Pension360 | The Complete View of Public Pensions

Chamber of Commerce Gives New Jersey “F” On Pensions, Fiscal Responsibility

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a state-by-state report card yesterday, grading all 50 states on various areas, including education and fiscal responsibility.

New Jersey graded well on education. But it flunked the fiscal responsibility portion of the report card, earning a solid “F” from the Chamber of Commerce.

Why? The under-funded pension system was singled out as the main reason for the failing grade. From the report:

“Grade: F – New Jersey receives very low marks on fiscal responsibility. Only 65 percent of the state’s pension is funded, and the state’s most recent contribution was a meager 39 percent.”

More on the rationale behind the grade, from NewsWorks:

The grade is comprised of two factors: one, the percentage of pension obligations that are currently funded and, two, the amount of money allocated from each state’s 2012 budget for pension fund contributions.

For the first factor, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calculates N.J.’s total pension funding at 65 percent. A few other states share that large a gap in available funds for pensioners. But no other state made as low a contribution to pension funds in 2012 as N.J.’s paltry 39 percent. Even renowned laggard Illinois managed to earmark 76 percent in funds toward pension obligations that year.

The N.J. Pension and Health Benefit Study Commission reported last week that N.J. has a combined $90 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. That’s three times our annual state budget. This week Fitch Ratings and Standard & Poor’s dropped our bond rating down yet again. There are no quick fixes to this, like millionaire taxes or amnesty programs or even higher contributions from already-strained state workers. Indeed, it’s unclear how to fix this at all.

Ten other states received F’s in the fiscal responsibility category.

View the entire report card here.

CalPERS May Be Done With Hedge Funds, But It’s Far From Finished With Fees

There’s been a torrent of media coverage about how CalPERS, with its decision to kick hedge funds to the curb, has also distanced itself from high-fee investment managers.

But nearly $500 million of private equity fees say otherwise, writes the New York Times’ Josh Barro:

Here’s the thing: Calpers, America’s largest public employee pension system, with $300 billion in assets under management, isn’t getting away from investment gurus altogether.

The system’s $4 billion hedge fund program is small potatoes; its main exposure to high-fee gurus is through $31 billion in private equity funds, which just like hedge funds rely on the premise that highly paid fund managers can beat the market through special insight and talent.

Calpers paid $476 million in management fees on its private equity portfolio in the fiscal year ending June 2013, equal to 1.4 percent of private equity assets, about 20 times what it would have cost Calpers to invest a similar amount in stocks and bonds. And Calpers’s commitment to private equity remains strong, guru-driven fees and all.

Ted Eliopoulos, the interim chief investment officer at Calpers, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, made clear in a statement that the choice to exit hedge funds was specific to the asset class. He criticized hedge funds’ “complexity, cost and the lack of ability to scale at Calpers’s size.” The key word there is “scale”: Even at $4 billion, hedge funds made up just over 1 percent of the Calpers portfolio. That wasn’t enough to make a meaningful difference to the fund’s returns or diversification, and the system didn’t see good opportunities to scale up.

As of 2013, CalPERS invested 10.4 percent of its portfolio in private equity. That’s a big jump from its 6 percent PE allocation in 2006.

But, according to Josh Barro, CalPERS cut its target private equity allocation twice this year—the target allocation at the beginning of 2014 was 14 percent. Now, two downward revisions later, PE’s target allocation sits at 10 percent.

Photo by 401kcalculator.org

Governorship Presents Conflict of Interest For Bruce Rauner, Pension System

http://youtu.be/Ge1jo2KwyNA

Illinois’ GOP candidate for governor, Bruce Rauner, touts in a recent ad (above) that his investment firm, GTCR, made millions for the state by helping the Teacher’s Retirement System (TRS) invest its pension assets in private equity investments.

The investments apparently returned 17 percent – but returns aren’t the issue.

There may be a serious conflict of interest if Rauner is eventually elected governor. That’s because the governor appoints six trustees to the TRS Board—and GTCR still manages investments for the fund.

That wouldn’t be a big problem, except Rauner is still a partner at a GTCR subsidiary.

David Sirota explains:

Despite assertions that Rauner has retired from GTCR, SEC documents confirm that Rauner remains a partner in a GTCR subsidiary. There are other ownership stakes in GTCR funds listed in Rauner’s campaign finance disclosure forms. And according to state documents, GTCR currently manages Illinois pension funds, meaning that if elected, Rauner would appoint the board of a pension system that employs — and pays fees to — his firm.

If Rauner became governor, he would elect nearly half of the board of trustees of the Teacher’s Retirement System. From the TRS website:

TRS is governed by a 13-member Board of Trustees. Trustees include the state superintendent of education, six trustees appointed by the governor, four trustees elected by contributing TRS members, and two trustees elected by TRS annuitants. Two appointed positions are vacant.

As David Sirota writes, there are other issues surrounding Rauner’s tenure at GTCR, as well:

Rauner’s campaign ad comes as his investments hold center stage in a federal civil trial. Chicago’s NBC affiliate says that the suit involves allegations “that GTCR, the Chicago-based firm where Rauner served as managing partner for decades before retiring in 2012, may have masterminded an operation to allegedly avoid responsibility for the deaths of elderly patients residing in nursing homes it had invested in.” The Chicago Tribune says that GTCR is being “accused by attorneys for the estates of several former nursing home patients of engineering a complicated 2006 sale to avoid wrongful death judgments.”

GTCR denies the allegations.

Rauner promotes a pension plan that would freeze the pensions of current workers and shift all workers into a 401(k)-type plan.

Photo by By Steven Vance via Wikimedia Commons

How Should Investors Manage Climate Change Risk?

CalPERS is measuring the carbon footprint of its portfolio. CalSTRS is helping to fund a study on the market impact of climate change.

For the first time, institutional investors are beginning to wonder: How will climate change impact the value of our investments?

Howard Covington of Cambridge University and Raj Thamotheram of the Network for Sustainable Financial Markets tackled that question in a recent paper, titled How Should Investors Manage Climate Change Risk, in the most recent issue of the Rotman International Journal of Pension Management. From the paper:

The consequences of high warming, if we collectively go along this path, will emerge in the second half of this century; they are therefore remote in investment terms….Capital markets anticipate the future rather well, which suggests that investment values may respond strongly over this time scale as views on the most likely path begin to crystallize. Technologies for producing and storing electrical energy from renewable fuel sources, for energy-efficient housing and offices, and for reducing or capturing and disposing of greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes are moving along rapidly. In important areas, costs are falling quickly. Given appropriate and moderate policy nudges and continuing economic and social stability, it is overwhelmingly likely that the global economy will substantially decarbonize during this century.

If…an emissions peak in the 2020s becomes a plausible prospect, investment values for fossil fuels, electrical utilities, and renewable energy (among others) will react strongly. The value of many fossil fuel investment projects will turn negative as assets lose their economic value and become stranded; companies and countries will face significant write-downs, with clear consequences for financial asset prices.

As the authors note, we don’t know exactly how the earth will eventually react to greenhouse gasses. Different responses will have different implications for the global economy. From the paper:

If we are unlucky, and the climate’s response comes out at the upper end of the range while emissions go on climbing, the likelihood of the global economy’s potentially heading toward rolling collapse will significantly increase. A run of extreme weather events in the 2020s, particularly events that lead to sharp increases in prices for staple crops or inundate prominent cities, might then focus the attention of the capital markets on the consequences. A broad adjustment of asset values might then follow as investors try to assess in detail the likely winners and losers from the prospect of an increasingly turbulent global social, economic, and political future.

We are not suggesting that this kind of outcome is unavoidable, or even that it is the most likely. We are merely noting that the chance of events’ unfolding in this way over the next 10 to 15 years is significant, that it will rise sharply in the absence of a robust climate deal next year, and that long-term investors need to factor this into their investment analysis and strategy.

If these scenarios correctly capture the likely outcomes, then we have reached a turning point for the global economy. For the past 150 years, the exploitation of fossil fuels has generated enormous value for investors, both directly and by enabling global industrialization and growth; but it is now rational to anticipate that continued and increasing emissions from fossil fuel use might, over several decades, lead to the destruction of investment value on a global scale. Moreover, capital markets may adjust to this possibility on a relatively short time scale.

So how should institutional investors respond?

Broadly speaking, there are three main ways that investors can help. The first is to raise the cost of capital for companies or projects that will increase greenhouse emissions. The second is to lower the cost of capital for companies or projects that will reduce greenhouse emissions. The third is to use their influence to encourage legislators and regulators to take action to accelerate the transition from a high- to a low-emissions economy.

Formally adopting a policy of divesting from the fossil fuel sector can be helpful with the first of these, provided that the reasons for doing so are made public, so that other investors are encouraged to consider their own positions. Alternatively, active investors might take significant shareholdings in fossil fuel companies, so as to exert a material strategic influence to prevent investments that encourage long-term value destruction.

Supporting investments in renewable energy sources and related sectors is particularly effective where the potential exists to disrupt traditional industries. Tesla Motors is a case in point, since the potential for rapid growth of electric vehicles could transform the auto industry. Through the related development of high-performance, low-cost battery packs, it may also transform both the domestic use of solar power and the electrical utility business.

There is little time left for legislators to agree on the terms for orderly cooperative action to reduce emissions. Investors concerned about long-term value should act now to encourage the adoption of mechanisms to ensure an early peak and rapid decline in greenhouse missions. By the end of 2015, the chance for this kind of action will have largely passed.

The above excerpts represent only a portion of the insights the paper has to offer. The rest of the article can be read here [subscription required].

Photo by Penagate via Flickr CC

Stockton Can Cut Pensions And Stop Paying CalPERS. But Will It?

In a groundbreaking decision, a judge ruled yesterday that the bankrupt city of Stockton, California could indeed cut worker pensions and halt payments to CalPERS. From the LA Times:

A federal bankruptcy judge dealt a serious blow to California’s public employee pension systems by ruling Wednesday that payments for future worker retirements can be reduced when a city declares bankruptcy — just like its other debts.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein ruled that bankruptcy law supersedes California pension laws that require cities to fund their workers’ future retirement checks.

“I’ve concluded the pension could be adjusted,” Klein said.

The potentially groundbreaking decision came after a large creditor of Stockton, which filed for bankruptcy protection two years ago, asked the judge to reduce the amount the city owes to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the nation’s largest public pension fund.

Until now, CalPERS had argued successfully in the bankruptcy cases of other California cities that amounts it requires for public worker pensions could not legally be reduced.

But just because Stockton can cut pensions doesn’t mean the city will. The city’s current bankruptcy plan doesn’t include pension cuts or the halting of payments to CalPERS. From the Sacramento Bee:

The practical effect of Klein’s ruling is unclear. It depends in large part on whether Klein will accept Stockton’s financial reorganization plan – a plan under which the city promises to keep making its annual $29 million pension payments in order to retain its relationship with CalPERS.

If Stockton gets Klein’s approval and can resolve its bankruptcy without slashing pensions, the impact of Klein’s ruling is blunted somewhat. But Klein won’t rule on the city’s plan until Oct. 30.

Because of Stockton’s pledge, CalPERS attorney Michael Gearin downplayed the decision and said it doesn’t force the city to cut its pension payments. “It doesn’t establish a precedent. Those were his comments about a hypothetical city” that wants to cut ties with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, he said.

The city seems to have an interest in working to keep pensions intact. Staying with CalPERS, on the other hand, is being viewed as a reluctant necessity. From the Sacramento Bee:

City officials have said they have no choice but to stick with CalPERS. If it doesn’t pay the pension fund in full, default would occur, and the city would either have to make a one-time payment of $1.6 billion to keep pensions whole or let CalPERS slash benefits by 60 percent. The result would be a mass exodus of employees, the city said, creating an enormous setback just as the troubled city, saddled with poverty and a high crime rate, is starting to get back on its feet.

CalPERS released a statement immediately after the ruling expressing their disappointment with the decision and claimed that the ruling was “not legally binding”. From Reuters:

“This ruling is not legally binding on any of the parties in the Stockton case or as precedent in any other bankruptcy proceeding and is unnecessary to the decision on confirmation of the City of Stockton’s plan of adjustment,” Calpers spokeswoman Rosanna Westmoreland said in an emailed statement.

“CalPERS will reserve any further comment until such time as the court renders its final written decision. What’s important to keep in mind is what the City of Stockton stated in court today: that they can’t function as a city if their pensions are impaired.”

Funded Status of Corporate Pensions Falls To Lowest Level In 13 Months

Pension360 focuses on public pensions, but the general landscape of pensions in the U.S. is important, as well.

On that note, an interesting piece of news surfaced Thursday: the funded status of U.S. corporate pensions dropped this month to the lowest level since August 2013. Plans’ funding levels fell from 90.1 percent to 89.9 percent. From MarketWatch:

The funded status of the typical U.S. corporate pension plan in September fell 0.2 percentage points, despite liabilities falling 2.6 percent, according to the BNY Mellon Institutional Scorecard. Assets for the corporate plans fell 2.7 percent, outpacing the fall in liabilities, ISSG said.

This funded status is now down 5.3 percent from the December 2013 high of 95.2 percent, according to the scorecard.

The lower liabilities for corporate plans in September resulted from the Aa corporate discount rate rising 20 basis points to 4.31 percent over the month. Plan liabilities are calculated using the yields of long-term investment grade bonds. Higher yields on these bonds result in lower liabilities.

“After benefiting from the first monthly decline in liabilities of more than one percent since November 2013, pension plans still failed to improve their funded status,” said Andrew D. Wozniak, head of fiduciary solutions, ISSG. “Although U.S. large cap equities outperformed the liabilities over the month, they were the only major equity class to do so. A sustained divergence between U.S. large cap equity returns and other public equity classes could continue the downward trend in funded status.”

ISSG also noted that public defined benefit plans missed their return targets in September by 3.5 percent, but have hit their return targets for the last twelve months, collectively.

Photo by Andreas Poike via Flickr CC License

CalPERS Board Election Results Are In; Taylor, Mathur Win Seats

The results are in: Theresa Taylor has won a spot as the newest member of the CalPERS Board of Administration, and incumbent Priya Mathur has been re-elected, as well. From the Sacramento Bee:

Theresa Taylor has won election to CalPERS Board of Administration and incumbent Priya Mathur has won re-election to the panel, according to an uncertified vote count by the retirement system.

Taylor, a Franchise Tax Board investigator who was supported by SEIU Local 1000, won the state-agency seat with 55 percent of votes cast. Mathur, a Bay Area Rapid Transit financial analyst first elected to the board in 2003, kept her public-agency seat with 56 percent of the vote.

Taylor and Mathur will serve 4-year terms that begin on January 16. The board oversees a $300 billion public-employee retirement system and health programs administered for 1.6 million current and retired government employees and their dependents.

Priya Mathur is a long-time veteran of the board who has run into trouble over the years as she has consistently failed to file conflict of interest documents and other financial statement on time. She turned in those documents late in 2002, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2013.

“Historic” Ruling Expected in Stockton Bankruptcy Case; Can A Bankrupt California City Cut Pensions?

Can a bankrupt California city legally reduce both its payments to CalPERS and the pension benefits it promised to its workers?

Those are the questions that will likely be answered by the end of the day Wednesday in what’s already being called a “historic” ruling. From the Sacramento Bee:

After months of buildup, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein is likely to rule on a protest filed by one of Stockton’s creditors, Franklin Templeton Investments. Franklin said the city can’t continue paying its full pension contribution every year to CalPERS while offering a meager payout on the $36 million owed to the investment firm.

At a July 8 hearing, Klein hinted that he was sympathetic to Franklin’s view. “I might be persuaded that … the pensions can be adjusted,” he said.

It’s not at all certain whether Stockton would reduce its pension payments, even if Klein says it can. Under state law, CalPERS says it would have no choice but to end Stockton’s pension plan. Pension benefits would drop by an estimated 60 percent, which city officials believe would trigger a mass exodus by police officers and other employees.

Regardless of what Stockton does, CalPERS has been fighting strenuously to avoid a legal ruling that says pension contributions are no longer untouchable. The giant pension fund’s lawyers say CalPERS is merely trying to protect a system that serves the public well.

“Pensions secure financial futures and help the state and its local subdivisions recruit and retain valuable public servants,” CalPERS’ lawyers said in a recent court filing. “Putting a cloud over public pensions only invites worry and uncertainty about the security of those pensions.”

Public pensions have been considered ironclad for generations. State legislatures are free to reduce benefits for new workers, as California did in 2013, but it’s long been agreed that promises made to existing employees and retirees must be kept.

Those legal protections, however, have been under duress ever since Stockton filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012. Several of the city’s Wall Street bond creditors, who lent the city more than $200 million during the housing boom, warned that they would fight in court if they were left with peanuts and the city’s $29 million-a-year contribution to CalPERS was left intact.

A bankruptcy judge ruled earlier this summer that Detroit could indeed cut pension benefits as part of its bankruptcy proceedings.

But CalPERS argues that the ruling doesn’t apply to California, because California protects pension benefits under its constitution. Michigan doesn’t.

New Hampshire Supreme Court Limits “Double-Dipping”

A New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling Tuesday limited “double-dipping” – the term used when a public worker retires and later rejoins the public sector and earns a pension and a salary at the same time – but didn’t restrict it entirely.

Reported by SeaCoast Online:

The New Hampshire Supreme Court issued a decision Tuesday ruling that state pensioners cannot work more than 32 hours a week at a public job while collecting their state pensions.

The decision upholds current state law, but leaves an unanswered question about retirees who work public jobs for more than 32 hours a week and less than full time, said Marty Karlon, spokesman for the New Hampshire Retirement System.

The case was brought to the state’s highest court on appeal by Scott Anderson, a retired Plaistow police officer, who worked post-retirement jobs for the towns of Plaistow, Atkinson and Hampstead. Anderson argued that state law allowed him to work up to 32 hours a week for a municipality, while collecting his pension, so he believed that meant he could work up to 32 hours a week for each of the three towns.

Anderson previously lost his case in the Merrimack County Superior Court and appealed to the Supreme Court.

The retired police officer argued that because pre-2012 law referred to post-retirement work for “an employer,” instead of “one or more employers,” it allowed state pensioners to work for up to 32 hours a week for multiple employers. Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision notes that the Legislature intended the singular “an employer” to include the plural “one or more employers.”

“Thus, contrary to Anderson’s contentions on appeal, when he retired in 2011, he had no right, vested or otherwise, to work up to 32 hours per week or 1,300 hours per year for more than one NHRS employer,” Monday’s Supreme Court decision states.

Double-dipping has been an issue in New York and New Jersey as recently as last month.

Africa’s Biggest Pension Fund Has $800 Million Tied Up In Failing Bank

Public Investment Corp (PIC), the entity that handles money for Africa’s largest pension fund, has $800 million tied up in the failing African Bank Investments Ltd (ABIL), which collapsed in August.

PIC injected $440 million into the bank this month as part of a bailout project. The fund already had a $300 million ownership stake in the bank. Reported by Bloomberg:

The collapse of African Bank Investments Ltd. has forced the custodian of most of the South African government’s pension money to agree to invest 5 billion rand ($440 million) to rescue the lender.

Public Investment Corp., the continent’s biggest fund manager, owned 12 percent of African Bank when it failed last month. Abil, as it’s known, collapsed after it forecast record losses and said it needed at least 8.5 billion rand to survive. The central bank devised a rescue plan that involves buying the bad loans and recapitalizing the “good bank.”

“PIC has committed to provide up to 50 percent of the total amount required to recapitalize the ‘good bank,’ which cannot exceed 5 billion rand,” Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene said in a written response to questions in Parliament from the opposition Democratic Alliance party.

As part of the South African Reserve Bank’s Aug. 10 plan to save Abil, six banks and the PIC were asked to underwrite 10 billion rand so that the lender could hold an initial public offering in Johannesburg early next year.

“The net exposure of the Government Employees Pension Fund to Abil currently stands at just over 4 billion rand,” which is 0.5 percent of the PIC’s investments,Nene said in a written response to questions from the opposition Freedom Front Plus party. “The PIC hopes to recover some of this through its participation in recapitalizing the ‘good bank.’”

ABIL was Africa’s largest provider of loans to low-income workers. It had over $1.5 billion worth of bad loans on its books when it failed.

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