In the middle of the takeover poker surrounding Evonik, the major shareholder's previous investment decisions are coming into focus - and with them the question of how the foundation handles its billions.
Foundation boss Tönjes: Sharpen your profile as an institutional investor. Photo: Nieth/RAG-Stiftung, Getty Images, Evonik Industries AG/Preuss [M]
Dusseldorf. First, the RAG-Stiftung set up its own company for corporate loans, provided the associated fund with a capital commitment of up to 500 million euros - and a few years later handed over the majority to two managers, insiders report to Handelsblatt.
This process is now sparking new criticism of the investment practices of Germany's most financially powerful foundation, which is in the public eye like rarely before. Insiders describe the procedure as risky and non-transparent.
The RAG Foundation holds 44 percent of Evonik and is therefore a central player in the billion-dollar takeover poker surrounding the Essen-based chemical company, which BASF has been courting since the end of September.
However, the foundation's investment management has been under observation for some time. In the spring, two state auditors criticized the foundation. Insiders are now making new allegations against individual investment decisions.
The Handelsblatt has information about several events from the foundation's investment portfolio. The information comes from financial circles, which also refer to the foundation's internal sources.
In it, several of the foundation's previous investment decisions are critically questioned. It's about the structure of a credit platform with up to 500 million euros, an early commitment to the financial investor Maxburg and a stake in a fund from EMH Partners.
The RAG Foundation rejects significant allegations. In response to an extensive list of questions from Handelsblatt, she revealed details about the three investments and their development for the first time.
The foundation has assets of around 16 billion euros. The proceeds are intended to finance the perpetual burdens of the former mining industry, especially in the Ruhr area and Saarland. This includes pumping out mine water. It also supports social projects and start-ups.
In the middle of the year, the foundation had already rejected the accusation from the state audit offices in North Rhine-Westphalia and Saarland that its investment strategy was endangering the financing of perpetual obligations. The reason for the complaint was, among other things, the decline in the foundation's assets by 4.8 billion euros between the end of 2021 and September 2025. The cause was impairments at Evonik and bad investments.
The new criticism that is now emerging hits the foundation in a phase in which it is restructuring its investment strategy. With the possible sale of the Evonik stake, the debate becomes even more relevant. With the most recently known BASF offer of 24 euros per share, the foundation's package would be worth almost five billion euros. A complete sale would mean that an even larger portion of the foundation's assets would have to be invested outside of Evonik in the future.
1. Investment: Controversy over lending platform
An investment in the area of private debt raises a particularly large number of questions. In 2020, the RAG Foundation founded RSI Capital GmbH as a wholly owned subsidiary. Private debt refers to loans that companies do not take out through banks or public bond markets, but rather receive from specialized investment funds.
In the low interest rate environment at the time, the foundation wanted to build a target ratio of up to five percent in this asset class. She promised capital of up to 500 million euros to the fund managed by RSI.
The foundation emphasizes that this sum was not invested all at once. Rather, the capital was gradually accessed as soon as specific investments had been examined and approved.
In 2024 the structure changed. The RAG-Stiftung sold the majority of 50.4 percent of RSI Capital GmbH to two funds backed by the two long-standing managing directors of this company. This is shown by documents from the commercial register.
One of them was a leading employee in capital management at the RAG-Stiftung and continued to have functions in its investment environment even after the transaction. According to the commercial register, both remain managing directors of RSI.
This process sparks criticism. Insiders question whether the reorganization was related to a possible weak performance in the loan portfolio that was intended to be concealed. From an economic perspective, the impression arises that RSI Capital GmbH has actually taken on the function of a kind of “bad bank,” said an insider.
The RAG Foundation rejects this. Concerns about possible defaults in the loan portfolio did not play a role, she said. There was also no suspicion within the management of incorrect investment decisions. The RSI fund has had positive results since its launch. A stronger focus of the fund strategy introduced in 2023 further improved the ongoing performance.
Evonik investments: The RAG Foundation holds almost 44 percent of the group. Photo: IMAGO/Panama Pictures
Furthermore, the decision to become independent was not made at short notice. The RAG Foundation explained that the company's concept was “oriented towards gradual independence and market opening from the start”.
According to the foundation, there is also a fundamental change in its investment strategy behind this. Instead of managing investments itself through direct investments, it wants to work more with external managers and managed fund structures.
Another accusation from insider circles is that the RAG Foundation used its money to finance the development of the RSI from 2020 to 2024, but that the economic profit from this later went to employees. The foundation also rejects this accusation. For reasons of confidentiality, she does not disclose the selling price of the majority share.
The foundation writes that the transaction was checked for plausibility and evaluated with the help of external service providers. In addition, it was examined as part of the annual audit and provided with a certificate.
The foundation also rejects possible conflicts of interest. On the RAG side, employees who did not work for RSI negotiated. The later shareholders acted exclusively as buyers in their own name.
The foundation explained that there was no particular economic advantage for the buyers. They were given “standard market incentives”, but with their participation they also assumed their own entrepreneurial risk. The transaction generated a capital gain for RAG itself.
2. Investment: Commitment to Maxburg Capital
A second issue concerns the foundation's involvement with the private equity house Maxburg Capital Partners. RAG has been investing there since the first fund was launched in 2014.
Zollverein Coal Mine in Essen: The RAG Foundation has its headquarters on the site. Photo: Getty Images
What is critically questioned is the risk that the foundation took when it joined a young fund provider and how much control it was able to have over the decisions.
RAG contradicts the statement that it immediately made around 300 million euros available to the founders for a so-called first-time fund. The original commitment was 150 million euros. A further 150 million euros were only agreed as an option and were linked to the successful development of the fund.
The management did not start without experience; the team already had a positive track record. The foundation refers to its control rights: it was represented by three members on the investment advisory board and had veto rights on all investments.
From the RAG Foundation's point of view, however, the development of the investment is crucial. The value of the capital invested has more than tripled through the Maxburg I to III funds. The foundation therefore sees the Maxburg commitment as evidence of a successful selection of external managers.
3. Investment: 15 million euros for EMH Partners
A third commitment from the RAG Foundation is significantly smaller. According to her own information, she has pledged 15 million euros to the EMH Digital Growth Fund.
EMH Partners is currently in particular focus because of its role as a shareholder in the medical technology company Brainlab. After the company's failed IPO, an intense dispute raged between the financial investor and the company founder.
Private equity
First opera evenings, then lawyers: the power struggle over the med-tech company Brainlab escalates
Brainlab is one of the fund's important investments. The foundation said the conflict has so far had no impact on RAG. The commitment is developing positively and delivering reliable income; no value adjustments have been made. The Brainlab conflict has not yet had any consequences for risk management or further cooperation with EMH.
The RAG Foundation could expand such investments in private equity funds in the future. CEO Bernd Tönjes wants to present his new investment concept to the board of trustees at the end of November. As Tönjes announced in an interview with Handelsblatt in autumn 2025, the foundation should become more of an institutional investor.
In contrast, direct company investments that the foundation had built up alongside traditional capital market investments are to be reduced. The balance sheet of these investments in medium-sized companies is mixed: some of them developed successfully, others had to be written off or written down.
The involvement in the real estate empire of investor René Benko, which the foundation has now written off, became a debacle. This commitment, among other things, led to the reprimand that the two auditors issued against the foundation in the spring.
RAG Foundation boss Bernd Tönjes
“In Germany, industry is seen as a disruptive factor, not as a guarantee of prosperity”
Related topics
RAG FoundationEvonikRAGBASFSaarland
If the foundation were to sell the entire package, it would not only lose one of its most important dividend payers. At the same time, it would have to direct the proceeds of almost five billion euros into new investments that correspond to its foundation goal.
More: Evonik rejects increased offer from BASF
Published according to the editorial standards of the Handelsblatt. You can find more information in our guidelines.
