're achieving that successfully. One thing to note, our pension clients, for example, are currently fully funded, which should give all Albertans with a public pension plan a great deal of comfort regarding their financial futures.

And last but not least, the investment strategy that we put in place at the beginning of the year or at the end of 2025 has thus far proven to be moving in the right direction, with a focus on our core strategic capabilities, our competitive advantage from both structural and developed perspective, focusing on the strategic capabilities from a liquidity management portfolio construction perspective as it relates to our client portfolios overall.

Perhaps I'll leave it there, Leo, and we can jump into what you have with respect to asset classes, just noting that we'll keep some of the asset class level comments high-level. Again, we don't publish the underlying performance at mid-year and happy to go into much more detail once annual results are available, as we did last time.

I told Justin that I don't know what the (blended) actuarial hurdle rate is at AIMCo (6% or 6.3%?), but I said any time you're delivering above 7% on mid-year results, that is very strong and I especially noted the 9.9% annualized return over the last four years because that's excellent.

I asked him if they beat their benchmark in the first half and he replied:

I don't believe as a part of the mid-year results we focus on or provide those additional details, Leo. So I can't comment specifically given that at the total client portfolio level, we have a number of asset classes that will have various valuation schedules throughout the year. 

Perhaps what I can comment on is that across public markets, despite the continuing concentration that we're seeing in underlying performance in equity indices, both certainly, when looking at global and emerging market indices as a whole, the team has been able to, through portfolio construction exposures, absolute return exposures and various active mandates, keep up with or outperform their benchmarks year to date. That's a big mid-year number and I certainly wouldn't want to get ahead of ourselves until annual results are out.

Fair enough. I asked Justin about their new strategy and whether or not they are taking more risk in public or private equities. He replied:

It really impacts each asset class to ensure alignment with our overarching strategy and leaning into the structural development sources of edge across the AIMCo platform. 

Where we've made a few changes in public markets are really to ensure that we're providing the beta across our portfolio that our clients expect as efficiently as possible with a, I guess, renewed or refocused mandate from liquidity, collateral balance sheet management perspective.

And then the second part of that is ensuring the consistency of alpha generation across those mandates. So where we're taking active risk has evolved slightly with a focus on areas internally that we have a demonstrated capability or a proven track record and then certainly partnering with our external managers in areas where we feel active risk is attractively priced overall as we've seen, probably a slight reduction in active risk taking through security selection across the portfolio and an increase or maintain level of active risk and exposure through absolute return strategies internally and externally, both for direct client allocations to the absolute return product in their asset mix and/or portable alpha exposures on top of our synthetic beta within the equity platform.

I noted AIMCo uses a portable alpha structure to add alpha over their beta exposure and that absolute return strategies (hedge funds) have done well for all major pension funds over the last few years.

He replied: 

Yes. And I think we're in an environment where that can potentially continue as we see increasing dispersion between asset classes, certainly a higher base rate of interest rates that creates a return profile that should be a spread above those fixed income rates of return that tends to meet clients return expectations not only from a direct allocation perspective, but certainly as a very efficient form of active risk at the total client portfolio level.

I agree with that assertion and will add that higher interest rates also mean a higher hurdle rate for internal and external absolute return strategies as the T-bill rate has risen.

We moved on to private markets, where I noted that some headwinds are impacting private equity returns. I noted that certain segments of real estate seem to be turning the corner and infrastructure remains steady, providing pension funds with solid, long-dated, inflation-adjusted returns. 

Justin responded:

We spend a lot of time working with our clients and their respective asset class teams to really, I guess, hone in and define the role that those asset classes play in our clients’ portfolios. 

When thinking about what we need exposure to in this environment, obviously, we're looking for growth from a portfolio building block perspective, income, inflation protection, and broader diversification impacts or contribution at the client portfolio level. 

Specifically, infrastructure right now is fulfilling a number of those needs from a growth exposure to a degree, but primarily income and inflation protection as a function of the underlying quality of the portfolio, the quality of cash flows that are underwritten across the portfolio of assets. We're continuing to see attractive opportunities in infrastructure globally, both domestically and globally as it relates to our underlying product strategy. We're spending probably more time in the core-plus sub-segment of the market. There's a lot of competition for traditional core infrastructure assets, much like we had seen private credit over the last number of years when capital flows to parts of these markets, it can compress returns, and our view is that that sometimes creates opportunities where you might be not be fairly compensated for the overall risk that you're taking. 

So really with an overarching philosophy of looking for those opportunity sets across our asset classes where risk is attractively priced, let’s call it part art and science from a portfolio construction perspective.

And we’re seeing attractive deal flow there, pockets of private credit as well, despite valuations and credit spreads that are still slightly elevated. This just puts more importance on the underlying underwriting and structuring of this exposure in general. 

And then last but not least, you had mentioned private equity. And our private equity platform and strategy has been in place for over a decade now under Peter's leadership with , as you'll be familiar with, a fund and co-invest model overall. Certainly, we are seeing some green shoots as it relates to liquidity with capital markets activity and the IPO pipeline really coming to fruition. It feels like the market's been waiting for this for a number of years, and this amount of deal flow has been well received. That is a positive. We'd like to see that continue. We're assessing opportunities across certainly our manager and co-investment network, a growing secondary opportunity set in general and a broader capital solutions or strategic capital solutions opportunity set, which almost fits in between a private equity or private credit allocation, which we think is attractively priced risk exposure in general that is generated by our partnership network with both GPs and issuers. 

Coming back to the role that private equity plays in the portfolio and the roles we're looking for from our asset classes as they contribute to our clients’ total portfolios, the one of diversification stands out as well, given the underlying concentration across not only public equity markets but you're seeing a fair amount of underlying macro drivers, obviously associated with the proliferation of artificial intelligence and capex, impacting not only public equities, but investment-grade public fixed income, public credit, private credit exposures, and to a degree some infrastructure and real estate exposures as well. So looking at the role that private equity plays in diversifying the growth factor in portfolios in general, it's likely to be as important in the next five to 10 years as it has been over the last decade.

Justin kept hammering the point of why private equity remains an important asset class from a diversification perspective and he's right. When growth-oriented public equity indexes finally suffer a protracted bear market, whenever that happens, many value-oriented segments of private equity will finally outperform (stale pricing also adds to diversification).

I asked him if co-investments figure prominently in infrastructure at AIMCo as they do in private equity and he replied:

Our infrastructure portfolio is actually broad, and we do have obviously fund and co-investment relationships as well. Direct investments are a much smaller part of the private equity strategy at AIMCo and owing to the strategic tilt a little over 10 years ago with the refocus of the program on the fund relationship and co-investment model.

I asked Justin what he sees in Real Estate because from my discussions, it seems like there is an inflection going on there. He replied:

I would agree. Perhaps inflection is maybe too strong of a word. We are seeing attractive deal flow across a number of geographies and sectors within real estate as the industry recovers. At different places, there's a lot of differentiation, be it office, grocery, retail, multifamily, or industrial exposures, and also depending on geography. We do have a view that there are attractive opportunity sets today and we expect to be active in real estate over the coming quarters and years. And perhaps more of a continued gradual recovery than an inflection point or something that we would see a sharp reversal.

I asked him if it's fair to say AIMCo has more exposure to Canadian real estate than its peers and he replied:

I'm not sure comparing to the other funds. We have a Canadian and a global real estate product. Our Canadian product is larger than our global product and the two strategies have a bit of a different focus. Global product being traditionally more opportunistic and Canada being more focused and really aligned with where we're evolving our real estate program to ensure that those roles of income generation and inflation protection are present for our clients’ allocations.

I noted AIMCo's allocation to public markets is roughly 70% and asked him if they are happy with the current allocation to privates. He responded:

We're comfortable with current allocations as it stands. We do have, where we would be under allocated in private markets, those risk exposures are represented by public markets. So to the degree that we are allocating additional capital across infrastructure, real estate, private credit and or private equity, there could be small reductions in public market allocations. You're correct in your analysis, Leo, I believe as of mid-year, we’re just under 70% of public markets as a whole. We do include absolute return allocations, those direct allocations in the public equities illustration as you'll see in the report also.

I also noted some of their peers have increased their allocation to Canadian equities (notably OMERS) this year and asked him if they did so too. He replied:

Our allocations to Canadian equities are going to be a combination of what our client allocations are and any broader views from a diversification or active risk-taking perspectives that AIMCo is managing. 

We do have a fairly large allocation to Canadian (public) equities as we haven't seen any large shifts, either from client allocations or from our broader active risk-taking environment. Canadian equities do represent over 5% of the total portfolio. 

We don't necessarily set a target allocation based on geography; that's all going to be a function of really risk pricing, coming back to the overarching investment philosophy and that's underpinned by fundamentals and valuation. 

We certainly, we deal with a different type of concentration in the Canadian equity markets, and it has benefited client accounts given the relative pricing of that exposure and the performance over the last couple of years.

I asked if they hedge their US dollar exposure and he replied:

It depends on the product, Leo. We do hedge most of our US dollar exposure at the product level and at the benchmark level, but perhaps we can follow up on something more granular, if you'd like as well. 

Lastly, I noted AIMCo resides in Alberta and there are many geopolitical and trade currents right now in the background, so I asked him how they are reacting, if at all. He responded:

That's a good question. And I probably come back to the overarching philosophy that we're global investors. As we talked before, it really comes down to where we're finding the best opportunities from a risk-pricing perspective that align with our products and our client allocations as a whole. We have approximately 40% Canadian exposure across our broader product mix in general, and certainly to the extent that there are additional opportunities to allocate capital in Canada that are competitive from a risk-return perspective, then our teams are certainly engaged and looking for those opportunities as well.

We left it at that, covered quite a bit for the mid-year results.

Once again, I thank Justin Lord for taking the time to chat with me and I also wanted to thank Alexandra Zabjek for sharing the transcript with me because some of Justin's replies came out muffled on my end.   

Still, great interview, always enjoy catching up with Justin.

Below, AIMCo CIO Justin Lord shares more details on mid-year results  (also see clip here).

Muskan Arora of Markets Group reports Finland’s former pension chief says future cash flows, not markets, capped his risk appetite:

Timo Löyttyniemi, the former chief executive officer spent more than two decades running Finland’s state pension fund, Valtion Eläkerahasto (State Pension Fund of Finland), and in his account, the biggest constraint on his strategy in the final stretch wasn’t markets at all — it was future negative cash flows.

The government will pull an extra €1B out of the €25B fund next year, part of a broader pattern of tapping VER to help cover rising pension costs from an aging population. Löyttyniemi, who retired in February, said the fund ran extensive return simulations in response but left the harder structural decisions to his successor. “These extra outflows to the government made us postpone the plans somewhat during my time. But, of course, it’s now up to the new management to consider what the risk and sufficient and comfortable risk level is.”

“That will be also determined by future returns,” he added.

That caution shows up most clearly in a single number: 20%. That’s roughly where Löyttyniemi held VER’s private markets exposure — private equity, private credit, infrastructure and real estate combined — through nearly his entire tenure, even as other Finnish pension funds pushed allocations north of 40%, some blending in hedge funds to get there. He never reversed the strategy. He simply wouldn’t let it grow once outflows started climbing.

“When there’s uncertainty in terms of the cash flows . . . the size of the private portfolio cannot be increased aggressively,” he said, pointing to a forward return expectation near 5.5%, against outflows already running four to five percentage points a year.

Löyttyniemi is more assertive discussing the one strategic reversal he did make. VER lifted its prohibition on defense investment in spring 2022, rewriting its sustainability framework within weeks of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The policy shift itself was fast; getting the market to believe it was another matter. He says he spent few years afterward correcting consultants, banks and even VER’s own private equity managers who assumed the old restrictions still applied.

“I realized going forward that people still thought that there were some restrictions, and I really wanted everyone to understand,” he said. VER’s direct exposure ran mainly through Nordic — largely Swedish — defense-adjacent equities, layered on indirect exposure through index products that had been quietly compounding the theme all along. Now, he sees huge demand in physical products, such as Information and Communication Technology security and drones.

He’s just as direct in dismissing geopolitics as a filter for developed market decisions. Europe, the Nordics, the U.S. and developed Asia, he said, were never debated internally on political grounds during his tenure — the closest exception came in 2025, when U.S. tax-policy uncertainty pushed VER toward more conservative commitment sizing on U.S.-linked private market products. China is the one market where he pushes back hardest against the geopolitical framing altogether. During his tenure, VER kept its exposure to Chinese equities and fixed income deliberately low throughout his tenure, noting the real driver isn’t politics.

“It seems to boil down to the low profitability of these companies,” he said, pointing to high-volume, low-margin businesses with weak earnings growth.

“So this is more an economical than geopolitical issue but both play a role.”

On manager selection, Löyttyniemi credits VER’s edge to accumulated diligence rather than any single call. Re-upping with an existing manager was, in his words, “an easier decision” than backing a new one, since years of prior scrutiny had already resolved most of the uncertainty a first-time relationship carries. What his team weighed most heavily wasn’t short-term performance but succession — whether younger partners were stepping up as a manager’s founders aged out.

He is similarly unequivocal about Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse in March 2023, which he called an idiosyncratic failure of specific banks rather than a systemic event, though he pointed out that three years later, the fallout has been contained. Still, he cautioned that every crisis has its own features and today’s playbook won’t necessarily transfer cleanly to the next one.  

I don't normally cover Finnish pension plans, but I like this profile article and wanted to bring it to your attention.

Timo Löyttyniemi, the former CEO of Finland’s state pension fund, Valtion Eläkerahasto (VER), shares a lot of wisdom here. He is a finance professional and an academic working at the intersection of business and government.

The biggest takeaway is when you are a mature pension plan -- where retired members considerably outnumber younger active members and outflows outpace inflows by a wide margin -- then you simply cannot take on too much risk in private markets; it's irresponsible. 

His cutoff for an allocation to privates was 20% of total assets, a decision he made with confidence given the maturity of this pension plan. 

The decision had nothing to do with the state of private markets but everything to do with the fact that they can't afford to run short of funds to pay out pensions to retired members. 

He even says it's all about certainty of cash flows, stating this:

“When there’s uncertainty in terms of the cash flows . . . the size of the private portfolio cannot be increased aggressively,” he said, pointing to a forward return expectation near 5.5%, against outflows already running four to five percentage points a year. 

I don't know where he gets his "forward return expectation" for privates at 5.5% (seems low to me)  but if outflows are running at 5% a year, and if he's assumptions are right, then a 20% max allocation for privates sounds about right. 

I also agree with his decision to keep Chinese equities and fixed income deliberately low based on the economic, not political, arguments he puts forth.

Lastly, I agree with VER's private equity approach:

 On manager selection, Löyttyniemi credits VER’s edge to accumulated diligence rather than any single call. Re-upping with an existing manager was, in his words, “an easier decision” than backing a new one, since years of prior scrutiny had already resolved most of the uncertainty a first-time relationship carries. What his team weighed most heavily wasn’t short-term performance but succession — whether younger partners were stepping up as a manager’s founders aged out.

Too many dumb pension funds focus on short-term performance and not enough on succession. And the results are typically disastrous when you chase performance without understanding the underlying team.

Alright, quick comment tonight, still in summer mode.

Below, private markets have stalled since interest rates started to rise in 2022, even as public markets have climbed to new highs. But a period of sustained economic growth along with rising liquidity and AI-driven innovation could help private markets rebound, according to Goldman Sachs' Pete Lyon and Michael Brandmeyer. 

Despite longer private equity holding times and mixed performance from private credit funds, they remain cautiously optimistic, projecting that distributions will gradually return to 15%-20% and that deal activity could exceed its 2021 peak within two to three years.

No big surprise that Goldman sees a sustained recovery in private equity. Hope they're right. 

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) set workplace norms that are still in use almost ninety years later. The FLSA established the 40-hour standard workweek and overtime protections for workers. It guaranteed pay at a rate of 1.5 times the standard hourly wage for work past the 40-hour mark. Overtime protections were designed as a safeguard for workers—to prevent employers from overworking employees and to require firms to pay workers fairly for their labor when they put in extra time on the job. By making long hours more expensive, the overtime premium incentivizes employers to hire more workers and spread the work around.

But as the country’s workforce has shifted over the nearly 90 years since the FLSA was enacted, the FLSA’s overtime rate has not.

Recently, the Double Wage for Overtime Act was introduced by Rep. Casar (D-Texas) in the House and by Sen. Gallego (D-Ariz.) in the Senate. The Act will strengthen overtime protections for more than 13 million workers by amending the overtime rate for the first time since 1938. It would raise overtime pay from 1.5 times a worker’s regular rate of pay to double the regular rate.

How would this affect pay, hours worked, and employment?

The potential to significantly increase workers’ earnings is notable. A worker making $25 an hour and working 10 hours overtime a week for a full year would gain $6,500 more in annual income, all else equal. But, as with any change to overtime policies, employers could respond to the new standard differently, based on the needs of their workplace. In particular, some workers who often work overtime may work fewer overtime hours, as employers adjust schedules and spread work to minimize having to pay the overtime premium. But, due to the double overtime rate, overall compensation for working people will still rise.

The Double Wage for Overtime Act also serves as a mechanism to narrow race and gender pay gaps by boosting pay in historically undercompensated, overtime-eligible sectors, where women and workers of color are disproportionately represented, due to the broad impacts of racism and sexism on labor market outcomes.

Finally, the bill offers a strong deterrent to employers who might otherwise overwork employees. Stronger overtime protections incentivize fairer and more reasonable scheduling, and act as a protection against unpredictably long hours. And, by incentivizing employers to spread hours out to employees who work less than 40 hours a week, stronger overtime protections are also likely to reduce the number of workers who are working part-time “involuntarily” (because they can’t get enough hours).

Any impact on employment is likely to be small, but positive. Some might argue, as they often do in opposing minimum wage increases, that requiring businesses to pay their employees more would reduce employment. But the overwhelming body of evidence on minimum wage increases shows that they raise wages without causing meaningful job losses.

Moreover, increasing the overtime premium differs from increasing the minimum wage in an important way. A higher minimum wage requires employers to raise the pay of all workers earning below the new minimum. By contrast, employers have considerable flexibility in responding to a higher overtime premium. Rather than paying the higher overtime rate, they could hire additional workers or offer more hours to employees who currently work part-time. In part because employers have these alternatives, any employment effect of increasing the overtime premium is likely to be positive.

How does this compare with “No tax on overtime”?

The legislation is far better for working people than Republicans’ “no tax on overtime” policy. Although a tax deduction may sound like a compelling way to help people who work overtime, it is a deeply flawed policy with very uneven benefits. It largely benefits middle-to-high-income earners, provides only modest tax savings for those workers who do qualify, leaves some workers worse off, and preserves financial gains for employers who overwork employees. Strengthening overtime standards—instead of offering gimmicky tax cuts—is the real way to deliver for working people.

How would this affect local economies and businesses?

As mentioned above, if this legislation were to take effect, businesses would have choices and flexibility as to how to comply. Firms may hire additional employees, which would increase employment in the overall economy. They may also choose to innovate and become more efficient in how they direct their employees’ use of time. Reducing excessive numbers of work hours may also improve worker health, concentration, and lead to fewer fatigue-related accidents, which would increase productivity in the workplace, benefiting workers and employers alike.

Though employers can respond to an increase in overtime protections in many ways, the increase will raise labor costs, as it puts money in workers’ pockets. Importantly, this is unlikely to translate into higher prices for consumers. Research on minimum wage increases, which raise labor costs, finds little-to-no inflationary impact from minimum wage increases. And minimum wage increases are a much greater shock to labor costs than an increase in the overtime premium. Increases in the minimum wage affect all hours worked for impacted workers, while the higher overtime rate will only affect hours worked past 40 in a week, a small fraction of total hours worked.

In fact, the Double Wage for Overtime Act will boost affordability by helping ensure that workers actually earn enough in wages to cover the cost of living with dignity and security. The potential income increase for working-class households would have a positive effect on local businesses as well. When workers have more money in their pockets, they can put that money back into their communities.

In short, increasing the overtime wage premium would strengthen one of the nation’s foundational labor standards, putting more money in workers’ pockets while encouraging employers to create jobs, instead of relying on excessive overtime. The Double Wage for Overtime Act is a straightforward opportunity for lawmakers to tackle continued affordability concerns. It is a long overdue modernization of overtime pay that will benefit millions.

James Bradshaw of the Globe and Mail reports pension funds overhaul board of fintech FNZ amid $4.6-billion lawsuit: 

Major shareholders in London-based FNZ Group, including Canadian pension funds, overhauled the board of the financial software provider as they look to stabilize the company’s finances and fend off an ongoing shareholder lawsuit seeking US$4.6-billion.

FNZ provides a digital wealth management platform used by some 650 financial institutions, including North American clients such as Bank of Montreal. Two of Canada’s largest pension funds own significant stakes in the company.

The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the Montreal-based pension fund that manages $552-billion, is FNZ’s largest shareholder and invested early in the startup in 2018.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), the country’s largest pension fund with $864-billion of assets, invested US$1.1-billion in FNZ in 2022.

Since then, the company, which was founded in 2003 in Wellington, New Zealand has run into significant challenges that include a lawsuit from minority shareholders and rising financial losses that FNZ incurred as it expanded rapidly into Europe, North America and Asia.

The overhauled board with several new directors has a mandate to revamp the company’s business model to bring it “to a more sustainable, more mature level,” Caisse chief executive officer Charles Emond said in a recent interview.

FNZ has a “great product” but also a high “cash burn rate” that needs to be reined in, he said.

Earlier this month, FNZ swapped its board chair, appointing Stephen Welch and citing his experience working with regulated financial services businesses in Britain. Previous chair Gregor Stewart is staying on the board as chair of its risk committee.

Five of the company’s 14 directors were replaced previously, including two board seats controlled by the Caisse. As of July, new appointees include Justin Shaw, an operating partner in the Caisse’s private equity division, and Denis Turcotte, managing partner of Brookfield Asset Management Ltd.

FNZ’s chief financial officer, Aashish Kamat, left the company in July after a year-and-a-half in his role.

The company reported a pre-tax loss of US$1.36-billion in 2025 – roughly double its loss in the previous year – even as revenue rose 9 per cent to US$1.13-billion, according to the company’s most recent filings.

“We brought in a new chair because we think, you know, there’s a lot of challenges in that situation,” Mr. Emond said. “He’s just not a chair there for governance. He’s really an executive chair that has experience as to how to assist us.”

Spokespeople for the Caisse and CPPIB declined to comment on the lawsuit against FNZ as it is before the court. A spokesperson for FNZ could not immediately be reached for comment.

The minority shareholder group that is suing FNZ in a New Zealand court has criticized the company’s leadership and its largest shareholders, alleging that employee morale is at a low ebb, based on internal engagement metrics.

Instead of sticking to prior cost-cutting measures, FNZ raised billions of dollars and then ramped up its spending, only to now “do another U-turn and heavily reduce costs,” FNZ co-founder Mike Stevens, a former employee who is part of the shareholder group suing the company, said in a news release.

“A number of things here simply don’t add up,” he said.

The group alleged in the lawsuit that their ownership stakes were unfairly diluted when the company raised new capital several times, starting in 2024, on terms that gave its largest investors preferential terms.

The Caisse and CPPIB participated in those fundraising rounds, including a US$650-million equity injection that was undertaken after the lawsuit was filed. 

The minority shareholders are seeking US$4.6-billion in restitution. The company is contesting the lawsuit, which it says it without merit.

FNZ recently issued a press release stating it has appointed Stephen Welch as Group Chair:

• Stephen brings decades of experience working with the boards and leadership teams of regulated financial services businesses, with a track record of driving growth, operational improvement and strategic transformation.

FNZ, the leading global wealth management platform, today announced the appointment of Stephen Welch as Group Chair.

Stephen will work closely with the FNZ Board and executive team to support the Group's strategy, transformation agenda and long-term growth ambitions.

Stephen brings decades of experience working with the boards and leadership teams of regulated financial services businesses, with a track record of driving growth, operational improvement and strategic transformation.

Gregor Stewart, who has served as Group Chair since 2024, will remain a member of the Group Board and Chair of its Risk Committee. He will also assume an important new role as Senior Independent Director.

Gregor Stewart, Senior Independent Director, said: “I am delighted to have the opportunity to serve FNZ in a new capacity as it continues on its transformation journey, and to welcome Stephen as new Chair. Stephen brings an impressive track record of success and skills that are highly relevant to FNZ. I look forward to working together.”

Stephen Welch, Group Chair, said: “FNZ has established itself as a global leader in wealth management technology with an exceptional platform and significant opportunities ahead. I look forward to working with the Board, Blythe and her wider leadership team, to support the delivery of the Group's strategy and pursue its long-term growth ambitions.”

Blythe Masters, Group Chief Executive Officer, said: “I am delighted to welcome Stephen as Chair of the FNZ Group Board. Stephen brings significant experience working with the boards and leadership teams of regulated, global financial services businesses. His track record of driving transformation and operational excellence will be highly valuable as FNZ continues to execute its strategy. I look forward to working closely with him.”

“On behalf of the Company, I would like to thank Gregor for his leadership as Chair, and I'm pleased that FNZ will continue to benefit from his experience, insight and counsel in his new role.”

Now, for those of you who don't know her, FNZ's CEO Blythe Masters (featured at the top of the post) is a legend in financial markets, previously heading up JPMorgan's commodities and credit divisions among other very senior responsibilities:

Blythe Masters is Chief Executive Officer of FNZ Group. She is also a Founding Partner and Industry Partner at the fintech specialized private equity and venture capital firm, Motive Partners, where she is also Chair of Motive Ventures. Additionally, she holds the position of Non-Executive Chair at J.P. Morgan Securities, PLC and sits on the board of SymphonyAI.

Prior to joining Motive, Blythe was the CEO of Digital Asset Holdings, the leading enterprise blockchain fintech company. Previously, Blythe was a member of the Corporate and Investment Bank Operating Committee and firmwide Executive Committee at J.P. Morgan. Her J.P. Morgan career spanned nearly 30 years, fulfilling several roles including Head of Global Commodities, Head of Corporate and Investment Bank Regulatory Affairs, CFO of the Global Investment Bank, Head of Global Credit Portfolio and Credit Policy and Strategy, and Head of Global Structured Credit.

Blythe is a graduate and Senior Scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge where she received a B.A. in Economics.

In short, Blythe Masters was a star at JPMorgan. She rose from intern to head of Global Commodities over the span of nearly three decades. She was widely regarded as one of Wall Street’s most powerful women, and her departure from that bank was high-profile.

The lady has tremendous experience at the most powerful bank in the world and then moved on to be the CEO of Digital Asset Holdings, the leading enterprise blockchain fintech company and was also a founding partner of Motive Partners, where she is also Chair of Motive Ventures. 

She's definitely no lightweight but does it mean she can properly run FNZ? 

I don't know. Leading the Commodities and Credit Derivatives divisions at JPMorgan doesn't necessarily make you a great CEO of a wealth platform startup but she's impressive, no doubt about it.

I also don't know what this ongoing shareholder lawsuit seeking US$4.6-billion is all about but when I read "the minority shareholder group that is suing FNZ in a New Zealand court has criticized the company’s leadership and its largest shareholders, alleging that employee morale is at a low ebb," I tend to think that such a lawsuit is frivolous and will ultimately be dismissed in a court of law.

That's my first impression but again, I don't know the details; it just sounds outrageous to me.

Of course employee morale will be low; the company reported a pre-tax loss of US$1.36-billion in 2025 – roughly double its loss in the previous year – and they need to cut costs and shore up operations.

La Caisse and CPP Investments are continuing to participate in fundraising rounds, including a US$650-million equity injection that was undertaken after the lawsuit was filed. 

These are the two largest pension funds in Canada and La Caisse CEO Charles Emond is publicly stating they believe in FNZ's platform and have undertaken board changes to shore up the company operationally.

That's the difference between investing in a public company and investing in a private startup: you have a lot more clout on what is going on at the operational level.

Below, learn more about FNZ's wealth platform.

Also, recorded live at Global Alts 2024 in Miami, Prosek Partners Founder and Managing Partner Jennifer Prosek sits down with Blythe Masters, Founding Partner of Motive Partners, for a candid fireside on a career that helped shape modern finance and a firm rebuilding what specialist private equity looks like in fintech. 

Blythe walks Jennifer through the entire arc: from writing cold-call letters to London banks as a teenager, to photocopying swaps documentation at JPMorgan in 1987, to becoming one of the youngest managing directors in the firm's history, to being credited with turning credit default swaps from a hypothetical instrument into a global market, to running JPMorgan's global commodities business and its regulatory affairs function through the aftermath of the financial crisis. Then in 2014 she left to build Digital Asset, one of the earliest institutional-grade blockchain infrastructure companies, and in 2019 became a founding partner of Motive Partners.

Third, Blythe Masters a Founding Partner of Motive Partners, a $6 billion specialist private equity platform that builds, backs, and buys technology companies that enable the financial services industry. In this conversation with Ted Seides, they cover Blythe’s career trajectory at JP Morgan across asset classes, cycles, and crises and then turn to the investment model at Motive and themes in asset and wealth management. 

They recorded this conversation on the iConnections Global Alts podcast stage, which explains the occasional wind gusts, airplanes overhead, sirens, and children playing in the background (March, 2024). 

Lastly, and most importantly, Blythe Masters, Group CEO of FNZ, discusses leadership, wealth infrastructure, and how AI is transforming advisor productivity in a conversation with Hiten Patel on The Innovators’ Exchange podcast. Watch this interview here (2026).