What next for NSSF Asset Allocation in 2027 and beyond?
At the Annual Members’ Meeting held in September 2026, the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) reported that member s’ savings had been invested in different asset categories to the tune of UGX32.87trillion as at 30 June 2026; broken down as follows:
- Fixed Income – 76.8%
- Equities – 18.4%
- Real Estate – 4.8%
There have been calls for NSSF to invest in alternative asset categories and have been labeled custodians rather than investors. The low-hanging fruit is the fixed income whereby NSSF lends to Government and sits back to collect coupon interest every 182 days.
NSSF real estate projects have faced perpetual delays and apart from the “unrealized gains” from revaluation of the land and buildings, the actual rental income has been dismal. On the other hand, prices of listed equities can go up or down.
NSSF has benefited in the past two years with the resurgence of MTN Uganda, Stanbic Uganda and Safaricom Kenya. The question is; “If the above three asset categories have delivered UGX6.51trillion in total income and a 22.53% interest (a payout of UGX5.44trillion) for the year 2025/26, is there a need to change this winning formula?
NSSF could diversify using upcoming member contributions (over UGX2.5trillion per annum) and net annual surpluses. Example of high-impact national development projects include the following:
- Standard Gauge Railway: UGX14trillion, 4 years to complete
- Kampala-Jinja Expressway: UGX4trillion, 5 years to complete
- Uganda Oil Refinery: UGX14trillion, 4 years to complete
This is a staggering UGX32trillion which could submerge the existing NSSF asset base. And yet, these seemingly impactful business opportunities would only start earning monies after the year 2030. What would NSSF be earning in the meantime?
Therefore, NSSF must think carefully about any proposed alternative assets as its targets UGX80trillion by 2035. Whereas those trillions can be attained, the fiduciaries may not approve some of the projects because of historical delays, complications and difficulties to monitor. Secondly, good projects are few, opaque and expensive. Thirdly, Government policies on some potential investments are flawed, that is, double-taxed or difficult to enforce.
