CalSTRS To Sue Volkswagen

10521601625_85f7780b0c_z

CalSTRS said over the weekend that the fund is joining a German securities lawsuit against automaker Volkswagen.

CalSTRS has been a long-term shareholder of the company, whose shares have plummeted since a 2015 scandal that saw the automaker admit to deceiving emissions tests.

More from PlanSponsor:

Since the September 2015 revelation of Volkswagen’s fraudulent activities, illegal and intentional wrongdoing to manipulate emissions testing, VW’s share price has dropped significantly. The litigation is currently in the planning process, with additional plaintiffs to be announced in the near future.

“Volkswagen’s actions are particularly heinous, since the company marketed itself as a forward thinking steward of the environment,” says CalSTRS Chief Executive Officer Jack Ehnes. “Its deceitful and hypocritical actions ultimately caused great harm to the atmosphere and the emissions cheating scandal has badly hurt the company’s value.”

Ehnes continued, “As an actively involved, long-term shareholder, CalSTRS places utmost importance on our fiduciary duty to our members to attempt to recover losses due to such wrongful conduct, while also communicating a clear message to VW, as well as the entire automotive industry, that we will not tolerate these illegal actions.”

According to a CalSTRS statement, German securities litigation is unlike United States securities class actions because shareholders in German companies are not entitled to a pro-rata share of recovery unless they affirmatively join a case, as CalSTRS is doing. A majority of CalSTRS shares in Volkswagen AG, valued at $52 million (353,988 shares as of December 31, 2015) in common and preferred stock, were purchased on foreign exchanges.

CalPERS is also planning to sue Volkswagen, but it will be a separate action.

 

Photo by Long Road Photography (formerly Aff) via Flickr CC License

Union Backs Pooled IRA Option for New California-Run Savings Plan

640px-Flag_of_California.svg

Reporter Ed Mendel covered the California Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at Calpensions.com.

As a new California board, Secure Choice, gets ready to recommend a state-run savings plan later this month that could automatically enroll most small business employees, a large union is pushing an option that would eventually offset investment losses.

Last week Service Employees International Union, which includes government and private-sector employees, used news conferences and testimony from workers at board hearings in Los Angeles and Oakland to push for a “pooled IRA with a reserve.”

On March 28 the Secure Choice board is scheduled to choose either the pooled IRA or a more traditional tax-deferred IRA that, like most 401(k) plans in the private sector, has little or no protection against investment losses unless expensively insured.

The innovative pooled IRA, described by some as a “variable-rate savings bond,” would in years with high investment yields put some of the money into a reserve, which could be used to offset losses in years with low yields or losses.

“In addition to mitigating risk for future retirees, a report commissioned by the board found the Pooled IRA with Reserve would also generate the best returns for all participants,” said an SEIU news release.

Models project the reserve could reach 40 percent of the total fund in 20 to 25 years, enough to offset an investment loss like the one in the recent financial crisis. Each year the Secure Choice board would decide whether to build or dip into the reserve.

Some potential problems: liability for board decisions on crediting the “savings bond” and managing the reserve, generational equity (contributing to the reserve before its large enough to offset losses), and pressure to spend large reserves.

The nine-member Secure Choice board chaired by state Treasurer John Chiang has been working for 2½ years on an “automatic IRA” payroll deduction for the more than 6 million California private-sector workers not offered a retirement plan on the job.

Employees of employers, who have five or more employees but do not offer a retirement plan, would be automatically enrolled in the state plan, unless they opt out. A payroll deduction is said to be a proven way to sharply increase retirement savings.

In 2007 while still in the Assembly, Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, first introduced legislation for a state-run retirement savings plan, finally getting approval of a modified version five years later, SB 1234 in 2012.

But there were tight restrictions: a legal and market analysis not paid for by the state, exemption from federal retirement law, IRS tax deferral, and a self-sustaining plan with no employer liability or state liability for benefit payments.

A big step toward raising $1 million for the legal and market analyses was a $500,000 matching grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Another big step was Obama administration guidelines last fall for avoiding federal ERISA retirement law.

Now the Secure Choice board is preparing to choose the retirement savings plan to send to the Legislature, where it could be modified, rejected or approved as proposed and sent to the governor for enactment.

Boston

De Leon’s bill was the first successful legislation among state attempts to provide retirement plans for private-sector workers, said a report issued last week by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (see chart).

The report said the De Leon bill drew on proposals from academic research and the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems, the largest trade association for public pensions in the United States and Canada.

“The NCPERS plan reflected the recognition by public employees that the quality of their own retirement coverage could be at risk if their counterparts in the private sector lack access to a retirement system,” said the CRR report by Alicia Munnell and others.

Last January, Connecticut said it became “the first state in the nation to complete a market feasibility study” of a state-run retirement savings plan for private-sector workers.

The new Connecticut Retirement Security Board, established in 2014, is now working on legislation for a traditional or Roth IRA with no reserve. The study said the plan could become self-sustaining after receiving $1 billion in assets in two years.

Illinois has not completed a feasibility for its “automatic IRA” plan, but does not need to go back to the Legislature for approval, said the CRR report. Oregon aims to complete a study by this fall and have an operating “automatic IRA” plan in 2017.

Washington and New Jersey have “marketplace” plans to give employers information and a website listing pre-screened retirement plans. Massachusetts is considering an “automatic IRA” and a multiple employer plan to share 401(k) costs.

In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo appointed a commission to study the issue. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announced last month his city is the first to work on an “automatic IRA” plan for employers with 10 or more employees.

“This is the latest announcement by the Mayor aimed at lifting up working families — from paid sick and parental leave, to living and minimum wages, this has been a focus of the de Blasio administration,” said the mayor’s news release.

At the Secure Choice hearing in Oakland last week, representatives of two large business groups said the California market and feasibility study by Overture Financial did not answer key questions given to the board last fall.

“As we stated before when we were dealing with this in the legislative arena, we were able to come to an agreement due to the wise counsel of the governor’s office to be able to have a study of this program prior to going forward,” said Nicole Rice of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.

The CMTA and the California Chamber of Commerce lifted their opposition to the De Leon bill to allow a feasibility study. Among their unanswered concerns: employer costs, a lasting ERISA exemption, and whether adequate record keepers can be found.

Board member Yvonne Walker, SEIU local 1000 president, asked the business groups for their recommendations. Board member William Sokol, a benefits lawyer, said he was reminded of past encounters with “paralysis by analysis.”

Marti Fisher of the Chamber of Commerce said the groups lack the economists and labor law experts to answer some of the questions. She said the intent is to “give you thoughtful input and questions,” not to stall the launch of the program.

“We do want to make sure we remain on the record as not opposing the program,” Fisher told Walker.

More than two dozen workers spoke at the hearing about growing old without adequate retirement benefits. Two said they were raising families while working at fast-food restaurants, McDonald’s and Burger King, that offer no retirement plan.

“We are just asking right now to get something in place so that the employees can put in their money so that they can have something for themselves,” Connie Chew of SEIU Local 521 told the hearing. “But I think in the long run we need to bring pensions back.”

Corporate Pensions Weigh Options As They Look to Avoid Higher PBGC Premiums: Survey

13139691324_b3494430ed_z

Flat-rate and variable-rate premiums are set to increase significantly over the next three years, and that’s forcing corporate pension plans to consider changing the way they manage themselves, according to a new survey.

More on the NEPC survey, from CIO:

Two-thirds of corporate pensions will change how they manage their plans in response to skyrocketing Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) premiums, according to NEPC.

With flat-rate and variable-rate premiums set to increase over the next three years by 25% and 35%, respectively, plan sponsors are looking for ways to close funding gaps, NEPC Partner Brad Smith told CIO.

“A lot of our clients were saying, ‘Hey, this is a big deal, this has got our attention,’” Smith said. “Given the magnitude of the increase, it’s not really surprising.”

To avoid paying increasingly costly PBGC premiums—up this year to a $64 fixed rate and $30 variable rate—plan sponsors are turning to higher contributions, lump sum payouts, and pension-risk transfers.

Of the 66% who planned on changing their plans, 32% said they were considering making higher contributions. Another 32% cited the possibility of lump sum payouts.

A smaller proportion, 17%, said they would look into partial risk transfers.

“We’ve seen over the years a pretty significant increase in the number of plan sponsors at least evaluating the merits of a partial plan termination, and for those plan sponsors on the bubble this could be the data point they need to make it more economical for it to occur,” Smith said.

 

Photo by Sarath Kuchi via Flickr CC License

Retirees Win Battle Against Industrialist as Pension Cuts Unwound

117048243_7cc6bb0b87_z

Three years ago, workers at the now-bankrupt R.G. Steel – a company owned by multibillionaire Ira Rennert – saw their pensions cut as the company cut ties with its pension fund.

But in a settlement announced Friday, those pension cuts have been reversed – something which has happened only in exceptionally rare instances.

More from the New York Times:

The retirees’ victory is only the second time in 42 years that the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has required a company to unwind a pension “termination” — a dreaded deal in which a bankrupt company cuts off a pension fund and leaves it for the government to take over. The government insures company pensions, but its insurance is limited, so retirees can face sharp losses.

In a settlement announced Friday, Mr. Rennert’s sprawling conglomerate, the Renco Group, will be required to pay — in full — the pensions of about 1,350 retirees who worked at a subsidiary, R.G. Steel, which went bankrupt in 2012 and is being liquidated. That means reversing pension cuts that were made in their plan’s termination.

Tom Reeder, executive director of the pension insurer, called the settlement “an extraordinary outcome for plan participants” because it is so rare for pensions to be cut and then restored to their original value.

The settlement dates the restoration to November 2012, the termination date and is meant eventually to make the retirees whole for the money they missed in the period when their benefits had been reduced. Mr. Reeder also said Renco had agreed to reimburse the pension agency for its outlays.

Part of the reason the cuts were reversed is because, although R.G. Steel was bankrupt, its parent company was still flush.

 

Photo by Joe Gratz via Flickr CC License

California Judges Win Lawsuit As Pension Conflicts Continue

117048243_7cc6bb0b87_z

Reporter Ed Mendel covered the California Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at Calpensions.com.

A California superior court judge has awarded judges back pay and a pension increase, ruling that a five-year freeze on their salary did not keep pace with average increases in state worker pay, a requirement under state law.

But the state has not agreed to the amount owed judges in the class-action suit filed by a former court of appeals presiding justice, Robert Mallano, shortly before he retired two years ago.

In a filing last week by Mallano’s attorney, Raoul Kennedy of Skadden Arps in Palo Alto, a consultant calculated that superior court judges are owed $14,664, appeals justices $16,782, associate justices $17,898, and chief justices $18,763.

Total back pay for the 1,700 active judges listed last year would be roughly $25 million, which includes 10 percent annual interest awarded by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle in a decision last December.

The state disagreed with the judgment, arguing that the award of specific salaries and pension amounts is “akin to an award of damages” and that ordering the state to pay Mallano’s attorney fees is “procedurally improper” and “unwarranted.”

“The salary amounts cannot be accurate because the salary adjustments, if any, that would be made to judges in accordance with the court’s judgment will vary among individual members of the plaintiff class,” the state said as quoted in Kennedy’s filing. “It is impossible at this point to calculate what those individual figures would be.”

The state filed objections to the court’s draft judgment, and a hearing has been set for March 9.

Mallano
Changes in pay can affect not only employer and employee contributions to the California Public Employees Retirement System, but also the amount of the pension paid to retirees.

The Mallano decision is briefly mentioned in the annual CalPERS valuations of the two judges retirement systems issued this month for the fiscal year ending last June 30.

“The increases and amounts owed have not been calculated yet,” said CalPERS. “We anticipate the impact of this lawsuit to be reflected in the June 30, 2016 valuation (issued next year).”

An old retirement system for judges hired before Nov. 9, 1994, has an unusual provision. Annual pension increases for retirees are based on pay increases for active judges, not inflation up to 3 percent a year as in the new system.

But it’s another unusual provision in the old retirement system that is a continuing conflict between CalPERS, acting on behalf of the judges, and the Legislature and the governor.

The old system is pay-as-you-go, operating mainly with a state contribution large enough to pay retiree pensions each year and a much smaller amount from active judges (8 percent of pay). No additional money is invested to “pre-fund” future pension costs.

“Although it is unlikely the State would fail to pay ongoing benefit payments, as they are due, the lack of pre-funding means there is no benefit security for members of this plan,” said a CalPERS staff report with the new Judges Retirement System valuation.

“It also means the total cost is higher to the State since there is no accumulation of assets and, consequently, little to no investment earnings can be used to defray costs.”

CalPERS expects investment earnings to pay 65 percent of future pension costs, the rest coming from the annual contributions of employers, 22 percent, and employees, 13 percent.

In a routine annual letter to the governor and Legislature this month urging pre-funding of the old judges system, Rob Feckner, the CalPERS president, said “the board has considered the System’s funding deficiency to be a serious matter for many years.”

CalPERS estimates that doubling the state $227.3 million pay-as-you-go contribution next fiscal year to $448.6 million would save $1.3 billion over the remaining life of the plan, dropping the projected $5.6 billion pay-as-you-go cost to $4.3 billion.

In one of the minor instances of the mismanagement of state pension funds (see major examples in a previous post), the legislation that created the new judges system repealed a requirement that the old system be fully funded.

A legislative analysis of SB 65 in 1993 gave no explanation for the repeal of a requirement that the old system be pre-funded with a target of eliminating its pension debt or “unfunded liability” by 2002.

But a likely explanation for leaving the old system with pay-as-you-go pensions that deliberately pass debt to future generations would seem to be avoiding the cost of pre-funding: an estimated $100 million a year to reach full funding by 2002.

Now the old Judges Retirement System has a debt or unfunded liability of $3.3 billion. The dwindling number of active judges in the system, 231 in the new valuation, are outnumbered by the 1,924 retirees and beneficiaries receiving pensions.

In contrast, The new Judges Retirement System II for those appointed or elected after Nov. 9, 1994, has no debt or unfunded liability. It’s 100 percent funded in the new valuation, down from a surplus of 107 percent the previous year.

The 1,470 active judges in the new system outnumber the 96 retirees and beneficiaries. The employer contributions is 23.2 percent of pay. Judges hired before a reform on Jan. 1, 2013, contribute 8 percent of pay, those hired later 15.25 percent of pay.

Two years ago, pre-funding the old judges retirement system was on Gov. Brown’s to-do list when he proposed a funding solution, later enacted, for the California State Teachers Retirement System.

“We still have retiree health,” he said then, before following up last year with a plan to bargain changes with state worker unions. “We still have the judges retirement system. We have got lots of other stuff here, and we will handle it.”

Berle
Another continuing conflict is judges ruling on issues that affect their own pensions. In the Mallano decision, Judge Berle presumably is included in his decision awarding back pay and a pension increase.

What some pension reformers think is a key way to reduce unaffordable pension costs, cutting pension amounts current workers earn in the future, is prevented not by legislation but by a series of state court decisions often called the “California rule.”

California judges have rarely if ever recused themselves from ruling on pension issues that might benefit them. In Arizona, four supreme court justices recused themselves from a current case to overturn a pension contribution increase for judges and others.

The case is being heard by other Arizona justices in a new pension plan not affected by the outcome. Some recent California retiree health care cases have been heard in federal court. But whether that is an option for pension cases is not clear.

Meanwhile, the conflict of interest continues. When Orange County unsuccessfully tried in 2011 to overturn a retroactive pension increase for deputy sheriffs, an attorney arguing the case for the deputies emphasized the point.

“Miriam A. Vogel, a retired Court of Appeal justice, clearly told her former colleagues that the court’s decision would affect every pension in the state of California: ‘(I)t would affect yours, it would affect mine,’” former Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach (now a state senator) wrote in the Orange County Register.

 

Photo by Joe Gratz via Flickr CC License

Chart: Which Pension Funds Disclose Net-of-Fee Investment Performance?

Credit: Pew Charitable Trusts
Click to enlarge.

Pew recently released a report on ways to improve transparency at state pension funds.

The report called for all pension funds to report their investment performance both gross of fees and net of fees – something which many, but not all, funds do.

See the map above for a breakdown of which state pensions report their performance net of fees.

From the report:

Clear information that accounts for the costs of managing assets is needed to fully understand investment performance. Still, more than one-third of plans examined do not disclose detailed returns minus the fees paid to managers, or “net of fees.” For 10-year results, 27 of 73 plans studied, or 37 percent, reported returns “gross of fees”—without deducting manager fees.

Reporting performance both gross and net of fees gives stakeholders information on both the cost and bottom-line results of pension funds’ investment strategies. A direct comparison of returns on a net and gross basis is a clear and easy method for examining the impact of fees on fund performance.

Read the full report here.

Caisse Gains 9.1% in 2015

496px-Canada_blank_map.svg

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

The Montreal Gazette reports, Caisse de dépôt posts 9.1% return in 2015:

A weak Canadian dollar ended up being a strong contributor to the Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec’s impressive 2015 results.

With more than a quarter of its assets now in U.S. investments, the provincial pension-fund manager rode a 20-per-cent rise in the U.S. dollar to an annual return of 9.1 per cent last year, extending its solid run under Michael Sabia, chief executive since 2009.

The Caisse beat its benchmark index by a full 2.4 per cent, one of its largest margins of outperformance in the last 20 years. The average Canadian pension fund made about 5.4 per cent last year, according to a recent report from RBC Investor & Treasury Services.

“It’s again an outstanding performance for Sabia. They are very conservative, very focused,” said former Caisse executive Michel Nadeau, now director-general of the Institute for Governance of Private and Public Organizations.

Nadeau said a number of things went right for the Caisse in 2015. More than half of its assets are now invested outside Canada, whose stock market tumbled last year. It had little exposure to the hard-hit oil and gas sector. It has increased its allocation to less-liquid but more stable investments like real estate, private equity and infrastructure. And some of its major Quebec holdings, like convenience-store operator Alimentation Couche-Tard and information-technology company CGI, continued to grow and prosper internationally.

The Caisse, which manages funds for the Quebec Pension Plan and several public-sector pension plans, ended the year with assets under management of $248 billion, $22 billion more than in 2014. Only $2 billion of that was new contributions.

Its rate of return over four years is now 10.9 per cent, almost 1 per cent better than its benchmark. The 10-year number is 6 per cent, roughly what’s needed to meet the long-term needs of its depositors.

Global and U.S. equity investments were key drivers for the Caisse in 2015, both posting returns of more than 21 per cent. “Portfolios benefited from the Canadian dollar’s significant depreciation, particularly against the U.S. dollar,” the fund said in its annual summary.

Its Canadian stock portfolio slipped 3.9 per cent in 2015, about 4 percentage points less than the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Overall, the Caisse’s equity portfolio was up 11 per cent in 2015. It got a 10.6 per cent return from its inflation-sensitive investments and a 3.9 per cent gain from its fixed-income holdings.

Addressing reporters, Sabia called it “a solid year,” not just because of the gains achieved during a period of economic volatility, but because of the way the organization has grown its international expertise and adapted its investment strategies.

“Faced with a turbulent world, I think our strategy works, and works well,” he said.

The Caisse has moved an increasing percentage of its assets into international holdings, and they now account for 54 per cent, up from 41 per cent in 2011. U.S. investments alone total $73 billion or almost 27 per cent. Fully 40 per cent of the Caisse’s $55-billion real-estate portfolio is now south of the border.

The push into the U.S. and other nations including Australia, India and Mexico will continue, because that’s where the best growth opportunities are, Sabia said. In Quebec, it will give priority to companies with global aspirations, because “we have to globalize the Quebec economy.”

Sabia cautioned that future returns may not be as strong, because of the challenging economic environment, but said the Caisse will stay focused on its mission, to generate the annual returns of 6 to 6.5 per cent its depositors need.

“We can outperform the market, but if it falls 10 to 15 per cent, there’s only so much you can do,” he said. “You can’t immunize yourself.”

Frederic Tomesco of Bloomberg also reports, Caisse de Depot Posts 9.1% Return in 2015, Buoyed by Weak Loonie:

Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec returned 9.1 percent in 2015 as international equities, boosted by a decline in the Canadian currency, offset negative returns at home.

Net investment income at Canada’s second-largest pension fund manager was C$20.1 billion ($14.5 billion) in 2015 versus C$23.8 billion a year earlier, according to a statement issued Wednesday. Net assets rose to C$248 billion as of Dec. 31 from C$225.9 billion at the end of 2014, the Caisse said.

Results beat the 5.4 percent average increase of Canadian pension funds, as estimated in a January report by RBC Investor Services. Over four years, the Caisse said its weighted average annual return was 10.9 percent — topping the 10 percent average return of its own benchmark.

Under Chief Executive Officer Michael Sabia, who took over in 2009, the Caisse has been increasing investments abroad while steadily boosting its exposure to less liquid assets such as real estate to improve diversification. Today, almost 54 percent of the fund manager’s exposure is outside Canada, with “inflation-sensitive” investments such as property or infrastructure accounting for about 17 percent of net assets.

“While not immunizing our portfolio against market movements, our strategy makes it more resilient in turbulent times,” Sabia said in the statement.

Stocks Outperform

Equities were the best performing asset class for the Caisse last year, returning 11 percent on average. U.S. publicly traded stocks advanced 19 percent while private-equity assets returned 8.4 percent, according to the statement. The Caisse’s C$22.4 billion Canadian stock portfolio declined 3.9 percent, less than the 11 percent decline of the Standard & Poor’s/TSX Composite Index.

Results overall benefited from about a 15 percent decline in the Canadian dollar against its U.S. counterpart.

With net assets of C$282.6 billion at year-end, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is the country’s largest pension fund manager.

In their article, Nicolas Van Praet and Bertrand Marote of the Globe and Mail report, Caisse de dépôt backs Lowe’s $3.2-billion takeover of Rona:

The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is backing Lowe’s Cos. Inc.’s $3.2-billion takeover deal for Rona Inc. because the pension fund manager concluded the Quebec hardware retailer was not going to be the industry champion it once hoped.

“We would very much have liked to have Rona emerge [from its turnaround effort as] a consolidator,” Caisse chief executive officer Michael Sabia explained after announcing the pension fund’s 9.1-per-cent return for 2015. “That was just not going to be in the cards.”

The Caisse said on Feb. 3 that it would tender its 17-per-cent Rona stake to U.S.-based Lowe’s, citing the friendly nature of the deal, the significant premium being offered, and the commitments Lowe’s is making to maintain Rona’s headquarters in Quebec and local buying policy. But Mr. Sabia’s comments are the first time the Caisse has articulated in detail its thinking about the takeover. He also clarified how the pension fund sees its role as a catalyst for economic development in the context of protectionist talk swirling in media and political circles.

When Lowe’s made its first offer for underperforming Rona in 2012, the Caisse’s view was that Rona had the potential to be fixed and shouldn’t be sold for an opportunistic price. So the pension fund brokered an agreement with Invesco Ltd., Lowe’s other main shareholder, to replace Rona management and revamp the board. Now, the Caisse has concluded that although Rona is largely fixed – same-store sales have increased six successive quarters while adjusted profit rose 33 per cent in its latest quarter – industry trends are working against the company and selling is the best option.

A push by Home Depot and Lowe’s, both U.S. industry giants, to expand in Canada is one element that weighed into the Caisse’s thinking, Mr. Sabia said. Industry consolidation and Rona’s weakness in e-commerce retail are two others, he said. “Like it or not, Rona was not well positioned.”

Opposition lawmakers in Quebec’s legislature maintain the Caisse should block the deal, which faces a vote by Rona shareholders before the end of the first quarter of 2016. They’ve also suggested that the Couillard government change the pension fund’s dual mandate – which is to generate returns for depositors and stoke provincial economic development – to prioritize its economic duty and defend Quebec companies against takeovers.

Mr. Sabia rejected that view. He framed the pension fund’s role as a supporter of Quebec companies looking to expand and become industry leaders in their field, noting that Montreal-based business consultant CGI Group Inc. and design firm WSP Global Inc. have both parlayed Caisse investments into a much larger international presence. The Caisse’s recent investment in Bombardier’s train business also aligns with this thinking, Mr. Sabia said, while Rona faced competitive roadblocks in its own growth effort.

“Over all, our view is build” the Quebec companies we invest in, Mr. Sabia said. “Build, expand and play offence.”

The Caisse posted a return of 9.1 per cent for 2015, riding a diversification strategy on international stock markets to generate strong returns for its investment in Canadian dollars. Caisse equity portfolios benefited particularly from the loonie’s depreciation against the U.S. dollar, the pension fund said. Its real estate holdings had a strong showing, returning 13.1 per cent.

The overall performance was below the Caisse’s 12-per-cent return for 2014 but beat the 5.4-per-cent average for Canadian pension funds in a January estimate by RBC Investor Services. Net investment income came in at $20.1-billion, shy of the $23.8-billion the year before.

Net assets climbed to $248-billion as of Dec. 31, making the Caisse the country’s second-largest pension fund manager behind the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Caisse investments outside Canada now make up about 54 per cent of its total assets, up from 41 per cent five years ago. The plan is to continue ramping up those investments abroad while reviewing strategies to mitigate currency swings, said the Caisse’s chief investment officer, Roland Lescure.

“In 2015, our strategy was put to the test,” Mr. Sabia said. “Uncertainty in the face of monetary policy, disorderly currency movements and collapsing oil prices all fuelled market volatility,” he said, adding that developed countries posted anemic growth and emerging markets slowed.

Average annual returns over the past four years under Mr. Sabia’s watch reached 10.9 per cent. His five-year term as president and CEO was extended in 2013.

Lastly, Matt Scuffham of Reuters reports, Pension fund Caisse open to investing more in Bombardier:

Canada’s second-largest pension fund, Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec, said it was open to further investment in Bombardier Inc after reporting strong returns in 2015.

Quebec’s public pension fund manager agreed to buy a 30 percent stake in Bombardier’s rail business for $1.5 billion in November, providing a bigger cash cushion for Bombardier’s planemaking unit.

Asked if the Caisse would invest further in Bombardier Inc, Caisse Chief Executive Michael Sabia said: “Are we open to the idea of increasing our position? Yes. Are we going to increase our level of investment in Bombardier Inc very soon? Probably not. We have an important investment in a subsidiary of Bombardier. For now, that represents significant exposure.”

Bombardier has struggled to win new orders for its C Series plane with some potential clients looking for more certainty about its financial health before placing orders. It remains in talks over possible federal aid.

Sabia said federal aid would make Bombardier more attractive to investors by providing that certainty.

“If those risks get reduced I think you’ll probably see some change in the valuation of the company so I think that’s the catalyst. It’s a risk reduction story.”

The company last week received the first order in 16 months for its CSeries jets, sending its shares higher and overshadowing news of lower-than-expected results and plans to cut 7,000 jobs.

Sabia backed Chief Executive Alain Bellemare to turn the business around and said he should be given time.

“Alain Bellemare is doing a very good job. Turnarounds take time. Alain’s been there about a year. In the history of a turnaround those are early days so we’ll see how that progresses,” Sabia said.

The Caisse reported weighted average returns of 9.1 percent in 2015, weaker than the average return of 12 percent it achieved in 2014 reflecting volatile equity markets and global economic uncertainty.

However, it beat the average return of 5.4 percent achieved by Canadian pension funds last year, according to research by RBC Investor Services.

Over the past four years, the Caisse said its annualised return was 10.9 percent, 90 basis points ahead of the benchmark portfolio which it compares itself against.

Since Sabia was appointed in 2009, the fund has sought higher returns by investing more funds in alternative assets such as infrastructure and real estate, shifting funds out of equities and low-yielding government bonds.

“While not immunizing our portfolio against market movements, our strategy makes it more resilient in turbulent times,” Sabia said.

The Caisse said its net assets had increased to C$248 billion at the end of 2015, compared with C$226 billion 12 months earlier.

The Caisse provides us with highlights of its results here and a very detailed press release on its results here which I will be referring to in my critical analysis of its 2015 results. Please take the time to carefully read the Caisse’s press release here as it provides a lot of excellent information.

It’s also important to note that the Caisse doesn’t release its 2015 Annual Report at the same time as it releases its results. It typically releases its annual report in April because I think it has to pass Quebec’s Parliament before being made public.

This is extremely annoying and totally unacceptable. I hope the Caisse and Quebec’s government fix this in the future so that Quebecers can receive detailed information that only the annual report covers on the same day the Caisse releases its results (If Ontario Teachers and others do it, so can the Caisse).

As such, in my analysis below, I will be referring to parts of the Caisse’s 2014 Annual Report which you should all take the time to read here. It’s important to understand that a proper analysis of any pension fund’s results requires a proper understanding of benchmarks used to gauge the risks used to add value over those benchmarks.

First, let me be nice and state flat out these are solid results. I even emailed Michael Sabia last night to congratulate him. For a guy with no investment or pension background, he managed to learn very quickly what the game is all about. He’s extremely bright, works like a dog and has surrounded himself with very smart investment people who for the most part know what they’re doing (minus their bearish bond and long emerging markets/ energy/ commodities calls which turned out to be completely wrong!!).

During Sabia’s tenure, the Caisse has managed to deliver very solid results focusing on shifting assets away from public markets into “more stable, less volatile” private markets, especially real estate and infrastructure. There is actually a chart in the press release which highlights this (click on image):

Those inflation-sensitive assets are mostly made up of real estate and infrastructure investments and their returns have been stable, especially when compared to Equities and Fixed Income.

Does this mean that returns in Real Estate and Infrastructure will keep delivering the same results as the recent past? Of course not, in a deflationary world all assets classes except for good old nominal bonds will get hit (just look at Japan). Also, due to stale pricing (private market assets are valued once or twice a year at the Caisse), there is a bit of an illusion going on here in terms of the real value and volatility of these private market investments.

When you read stories of Canadian oil companies which have stopped paying the rent, you know things are getting bad in Alberta’s commercial and residential real estate market. I have warned all of you that real estate as an asset class makes me extremely nervous in a deflationary environment because even though rates are low, debt levels are high, and a prolonged debt deflation crisis will hit rents and real estate values.

You can argue the same thing about infrastructure. In Greece they built these nice highways and nobody is using them because they can’t afford the tolls (it didn’t help that Troika in its infinite wisdom forced the Greek government to hike the gas tax at the worst possible time). People still use the old highways even if they are risking their lives as they are deteriorating and very dangerous.
 
All this to say, in a debt deflation collapse, even real estate and infrastructure can get whacked hard. If you think hiding in real estate and infrastructure is the key to avoiding a prolonged debt deflation cycle, you’re in for a nasty surprise.

Now, let’s get back to the Caisse’s 2015 results. I want you to look at the returns of each portfolio relative to their index over the last four years and in 2015 (click on image):

You will note that over the last four years, almost every investment portfolio except for Real Estate and Infrastructure beat its benchmark. And this is where most of the money is being invested.

More interestingly, the outperformance in the Global Quality Equities portfolio over the last four years is particularly exceptional, 24% vs 17.3% for its benchmark index.

Wow!!! Warren Buffett, eat your heart out! The Caisse proudly displays this graphic on its site on “benchmark agnostic management” (click on image):

Does this mean that the guys and gals managing Real Estate and Infrastructure at the Caisse aren’t as good as those investing in the Global Quality Equities because the former aren’t able to trounce their benchmarks like the latter seem to be doing?

Of course not. The people managing Real Estate at the Caisse are the best in Canada and among the best in the world. They might not compete with Jonathan Gray over at Blackstone but they’re extremely qualified and excellent real estate managers. The same goes for the Caisse’s Infrastructure group which is staffed by extremely qualified investment professionals.

When it comes to analyzing a pension fund or any fund’s performance, I keep harping, it’s all about benchmarks, stupid! I used to have hedge fund guys come at me with their “unbelievably high Sharpe ratios” and I would tear them to pieces by pointing out the “unbelievably dumb risks” they were taking.

In terms of benchmarks, the Caisse’s Real Estate group has it tough, much tougher than its counterpart over at PSP. I ripped into PSP’s laughable Real Estate benchmark when I went over its fiscal 2015 results back in July (that real estate benchmark still persists at PSP, all part of the André Collin – Gordon Fyfe golden handshake back in 2004).

The Caisse’s Infrastructure benchmark is also tough to beat, tougher than the one at PSP and other large Canadian pensions. So when you have tough real estate and infrastructure benchmarks to beat, your overall benchmark is much tougher to beat which makes the fact that the Caisse beat its overall benchmark by 2.4% in 2015 and 90 basis points over the last four years that much more impressive (click on image):

Unfortunately, it’s not that clean and simple as the Caisse also plays benchmark games and hides it through this nonsense of “benchmark agnostic management”. Have a look at the benchmarks used to gauge the value-added of the Caisse’s investment portfolios (click on image; from page 48 of the 2014 Annual Report):

You’ll notice the Real Estate benchmark is Aon Hewitt, adjusted and the one for Infrastructure is an “index consisting of a basket of publicly traded securities related to infrastructure, partially hedged.”

The real estate benchmark is a private real estate index adjusted for leverage. Basically, Aon constructs CDPQ’s index using IPD data for Canada, UK and France; and NCREIF for the US and they overlay a leverage threshold on top of the direct real estate return data. The infrastructure benchmark has public market beta in it which makes it tough to beat when those stocks are soaring. Both these benchmarks are very tough to beat.

Now, turn your attention to the benchmark for Global Quality Equities because this is where some fudging is taking place. That benchmark is an “index consisting of 85% MSCI ACWI Index, unhedged, and 15% FTSE TMX Canada 91 Day T-Bill Index“.

Huh? So the Caisse is investing in high dividend, quality global stocks like big pharmaceuticals, pipelines and utilities in this portfolio and it’s gauging its performance relative the MSCI All Country World Index and a Canadian T-bill index which yields close to zero?!?

I don’t know but when I see this type of outperformance in any public or private portfolio, my bullshit benchmark antennas immediately go up, especially when its couched under some “benchmark agnostic approach” (click on image):

Now, I’m not implying that the portfolio managers at the Caisse’s Public Equities group are not good at their jobs (just maybe not as good as the chart above implies). I like Jean-Luc Gravel and think he’s done a great job turning that ship around but I have to be intellectually honest and state the obvious: nobody else in Canada is taking this approach and for an obvious reason, it’s a slick way of gaming an inappropriate public market benchmark.

As far as Fixed Income, I have a couple of observations to make to my former one-time boss, Marc Cormier. First, if it wasn’t for that Real Estate Debt portfolio, your marginal outperformance in 2015 and over the last four years wouldn’t be as good as it looks. Second, the Caisse’s Fixed Income team got a bunch of bearish bond calls wrong and it cost it serious performance.

When I hear that guys like Guy Lamontagne, Simon Lamy, not to mention Brian Romanchuck, are no longer at the Caisse, I ask myself what the hell is going on at the Fixed Income group because guys like that (especially Brian and Simon who I know better than Guy) are gold for any organization.

You know who else is gold for any organization? Yours truly. I bust my ass to provide all of you timely (non sanitized) information you simply won’t read anywhere else and all I ask for is a lousy donation or annual subscription to my blog on the right hand side under my picture.

I thank all the leaders at Canada’s Top Ten who have subscribed and ask many more to join them. I’d also like to remind Canada’s pension plutocrats that unlike them, I don’t have the luxury of collecting millions in compensation based on four-year rolling returns and would appreciate if they can offer me contract work or better yet, a full-time job so I too can get properly compensated for my work.

Speaking of compensation, the table below was taken from page 109 of the Caisse’s 2014 Annual Report (click on image):

As you can see, the top brass at the Caisse are compensated extremely well but not as well as their counterparts in the rest of Canada. Michael Sabia remains the most underpaid CEO in the Canadian pension fund industry (trust me, even for a million dollars, his job is no bowl of cherries).

It’s also worth noting that the head of Real Estate, Daniel Fournier of Ivanhoé Cambridge, is not part of this list because he is the CEO of the real estate subsidiary which has its own board of directors. I’m sure he’s getting paid extremely well too (perhaps more than everyone else and deservedly so) but I couldn’t find a public document which states his total compensation (no annual report for Ivanhoé Cambridge but there are activity reports here).

Below, take the time to listen to Michael Sabia discuss the Caisse’s 2015 results in a CTV Montreal report. Notice how he talks about what the Canadian economy needs and alludes to infrastructure?

Also, take the time to watch Sabia’s French interview with Gérard Fillion on RDI Économie here. Notice how much his French has improved over the last five years? He spoke about selling Rona to Lowe’s (good move as Rona would never be able to compete with Home Depot or Lowe’s).

Sabia made a good point that Quebec protectionism won’t work in this global economy and that Quebec companies that want to compete globally better focus on performance. He briefly mentioned the Caisse’s big stake in Bombardier which I think was well structured even if Bombardier’s stock keeps making new 52-week lows.

Also, a month ago, Sabia discussed the market turmoil, monetary policy and his investment strategies at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He spoke with Bloomberg’s Erik Schatzer on  “The Pulse” stating the need to focus on the real economy.

It sounds like Michael Sabia is gearing up for a political career after he leaves the Caisse. If you ask me, he’d be a great politician. He just needs to soften up a little and come down from his high tower once in a while to talk to his employees and sit in on their meetings (a bit like Rousseau and Fyfe used to do when they were at the Caisse). He should also take the time to meet me, I don’t bite (last time we crossed paths was at CBC’s offices in Montreal).

 

Photo credit: “Canada blank map” by Lokal_Profil image cut to remove USA by Paul Robinson – Vector map BlankMap-USA-states-Canada-provinces.svg.Modified by Lokal_Profil. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canada_blank_map.svg#mediaviewer/File:Canada_blank_map.svg

Report: Low Rates Drive European Pensions to Property

world

Low interest rates are driving European pension funds to increasingly shift into property investments – commercial and residential – both directly and through investment funds, according to a report.

One EU regulator, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, is keeping a close watch on the trend.

More from Reuters:

Traditionally conservative European insurers and pension funds are turning increasingly to risky property bets on everything from new homes in provincial Britain to car parks at Brussels airport, as they feel the pinch from rock-bottom interest rates.

While much is in the form of equity stakes, they are also providing loans secured against property, moving into territory where banks have retreated since the global financial crisis.

“The banks have taken a couple of steps back and are not providing the same amount of credit,” said Johan Held of AFA, a Swedish insurer which has spent one in seven euros of a 20 billion euro ($22 billion) fund on property. “Many of the insurance companies are stepping in to fill the gap.”

At the moment, property, at least in many northern European cities, offers far better returns than conventional investments such as bonds, where yields have been dismal since central banks flooded the financial system with cheap money to revive their economies.

[…]

In a recent report on financial stability, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority signalled it is closely watching developments, noting “an increased risk appetite” since 2008 to preserve investment returns.

The report pointed to insurers turning to investments “previously dominated by the banking industry” – mortgages, infrastructure loans and mortgage backed securities.

Click here for a graphic detailing home loans over time in key EU countries.

 

Photo by  Horia Varlan via Flickr CC License

U.S. Pensions Should Be More Transparent on Alternatives: Report

2247354510_2e3e06637a_o

When it comes to alternative investments and management fees, public pension funds in the U.S. could improve their level of transparency, according to a new report from Pew.

The report makes several recommendations for improving transparency, including making investment policy statements more accessible and implementing comprehensive fee reporting standards.

More on the report, from BenefitsPro:

Researchers looked at the fee disclosure policies of the 73 largest funds, which collectively account for $2.9 trillion, or 95 percent of all public pension assets.

While all of those plans receive disclosure guidance from the Government Accounting Standards Boards, states are left to their own devices when it comes to interpreting and implementing that guidance.

In 2013, state pensions allocated 25 percent of assets to alternative investments like private equity and hedge funds, or more than twice the 11 percent that was invested in alternatives in 2006.

[…]

The Pew brief calls for comprehensive reporting standards that would include all the costs of alternative investments, including carried interest earned by private equity managers.

It also recommends all pensions make investment policy statements available online, and disclose funds’ returns both net and gross of fees. Of the funds it reviewed, 37 percent reported returns gross of fees, meaning they did not deduct management costs.

Pew’s brief also recommends reporting performance by asset class, and expanding performance history to 20 years.

Read the report here.

 

Photo by thinkpanama via Flickr CC License

Gov. Watchdog Office To Review Oversight of Teamsters Pension Fund

4255734876_0fbdc2f4a0_z

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) will launch an examination of whether the U.S. Department of Labor could have prevented the funding crisis currently swallowing the Central States Pension Fund.

The Central States Pension Fund, the retirement fund of the Teamsters labor union, announced plans last year to significantly cut member benefits.

More from the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office will review the U.S. Department of Labor’s oversight of the fund, the office wrote in a Feb. 12 letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. Grassley requested the probe Feb. 1.

“Plan beneficiaries deserve to have a better understanding of what led to the financial failings of Central States and ultimately put their retirement at risk,” Grassley said Tuesday.

“Congress needs to have a better understanding of what happened with the Department of Labor’s oversight of this pension plan so that any corrective actions, if necessary, can be taken.”

The Labor Department has monitored the giant ­Teamsters union retirement fund for more than three decades. Labor obtained a federal court-ordered consent decree ­following its own investigation of gross mismanagement of the fund and self-dealing by fund managers. Grassley said the consent decree gave Labor considerable oversight authority in choosing independent fund managers and changing investment strategies.

Yet the fund slid into crisis under Labor’s watch and is now more than $16 billion in the red. To the fury of retirees and workers, the fund is seeking to slash retirement benefits under the controversial Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014.

The proposed cuts would affect over 250,000 Teamsters members.

 

Photo by  Bob Jagendorf 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