Pension360 | The Complete View of Public Pensions

Towers Watson Sued Over Advice That Allegedly Led to “Substantial Losses” For Pension Fund

Consulting firm Towers Watson faces a lawsuit from the UK’s British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme.

The pension fund, one of the UK’s largest, alleges that Towers Watson gave them “negligent investment consulting advice” that eventually led to significant investment losses.

Towers Watson denies the allegation.

From Chief Investment Officer:

Global consulting firm Towers Watson is being sued by one of the UK’s largest pension funds for more than £47 million ($72 million).

The UK’s British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme has filed a lawsuit in the US against the consultant alleging “negligent investment consulting advice” relating to a currency hedge.

The trustees of the £8.7 billion pension issued Towers Watson a letter of claim in September, according to a 10Q filing made to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on November 5. The lawsuit relates to a currency hedge on a £250 million investment in a local currency emerging market debt fund, which was made in August 2008. The advice was provided by Watson Wyatt, which merged with Towers Perrin to create Towers Watson in 2010.

According to the regulatory filing, the claim alleges that the currency hedge caused a “substantial loss” to the pension fund between August 2008 and October 2012. The loss was valued at £47.5 million by the pension fund.

A spokesperson for Towers Watson told CIO that the firm “disputes the allegations brought by the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme and intends to defend the matter vigorously.”

The SEC filing stated: “Based on all of the information to date, and given the stage of the matter, [Towers Watson] is currently unable to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss.”

The consultant was set to have issued a letter on the matter to the pension fund on or before December 23, 2014, the filing said.

The British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme declined to comment.

The British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme manages over $13 billion in assets.

Photo by www.SeniorLiving.Org

Recruiting Private Equity Talent Getting More Expensive For Pension Funds

As more pension funds participate in direct investing or co-investing ventures, they find the need for private equity experts on their staff.

But the cost of getting that talent is growing: a recent survey found that almost 50 percent of pension funds are having to shovel out higher salaries to recruit and retain private equity employees.

From the Financial Times:

Private equity employees are commanding higher wages as increasing amounts of money are pushed into the asset class.

Almost half of North American limited partnerships (pension funds and funds of funds) are having to increase their pay scales to recruit staff, according to a survey of 114 investors and private equity funds by Coller Capital, which invests in the secondary private equity market. The European market lags behind somewhat, with 30 per cent of LPs increasing salaries.

“The industry has done very well over the past couple of years, with very strong distribution,” said Michael Schad, a partner at Coller Capital. “As there is more demand from employers, wages can go up.”

As well as the industry expanding, investors are entering more directly into the asset class, either co-investing with general partners or building their own private equity investment capabilities. “This requires different skill sets,” said Mr Schad.

The survey also asked where funds were looking to recruit PE employees:

While more than half expect to recruit employees from other LPs, almost as many (46 per cent) will look for talent at alternative asset managers that are not private equity firms. A third will take on former investment bankers, but just a quarter hope to attract workers from general partners (private equity firms).

Increasing remuneration may be good news for the LPs, according to remarks made by Klaus Ruhne, partner at ATP Private Equity Partners, during a round-table held by private equity consultant Triago in November.

“What is more important than the size of teams, or the value of assets under management, is the frequent lack of generous long-term incentive plans for limited partners,” he said. “Without a restructuring of LP compensation, we will continue to witness an inordinate amount of inconsistency and even foolishness when it comes to how capital is deployed and how limited partners are organised.”

The survey was conducted by Coller Capital.

Photo by 401kcalculator.org

Video: New York Gov. Draws Flak For Teacher Pension Comment

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has upset some teachers and their unions after a comment last week about schools being more concerned about keeping pensions intact than improving schools.

The comment in question:

“We’ve sent thousands of children to schools we knew were failing from an educational point of view. Albany has been too concerned with protecting the pension rights of teachers and not concerned enough with the future of students.”

The above video discusses Cuomo’s comment and why he may have said it.

Feature photo credit: Andrew Cuomo by Pat Arnow.jpeg: Pat Arnow derivative work: UpstateNYer (Andrew Cuomo by Pat Arnow.jpeg) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

UK To Debate Ban on Secret Pension Fees

The UK government will consider a ban on secret pension fees in light of a proposition from Lord Mike German to improve the transparency of pension investments.

Netherlands Regulator: Some Pension Funds Not Doing Enough to Manage Conflicts of Interest

The Nederlandsche Bank (DNB), the entity that regulates the Netherlands’ pension funds, is concerned that some pension funds have not implemented adequate policies protecting against conflicts of interest.

From Investments and Pensions Europe:

Most pension funds’ boards pay insufficient attention to potential conflicts of interest of policy makers, pensions regulator De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) has suggested.

It indicated it was not satisfied with the outcome of a sector-wide survey, during which it checked whether schemes had conducted a risk analysis or had formulated a policy on conflicts of interest.

DNB concluded that a large number of pension funds had not conducted an analysis, and had at best a policy that was not based on such a risk assessment.

Additionally, it found that many schemes did not declare and register the main functions and jobs on the site of board members and other decision makers, and did not have a view on their private interests either.

However, almost all pension funds had rules in place for how to deal with gifts, according to DNB.

In its opinion, merely a handful of pension funds fully managed the risks posed by conflicts of interest.

The watchdog commented that conflicts of interest could lead to “impure decision-making, which could harm pension funds”. Therefore, trustees must actively fight conflicts of interest, it said.

DNB added that, during discussions with trustees, it had noted that the subject is charged, and that the sector needed clear examples as to what constituted a conflict of interest.

DNB now says it will come up with a list of “good practices” for combating conflicts of interest.

Kentucky Retiree Group Calls For Lawmaker Action on Pension Funding

Jim Carroll, co-founder of the Kentucky Government Retirees group, has penned a column in the Courier-Journal calling for lawmakers to explore and implement solutions to the funding crisis facing the Kentucky Employees Retirement System.

Carroll explains how the KERS non-hazardous fund came to be one of the worst-funded systems in the country:

Imagine that you purchased a house with a 30-year mortgage and for 15 out of the past 22 years, you made only partial payments toward the principal and interest. Obviously, long before now, you would have lost that home. But in the bizarre world of state funding policy, a succession of governors and legislators has done precisely that with the state pension plan that covers 38,000 retirees and 40,000 active workers, the Kentucky Employees Retirement System non-hazardous fund.

Consistently for more than a decade, budgets have short-changed the employer contribution to the pension fund. That in a nutshell describes how the plan is “upside down,” is in deep fiscal trouble, and has no short-term prospect for asset growth without a substantial injection of new money.

When year after year, we stakeholders paid our employee contributions like clockwork, Frankfort decision-makers let the employer contributions slide. Actuaries for Kentucky Retirement Systems, the umbrella agency that administers various pension funds, calculated the amount of employer contribution needed to sustain the fund, and governors and legislators approved budgets that methodically and consistently allocated lesser amounts.

Carroll goes on to discuss how assets are declining despite double-digit investment returns, and how the system is one economic downturn away from disaster:

The harmful effects of underfunding can be seen in recent declines in assets. I testified before the legislature’s Public Pension Oversight Board in October, and I pointed out an alarming fact: that investment gains have become disconnected from asset growth. Two years ago, the plan made more than 11 percent on its investments, yet assets declined by more than $200 million. Last fiscal year, a bull market in full swing led to a 15.5 percent return on investments — twice the assumed rate of return. The result? A decline of $183 million in assets. We know of no other state pension plan in the country where investments have soared, but assets have dropped.

[…]

KERS non-hazardous assets now stand at a little under $2.5 billion, while the fund pays out $915 million annually in benefits and expenses. KRS officials delivered the bad news recently that the market was flat in recent months, a trend that if it persisted to the end of the fiscal year, would lead to a decline of $500 million, leaving the fund with a balance of about $2 billion. This takes into account the additional funds provided by the full employer contribution.

[…]

What happens if the market hits a trough before the cumulative effects of future full employer contributions take effect? The KERS non-hazardous fund saw $2.1 billion in assets vanish during the 2008-09 crash. At the time, the fund held $5 billion in assets. It is of course far more vulnerable now.

If assets dropped to about $1.3 billion, KRS would be forced to liquidate its non-cash investments to maintain liquidity. At that point, it would no longer be a sustainable defined benefit plan, because such a plan relies primarily on investment holdings to pay benefits. In today’s low interest-rate environment, KRS investment returns in cash equivalents would be negligible.

Read the full column here.

The Impact of Cincinnati’s Pension Reform Deal

Cincinnati’s pension deal, struck last week, is widely considered to be a true compromise: no one is particularly happy with the outcome and every party made sacrifices as part of the bargain.

But how exactly does the deal affect the benefits of retirees and current employees?

A quick refresher on the main points of the deal, from Cincinatti.com:

* Three-year freeze on any increases to pension benefits for current and future retirees.

* Changes compound increases to a 3 percent simple increase for current and future retirees.

* Creates $200 million in savings in the health care system, and shifts those savings over the pension, which is not as well funded.

* City puts in $38 million this year and then commits to putting in 16.25 percent of payroll (currently $26 million) for each of the next 30 years. About half of that would come from the general fund.

The Cincinnati Enquirer explains the impact on retirees, including a COLA change:

Health benefits will not change for existing retirees under the fund, including a benefit that keeps health care for surviving spouses. But those retirees took perhaps the biggest hit of all the different constituencies at the table.

Most current retirees receive what is called a compound COLA, which calculates the previous years’ raises into a current year’s adjustment. That generous benefit goes away, replaced by a flat 3 percent annually like the current workers will receive. But retirees did get one bonus: That 3 flat percent will be calculated off the current levels, not those at retirement.

In addition, the city is creating its own retiree drug prescription program which it hopes will save $100 million, and is creating a Medical Expense Reimbursement Program (MERP) to pay whatever difference between an alternate plan and the city’s plan. This would be voluntary, however, and retirees can simply stay with the existing city plan.

How the deal affects current employees:

Under the deal, all current workers and retirees won’t get any raises (cost of living adjustments) to their pension payments for three years. For current workers, that means they won’t see any increases for the first four years they are retired. But in return, current employees probably got the best deal of any party to the agreement.

Under changes made in 2011, such adjustments for current workers were capped at 2 percent, but indexed to inflation, meaning in slow economies, only a minimal raise might be on the way. Now, they are guaranteed 3 percent annually for 30 years after the initial three-year holiday.

In addition, some of those workers clawed back a somewhat more generous benefit calculation formula, while older workers hired before 2006 also got the ability to retire after 30 years of service with no age requirements.

So retirees and workers will have to stomach some changes they may not like.

But in exchange, the city has promised to pay around $26 million annually into the pension system over the next 30 years.

Under the deal, the pension system could be fully funded in 10 years.

Photo credit: “Downtown cincinnati 2010 kdh” by kdh – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Sustainable Investing Experts Weigh In On Fossil Fuel Divestment; Is Engagement A Better Strategy?

Different pension funds have different opinions on how climate change should affect investment strategy.

Some, like Norway’s largest pension, are willing to divest from certain fossil fuels entirely.

Others, like CalPERS, prefer to use their leverage as major shareholders to engage with companies rather than divest. Many others cite their fiduciary duties to pensioners as a reason they can’t divest from fossil fuels.

What do sustainable investing experts have to say? The Financial Times talked to them:

“The idea that shaming an industry will somehow reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not correct,” says Jonathan Naimon, managing director of Light Green Advisors, a New York asset management firm that specialises in environmental sustainability investing. “It isn’t like divestors are bringing any solutions to the table.”

“It’s actually projects and technologies that reduce emissions and the people developing them are in energy supply companies as well as energy-using companies,” he adds.

[…]

But Bill McKibben, the US environmental activist and writer who co-founded the 350.org climate campaign group spearheading the divestment push, says engagement strategies only suited some companies.

“If we have a problem with Apple paying Chinese workers bad wages you don’t need to throw away your iPhone and boycott Apple stock. You need to put pressure on them so they pay people better and the price of an iPhone goes up a dollar and everyone’s happy,” he says.

But he argues fossil fuel extraction companies are a very different case because their value is so dependent on their reserves of oil, gas and coal. “There’s no way that engagement can persuade them to get out of this business as long as it remains a profitable business,” he says

“The idea that anyone else is going to merrily persuade Chevron or BP that they want to be in the renewables business or something is nuts,” he says. He argues this would only happen with government pressure and that in turn would require the dilution of energy companies’ political power by efforts such as the divestment movement.

[…]

Carbon Tracker itself does not recommend a pure divestment strategy.

“We’re not advocating blanket divestment,” said Anthony Hobley, the group’s chief executive. “We think both engagement and divestment together will achieve more. The sum is greater than the parts because either alone isn’t going to achieve the ultimate objective of a climate-secure energy system.”

What does an oil executive think about fossil fuel divestment? Click here to read his take.

Photo by Paul Falardeau via Flickr CC License

An Explanation of the Special Fund That Lets North Carolina’s Highest-Paid Retirees Skirt Pension Limit Rules

Over a dozen of North Carolina’s highest-paid pensioners are drawing benefit checks that exceed limits set under federal law.

But there are no laws being broken here, because they are drawing part of their checks from a special fund set up by state lawmakers in 2013.

The News Observer explains:

Some of the state’s highest-paid government retirees are benefiting from a supplemental fund set up by state lawmakers in 2013 so the retirees can receive pensions that otherwise would be too high under federal law.

The pensions of 17 public retirees in North Carolina exceed the federal limits in 2014, in many cases by tens of thousands of dollars. The state’s top-paid retiree, former UNC Athletic Director Dick Baddour, received just over $64,000 of his $281,000 annual pension from the fund.

Other beneficiaries include former Wake County Manager David Cooke, who retired in 2013, and former Durham Schools Superintendent Carl Harris, who left in 2009 to join President Barack Obama’s administration.

In all cases, the retirees and their former employers met their obligations under state law by paying required contributions into the system during the retirees’ working years.

The supplemental fund, known as a qualified excess benefits arrangement, or QEBA, was created by state lawmakers last year to get around a potential problem the state could have fixed nearly 30 years ago, when Congress lowered the pension limits. But back then, no state or local employees in North Carolina were making the kind of money that would bring the limits into play.

“They probably looked and said, ‘It’s never going to apply to anyone,’ ” said Sam Watts, a policy development analyst for the State Retirement Systems Division, which is under State Treasurer Janet Cowell.

Retirement system officials realized about three years ago that some retirees were exceeding the federal limits, which are based on factors such as years of service and retirement age. The limits are typically adjusted upward annually. An employee who retired in 2014 at age 65, for example, was limited to a pension of no more than $210,000. Those who retire at a younger age have a lower pension limit.

Congress gave public pension systems the opportunity to make arrangements for excess retirement benefits in 1996, as those systems began finding some of their retiring employees bumping up against the pension limits. In 2013, officials with the state retirement system asked the legislature to set up a similar supplemental fund.

If lawmakers didn’t set up the supplemental fund, the state pension system could have lost its tax-exempt status, according to the News Observer.

Pension Board to Cast Final Vote on Florida Reforms

The board of Jacksonville’s Police and Fire Pension Fund will vote Monday on a pension reform measure that would improve its funding status but also affect member benefits.

The measure was passed by the City Council in early December. More from the Jacksonville Business Journal:

The final status of the pension reform package, which calls for a mix of surging money into the pension fund and cutting benefits, rests with the board, who can either reject it altogether, elect to modify it or accept it.

Rejecting it would kill the legislation, while modifying it would mean that City Council would have to agree to changes proposed by the board.

The city’s latest estimates of the savings the pension reform legislation could bring come to about $1.33 billion over 30 years.

The legislation’s approval, however, will mean nothing unless the city decides how to pay off the $1.6 billion in debt it already owes the pension fund. Some of the suggestions by the city include infusing $300 million to the fund by increasing its and JEA’s annual contribution to the pension fund.

Pension360 will track the outcome of the vote.

Photo by pshab 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