Tug of war between Kalipuro pension fund and members over property transfer

Kwip and Fabi

In the dialectic between Part 1 and Part 2 of the Cariplo Fund, Covip, the pension fund regulator. “It was Covip that asked Section 1 to sell 20% of its assets, as required by regulation,” explains Giuseppe Milazzo, Fabi national secretary who has been dealing with union issues at Intesa Sanpaolo for years. The transfer of property from Section 1 to Section 2 has therefore been approved by the authorities.”

Milazzo also recalled that, according to article 25 of the Convention Fund Charterparagraph 1 pays the cousins ​​of paragraph 2 the excess amount every year after paying pensions and restructuring reserves, “and this year – he stressed – this amount is approximately equivalent to 5 million euros”. Finally, union member Fabi concluded: “The real estate investment is shared by both sectors; I do not think it is necessary to make an interim assessment.” Regarding the transfer of property, we also asked Covip about its position on this, but Covip did not want to comment.

Fund Positions

So what will members find in the balance sheet of the Cariplo Pension Fund that will be presented soon? «The Cariplo Fund informed that the Board of Directors of the Fund has proceeded with the transfer of four companies already owned by Parts 1 and 2 for an amount of approx. 30 million euros».

This is the value of the property and securities transferred. It then adds: “The origin of the business stems from multiple needs related to the rationalization of property management, the need for liquidity in both sectors and the need to diversify the portfolio”.

This is the main reason. Then two other points are emphasized: “Section 2 already owns the remaining shares of the company before the transfer, Transfers that occur at the same price that is already in the budget (and therefore known and shared)thereby allowing totalitarian control over management choices, which is also communicated to the regulators”. In addition, it is emphasized that “two of the four companies involved in the transfer ended the 2021 fiscal year with a loss (two of the three agricultural companies transferred), while the other two ended the 2021 fiscal year with a profit”. Finally: “The decisions taken by the Fund’s Board of Directors are made in accordance with the usual standards of sound and prudent management, in full coordination with the Audit Committee and in compliance with supervisory rules”.