San Bernardino Releases Bankruptcy Plan; As Expected, CalPERS Will Be Paid In Full

Calpers

The writing has been on the wall for some time now. So Thursday’s release of San Bernardino’s bankruptcy plan only confirmed what many already inferred: the city, in a bid to avoid reducing pensions, will continue making full payments to CalPERS.

But the city’s other bondholders won’t be so lucky.

From Reuters:

The Southern California city of San Bernardino wants to repay its pension bondholders just a penny on the dollar while paying the state pension fund Calpers in full under its long-awaited bankruptcy exit plan released on Thursday.

Under the bankruptcy plan, called a plan of adjustment, San Bernardino also intends to virtually eliminate retiree health insurance costs, and outsource its fire, emergency response and trash services.

San Bernardino proposes paying the Luxembourg-based bank EEPK, holder of $50 million in pension obligation bonds and the city’s second largest creditor, a fraction of its original debt, according to the plan, posted on the city’s website.

EEPK, along with Ambac Assurance Corp, which insures a portion of the pension bonds, and Wells Fargo, the bond trustee, have the $50 million principal amount of their debt slashed to just $500,000, or a penny on the dollar, under the bankruptcy plan.

A judge tossed a lawsuit this week from two of the city’s creditors, who argued it wasn’t fair for the city to pay CalPERS in full but pay other creditors pennies on the dollar.

San Bernardino declared bankruptcy in 2012.

 

Photo by  rocor via Flickr CC License

SEC Says Private Equity Getting Better At Fee Disclosure, But There’s “Room for Improvement”

SEC-Building

A high-ranking SEC official on Wednesday said that private equity firms are getting better at disclosing fees and other investment expenses to their limited partners, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

But Marc Wyatt, director of the SEC’s Office of Compliance, also said there was “room for improvement”.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Marc Wyatt, the acting director of the SEC’s Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examinations, said private-equity firms and their investors are “more focused” on fees and expenses, and that has prompted the industry to review and often change practices regulators have highlighted as questionable.

“This is a positive change,” Mr. Wyatt said. He added that there is “room for improvement” in how firms allocate expenses and manage co-investments, in which fund investors such as pension funds and sovereign-wealth funds directly participate in certain deals. He also called out real-estate funds, which sometimes offer property management and other services for an additional fee.

[…]

Mr. Wyatt said firms are providing more complete information to investors and, in some cases, eliminating fees that the agency has questioned. Specifically, he said the private-equity practice of pocketing extra fees when selling or taking public the companies they own seems to be falling out of favor.

Mr. Wyatt also said firms are better disclosing how they collect commissions for helping the companies they control get goods and services at a discount. The SEC had expressed concern that firms weren’t providing investors enough information about the fees they receive for steering companies into these group-purchasing programs.

The comments were made during the Private Fund Compliance Forum 2015, held in New York on Wednesday.

 

Photo by Securities and Exchange Commission via Flickr CC License

Judge Rejects Lawsuit Brought By San Bernardino Bondholders

4440297961_08cffc1a45_z

A California bankruptcy judge this week threw out a lawsuit brought by two San Bernardino creditors, who sued the city for continuing to make full payments to CalPERS while paying pennies on the dollar to many other creditors.

San Bernardino declared bankruptcy in 2012.

From the Sacramento Bee:

Ruling from Riverside, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Meredith Jury tossed the claim filed by the two creditors, Ambac Assurance Corp. and a Luxembourg bank named EEPK.

Last fall the city, which filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012, said it would pay its $24 million-a-year CalPERS bill in full. Ambac and EEPK said that arrangement was unfair to other creditors. Although San Bernardino hasn’t filed its complete repayment plan, it’s likely that many creditors would stand to receive only a portion of what they’re owed.

Ambac and EEPK are owed a total of more than $59 million in the San Bernardino bankruptcy. Lawyers for the two creditors couldn’t be reached for comment.

CalPERS welcomed the ruling.

“The judge in this case has ruled appropriately,” said the California Public Employees’ Retirement System in a prepared statement. “Now the city can turn its attention to the more pressing matter of completing its plan of adjustment for exiting bankruptcy.”

During its bankruptcy proceedings, San Bernardino was given the option to reduce its payments to CalPERS. But the city opted to keep paying the pension fund in full to avoid the reduction of benefits for the city’s public workers.

 

Photo by  Pete Zarria via Flickr CC License

Practical Issues in Pension Fund Investing – Execution of Subscription Agreements

2434691031_dc47fc162a_z

Louise Greig is an attorney who has practiced in the pensions & benefits field for over 15 years, most recently as a partner at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.  This post was originally published at Pensions & Benefits Law.

There is a famous phrase which is particularly apt in the area of pension fund investing – “the devil is in the details”. This is the first in a series on practical issues that arise in connection with investments by Canadian pension funds in alternative asset classes. The subject of this post is the execution of subscription agreements.

It is becoming common now for pension funds in Canada to invest in pooled funds. Such investments can take different forms. For example, a pooled fund may be structured as a limited partnership or a trust. Whatever the structure, the investor is typically required to complete and sign a “subscription agreement”. An issue that frequently comes up is: what entity should execute the subscription agreement?

You might ask: why does it matter who signs the subscription agreement? Isn’t this just a technicality? It is probably correct that nothing will turn on who signs — as long as everything is going well. But what happens if the investment fails and/or the plan becomes insolvent? In those scenarios the last thing anyone needs is a dispute over who is on the hook for payments under the agreement. Even if the dispute is ultimately resolved in favour of the party who is properly liable under the agreement, time and money will have been wasted over an issue which could have been addressed up front.

Many subscription agreements make the “pension plan” or ”pension fund” the signatory. This assumes that the pension fund is a “person” capable of entering into a legal agreement. In some jurisdictions, a “pension plan” is deemed by law to be a separate legal person. In those jurisdictions, the pension plan or pension fund may be the proper person to enter into the subscription agreement. But this is not the law in Canada. In Canada, a pension plan or pension fund does not have the status of a separate legal person and therefore cannot legally enter into a subscription agreement.

So who is the proper person to enter into the agreement? The answer depends on a range of factors, including the nature of the plan, the terms of the plan’s funding documents, any internal delegations of authority and the form of subscription agreement. What is important to remember is that, under pension legislation, the investment of the plan assets is a “plan administrator” function, not an “employer” function. This means that if the employer is also the legal plan administrator (which is the norm for private sector plans in most Canadian common law jurisdictions), it must be made clear that the employer is signing the subscription agreement in its capacity as the plan administrator, not in its personal capacity.

Another issue which needs to be kept in mind when completing a subscription agreement arises from the interaction between pension law and securities law. Generally, a subscription agreement requires the pension plan to confirm that it is an “accredited investor” under applicable securities legislation. It is important to review the documentation carefully to make sure it is clear that the “accredited investor” is the pension fund, since the person signing on behalf of the plan may not qualify as an “accredited investor”. This may require modifications to the wording of the subscription agreement.

 

Photo by Juli via Flickr CC License

Top Illinois Senator Floats New Pension Proposal

9160702501_939bef96e6_z

Illinois Senate President John Cullerton has introduced a new pension reform proposal for lawmakers to consider. The measure is a slightly tweaked version of a proposal the Senator floated two years ago.

Cullerton is trying to drum up support for the legislation in a bid to, against all odds, pass the bill before the session ends on May 31.

From the Chicago Tribune:

While details are still being worked out, Cullerton’s plan amounts to giving government workers a choice between keeping more generous yearly cost-of-living increases or continuing to count pay raises in calculating their retirement benefits.

[…]

The plan Cullerton floated Tuesday calls for giving employees a choice about their retirement benefits. Under the first scenario, a worker could choose to not have future pay increases factored into their pensions. In exchange, they would receive an annual 3 percent compounded cost-of-living pay increase. If they chose to count pay raises toward their pensions, workers would receive lower annual cost-of-living increases that are not compounded over time.

It’s a revamped version of a Cullerton proposal that passed the Senate in 2013 with union support that would have allowed employees and retirees to choose between compounded cost-of-living increases or health care benefits. That measure was never called for a vote in the House, as critics argued it would save about a third of the more sweeping proposal that ultimately became law but was struck down last week.

Cullerton believes the proposal is constitutional because, even though it scales back benefits, it gives workers something in return.

 

Photo by Chris Bentley via Flickr CC License

Military Pension Overhaul Moves Forward As Senate Committee Backs Plan

military

In January, a government panel made a series of recommendations for overhauling the U.S. military retirement system, including a shift from a defined-benefit system to a 401(k)-style system.

The House of Representatives Armed Services Committee last month backed a version of the proposal; now, the overhaul is moving forward as a Senate committee has thrown its support behind a similar, but slightly different, version of the proposal.

From the Military Times:

[Sen. Lindsey] Graham said the Senate draft […] will include changes to military retirement benefits based on recent recommendations from the congressionally mandated Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.

That plan would replace the current 20-year, all-or-nothing retirement system with a 401(k)-style retirement plan and pension-style retirement payout. The change would allow all troops to receive some retirement benefits, but has received criticism from some military advocates over fears it could hurt retention.

Graham said his panel’s version of retirement reform differs from what’s in the House bill, meaning the two retirement overhaul plans would need to be reconciled in a conference committee.

Both the Senate and the House Committees are expected to vote on the respective measures next week.

 

Photo by Brian Schlumbohm/Fort Wainwright PAO

Chicago Debt Downgraded to Junk Status By Moody’s; Firm Cites Pension Ruling

chicago

Moody’s has cut Chicago’s credit rating to Ba1 – or junk status – in the wake of last week’s Supreme Court ruling, which the ratings agency says “considerably” narrows Chicago’s options for dealing with pension liabilities.

[Read the Moody’s release here.]

More from Crain’s Chicago:

Moody’s downgrade comes even before a ruling by a Cook County Circuit judge in a case challenging a separate state law overhauling two city pension funds that was passed in 2013.

“Whether or not the current statutes that govern Chicago’s pension plans stand, we expect the costs of servicing Chicago’s unfunded liabilities will grow, placing significant strain on the city’s financial operations absent commensurate growth in revenue and/or reductions in other expenditures,” the Moody’s report says.

“The magnitude of the budget adjustments that will be required of the city are significant,” Moody’s added. “Furthermore, Chicago’s tax base is highly leveraged by the debt and unfunded pension obligations of the city, as well as those of overlapping governments.”

In a statement, Emanuel said, “This action by Moody’s is not only premature, but it is irresponsible to play politics with Chicago’s financial future by pushing the city to increase taxes on residents without reform.”

The city’s credit outlook remains negative.

 

Photo by bitsorf via Flickr CC LIcense

Opening Canada’s Infrastructure Floodgates?

Roadwork

Leo Kolivakis is a blogger, trader and independent senior pension and investment analyst. This post was originally published at Pension Pulse.

Bill Curry of the Globe and Mail reports, Liberals would encourage pension funds to invest in infrastructure:

Enticing large pension funds to spend big on Canadian infrastructure projects will form a key part of the Liberal Party’s cities agenda, which is among the next policy planks that Leader Justin Trudeau will announce in the coming weeks.

Mr. Trudeau and his team of advisers are working on the final details of the infrastructure platform, which the party has long said would form a significant part of its pitch to voters in the October election.

But having decided to largely devote future surpluses toward tax cuts and enhanced direct payments to families, there is little room left to promise major additional spending on infrastructure.

Senior Liberals responsible for the party’s economic policies say the infrastructure component will draw inspiration from Australia and Britain, where efforts are being made to plan infrastructure projects so they meet the needs of pension investors looking for large, long-term projects that are open to private investment.

Liberal finance critic Scott Brison said in an interview that the Liberal plan would not interfere with the mandate of large Canadian pension funds such as the Canada Pension Plan, but would aim to address the reasons these funds are more likely to invest in infrastructure abroad than at home.

“You can respect absolutely the independence of Canadian pension funds to do their jobs – and that is maximize long-term pension security and returns for their members – but at the same time you can package projects within Canada that are attractive to not just Canadian pension funds but global pension funds,” he said. Mr. Brison and Liberal MP Chrystia Freeland met Monday with The Globe and Mail’s editorial board.

While no date has yet been set for the release of the party’s infrastructure platform, the annual meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is scheduled for June 5-8 in Edmonton and the party would like to have details ready by then to discuss with Canada’s mayors and city councillors.

Mr. Trudeau was also in Toronto on Monday where he delivered a speech to the Canadian Club that promoted the tax policies he announced last week. He argued that taxing high-income Canadians to pay for these measures is a better way to raise revenue than the NDP’s proposal of higher corporate tax rates.

The tax proposals were the first of what is expected to be a series of policy announcements in the coming weeks that will include infrastructure, child care and innovation.

Attracting more pension investment in Canadian infrastructure would require selling Canadians on a much larger role for public-private partnerships than is currently the case. It would also mean going further in a direction that is already preferred by the Conservatives. It is the Harper government that created a Crown corporation – PPP Canada Inc. – in 2009 focused on public-private partnerships for infrastructure. The 2015 federal budget promised a new public transit fund that would run through PPP Canada and would receive $1-billion in annual funding starting in 2019-20.

A 2013 analysis by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development looked specifically at pension-fund investment in infrastructure and compared the Australian and Canadian approaches.

It said Canadian pension funds have been dubbed the “Maple revolutionaries” by the Economist magazine for their expertise in infrastructure investing around the world, but that these funds “bemoan the lack of investment opportunities at home.”

The report said these funds view public-private partnerships in Canada as too small. While Mr. Brison and Ms. Freeland said in interviews Monday they are interested in Australia’s approach, the OECD report questioned whether these policies would be popular with Canadians.

“Australia has a history of privatization over the last two decades, especially in large transport items such as airports, ports, toll roads and tunnels. In contrast, only very few privatizations of public infrastructure assets have occurred in Canada,” it said. “According to observers, there is no widespread political will to do so in the foreseeable future.”

Meanwhile, a 2011 program in Britain called the Pensions Infrastructure Platform that was meant to entice pension investment in infrastructure has run into criticism and has so far failed to meet its initial targets.

So what do I think of the Liberals’ new infrastructure platform to entice Canada’s large pensions to invest in domestic infrastructure? I need to see the details but one infrastructure expert I contacted told me “the key obstacles to having more pension funds participate in the Canadian infrastructure space are at the municipal and provincial level (not federal).”

However, as I recently stated in a comment on how the federal budget is looking at boosting federal pensions, we desperately need to change the rules to create more PPPs in Canada and get our big pensions on board to invest in these projects.

The Caisse’s bid to handle some of Quebec’s infrastructure projects will be closely scrutinized to see if it can successfully manage large greenfield projects while maintaining its independence from direct government intervention. There are critics who think the Caisse won’t make money off these projects, but that remains to be seen.

The truth is infrastructure projects are exorbitantly expensive and even if you get all of Canada’s top ten pensions to invest in domestic infrastructure, you still need massive government investment to finance these projects.

Consider high speed trains. Canada has no high speed trains going from coast to coast. But even if you built one going from Toronto to Montreal, it will cost billions and you still need to price the fares competitively or else people will just fly or take the old railway route. In other words, high speed trains are amazing but at $800 or $1,000 a round trip fare from Montreal to Toronto, you’re not going to get the critical mass to finance such a project.

That’s why the federal and provincial governments need to be involved. Infrastructure projects are very expensive but there’s no denying Canada needs to invest billions to modernize our infrastructure and keep up with a growing population.

This is where pensions can play a critical role. Canada’s large pensions have been investing directly in infrastructure all around the world for years. They already own a huge chunk of Britain’s infrastructure and are continuously looking to invest in high quality infrastructure assets. This is why the Caisse is chunneling into Europe and why its CEO Michael Sabia has stated they are looking to invest in U.S. infrastructure.

And it’s not just the Caisse. Last week, CPPIB announced that it has purchased a stake, worth about $1.6 billion, in two U.K. telecommunications companies. In April, CPPIB bought big stakes in the UK’s top ports.

Back in December, Ontario Teachers’ CEO Ron Mock stated the plan is seeking foreign investments out of necessity, not lack of confidence in Canada:

The strategy has come with challenges. Mr. Mock said one of the biggest difficulties is navigating the legal systems and governance requirements of foreign countries when buying large stakes in their companies.

Mr. Mock cited Asian companies that have not yet gone public among investment opportunities he’s keeping an eye on. He said the pension fund doesn’t typically make venture capital investments in Canadian companies because those types of investments are generally in the tens of thousands of dollars, while he’s looking to invest hundreds of millions at a time.

“As a fiduciary, we really do have to focus on earning the returns on behalf of the teachers,” he said.

Another opportunity he’s keeping his eye on is infrastructure investments in Europe and Canada. He said pension funds have a role to play in helping Canada address its crumbling infrastructure problem over the next 10 years.

“I think that is a vital opportunity in Canada,” he said.

No doubt about it, Canada’s large pensions can play an integral role in funding domestic infrastructure but they have to maintain their arms-length approach in making such investments and not be forced to invest in these projects by any government.

All of Canada’s large pensions are shifting huge assets into infrastructure as they look for very long-term investments with steady cash flows offering them returns between equities and bonds. Infrastructure investments are an integral part of asset-liability management at pensions which typically pay out liabilities over the next 75+ years (the duration of infrastructure assets fits better with the duration of the liabilities of these plans).

The problem right now is there aren’t enough domestic opportunities so our large pensions are forced to invest in infrastructure projects abroad. This introduces legal, regulatory, political and currency risks (their liabilities are in Canadian dollars). For example, PSP’s big stake in Athens airport makes perfect long-term sense but if Greece defaults and exits the euro, all hell can break loose and the leftist or worse, a junta government, might nationalize this airport. Even if they don’t nationalize, if they reintroduce the drachma, it will significantly damper PSP’s revenues from this project.

As far as incorporating models from Australia and the UK, I think Australia has got it mostly right. They privatized their airports and ports and Canada needs to do the same to fund other projects. The UK’s experience with the Pensions Infrastructure Platform has its share of critics but there have been some big deals there too.

Whatever the Liberals decide to do, their initiative needs to entice foreign pension and sovereign wealth funds as well. It won’t be enough to have Canada’s large pensions on board. And as I stated above, our governments will still need to invest billions in domestic infrastructure.

From an economic policy perspective, massive investments in infrastructure are needed especially now that Canada is on the precipice of a major crisis. We’re living in Dreamland up here and I fear the worst as Canadians take on ever more crushing debt. The country desperately needs good paying jobs, the type of jobs massive infrastructure projects can provide.

Illinois Bond Yields Jump As Investors Anticipate Credit Downgrade

271px-Flag_map_of_Illinois

Municipal debt investors are bracing for a downgrade to Illinois’ credit rating in the wake of a state Supreme Court ruling last week that rolled back the state’s 2013 pension cuts.

Two ratings agencies – S&P and Moody’s – noted the possibility of future downgrades last week as the state now needs to grapple with its pension costs in a different way.

From the Financial Times:

Illinois’ 2033 bond rose as much as 16 basis points higher to 5.47 per cent on Monday, according to Bloomberg pricing in the wake of the state’s Supreme Court unanimously ruling against a pension reform package passed in 2013. Illinois sought to reduce its pension liability by $21bn by tweaking some of its benefit provisions, but that was deemed as breaking the state’s constitution said the court.

John Mousseau, a director of fixed income at Cumberland Advisors, expects further weakness for Illinois bond prices and noted to clients: “With Illinois unable to gain relief from its staggering pension costs, expect to see massive cutbacks in the state government. This may be easier said than done.”

Standard & Poor’s last week put the Illinois on “CreditWatch with negative implications,” and Moody’s published a bearish note on the fiscally challenged US state.

“Although our rating on the state had assumed these measures would not be implemented, rejection of the pension benefit legislation puts the state under increased pressure to devise a way to pay for liabilities created through decades of insufficient contributions,” Moody’s said in the report.

None of the three major ratings agencies have so far issued downgrades or changes in outlook.

Video: New Orleans Pension Administrator Defends “Questionable” Expenses

FOX 8 WVUE New Orleans News, Weather, Sports, Social

The director of the New Orleans Municipal Employees Retirement System is fending off allegations that he inappropriately used his expense account to rack up bills for alcohol, Louisiana-shaped cutting boards and a $2000 steak dinner.

The expenses were originally reported by Fox 8 Live, but the pension official says he didn’t use taxpayer money to pay for the items.

Watch the video for more.

Video credit: Fox 8

Photo by 401kcalculator.org via Flickr CC License


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home/mhuddelson/public_html/pension360.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 3712