Pension360 | The Complete View of Public Pensions

Private Equity Firm Allows Investors to Hire Advisor to Monitor Governance, Review Financial Records

A New York Times report over the weekend posed the question: is private equity becoming less private?

One private equity firm, Freeman Spogli & Company, recently revealed that it allowed investors in one of its funds to hire an outside adviser to “monitor the fund’s practices”.

Investors in the fund include several of the country’s largest pension funds, including the New York State Common Retirement Fund.

From the New York Times:

Is private equity about to get a little less private?

Perhaps so, judging by the decision of a venerable private equity firm to allow investors in one of its funds to hire an independent adviser to monitor the fund’s practices. Beyond reviewing the books and financial records at the fund, the outside adviser would also be permitted to scrutinize the fund’s governance practices for conflicts of interest, the firm said.

This shift in practice, which has not been previously reported, was disclosed to investors in June by Freeman Spogli & Company, a $4 billion private equity firm created more than 30 years ago, in a letter laced with legal jargon that obscured the import of the decision.

The new policy applied to the firm’s newest fund: FS Equity Partners VII, which opened for investment this year and has closed with $1.3 billion in committed funds. Investors in that fund include pension funds and public investments, such as the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, the New Mexico State Investment Council and the New York State Common Retirement Fund.

[…]

Allowing the appointment of a monitor is no small matter. Giving an outsider routine access to internal fund operations is practically unknown in the $3.5 trillion private equity industry, where powerful firms operate in near secrecy and hold so much sway that many investors say they feel fortunate to be allowed to put money into the funds. The independent adviser will report to the fund’s investors.

Karl Olson is a partner at Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski who has sued the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as Calpers, to force it to disclose fees paid to hedge fund, venture capital and private equity managers. He said he had never seen a provision allowing an independent monitor at a private equity fund.

“It does seem like a step in the right direction because too often the limited partners are unduly passive,” he said, referring to investors. “They should feel they are in the driver’s seat and that they have an obligation to drive a hard bargain with the funds.”Phone calls seeking comment at both the New York and Los Angeles offices of Freeman Spogli were not returned.

The NY Times report speculates that the firm may have allowed the hiring of the independent adviser after the SEC began asking questions about “several of the firm’s practices”.

UK Environmental Regulator Accused of “Clear Conflict of Interest” In Pension Fund Investments

A report by the Independent claims that the pension portfolio of the UK’s Environment Agency – the government body charged with protection of the environment in England – contains numerous investments in industries that the Agency regulates.

The portfolio holdings may present a conflict of interest for the Agency.

From the Independent:

The Environment Agency (EA) has been accused of having a “clear conflict of interest” after an Independent on Sunday investigation found the UK regulator’s pension fund invests millions in controversial industries which it then regulates. In the UK the EA’s pension fund – worth a huge £2.3bn – invests in companies investing in fracking, incineration and nuclear power, all of which the Agency is involved in regulating.

Globally, the fund also invests millions in chemical and mining companies, including diamond mining; tobacco and alcohol companies; arms manufacturers; a gambling company, as well as Starbucks which has been repeatedly accused of tax avoidance.

The pension details are contained in a response to a Freedom of Information request from the EA, which lists the companies it had a stake in as of March this year, its latest available audited information. And its investments are in marked contrast to the Agency’s public image of being a leading “responsible” investor that integrates “environmental, social and governance considerations into all decision-making.” The Agency champions its commitment that by 2015 “25 per cent of the fund will be invested in the sustainable and green economy”.

Despite these bold claims, the list reveals that the EA, which was heavily criticised last year for its response to flooding, holds £50m direct investments in oil and gas companies such as Shell, BP and BG Group, as well as millions more in indirect oil and gas funds.

[…]

The fund is investing in two companies financially intertwined with fracking giant Cuadrilla, the company that has been the subject of fierce protests in Lancashire and West Sussex. The first is Centrica, which is investing £60m in Cuadrilla’s Lancashire operations and the second is Riverstone Energy, which owns 44 per cent of Cuadrilla.

The Cuadrilla relationship is further complicated as Lord Browne of Madingley, who sits on Cuadrilla and Riverstone’s board, has been accused of having privileged access to Lord Chris Smith, the head of the EA. Browne, a former BP boss, met Smith on numerous occasions when Cuadrilla was trying to get a permit to frack. The minutes of one telephone meeting between Browne, Smith and other government ministers reveal that the EA offered to “shorten the consultation process prior to determining permits”, although this was rejected by Cuadrilla, which was worried about legal action.

The Agency hired consultants this year to look into the impact of divesting from fossil fuels. But the consultants advised against divesting from fossil fuel assets.

Read the entire investigation here.

Photo by @Doug88888 via Flickr CC License

“You’ll Hear A Lot About Pensions” in 2015, Says Kentucky Chamber of Commerce President Amidst Push for Transparency

Early this month, the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce called for an audit of the Kentucky Retirement Systems – specifically, a review of its investment performance and policies.

Now, the Chamber president and CEO is promising Kentucky residents that they’ll “hear a lot about pensions” in 2015 — the implication being that addressing the state’s pension issues will be on the top of the docket for the Chamber next year.

Chamber President and CEO David Adkisson sat down with the Lexington Herald Leader over the weekend, and this is what he had to say:

The big storm cloud hanging over Frankfort right now in terms of its impact on the budget and everything else the state of Kentucky wants to do, like operating our schools, is the pension issue. There are two basic pension systems; the Kentucky Retirement System and then the Kentucky Teachers Retirement System.

The Teachers Retirement System has been saying for a couple of years that they need more money from the legislature to get on sound footing. They’ve addressed some of their key issues and they’re not in as bad a shape as the Kentucky Retirement System. But, they need more money and a significant amount: they said 400 million. That’s huge.

On a $10 billion budget, that’s a 4 percent increase.

We’re very interested in seeing more transparency. We want to know more about the fees that are paid to placement agents, we want to know more about the administrative and health-care costs of the Kentucky Retirement System. So, you’ll hear a lot about pensions in the 2015 session.

State Auditor Adam Edelen hasn’t decided whether to heed the Chamber’s call for an audit.

Judges Sue California Over “Diminished” Pension Benefits

Six judges are suing California over “diminished” pension benefits brought on by the Public Employees Pension Reform Act, a law passed by the state in 2013.

The judges say their benefits shouldn’t be affected the law, because they were appointed a full year before the law was passed.

From the Appeal-Democrat:

Yuba County Judge Benjamin Wirtschafter and five other judges have sued the state, alleging they’re getting a raw deal on their pensions.

The judges allege the Public Employees Pension Reform Act, which became law in 2013, has increased their salary withholdings, allowed reductions in their pay in violation of the state constitution and “diminished the pension benefits they are entitled to earn,” according to the suit, filed last week in San Francisco Superior Court.

The judges were elected in 2012, so they should not be covered by the pension changes approved in the 2013 law, the suit said.

[…]

In 2012, Judges Retirement System II withheld a flat 8 percent of judges’ salaries.

Now, according to the suit, the six judges are subject to an additional 7.25 percent withholding, resulting in “a fluctuating and increasing — as opposed to guaranteed — rate of contribution toward their pension benefits.”

In addition, their “pension annuity has been diminished by application of a three-year average salary annuity formula,” the suit said.

The suit alleged judges become members of their pension system when they are elected or appointed, and “final benefits are computed with respect to the paid service performed by the time of their retirement.”

According to the suit, the 30 judges who were appointed in 2012 are covered by the pension system’s rules in place before the 2013 changes.

“Many such judges are employed in the same courthouses as (the six judges who sued),” the suit said. “(The state has) permitted such appointed judges to participate in (the pension system) under the terms in effect prior to (the Public Employees Pension Reform Act) effective date, but have denied such rights to elected judges.”

Over the summer, California lawmakers passed an amendment to the Pension Reform Act to clarify that the law didn’t apply to judges elected prior to 2013. But Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed that change.

Photo by Joe Gratz via Flickr CC License

Improving CalSTRS Funding Comes at Cost for School Districts

California lawmakers acted earlier this year to improve the funding status of CalSTRS.

That means higher payments from school districts – and recent budget forecasts are forcing schools to examine how these payments will strain their budgets.

From the San Diego Union Tribune:

A state-mandated sched-ule for replenishing California’s cash-strapped teachers’ retirement fund means school districts will see their pension contributions triple by 2021 and remain high for decades, according to budget forecasts released this month by several local districts.

Administrators say they’re at a loss for how they’ll come up with the cash, which for some districts could be tens of millions per year. The forecasts come just six months after a legislative deal was struck by Sacramento lawmakers to recover billions of dollars for the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, or CalSTRS.

[…]

Administrators said that in the coming fiscal year, they may be faced with tough decisions to cut instructional programs, cut professional development or delay technology infrastructure improvements at the expense of paying their share of unfunded pension liabilities — totaling $74 billion statewide.

Officials in districts throughout California are talking about forming a coalition to explore ways to fix the teacher retirement system without cutting into their own school programs.

As the pension contributions grow, “the things you want and need for educational purposes will take a second seat to funding this retirement system, or paying for utility bills,” said Gary Hamels, assistant superintendent in charge of business services with San Marcos Unified School District.

“It’s going to hit the fan because you’ll have to make a decision — I have to pay this so you can’t buy that,” Hamels said. “We’ll have a situation where there’s demand for some academic improvement but this is where the money is going first.”

The business model to get CalSTRS on solid footing is based on economic assumptions that will force each of the area school districts to cough up tens of millions of additional dollars for decades to come, said Lora Duzyk, assistant superintendent in charge of business services for San Diego County’s Office of Education. Teachers also will see their CalSTRS contributions rise, though not as fast as school districts.

“I think you will hear moaning and gnashing of teeth from all kinds of people,” Duzyk said. “The money to pay for this are new costs that come right off the top of anything you get (from the state).”

Details on the repayment schedule are outlined in a school funding law passed in June by California’s legislature, and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat who marched into office in 2011 vowing to pull the state out of its budget crisis.

CalSTRS was 66.9 percent funded as of June 30, 2013.

Photo by Stephen Curtin

How Much Are Low Oil Prices Hurting Retirement Accounts?

Americans are thrilled to be saving money at the gas pump. But low oil prices aren’t good news for everyone – namely, oil and gas companies.

And that affects many Americans who are invested in oil and gas companies through their retirement accounts. But how much do low oil prices really hurt retirement funds?

Dan Boyce from Inside Energy explores the question:

Oil was at $55 to $60 a barrel just before Christmas, down from a high of more than $100 per barrel this summer.

Wanting to see just how much stake the average person has in oil and gas, we found that the most direct way to get access to sensitive personal financial information was if we analyzed one of our own retirement accounts. I humbly volunteered my own T. Rowe Price Roth IRA.

It’s a meager account, containing a little more than $4,200 at this point, and analyzing it for my oil and gas holdings revealed how complex the modern retirement portfolio really is.

My $4,200 splits among 19 smaller funds, which are invested in thousands of sources. The list ranges from companies like Tootsie Roll Industries and WD-40 to countries like Norway and even World Wrestling Entertainment.

It turns out a little less than 6 percent of my IRA is directly invested in oil and gas companies, or about $243.

Scott Middleton, who works with investment consulting company Innovest, said this mirrors the national average for retirement investments in energy at somewhere between 5 to 10 percent.

It’s true for IRA accounts like mine, as well as for others like 401(k)s, 403(b)s and pension funds.

The Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association, for example, has about 7 percent of its total portfolio in the energy sector, which in Wall Street-speak basically means just oil and gas. It makes up about 9 percent of the total stock market.

Middleton said as oil prices shrink, so, too, does my $243 in oil and gas investments. And so do most of the other funds invested in the same stocks.

But Boyce offers a few qualifiers that muddy the picture of just how much falling oil prices might hurt retirement savings:

A couple of things to remember, though. For one, I’m betting on my retirement account for the long term. The account is based upon the premise that I won’t start withdrawing from it until 2055.

Short-term fluctuations in price shouldn’t really concern us. Over the long term, the energy sector has been considered a very safe investment, yielding about a 10 percent annual rate of return.

Also, while declining oil prices might be bad for one part of my portfolio, they’re good for other parts. For example, Middleton said chemical producers and transportation companies tend to do well with lower oil prices.

Ultimately, oil and gas is not a critical part of our retirement funds. But, make no mistake, our retirement funds are absolutely critical for the oil and gas industry. The American Petroleum Institute says about 70 percent of U.S. oil company worth is owned by tens of millions of U.S. households through our IRAs, our pensions and our mutual funds.

Read the whole piece here.

Photo by ezioman via Flickr CC License

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Boosts Stake in UK Airport

The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan has increased its stake in Birmingham airport after the airport reported its busiest November on record.

The pension fund’s stake in the airport now totals 48 percent.

From the Financial Times:

The Birmingham deal comes a week after the regional airport said passenger numbers in November were the highest ever at 646,000, up 10 per cent on the previous year. It was the sixth record-breaking month in 2014 and the airport said it expected Christmas traveller numbers to be 7.4 per cent higher than last year.

“Birmingham airport is a high-quality asset that we know well. It has good growth prospects and we look forward to working with our partners to strengthen its position as a key regional airport in the UK,” said Andrew Claerhout, senior vice-president at Teachers’.

Birmingham is the UK’s seventh busiest airport with more than 9m passengers passing through its doors in 2013, according to the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority. Heathrow airport is the largest with 72m passengers, double the number of passengers of its nearest competitor, Gatwick.

Teachers’ first invested in Birmingham airport in 2001 and later acquired a joint 48.25 per cent stake with Victorian Funds Management Corporation in 2007 for £420m after the Dublin Airport Authority and Macquarie Airports Group sold their holdings.

The Canadian pension fund now has a sole 48.25 per cent stake, in addition to other airport investments in Copenhagen, Brussels and Bristol. Seven local district councils will continue to own a significant shareholding in the airport.

“We will continue to work with Teachers’ and the district shareholders with the shared goal of developing Birmingham airport’s connectivity to benefit both the region and the UK as a whole,” said Paul Kehoe, chief executive of Birmingham airport.

The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan manages over $140 billion in assets.

Photo by Caitlin ‘Caity’ Tobias via Flickr CC License

Is Illinois America’s Greece?

A recent piece in The Economist wonders whether Illinois’ pension debt might lead the state down the same path as Greece.

From the Economist, and re-published by Business Insider:

Illinois is like Greece in one obvious way: It overpromised and underdelivered on pensions and has little appetite for dealing with the problem, says Hal Weitzman of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

This large Midwestern state, with a population of 13 million (Greece has 11 million, though a far smaller GDP than Illinois), has the most underfunded retirement system of any state and the largest pension burden relative to state revenue. It also has the highest number of public-pension funds close to insolvency, such as the one looking after Chicago’s police and firemen.

[…]

The state devotes one in four of its tax dollars to pensions, which is more than it spends on primary and secondary education.

Mainly as a result of this gargantuan pension debt, Illinois’s bond rating is the lowest of all the states, which means dramatically higher borrowing costs.

When the state government failed to address pension underfunding in its budget for 2014, two credit-rating agencies, Fitch and Moody’s, cut the state’s bond rating, which in Moody’s case put Illinois on a par with Botswana. (An incensed editorial in the Chicago Tribune asked what Botswana had done to be so insulted.)

The main reason for the pension debacle is decades of underfunding. “Everything was always done with a short-term view,” says Laurence Msall, head of the Civic Federation. “Unique to Illinois is the idea that you don’t have to pay for pensions and you don’t have to follow actuarial recommendations.”

Whereas most other states follow the rules set by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), which, however imperfect, require some budget discipline, Illinois has mostly ignored them.

Read the entire piece here.

Texas Pension Accounting Tweak Will Shift Debt to Schools, If Only Symbolically

In light of newly adopted GASB accounting rules, the Teacher Retirement System of Texas in 2015 will require school districts, colleges – and any other government entities that pay into the system – to declare their employees’ pension liabilities on their books.

From the Killeen Daily Herald:

School districts across the state will soon have more debt listed on their general fund balances and teachers could see a smaller paycheck…

[…]

“TRS does not want to put this liability on their books so they are taking the allocation to the districts and the cities and colleges and saying, ‘You record this amount; I’ll record this amount,” said Dane Legg, a partner at Lott, Vernon and Company PC, the Killeen Independent School District’s external auditing firm.

Legg reviewed the upcoming financial policy change with board members at their mid-December workshop.

In laymen’s terms, this means Killeen ISD will have to show a $48 million liability in its budget for about 28 years, the amount TRS said it owes toward Killeen ISD employees’ pensions.

The liability stems from the TRS Trust Fund, which is underfunded but will be fully funded in 28 years.

“It’s not set in stone — that number has not been set yet — but this was what they were charged to do to give people a heads up and go ahead and come up with their best guess,” Legg said.

TRS is $28.9 billion underfunded statewide, Legg said. And officials expect many government entities will take issue with the new GASB 68 policy because it will force some of them to look like they are in debt.

“TRS determines how that liability gets allocated by the district, and TRS is only taking a small piece of that $28 billion, and they are giving most of the rest to the district to record,” said Megan Bradley, the chief financial officer for Killeen ISD.

The district will not have to fund the liability, it will simply be a book entry, Legg said. TRS will fund it, however, by changing its member contribution rates and possibly the district’s match rate.

The Teachers Retirement System of Texas managed $124 billion in assets as of the end of 2013.

Photo by www.SeniorLiving.Org

Do Pension Plans Give Retirees a False Sense of Retirement Security?

At one time, pensions were seen as the safest, most secure stream of retirement income. But the security of pension benefits is no longer rock-solid. That raises the question: do pensions give retirees a false sense of retirement security?

Economist Allison Schrager explores the idea:

Until recently, a pension benefit seemed as good as money in the bank. Companies or governments set aside money for employees’ retirements; the sponsors were on the hook for funding the promised benefits appropriately. In recent years, it has become clear that most pension plans are falling short, but accrued benefits normally aren’t cut unless the plan, or employer, is on the verge of bankruptcy—high-profile examples include airline and steel companies. Public pension benefits appear even safer, because they are guaranteed by state constitutions.

By comparison, 401(k) and other defined contribution plans seem much less reliable. They require employees to decide, individually, to set aside money for retirement and to invest it appropriately over the course of 30 or so years. Research suggests that people are remarkably bad at both: About 20 percent of eligible employees don’t participate in their 401(k) plan. Those who do save too little, and many choose investments that underperform the market, charge high investment fees, or both.

It turns out that pension plan sponsors, and the politicians who oversee them, are just as fallible as workaday employees. We all prefer to spend more today and deal with the future when it comes. Pension plans have done this for years by promising generous benefits without a clear plan to pay for them. When pressed, they may simply raise their performance expectations or choose more risky investments in search of higher returns. Neither is a legitimate solution. In theory, regulators should keep pension plan sponsors in check. In practice, the rules regulators must enforce tend to indulge, or even encourage, risky behavior.

Because pension plans seem so dependable, workers do in fact depend on them and save less outside their plans. According to the 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances, people between ages 55 and 65 with pensions have, on average, $60,000 in financial assets. Households with other kinds of retirement savings accounts have $160,000. It’s true that defined benefit pensions are worth more than the difference, but not if the benefit is cut.

As the new legislation makes clear, pension plans can kick the can down the road for only so long. Defined contribution plans have their problems, but a tremendous effort has been made to educate workers about the importance of participating. (Even if the education campaign has been the product of asset managers who make money when more people participate, it’s still valuable.) Almost half of 401(k) plans now automatically enroll employees, which has increased participation and encouraged investment in low-cost index funds. And now it looks like a generous 401(k) plan with sensible, low-cost investment options may turn out to be less risky than a poorly managed pension plan, not least of all because workers know exactly what the risks are.

Read the entire column here.

Photo by http://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