Interview
Pension funds and custody of digital assets
More institutional players are exploring crypto custody, but pension funds move cautiously. We spoke with Rutger van Ameide, head of alternative investments at a Belgian pension fund, about why.
In conversation with
Rutger van Ameide — Hoofd Alternatieve Beleggingen, een Belgisch pensioenfonds
Is your fund considering exposure to crypto?
Van Ameide: 'We're looking at it, but that's different from stepping in. As a pension fund we have a duty of care towards participants that goes far beyond that of an individual investor. Any new asset class must fit within our risk framework and be demonstrably well managed, including operationally.'
'Custody is the first hurdle there. It's not just about who holds the keys, but also how that's controlled, who the counterparty is at a custodian, and what happens if that custodian goes bankrupt.'
What does your fund concretely require from a custodian?
Van Ameide: 'We want segregated custody of assets, independent audits, insurance coverage against theft and hacks, and a clear recovery plan if a custodian runs into trouble. Many providers can do one or two of those well, but the complete package is still scarce in Europe.'
'We also want the custodian to be supervised by a recognised European regulator. Without that we simply won't engage, no matter how attractive the return looks on paper.'
- Segregated custody of assets
- Independent audits
- Insurance against theft and hacks
- Supervision by a recognised European regulator
How does this compare to spot bitcoin ETFs?
Van Ameide: 'An ETF structure is easier for us to grasp, because the custody question is already solved by the fund provider and we simply buy shares through our existing infrastructure. Direct exposure via own custody is a completely different discussion, with a different risk profile.'
'For smaller allocations we therefore see ETFs as a more logical first step than directly holding coins. That doesn't mean we won't eventually look at direct models too, provided they become just as well regulated.'
What role does MiCA play here?
Van Ameide: 'MiCA helps, because it sets a common basis for who may offer which services and under what conditions. For us that's a necessary but not sufficient condition. Regulation alone doesn't solve operational risk, it just sets a minimum standard.'
'We therefore keep doing our own due diligence on every potential partner, regardless of whether they're licensed. A license is a starting point for the conversation, not the end point.'
Risks for pension plan participants
Exposure to crypto assets within a pension fund, if it happens at all, is expected to remain small relative to the total portfolio. Digital assets carry higher price volatility than most traditional asset classes.
This interview is intended to inform readers about institutional considerations and does not constitute investment advice for individual readers or a recommendation on pension policy.
Frequently asked questions
Are pension funds already investing directly in bitcoin?
Some funds are exploring it, but direct own custody remains limited according to this source due to strict custody requirements.
Why is custody so important for institutional players?
Because a pension fund has a duty of care towards participants and must be able to show that assets are held safely, segregated, and insured.
Is an ETF easier than direct custody for a pension fund?
According to this interviewee, yes, because the custody question is already solved by the fund provider and the fund can invest via existing infrastructure.
About the author
Veerle sprak jarenlang met vermogensbeheerders en pensioenfondsen. Ze schrijft over institutionele adoptie, custody en risicobeheer.