Competition commission investigations expose abuse of market dominance by GIPF

The Namibia Competition Commission (NaCC) has found the Government Institutions Pension Fund (GIPF) guilty of discriminatory behaviour, abuse of dominance, and the imposition of unfair selling prices.

This was to the benefit two entities identified as Kuleni Preservation Fund (KPF) and Kuleni Financial Services (KFS), it says.

NaCC spokesperson Dina Gawases says the findings came as a result of Retirement Fund Solutions (RFS) filing a complaint on 5 August 2020, alleging that the GIPF and the two entities were engaged in restrictive business practices and abusing their dominance in the market.

The commission’s consequent investigation sought to establish whether the GIPF was aggressively cross-selling KPF to the exclusion of the other funds.

This would curtail GIPF members’ access to the broader pension fund market, Gowases says.

“Cross-selling is a sales technique involving the selling of an additional product or service to an existing customer. The commission did not find evidence of cross-selling as alleged.

“The commission however, found that following the introduction of the GIPF’s “member-retention strategy”, GIPF members, once in the process of withdrawing and preserving their benefits, are enticed to make use of KPF to the exclusion of other preservation funds in the market,” Gowases says.

She says through the arrangement with the GIPF, KFS enjoys an unfair competitive advantage as it avoids an obligation to cater for its administrative cost structure, which has to be funded from cash flow by all other competitive administrators in the relevant market.

“This discriminatory conduct represents an abuse of the GIPF’s dominance as it enables KFS to operate with an unfair advantage, an effective lower operating cost than its competitors,” says Gowases.

The commission also found that the GIPF was paying for KFS’ administration expenses with extended credit without repayment requirements while not doing so for any of KFS’ competitors.

Such practice in the commission’s view is a demonstration of the GIPF and KFS’ market power, Gowases says.

“This means KFS’ competitors cannot compete fairly with KFS from a cost perspective.

“This, in the commission’s view, constitutes an abuse of the GIPF’s and KFS’ joint and separate monopoly and dominant position in the relevant market,” she says.

The commission is yet to make a final decision on the matter, Gowases says.

“The commission wishes to invoke the process contemplatee by Section 36 of the Competition Act and afford the respondents to make an opportunity to make written submissions and oral representations,” she says.