Pension360 | The Complete View of Public Pensions

New Jersey Investment Council Member Defends Robert Grady, Pension Investments

The New Jersey State Investment Council, the entity that oversees investments for the state’s pension fund, has lately been embroiled in controversy revolving around Council Chairman Robert Grady and allegations of conflicts of interest driving investment decisions.

On Thursday, one member of the Council, Guy Haselmann, defended Grady in a letter to the editor published in the Times of Trenton. The letter reads:

The chairman of the State Investment Council (SIC), Robert Grady, has done an outstanding job conducting the business of the council wisely, ethically, apolitically and with the utmost propriety. Recent criticisms levied against the chairman personally, and against the performance of the SIC and the Division of Investments (DOI) politically, are without merit.

The mission of the SIC, of which I am a member, is to provide policy and governance oversight of the DOI. In other words, the SIC does not make investment decisions or select outside managers; rather, it verifies that procedures and investment parameters are met, with the goal of maximizing return per unit of risk.

Disagreements or complaints regarding the governor’s stance on pension reform are matters completely separate from the management and oversight of the pension’s assets. Public input is always welcome; however, baseless attacks and misinformation disseminated via blogs and other means interfere with the timely and efficient work of the DOI and the SIC, and thus does a disservice to all involved, and especially to the 767,000 beneficiaries of the New Jersey Pension System.

The pension fund returned 16.9 percent in FY 2014, which ends June 30, well above benchmarks and the actuary return assumption. This is testament to the successful oversight and fiduciary duties of the SIC and the DOI.

Pension360 has covered the ethics complaint filed by a union over the alleged conflicts of interest.

Reporting by David Sirota sparked the controversy. His pieces on the topic can be read here.

CalPERS To Measure, Disclose Carbon Footprint of Portfolio

CalPERS and several other institutional investors signed the Montreal Carbon Pledge yesterday. The pledge mandates that the investors measure and publicly report the carbon footprint of their entire investment portfolio.

Strong Global Equities Performance Drives Ontario Pension Return

The Ontario Public Service Pension Plan (PSPP) returned 12.5 percent overall in 2013. But a new report from the Ontario Pension Board, which handles investments for the fund, gives more details on the performance of individual asset classes.

Strong global equities performance (37 percent return) drove the fund’s returns in 2013. Reported by Pensions & Investments:

In the pension fund’s annual report released Thursday by the Ontario Pension Board, which administers the defined benefit plan, global equities returned 37% last year, while Canadian equities returned 18%, compared with 35.9% for the MSCI World (Canadian dollar) and 13% for the S&P/TSX Composite indexes.

Real estate returned 12.9% vs. its custom benchmark’s 9.7% return; infrastructure, 12% vs. 0.9% for its custom benchmark; emerging markets equities, 5% vs. the MSCI Emerging Markets (Canadian dollar) index’s 4.3%; and Canadian fixed income, 1.8% vs. -1.2% for the DEX Universe Bond index.

Private equity, which returned 17.8%, was the only asset class to underperform its benchmark, which was 30.2%.

The pension fund’s asset allocation as of Dec. 31 was 28.2% fixed income, 23.7% developed markets equities, 15.5% emerging markets equities, 14% real estate, 8% cash and short-term investments, 7.6% Canadian equities, 2.5% infrastructure and 0.5% private equity.

The plan improved its funded status from 94 percent to 96 percent, according to the report.

The fund handles $18.9 billion of assets.

Report: Maryland Fund Lost Billions Due To Underperformance

The Maryland State and Retirement Pension System returned 14.4 percent last fiscal year – a return that the Chief Investment Officer praised as “strong” and that doubled the fund’s expected rate of return of 7.75 percent.

But a new report from the Maryland Public Policy Institute claims that the returns weren’t good enough From the Maryland Reporter:

In a report, Jeffrey Hooke and John Walters of the Maryland Public Policy Institute say the failure to match the 17.3% return on investment made by over half the public state pension funds cost the state over $1 billion. As they have in the past, they also complained about the high fees paid to outside managers of some of the funds used by the State Retirement and Pension System, which covers 244,000 active and retired state employees and teachers and their beneficiaries

“As the table shows, the underperformance trend is not only continuing but worsening as the percentage divide widens,” said Hooke and Walters. “Part of problem may be due to the fund’s large exposure to alternative investments, such as hedge funds and private equity funds, that have tended to perform worse in recent years than traditional investments such as publicly traded stocks and bonds.”

A spokesman for the Maryland pension fund offered his response to the report:

[Spokesman] Michael Golden said the institute’s report was “flawed,” “not supported by facts,” and mischaracterized the agency’s investment performance.

“These returns have resulted in greater progress toward full funding of the system that was projected last year,” Golden said. The five-year return on investment was 11.68%, while the target for the fund is 7.7%.

[…]

Golden admitted that Maryland’s investment performance is “unimpressive” compared to other state funds.

“However, the reason for this ranking is not due to active management and fees,” Golden said. “After the financial crises of 2008-2009, the board determined that the fund had too much exposure to public equities, which historically has been one of the riskiest, most volatile asset classes, and wanted a more balanced and diversified portfolio.”

See the chart at the top of this post for a comparison between the returns of Maryland’s pension fund versus the Wilshire’s Trust Universe Comparison Service (TUCS), a widely accepted benchmark for institutional assets.

Illinois Pension Board Director to Retire; Search for New Director Begins Soon

William Mabe, executive director of the State University Retirement System of Illinois, has announced that he will retire on March 31.

The System plans to hire a firm to search for and secure a new director by the time Mabe leaves his post.

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

William Mabe, executive director of the State University Retirement System, will retire on March 31, and five of the 11 board members’ terms will expire next summer.

[…]

The board expects to hire a search firm at an Oct. 30 meeting to find a new executive director, and intends to choose the new leader by the time Mabe retires, a spokesman said.

Mabe, 67, said in an interview Thursday that he could have stayed on for another three years, but chose to retire now to do other things with his life.

“I’ve been here for five years and I’ve stayed as long as I had planned to stay,” Mabe said. “The pension issue had nothing to do with it. It’s still lingering in the courts, and (the SURS leadership) did the heavy lifting we had to do. … I wanted to retire when that was completed and things were quiet.”

There may be further turnover on the board, as the terms of five more trustees expire in June 2015.

Eric Madiar: Illinois Reform Law Is Unconstitutional

Eric M. Madiar, the Chief Legal Counsel to Illinois Senate President John Cullerton, has written an op-ed today opposing Illinois’ pension reform law on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional. An excerpt:

Anyone following the pension reform debate knows that Illinois has long diverted the moneys needed to properly fund its pension systems to avoid tax increases, cuts in public services or both. Some may not admit it, but they know it. They also know this practice is the primary reason why the systems are underwater.

Since much of my time over the last three years has been spent on our State’s pension problem, I wanted to find out how long it’s been that way and how long we have known about it. Well, as chronicled in an article I wrote now published by Chicago-Kent College of Law, I have an answer.

1917. No, that’s not a typo.

In 1917, the Illinois Pension Laws Commission warned State leaders in a report that the retirement systems were nearing “insolvency” and “moving toward crisis” because of the State’s failure to properly fund the systems. This nearly century old report also recommended action so that the pension obligations of that generation would not be passed on to future generations.

The 1917 report’s warning and funding recommendation went unheeded, as were similar warnings and funding recommendations found in decades of public pension reports issued before and after the Pension Clause was added to the Illinois Constitution in 1970.

[…]

…As early as 1979, Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s advised the State that it would lose its AAA bond rating if the State did not begin tackling its increasing unfunded pension liabilities. Also, in 1982, Governor Jim Thompson succeeded in passing legislation making pension funding far more dependent upon stock market returns to stave off higher State pension contributions.

Further, a 1985 task force report noted that Standard and Poor’s reduced its bond rating for Illinois from AAA to AA+ due to the State’s “deferral of pension obligations,” and that another rating agency viewed the State’s pension funding as a future financial “time bomb.” Finally, the much heralded 1995 pension funding plan was designed to increase the State’s unfunded liabilities and postpone the State’s actuarially-sound pension contributions until 2034.

Given this well-documented history, it’s extremely hard to legitimately believe that our State’s current situation is so surprising that the Illinois Constitution can be ignored and pension benefits unilaterally cut. As noted in my previous legal research, the Pension Clause does not support such a result.

The entire piece can be read here.

Photo by Mr.TinDC via Flickr CC License

New Jersey Pension Commission Releases First Report

It came a little behind schedule, but the New Jersey Pension and Health Benefit Study Commission released its preliminary report yesterday.

This first report was all about identifying and detailing the causes and current state of New Jersey’s pension funding shortfall. As such, no recommendations were made for fixing the system.

Although the report, notably, did not name Chris Christie, it did lay a portion of the blame on politicians for creating the pension mess. From NorthJersey.com:

The report in part blames politicians for failing to properly fund the pensions and siphoning surpluses during robust years resulting in a $37 billion unfunded liability in the state pension funds.

“While high benefit levels are one driver of unfunded liabilities, the lack of state contributions is a critical contributing factor,” the report states. “Put simply, if the state cannot find the economic means and discipline to consistently fund its pension obligations, the system will fail. The funding decisions over the last twenty years are telling examples of bipartisan contribution to fiscal distress.”

The report also said that Gov. Christie’s 2011 pension reforms didn’t sufficiently address the system’s problems.

Matt Arco of NJ.com put the report’s talking points more succinctly:

1. The looming unfunded liability is massive

2. Retiree health care costs are massive (and unpaid for)

3. Blame can be spread across the board

4. Failure to fix the problem will cost millions more

5. The 2011 reforms weren’t enough

The full report can be read here.

The Value of an Investment Policy Statement

Pension funds, both public and private, each have an Investment Policy Statement (IPS). An IPS provides a formal framework for investing the pension fund’s assets, including asset allocation targets and investment objectives.

But what are the values of having such a statement? A recent paper by Anthony L. Scialabba and Carol Lawton, published in the Journal of Pension Benefits, dives deep into that question.

Regarding the value of the statement, it can be used to show that trustees are indeed acting as “prudent investors”. From the paper:

With regard to the duty of prudence, conduct is what counts, not the results of the performance of the investments. An IPS can show that a prudent investment procedure was in place. In addition, an IPS can protect plan fiduciaries from inadvertently making arbitrary and ill-advised decisions. The directions outlined in the IPS can provide the fiduciaries with confidence in bad economic times that they made sound investment decisions in accordance with the plan sponsor’s or administrator’s intentions.

An IPS can also be a good communication tool, both for plan participants and for trustees:

An IPS can enhance employee morale in providing clear communication of the plan’s investment policy to participants. A plan sponsor can post a plan’s IPS on the Internet to provide participants with helpful insight into how the plan’s investments are chosen and maintained. This can reassure employees and encourage participation because they know that the investment fiduciaries have a sound investment structure in place. In addition, an IPS can enhance the morale of management if its members serve on the investment committee of a plan, as they are given guidance by which to judge their decisions and performance.

The authors also note that having a strong IPS – and sticking to it – can translate into strong investment performance.

There are some drawbacks to IPSs as well. To read about them, and read the rest of the paper (titled “Investment Policy Statements: Their Values and Their Drawbacks”), click here [subscription required].

Pennsylvania Not Cutting Hedge Funds Despite State Auditor’s Skepticism

CalPERS’ decision to pull out of hedge funds is having a ripple effect across the country.

On Wednesday, Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale released this skeptical statement on the state pension system’s hedge fund investments:

“Hedge fund investments may be an appropriate strategy for certain investors and I trust that SERS and PSERS weigh investment options carefully,” DePasquale said in a statement. “But, SERS and PSERS are dealing with public pension funds that are already stressed and high fees cost state taxpayers more each year. I support full disclosure of hedge fund fees paid by our public pension funds and we owe it to taxpayers to ensure that those fees do not outweigh the returns.”

Spokespeople for both the State Employees Retirement System (SERS) and the Public School Employee Retirement System (PSERS) have now responded. The consensus: the pension funds will not be cutting their hedge fund allocations.

From Philly.com:

SERS has no plans to cut hedge funds further. “Hedge funds play a role in our current board-approved strategic investment plan, which was designed to structure a well-diversified portfolio,” SERS spokeswoman Pamela Hile told me. With many more workers set to retire, hedge funds (or “diversifying assets,” as SERS prefers to call them) combine relatively steady returns with low volatility “over varying capital market environments.” By SERS’s count “difersifying assets” are now down to $1.7 billion, or 6% of the $28 billion fund and returning 10.7% after fees for the year ending June 30, up from a 10-year average of 7.4%.

Says PSERS spokeswoman Evelyn Williams: “We agree with the Auditor General that hedge funds are appropriate for certain investors. Not all investors can or should invest in hedge funds. Clearly CALPERS reviewed their hedge fund allocation and acted in their own fund’s best interests.

“PSERS also sets our asset allocation based on our own unique goals and issues. We do not have any immediate plans to change our hedge fund asset allocation at this time… PSERS’ hedge fund allocation provides diversification for our asset allocation and is specifically structured so it does not correlate with traditional equity markets…PSERS hedge fund allocation has performed as expected and provided positive investment returns over the past fiscal year, one, three, and five years.”

SERS allocates 7 percent of its assets, or $1.9 billion, towards hedge funds. PSERS, meanwhile, allocates 12.5 percent of its assets, or $5.7 billion, towards hedge funds.

Photo by TaxRebate.org.uk

Moody’s: Strong Returns Can’t Keep Up With Obligations

Moody’s released a strongly-worded report today on the state of public pension funds in the U.S. The report claimed that strong investment returns haven’t improved the funding gap facing pension systems, because unfunded liabilities have grown even more than assets.

From Bloomberg:

The 25 largest U.S. public pensions face about $2 trillion in unfunded liabilities, showing that investment returns can’t keep up with ballooning obligations, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

The 25 biggest systems by assets averaged a 7.45 percent return from 2004 to 2013, close to the expected 7.65 percent rate, Moody’s said in a report released today. Yet the New York-based credit rater’s calculation of liabilities tripled in the eight years through 2012, according to the report.

“Despite the robust investment returns since 2004, annual growth in unfunded pension liabilities has outstripped these returns,” Moody’s said. “This growth is due to inadequate pension contributions, stemming from a variety of actuarial and funding practices, as well as the sheer growth of pension liabilities as benefit accruals accelerate with the passage of time, salary increases and additional years of service.”

U.S. states and cities are contending with underfunded worker retirement systems. The 18-month recession that ended in June 2009 wiped out asset values and forced cuts to contributions. Now, liabilities are crowding out spending for services, roads and schools.

For the report, Moody’s gathered data on the 25 largest pension funds in the country, which control about 40 percent of all pension assets in the U.S..

The New York Common Retirement Fund had the best average return over the past 10 years. The fund returned 8.67 percent annually.

Photo by www.SeniorLiving.Org

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