Statutory guidance

Local Government Pension Scheme: preparing and maintaining an Investment Strategy Statement

Published 29 June 2026

Applies to England and Wales

1. Introduction

1.1. This guidance has been prepared to assist administering authorities in the formulation, publication and maintenance of the Investment Strategy Statement (ISS) required by the Local Government Pension Scheme (Pooling, Management and Investment of Funds) Regulations 2026 (the 2026 Regulations). The Investment Strategy Statement (ISS) is a statement of the administering authority’s objectives, priorities and preferences in relation to the investment of the funds and other assets for which it is responsible.

1.2. Administering authorities are also required to comply with general public law principles and act within a prudential framework. Administering authorities have a fiduciary duty to discharge statutory responsibilities with care, skill, prudence and diligence.

1.3. This guidance replaces Guidance on Preparing and Maintaining an Investment Strategy Statement (2017). It does not override any part of the regulations or other relevant legislation. Unless otherwise stated, references to regulations are to the 2026 Regulations.

Overview

1.4. Part 4 of the regulations sets requirements regarding the formulation, content, publication, implementation and review of investment strategies, and allows the Secretary of State to issue directions in cases where he or she is satisfied an authority has not followed this guidance.

2. The roles of the Administering Authority and the Asset Pool

2.1. This chapter sets out the roles of administering authorities and asset pool companies (‘pools’) in relation to the formulation and implementation of the ISS.

2.2. The primary purpose of administering authorities in setting their investment strategy should be achieving the long-term returns needed to pay pensions when due. In order to do so, they should set an investment strategy that has regard to the timing and value of expected pension payments. Administering authorities should therefore consider any factors that are financially material to the performance of their investments, and should consider the short, medium and long term, depending on the time horizon over which their liabilities arise.

2.3. Pools are owned by LGPS administering authorities and exist to implement the investment strategies of their partner funds (both shareholders and non-shareholder clients). Working together effectively is key to success. Throughout this document reference is made to the role of the pool and the role of the administering authority in delivering the investment strategy. Pools and their partner funds should always seek to resolve issues through dialogue. Throughout this guidance the term ‘partner funds’ should be understood to include both shareholder and client administering authorities participating in a pool.

2.4. Administering authorities are responsible for setting their investment strategy including the high-level investment objectives. They may also choose to set the strategic asset allocation themselves after having taken advice from their pool. These high-level decisions are recognised as being the most important drivers of long-term investment performance. As administering authorities have ultimate responsibility for the overall management of their fund, it is right that they focus on these key decisions. The administering authority is responsible for the final investment strategy and ensuring the ISS complies with regulations and this guidance.

2.5. Certain roles within an administering authority have specific responsibilities in relation to the investment strategy as set out in the Guidance on Fund Governance 2026:

• the LGPS Senior Officer in the administering authority is responsible for ensuring that an ISS is drafted in accordance with legislation and guidance

• the independent person should support and contribute to the development of the ISS, including supporting the LGPS Senior Officer and pensions committee or equivalent officer(s) to whom functions are delegated, in interpreting or considering advice. The independent person is also required to support the LGPS Senior Officer and pensions committee to monitor the pool’s performance in implementing the investment strategy and whether the collective pool oversight process is meeting the requirements of the administering authority, and should have appropriate expertise to do so

• Local Pension Boards play an important oversight role in the development of an ISS. While the administering authority retains responsibility for setting the strategy, boards should be engaged during its formulation. They are one of the primary mechanisms for incorporating the perspectives of employer and member representatives, ensuring that stakeholder interests are considered in shaping the strategic approach. This involvement should occur ahead of formal consultation

• the Pension Committee, or equivalent, is responsible for signing off the ISS

2.6. Regulation 10(2) requires that administering authorities formulate their investment strategy after having considered advice from their pool. This advice should cover all elements of the investment strategy as set out in regulation 11 and this guidance. Further detail on advice is set out in the Guidance on Asset Pooling 2026.

2.7. The pool is responsible for delivering the strategy, including by implementing an investment portfolio which seeks to meet the objectives and comply with the strategic asset allocation set out by administering authorities. The pool should have the expertise required to deliver the strategy effectively, including in asset management and manager selection (and associated due diligence). The administering authority should hold the pool Board accountable for delivery and should, working with the pool Board, ensure that their pool is properly resourced to deliver the strategy.

2.8. As set out in regulation 14, pools must take all reasonable steps to implement the investment strategies set by their partner funds, while recognising that full alignment may not always be possible where objectives conflict. If the pool is too flexible, the outcome might run counter to the fundamental aims of pooling such as achieving scale and efficiency through pooling.

3. High-level investment objectives

3.1. This chapter provides guidance on how administering authorities should set high level investment objectives in their ISS. Administering authorities should take advice from their pool on the objectives.

3.2. As required by Regulation 11, administering authorities must set high-level financial objectives in their ISS which meet the requirements of the funding strategy. These must include:

• a returns objective: the return required to pay benefits over the long term

• a risk objective: the acceptable level of risk in the long term

• a cash flow objective: the income or liquidity to pay benefits in the short term as they fall due, and

• a local investment objective: a high-level objective on local investments, including a target range for those investments preferably expressed as a proportion of the total value of the pension fund. This should include objectives regarding returns, target area and desired impact (discussed in Chapter 6)

3.3. An example set of objectives could be as follows:

• returns: to achieve a long-term return of CPI + a% p.a.

• risk: to invest in such a way that the b-year c% funding level value at risk (VaR) is limited to d%

• cash flow: to ensure up to £e is available over the valuation period including a margin of f% for higher-than-expected growth in benefits

• local: to invest g% of the funds in local assets (with a tolerance of plus or minus h%) which have quantifiable benefits to the local area of the authority and the economic development of the region

3.4. The objectives must have regard to the administering authority’s funding strategy as set out in the Funding Strategy Statement (FSS). The ISS should explain how funding requirements are expected to be met by the high-level investment objectives.

3.5. When setting high-level investment objectives, administering authorities should consider relevant factors. These include:

• risk appetite: the objectives must consider the level of risk the administering authority is comfortable to accept in their investment strategy. It is for the administering authority to decide the level of risk that it deems to be acceptable, after taking advice from its pool and after taking account of the fund actuary’s views, and it should consider the impact of risk on its employers. As a lower funding level linked to lower returns may lead to increased employer contributions, administering authorities should consider the appetite from employers for this risk

• fund maturity: administering authorities should consider the current maturity of their fund, and the expected maturity over time, when setting objectives and set this out in their ISS. A more immature fund may justify a more long-term outlook on risk, and a more return-seeking investment strategy

• risk management: administering authorities must set out their overall approach to investment risk. The operational responsibility for managing and monitoring those risks lies with the investment pool. While funds must articulate their risk appetite and strategic principles within the ISS, it is for the pool, as the entity undertaking investment activity, to implement appropriate risk management frameworks, controls, and reporting processes. This ensures that risk oversight remains aligned with the fund’s objectives while leveraging the pool’s expertise and regulatory obligations in managing investment risks effectively

3.6. The following topics should not be considered as part of setting high level objectives or covered in the ISS, as these decisions are for the pool to take as part of implementing the ISS and the administering authority has no role in making these decisions:

• views on selection of asset managers, or individual asset managers, or how asset managers are combined within an asset class

• views on geographical zones of investment, except as they relate to the high-level objective on local investment under Chapter 6, or exposure targets

• investment decisions on individual holdings

• style of investment management, such as active and passive management

4. Strategic asset allocation 

4.1. All administering authorities must include a strategic asset allocation (SAA) in their ISS, which sets out the proportion of the fund’s assets which should be invested in each asset class in line with the investment objectives set by the administering authority.

4.2. Administering authorities may choose to instruct their pool to set the SAA on their behalf or to set the strategic allocation themselves after taking advice from their pool. Administering authorities may also choose to specify their allocation to growth assets (i.e. equities and private markets) and matching assets (others) and delegate allocation within those categories to their pool.

4.3. The SAA must follow the template shown below. The asset classes shown may be grouped together (for example, a single private markets class may be used instead of private credit, private equity and infrastructure), but the asset classes must not be split into more granular asset classes.

4.4. Tolerance ranges are an essential tool for the pool to effectively manage a diverse portfolio of different asset classes. They should be wide enough to avoid the risks and costs of frequent rebalancing.

	Strategic Asset Allocation (%)	Tolerance Range (±%)
Listed equity
Private equity
Private credit
Property / real estate
Infrastructure
Credit (i)
UK government bonds
Other alternatives (ii)
Investment cash

(i) Including credit instruments of investment grade quality, including (but not limited to) corporate bonds and non-UK government bonds.

(ii) Other alternatives are investments which do not fit into the other asset classes.

4.5. The management of operational cash remains the responsibility of the administering authority, and may be excluded from the SAA. Administering authorities should, however, inform the pool of the levels of operational cash required to meet liabilities. Alternative arrangements may also be used with respect to cash.

4.6. Implementation choices, for example the split between active and passively managed assets, and the geographical region of investment, are made by the pool and are not shown in the strategic asset allocation.

4.7. The ISS should set out the rationale for the asset allocation and identify the risks associated with it. The SAA should be a product of the high-level investment objectives set by the administering authority. The purpose of the allocation is to set out a practical means of delivering the high-level investment objectives in conjunction with each other and in the most efficient way. When interpreting the SAA, pools should not read it in isolation, but in conjunction with the whole ISS including high-level objectives.

4.8. The asset classes specified within the SAA are intentionally broad to allow administering authorities to focus on high level asset allocations and tolerances, set in the context of targeting their investment objectives. Pools should then implement the administering authorities’ investment strategies, operating to a greater level of detail within each asset class to allow efficient portfolios to be set. The stated tolerances allow the pools a pre-defined range of flexibility.

4.9. The ISS should be long term in approach and focus but, as required by regulation 15, must be reviewed from time to time and always within 18 months of each valuation date. This is to ensure that the balance between asset classes, overall risk and returns remains appropriate to meet funding needs and in line with the administering authority’s other objectives and beliefs. When reviewing the investment strategy, the administering authority must take advice from the pool.

4.10. This chapter does not intend to prevent employers from using liability driven strategies such as buy-ins.

5. Responsible investment

5.1. Administering authorities as public authorities are rightly expected to be particularly transparent with their approach to responsible investment and must maintain the highest standards in managing financial risk.

5.2. The ISS must set out the administering authority’s approach to responsible investment. Responsible investment is a strategy and practice which seeks to ensure that environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors are considered in investment decisions and followed through by exercising investor rights and leverage appropriately.  In doing so, it incorporates ESG considerations that may be financially material to risk and return, as well as wider extra financial impacts and outcomes.

5.3. For the purposes of the ISS, administering authorities should be as clear and succinct as possible in setting out their objectives, priorities and preferences with respect to responsible investment.

5.4. The responsible investment approach and priorities should be reviewed in every valuation period to ensure they remain relevant and up to date.

Key considerations

5.5. The administering authority’s primary obligation is to act in the best financial interests of the fund. As set out in Chapter 2, in setting their investment strategy administering authorities should consider all factors, including ESG factors, that are financially material to the performance of their investments. Administering authorities may also take non-financial considerations into account provided that doing so would not involve risk of significant financial detriment to the fund and that they have good reason to think that scheme members would support their decision.

5.6. In setting out their approach to responsible investment, administering authorities may include a preference for investments which have a positive non-financial impact as well as an acceptable financial return. Authorities may indicate that a different approach to return to achieve a positive non-financial impact is acceptable provided that this meets the 2 criteria for consideration of non-financial factors as outlined in paragraph 5.5 above.

5.7. Administering authorities should take account of the views of employers and members on their approach to responsible investment, including through their local pension board and the stated approach in the Governance Strategy. Where member and employer engagement is done via representative groups, administering authorities should consider whether those groups are able to adequately reflect the views of the scheme membership or employers as a whole, and should remind consultees that they are being asked for their understanding of what member or employer views are, not the views of their own organisation.

5.8. Administering authorities should exercise caution against undue influence from campaign groups whose positions may not reflect the views of members or align with the fund’s fiduciary responsibilities. Administering authorities should ensure that any consideration of member sentiment takes place with due account given to long-term risk management and regulatory compliance.

5.9. As set out in Chapter 3, the role of the administering authority is to set the ISS, including the high-level objectives, but not to specify the individual holdings, managers or geographic zones of investment. The responsible investment approach should not set exclusions for investments in individual countries, investment styles or companies.

Alignment within pools

5.10. As the investment strategy will be delivered by the pool, pools and administering authorities should work together to ensure that the responsible investment policy meets the fund’s requirements, does not conflict with the administering authority’s other objectives and is deliverable. This should always be achievable with the right approach, including where responsible investment policies are ambitious.

5.11. A pool responsible investment policy can be a useful way of achieving this outcome where the responsible investment needs are broadly aligned across the pool and a single approach to responsible investment is agreed across the whole pool. Partner administering authorities and their pool should aim to agree on common priorities and use the collective scale of the pool to influence companies and sectors. The priorities should be high-level and aligned across administering authorities where possible.

5.12. Where the responsible investment strategies of all partner funds cannot be aligned, pools and administering authorities should work together to form a limited number of groups of partner funds which each have an aligned approach. The pool should develop an appropriate responsible investment option for each group of partner funds. This will increase the impact of the approach in delivering positive change and its chosen objectives through greater scale of investment. It will also support the delivery of the full benefits of scale to the pool partnership, including lower costs, and avoid the high costs and limited impact of multiple small investments.

5.13. As set out in Chapter 3 of the guidance on asset pooling, where there is a conflict between an administering authority and a pool regarding the pool’s ability to deliver an administering authority’s policy on responsible investment, the pool should explain to the administering authority what elements of the policy it is not possible to implement and the reasons for this. The pool should support the administering authority to understand how the investment strategy could be adjusted to make it deliverable, while maintaining fiduciary duty to scheme members and employers.

5.14. Where administering authorities are still unable to reach a satisfactory position with their pool, they should escalate their concerns via the appropriate arena for contributing shareholder and client views, as agreed in the pool’s governance arrangements. If the issue cannot be resolved through this route, the administering authority should follow the recourse options set out in the governance arrangements of the pool, as per Chapter 6 of the guidance on asset pooling. 

Stewardship and the exercise of voting rights

5.15. High standards of corporate governance and corporate responsibility in investee companies are important to protect and enhance the value of the assets to the benefit of LGPS funds. Stewardship aims to promote the long-term success of companies through monitoring and engaging with companies on matters such as strategy, performance, risk, capital structure and corporate governance, including culture and remuneration.

5.16. Engagement by pools enables administering authorities collectively as long-term shareholders to exercise stronger positive influence on companies as a result of the greater scale of the pool. This is more effective in promoting strong governance, managing risk, increasing accountability and driving improvements in the management of ESG issues.

5.17. Administering authorities should set out their objectives on stewardship in their ISS, including engagement with investees and the exercise of voting rights and compliance with the Financial Reporting Council’s Stewardship Code. As with the responsible investment approach as a whole, administering authorities should seek to maximise the alignment between their approach and that of partner administering authorities and align as far as possible with the approach of the pool as a whole. This will increase the impact of stewardship activities and minimise costs. Where there is disagreement between an administering authority’s approach and that of other administering authorities in the pool this should be resolved through dialogue. Where a divergence of views would result in a pool having to represent contradictory opinions which cannot be reconciled it is ultimately up to the pool to decide the stewardship priorities based on fiduciary responsibility.

5.18. Stewardship activities should be delivered by the pool (or an organisation acting on its behalf), on behalf of partner funds. Stewardship and engagement should be delivered in line with a pool-wide policy developed by the pool in discussion with partner administering authorities where possible. Administering authorities should engage in stewardship activities with respect to their role as owners in a pool.

6. Local investment

6.1. Administering authorities must set out their approach to local investment, including a target range, as one of their investment objectives in their ISS. This chapter does not apply to the Environment Agency, which has England-wide responsibilities, as there is no appropriate local area.

6.2. Administering authorities must take account of advice from their pool in deciding their approach and should work with their pool and partner administering authorities to establish areas of alignment with partner administering authorities and the areas of investment opportunity.

6.3. In formulating the high-level approach on local investment, administering authorities are required to take account of the local priorities of strategic authorities, including Local Growth Plans where they are in place. Local Growth Plans, which are set by Mayoral Strategic Authorities and the Greater London Authority, provide a 10-year strategic framework for growth in a region. Where employers in the fund include local authorities within neighbouring Strategic Authorities, the administering authority must consider the local growth priorities of all relevant Strategic Authority areas. Where there is no Local Growth Plan, administering authorities and pools must engage with the relevant strategic authorities to understand the local growth priorities and opportunities for local investment.

Setting preferences on local investment

6.4. The high-level approach set out by the administering authority in the ISS should include the administering authority’s preferences regarding target area, returns and risk, and impact.

6.5. Target area: Administering authorities must set out the geographic areas they wish the pool to target for local investment.

6.6. Section 2(5) of the Pension Schemes Act 2026 defines local investment as meaning “investment in, or for the benefit of persons living or working in (a) the scheme manager’s area, or (b) the areas of the other scheme managers participating in the same pool as the scheme manager.” This definition is the widest that administering authorities may select as their target area for local investment, but administering authorities may choose to target a narrower definition, for example limited to the economic region of the administering authority if other partner funds in the pool are not in the same region as the administering authority in question. Investments “for the benefit of persons living or working in” an area is intended to include investments in the surrounding region as well as the geographic area of the administering authority’s itself, in recognition that regional investment has beneficial impacts for those living and working in an area.

6.7. The target area should normally also include the region in which the administering authority is located, as investment within the same functional economic area, or Mayoral Strategic Authority will also have benefits for the administering authority area. This will enable a wider range of sectors to be included. For example, while housing investment may be made at a local level, investment in other sectors such as transport is likely to extend beyond the local area.

6.8. Administering authorities may also wish to indicate that investments may be made anywhere in the pool area but should not extend local investment to include the whole UK. UK-wide investment is encouraged but local investment should be local to the fund or pool. While a target area should not be the whole UK, it is recognised that local investments can be made as part of a UK-wide strategy.

6.9. Returns and risk: When investing in local assets there is a significant opportunity to achieve social and economic benefits for areas local to the administering authority or pool. Investing with the aim of having a positive local impact does not necessarily mean accepting a lower return, but administering authorities may decide to indicate that a different approach towards expected return for local investments, such as a hurdle rate, is acceptable. Administering authorities may wish to set a minimum expected return or hurdle rate for local investments. Administering authorities may also indicate that higher risks may be acceptable for local investments. However, even when undertaking local investment, the primary goal should be to achieve the long-term risk-adjusted returns needed to pay pensions when due alongside the other preferences for local investment set out under this guidance, i.e. target area and impact.

6.10. Impact: Administering authorities may set out the impact they wish the pool to achieve in the target area. This should be a high-level goal, such as the promotion of beneficial economic, social and environmental impacts in the target area. Administering authorities may wish to set out more detail on the specific benefits they wish to see, such as job creation, local business development, community wellbeing, or reduced pollution. Examples of such investments could include housing, clean energy and infrastructure. Administering authorities should consider aligning their desired impacts with partner administering authorities so that pools can adopt a common approach and deliver benefits of scale.

6.11. Local investment does not cut across pools’ responsibilities as FCA-regulated managers. When selecting investments, pools must act in line with the approach to local investment set out in the ISS.

Setting a target range for local investment

6.12. Administering authorities must set a target range for assets to be invested locally. The target should be expressed as a percentage of the fund’s total invested assets with a range. Administering authorities must set a local allocation which they consider to be compatible with their primary duty to pay benefits when they fall due.

6.13. It is for the pool to make the decision on whether to invest in particular projects in order to best implement the target range in line with the administering authority’s objectives for local investment and overall investment strategy. Before the pool makes a decision to invest in any projects that are, or have been, politically controversial in an administering authority’s local area, the pool should seek information from the authority about the issues surrounding the investment project in question and the authority’s view of the investment, and take this information into consideration before making a final decision.

6.14. In setting the target range, administering authorities should consider all relevant factors. Relevant financial factors include the expected risk and return from local assets and the impact of these on the administering authority’s overall investment portfolio. Administering authorities should also consider the non-financial benefits of investing locally, for example through improving living standards, creating jobs and improving public spaces. These impacts have benefits for members, who typically form a significant group within the local population, and will have a reasonable expectation that their money is being invested in a way that benefits them and their communities.

6.15. If there are insufficient opportunities to deliver an administering authority’s local investment objectives this may mean the target cannot be achieved. Pools should never invest in unsuitable asses purely to meet the target range set by the administering authority.

7. Review, consultation and publication

7.1. Regulation 15 requires administering authorities to carry out a review of their ISS, and if necessary revise and publish the revised strategy, within 18 months of each valuation date. This is the effective date of the valuation, and not the date by which the valuation must be complete. Carrying out the review in conjunction with the actuarial valuation will ensure that the updated funding position and liability profile are reflected. It is permissible for administering authorities to begin the review of their investment strategy before the valuation date, but the process should not be completed until the valuation process is complete. Administering authorities may also review and if necessary revise their ISS at any other time, and must do so if directed to do so by the Secretary of State as outlined in chapter 8.

7.2. The LGPS Senior Officer should ensure a draft ISS is prepared for consideration by the Pension Committee, taking account of the advice from the pool, the actuarial valuation results, and any relevant regulatory or policy changes. The views of relevant parties, including employers and member representatives, may be considered during the drafting process. 

Consultation and publication

7.3. Administering authorities must consult formally with employers, scheme members and the relevant strategic authority (if applicable) as well as any other person the administering authority considers it ought to consult. Administering authorities should ensure consultation with employers includes those bodies deemed employers by Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the 2013 Regulations. As set out in Chapter 2, it is expected that administering authorities will engage their Local Pension Board on the contents of their investment strategy prior to launching consultation, and it may be appropriate to do so again alongside the formal consultation.

7.4. Engagement and consultation with LGPS members and employers may be achieved by consulting with appointed representative groups.  Where this is the case, administering authorities should consider whether representative groups are able to adequately reflect the views of the scheme membership or employers as a whole, and should remind consultees that they are being asked for their understanding of what member or employer views are, not those of their own organisation.

7.5. The ISS consultation process should set out how the ISS meets the requirements of the FSS, and the extent to which the views of their local pension board, scheme member representatives and other parties who it considers may have an interest, have been taken into account. The consultation should also set out the next steps in the process and how the outcome of the consultation will be communicated.

7.6. As public bodies, administering authorities must also adhere to general public law principles which require that consultations are conducted fairly, transparently, and at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage, with sufficient time and information provided to enable informed responses and with genuine consideration given to the views expressed before decisions are made.

7.7. If the administering authority decides the existing ISS does not need to be amended, the administering authority must publish a statement to that effect.

7.8. Once approved, the ISS should be published on the fund’s website and drawn to the attention of the local pension board, employers, scheme member representatives, the pool, and other key stakeholders. It should include the date agreed and a planned review date within the next valuation period.

7.9. An administering authority may review and revise the ISS out of cycle, in addition to the review required following each valuation. Administering authorities may consider an additional review of the ISS if major changes have occurred, or are expected to occur, which are expected to significantly affect the long-term overall asset value or liabilities. This will generally only be necessary in highly exceptional circumstances, such as a significant new group of members joining a fund. Administering authorities should not review the ISS in response to short term market fluctuations.

8. Directions by the Secretary of State

8.1. Regulation 16 gives the Secretary of State power to make a direction requiring that an administering authority either make specified changes to its investment strategy, or review and if necessary revise its investment strategy in relation to specified matters, within a timescale specified in the direction. This power can be exercised where the Secretary of State is satisfied that an administering authority has failed to comply with this guidance.

8.2. Before issuing any direction, the Secretary of State must consult the administering authority concerned. The purpose of the consultation will include seeking to confirm whether a breach of guidance has taken place, establish whether there are any mitigating circumstances that explain the breach, and whether the authority already has plans to address the breach. It will usually be appropriate for any such consultation to last for at least 30 days to allow those consulted adequate time to respond, however this remains at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

8.3. Regulation 16 also gives the Secretary of State power to carry out enquiries to obtain additional information to inform a decision on whether to issue a direction, or what a direction should require. Administering authorities must comply with any such request for information. In the event that the information cannot be provided by the administering authority, a response to the Secretary of State must be provided setting out the reasons why it is not possible to provide the information.

8.4. The types of evidence that the Secretary of State can be expected to take into consideration before reaching a decision may include, among other things:

• reports under section 13(4) of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013

• reports from the scheme advisory board, the relevant local pension board, and the pool

• any representations made in response to the consultation with the relevant administering authority

8.5. Any direction issued by the Secretary of State under the powers in Regulation 16 must specify the contents and date of issue of the guidance with which the authority is required to comply, whether the authority is required to consult on any proposed revisions to its investment strategy, and where applicable, the matters in the investment strategy in respect of which the authority must consult.