CalPERS to Vernon Pensioner: Repay $3.5 Million

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.

First CalPERS announced last year that it was cutting the eye-popping pension of a former city of Vernon official, Bruce Malkenhorst, from $551,688 a year to $115,848.

Then yesterday the CalPERS board approved the recovery of a $3.5 million pension overpayment from Malkenhorst, 84, who retired in 2005 from the tiny industrial city south of downtown Los Angeles known for corruption.

Malkenhorst received the huge pension, later cut by an amount larger than any current CalPERS pension, for serving as the full-time Vernon city administrator/clerk, while also holding several other top city positions and reportedly earning more than $911,000 a year.

The CalPERS board began the recovery action after an administrative law judge agreed that the Malkenhorst pension should be reduced because it was based on final pay that was not properly disclosed.

“As the judge specifically found, Malkenhorst and other Vernon officials intentionally obscured Malkenhorst’s pay increases, making it impossible for the public to figure out how much the city was paying for what services, and subverting the law’s transparency requirements,” Mathew Jacobs, CalPERS general counsel, said in a news release.

“CalPERS will not tolerate these kinds of abuse. We remain on the lookout for all forms of pension spiking and encourage the public to help us root it out.”

Malkenhorst
An attorney for Malkenhorst, John Michael Jensen, told the CalPERS board the issue has become “highly politicized.” He warned against a “cavalier disregard for the legal framework of vested rights” by going back 10 years to recover $3.5 million.

“It’s a dangerous idea — that the idea of vested right property rights, which the board has been very vigilant about with the Stockton bankruptcy and these initiatives we have just heard about” can be changed by the administrative process, he said.

Whether this and other arguments from Jensen swayed some board members was not clear. The decision to affirm part of the administrative law judge’s decision and seek recovery of the overpayment was made in closed session on a 9-to-2 vote.

Malkenhorst pleaded guilty in 2011 (to long-stalled charges originally filed in 2006) of illegally using city money for golf, massages, meals and other things. He received probation, $35,000 in fines and penalties, and repaid the city $60,000.

An audit of Vernon begun by CalPERS in 2011 led to an original announcement in May 2012 that Malkenhorst’s pension would be cut because it “was illegally based on unpublished pay rates, overtime and an inflated longevity allowance.”

Malkenhorst contested the pension cut. CalPERS announced in March last year that his pension had actually been cut, citing a new appeals court ruling in an Oakland case “that retirement systems must correct overpayments sooner rather than later.”

After a six-day hearing stretching from August last year to February this year, an administrative law judge issued a ruling in July agreeing with the CalPERS decision to reduce the pension improperly based on a “catch-all pay rate category.”

But the judge said CalPERS acted arbitrarily in selecting the pay rate on which the new sharply reduced pension is based and lacked evidence to conclude that he was receiving overtime pay.

In September, the CalPERS board did not adopt the judge’s ruling, choosing instead to hold a full board hearing this month that would include the decision to begin the action to recover the overpayment of $3,486,191.

Jensen argued that the administrative law judge did not address the recovery of an overpayment and that board action would lack “due process.” A CalPERS attorney said recovery of an overpayment by the pension system is clearly allowed by state statute.

CalPERS based the reduced pension for Malkenhorst on the pay of the acting city clerk, arguing the “position most closely resembled the former city administrator/city clerk position the city had disclosed to the public on pay schedules.”

Jensen said Malkenhorst’s successor was paid $335,000 a year and that CalPERS had selected the lowest pay to determine the new pension. CalPERS said the acting clerk was the immediate successor and the higher-paid successor was hired several years later.

The Malkenhorst pension, $551,688 a year, tops the list of large California Public Employees Retirement System pensions on the Transparent California website of California public employee pensions.

Next are Michael D. Johnson, Solano County, $384,252; Stephen Maguin, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, $339,889; Joaquin Fuster, UCLA, $333,871; Donald Gerth, CSU Sacramento, $313,145, and William Garrett, El Cajon, $307,268.

When the Malkenhorst pension cut was announced in 2012, CalPERS also said it took action against six other Vernon officials. Three were ineligible for pensions because they were contractors. Others had service and pay discrepancies.

The Vernon crackdown came after CalPERS had cut the pensions of officials of the nearby city of Bell, some convicted of felony corruption. The top Bell official, Robert Rizzo, reportedly was on track to receive a pension of about $650,000.

Vernon only had a population of 112 in the 2010 census, the smallest of any incorporated California city. But the city website says it has 1,800 businesses employing about 55,000 persons.

Two families, the Malburgs and the Malkenhorsts, have run Vernon in the past, Forbes magazine said in 2007. Leonis Malburg, whose grandfather founded the city in 1905, was mayor for 33 years.

Malkenhorst, who began working for the city in 1977, became the treasurer and city administrator/city clerk in 1978. He later added several positions, including chief executive of the city-owned power plant that sells electricity to the businesses.

“During the height of his time in Vernon, Malkenhorst was driven around in a limousine and often spent his mornings playing golf,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “When he retired in 2005, he was succeeded by his son, Bruce Malkenhorst Jr., who left in 2008.”

A former Vernon city administrator and city attorney, Eric Fresch, who made $1.6 million in 2008, was found dead in the water off Angel Island in San Francisco Bay in 2012 hours after the release of a state audit critical of Vernon, the Los Angeles Times reported. The Marin County coroner’s office said he slipped while walking on wet rocks and hit his head.

A similar but possibly more mysterious incident opened HBO’s “True Detective” this year in which the fictional city of Vinci was based on Vernon, the show creator, Nic Pizzolato, told Vanity Fair and GQ magazines.

“After a series of investigative stories in 2010, the state Legislature attempted to disincorporate the city (Vernon), but that effort failed,” the Los Angeles Times reported last June.

“Since then, new leaders emerged and reform efforts were undertaken, including allowing the creation of private housing to boost Vernon’s population and slashing of city council members’ salaries.”

The Caisse’s Big Stake in Bombardier?

8551688079_268660473d_z

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

CBC News reports, Caisse putting $1.5B US into Bombardier for stake in rail business:

Bombardier has signed a deal that will see the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ) invest $1.5 billion US in a newly created company that will hold the company’s rail transportation business.

The giant Quebec pension fund — Canada’s second-largest — says the investment will help stabilize the company’s current financial situation.

The Caisse says it’s betting on Bombardier and in rail transportation.

The $1.5 billion represents a 30 per cent stake in a new holding company, BT Holdco.

The company is a subsidiary of Bombardier Transportation and will be based in Germany.

The investment comes less than a month after the provincial government announced a bailout of more than $1.3 billion in the company’s struggling CSeries jet program. Bombardier posted a loss of $4.9 billion US in the third quarter.

Rail industry has ‘growth potential’

The Montreal-based company says the deal concludes its review of financing options for Bombardier Transportation, which sells subway cars and other mass transit systems.

“This investment by CDPQ, which has a long history as one of our major investors, is a testimonial to the growth potential of the rail industry and to Bombardier’s leadership in seizing the opportunities this market offers on a global scale,” Bombardier chief executive Alain Bellemare said in a statement.

Caisse president Michael Sabia said the investment is a safe bet.

“Bombardier Transportation is a global leader in the rail industry, with a robust backlog, predictable revenues, and meaningful potential for growth,” Sabia said in a statement.

Karl Moore, an associate professor at McGill University, said it’s a solid business deal, with more upside than Quebec’s investment in Bombardier’s CSeries program.

“It’s a different part of the business. As Michael Sabia points out, it’s a global business. It’s relatively resilient during tough economic times because it’s about government spending on rail companies, long-term infrastructure projects,” he said in an interview with CBC’s The Exchange.

He said protecting Quebec industry is less a consideration than getting good return for the pension fund that the Caisse invests.

“They’ve structured it in a way that they will get very good returns in a safe manner,” he said.

Vanessa Lu of the Toronto Star also reports, Quebec pension fund buys $1.5B stake in Bombardier rail:

After a global search for an investor in its rail division, in the end Bombardier Inc. stayed close to home, turning to Quebec’s biggest pension fund for a $1.5 billion (U.S.) cash infusion.

In exchange for the money, the Caisse de dépôts et placement du Quebec gets a say in board members as well as the promise of at least 9.5 per cent annual returns for its 30 per cent stake in a new holding company known as BT Holdco.

If Bombardier Transportation doesn’t deliver, then the Caisse can increase its stake to as much as 42.5 per cent over the next five years. If the company delivers better returns, then the Caisse can reduce its stake.

Caisse CEO Michael Sabia touted the arrangement, which values the company at $5 billion (U.S.), as giving its depositors “bond-like” protection but with the “up side” of equity.

Bombardier has the option to buy out the Caisse at the end of three years, with guaranteed returns of a minimum 15 per cent, on an annual compound basis.

Sabia called that 15 per cent rate very attractive, but said he hopes the pension fund isn’t bought out that point.

“We think the transportation business has a lot of interesting potential,” said Sabia during a conference call on Thursday. “Bombardier Transportation is already a global champion. I think it can be an even bigger and stronger one.”

That’s especially true because of demand in emerging markets like Asia and Latin America, he added.

“Obviously, there’s still a lot of work to do. That’s no secret,” Sabia said.

Bombardier’s Class B shares, which are down almost 70 per cent year to date, closed unchanged on Thursday at $1.28.

The Toronto Transit Commission is furious with Bombardier over its long-delayed streetcar order, first placed in 2009. To date, the TTC only has 11 streetcars, with another en route from Thunder Bay.

Originally, 73 were supposed be in use by the end of 2015, but the schedule was revised to 20, which Bombardier says will only be 16.

In December, the TTC is expected to file a notice of complaint, seeking $50 million in damages over the delay.

The investment by Caisse comes on the heels of a $1 billion (U.S.) commitment from the Quebec government for a 49.5 per cent stake in Bombardier’s struggling CSeries program.

Development of the CSeries program is years behind schedule and billions over budget, but the flight testing is now complete. The company expects certification soon.

However, sales for the all-new plane, in two sizes, have been sluggish with only 243 firm orders to date – and none in a year.

Porter Airlines, which has placed a conditional order for 12 planes, and options for another 18, will not be allowed to fly the jets from Toronto’s island airport, now that the Liberals have taken power in Ottawa.

As Bombardier has burned through cash to get the CSeries launched, it has had to make substantial job cuts and shelved plans for the Learjet85. Earlier this year, Bombardier raised $3 billion (U.S.) through a debt and equity offering.

With the Quebec investment and the deal with Caisse, which is scheduled to close in the first quarter of 2016, Bombardier estimates it will have access to $6 billion (U.S.) in cash and cash equivalents by year’s end.

As a condition of the Caisse deal, Bombardier must ensure there is always $1.25 billion (U.S.) in liquidity. Sabia said the Caisse never considered investing in the CSeries program, choosing instead in the train division.

Bombardier’s CEO Alain Bellemare, who took over from Pierre Beaudoin in February, says the company has plenty of cash to complete all its programs including the CSeries jet and new Global 7000/8000 business jets.

It also provides a cushion in case market conditions prove difficult, Bellemare told reporters on Thursday. “We now have ‘a safety net,’” he said. “We will also re-establish confidence with our clients which is key if we want to continue selling our products.”

On the third-quarter conference call in October, Bellemare said an additional $2 billion (U.S.) investment would be needed for the CSeries program in the coming years, given it is not expected to get to profitability before 2020 or 2021.

While Quebec has called on the federal government to join in with a cash infusion, the new Liberal government hasn’t acted yet.

Bellemare said the company is continuing talks with the federal government for assistance, declining to offer any details.

It’s only a matter of time before the federal government matches the $1 billion (U.S.) the Quebec government invested in Bombardier.

What do I think about Bombardier getting billions from the provincial and federal government at a time when Quebec’s public school teachers are striking against austerity and demanding much deserved salary increases? It makes me cringe especially since I know the company has been poorly managed over the last few years as its upper management made all sorts of terrible decisions, all of which are reflected in Bombardier’s sagging stock price (click on image):

But the company is too important to Quebec’s economy to let it fall by the wayside and I’m not talking only about direct jobs. I’m also talking about a lot of small and medium sized enterprises that rely on Bombardier’s ongoing operations.

Still, one thing I would like to emphasize is not to look at the Caisse’s investment in Bombardier Transportation as an extension of the Quebec government’s decision to invest in the struggling CSeries program.

First, Bombardier Transportation has problems but it’s a growing business with great potential in developed and emerging markets. Second, the Caisse isn’t stupid. It structured the deal to ensure a guaranteed return and if it doesn’t get it, it will increase its stake in the growing transportation division. Third, the deal is structured in a way to ringfence it from the troubled CSeries program.

All this to say, when we want to help a giant Quebec corporation, we’re better off going through the Caisse than some government agency which doesn’t have return and risk in mind when handing out corporate welfare checks to poorly managed companies.

 

Photo by  Renaud CHODKOWSKI via Flickr CC License

Fitch: Another Illinois Pension Law Could Be Challenged

271px-Flag_map_of_Illinois

Cook County – the largest county in Illinois and home to Chicago – passed a budget this week that included a pension provision aiming to cut down the county’s unfunded pension liabilities.

The budget mandates higher pension payments from the county, which will be paid for by a sales tax increase.

But a Fitch report, released Thursday, says the provision could face a legal challenge.

From Reuters:

Cook County’s plan to significantly boost payments to its pension fund over the amount required by Illinois law could lead to legal challenges by taxpayers, Fitch Ratings said on Thursday.

[Cook County] passed a fiscal 2016 budget on Wednesday that increases its pension payment by $270.5 million over the $195 million required by state law, according to the credit rating agency. Revenue for the bigger payment will come from a 1 percentage point increase in the county’s sales tax that is expected to raise $308 million for the budget.

“The county’s pension strategy is notable, as it includes actuarially determined funding of the pension liability, but appears to ignore the restrictions imposed by the current pension statute, leaving the county vulnerable to potential litigation from taxpayers challenging the increased payments,” Fitch said in a statement.

[…]

Fitch said its negative outlook on the county’s A-plus credit rating includes concerns over the county’s ability to implement an affordable plan to shore up pension funding.

“This plan, if it survives legal testing, could address those concerns; but if legal challenges invalidate it, the county will again become reliant upon state legislative action to improve pension funding,” the rating agency added.

Cook County’s retirement system was 61 percent funded as of 2013.

California Gov. Brown: CalPERS Discount Rate Change Doesn’t Go Far Enough

Jerry Brown Oakland rally

On Wednesday, the CalPERS board approved a measure that aims to draw down the pension fund’s discount rate from 7.5 percent to 6.5 percent over a period of 20 years.

But California Gov. Jerry Brown, who had been pushing for a more conservative projection, said this week that CalPERS didn’t go far enough.

More from the LA Times:

“I am deeply disappointed that the CalPERS board reversed course,” Brown said in a written statement.

Brown wanted [the discount rate decrease] to happen even faster. His criticism hinted at a larger struggle, a political tug of war between Brown and public employee unions.

[…]

Sources close to both CalPERS and the Brown administration said Thursday that the governor had been privately lobbying some of the pension fund directors for weeks to push for a faster, deeper cut in the long-term estimates of what will be funded by Wall Street investments. In other words, he wanted to set aside more tax revenues for paying pension obligations.

Doing so would strengthen his hand should he be asked to expand government programs. Or it could help stave off contract demands by state employee unions with whom he’s now negotiating. One of those unions, composed of state engineers and scientists, protested on the streets of Sacramento on Thursday in support of a more generous contract than Brown is offering.

The governor, in so many of his actions over the last few years, has made it clear he wants to pay off as much debt as he can right now.

At least one CalPERS board member wanted the discount rate to be lowered to 6.5 percent immediately, not over the course of 20 years, according to the LA Times.

 

Photo by Steve Rhodes via Flickr CC License

Forcing Green Politics on Pension Funds?

2950975041_27c5d7c8e3_z

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

Andy Kessler, a former hedge-fund manager and the author of “Eat People,” wrote a comment for the Wall Street Journal, Forcing Green Politics on Pension Funds:

The beauty of the stock market is that no one can tell you where to put your money—until now. Last month the Obama administration’s Labor Department issued Interpretive Bulletin 2015-01, which tells pension funds what factors to use when choosing investments, including climate change. Only a few tax lawyers noticed, but with U.S. pensions at $9 trillion, this is a gross power grab that will hurt the retirees it claims to protect.

In 2008 Labor issued guidance for parts of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, affectionately known as Erisa, that environmental, social and government factors—for instance, climate change—may affect the value of investments.

Most pension fund managers, who have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize returns, have assumed that such factors can act as a tie breaker, if all other things are equal. The thinking was: Thanks for the heads up about the climate, but leave the investing to us. Managers could still weigh other factors above climate change without getting sued.

No more. According to the Oct. 26 bulletin from Labor: “Environmental, social and governance issues may have a direct relationship to the economic value of the plan’s investment. In these instances, such issues are not merely collateral considerations or tiebreakers, but rather are proper components of the fiduciary’s primary analysis of the economic merits of competing investment choices.”

The word “primary” is the rub. Investing is hard, as anyone who has bought a stock only to watch it crater 20% a week later knows. There are thousands of factors that influence daily stock prices—product, profits, management, competition, interest rates, global unrest, government interference, technology and so on.

You may have an opinion on climate change, I may have another. If it were settled science, would we need marching orders from Labor? Al Gore invests using his thesis on sustainable capitalism, and good for him. Just don’t force that on the rest of us.

This government is essentially saying: Don’t you dare invest in anything that causes or is hurt by climate change, or you’ll be sued for failing your fiduciary responsibilities. Energy, utilities and industrials are 20% of the market. How can pension funds now own any of them?

This is a divestment program, nicely paired with the U.N. conference on climate change in Paris later this month. But it won’t work. Stock prices are a collective opinion on the prospect of a company. As reality changes, so do opinions. There are plenty of socially responsible investment funds; they rarely succeed. You can shun alcohol, tobacco and gambling stocks all you want, but many Americans enjoy all three, often at the same time. As long as profits go up, these stocks will do well, leaving the socially responsible behind. At least that’s by choice.

Pushing politics on retirement funds will destroy returns. One little secret on Wall Street is that Erisa rules drive hedge funds to avoid pension money. It slows them down. As pension funds divest, hedge funds and other managers will gladly buy up undervalued climate-challenged companies.

The argument over climate change should roll on, but keep government out of portfolios. Facebook ’s headquarters is on the San Francisco Bay. Sea-level “projections” from the National Research Council forecast it’ll eventually be swallowed up by rising oceans. So do I have to remove the stock from my IRA?

While I disagree with Kessler that “one little secret on Wall Street is that Erisa rules drive hedge funds to avoid pension money” (Are you kidding me? Hedge funds love dumb pension money chasing a rate-of-return fantasy), I agree with him that green politics should not take precedence over pension investments.

Go back to read my last comment on Ontario pensions’ fossil fuel disaster where I state the following:

[..] as I argued three years ago when bcIMC was slammed over unethical investments, once you push the envelope on responsible investing, you quickly divest from many companies in all industries, including big pharma, big tobacco, big banks, and big fast food companies that need lots of cows to make hamburgers (and cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than cars).

There’s something else I want you to think about, pension funds have a fiduciary duty to achieve their return objective without undue risk. That’s investment risk, not undue risk to the environment. Clean energy sounds great, and I’m all for it, but these stocks are also very volatile (mostly follow trends in energy prices), not to mention these companies aren’t as big as fossil fuel companies so it’s impossible for pensions to easily make the switch out of fossil fuel into clean tech.

And another thing, what if all those investors betting big on a global recovery turn out to be right?  You will see a massive rally in coal, steel, oil and oil drilling stocks. I wonder then if the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives will publish research on the cost of divesting out of fossil fuels (it’s easier being an armchair quarterback when the prevailing trend is going your way).

There is a cost to every decision, including divesting out of fossil fuel assets. If your pension plan’s stakeholders are fine knowing their pension can potentially underperform other pensions that are not divesting from these assets and even fail to achieve their required rate-of-return over the long-term because of such decisions, then fine.

But I think a lot of these decisions are driven by a green agenda which hasn’t clearly thought of all the costs attached to divesting out of fossil fuel assets. Unlike Kessler, I’m a big believer in global warming and what Al Gore and eminent scientists are warning about, I just don’t believe that this is what should drive pension investments.

Folks, the world is a sewer. That’s just a fact of life. We need to listen to environmentalists but they also need to understand what pension funds are all about, namely, delivering the maximum rate of return without taking undue investment risk, which includes illiquidity risk in clean tech shares.

If you have any thoughts on this topic, let me know and I’ll be happy to publish them (LKolivakis@gmail.com).

 

Photo by  penagate via Flickr CC

CalPERS Adopts Discount Rate Changes

Calpers

CalPERS announced a more conservative approach to its future discount rates on Wednesday in a bid to lower risk and close the pension fund’s funding gap.

The fund’s board approved a measure that will decrease its assumed rate of return following years where investment gains significantly outpace assumptions.

More from Reuters:

Calpers will reduce its expected rate of investment returns in years after the fund outperforms its 7.5 percent target by 4 percentage points. The goal is to ultimately reduce the rate to 6.5 percent, although that could take decades under the new policy.

Rob Feckner, president of the Calpers board of administration, said the policy “makes significant strides in lowering risk and volatility in the system, and helps lessen the impacts of another financial downturn.”

[…]

Jeff Snyder, a New York-based consultant at Cammack Retirement Group, said there is a national trend by pensions funds to remove risk from investment portfolios by ridding themselves of private equity and hedge fund holdings that could come at a cost to funds if the market surges.

“By reducing to lower risk, you protect the portfolio from downside but you’re also going to prevent upside potential,” he said.

In July, CalPers announced that after years of steady returns it missed the 7.5 percent target, returning just 2.4 percent for the fiscal year ended June 30.

Calpers is expected to have a negative cash flow – meaning it will be paying out more in benefits than it receives in contributions – for at least the next 15 years, mostly due to a maturing workforce.

Jerry Brown said Wednesday that he didn’t think the changes went far enough.

“I am deeply disappointed that the CalPERS Board reversed course and adopted an irresponsible plan that will only keep the system dependent on unrealistic investment returns,” Brown said in his statement.

 

Photo by  rocor via Flickr CC License

Ontario Pensions’ Fossil Fuel Disaster?

3128975331_4853432915_z

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

Tyler Hamilton of the Toronto Star reports, Ontario pension funds lost $2.4B from oil, coal investments:

Ontario’s five largest pension funds lost an estimated $2.4 billion during the last half of 2014 because of investments in fossil-fuel assets, according to a study released Tuesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

It calculated that the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan took by far the biggest financial hit, losing $1.77 billion from fossil-fuel bets during a time that saw the price of oil cut nearly in half.

“If they’re putting money into fossil-fuel stocks, it should be incumbent on managers and trustees to justify why they’re doing that,” said Marc Lee, a senior economist with Policy Alternatives.

The study analyzed 20 Canadian pension funds with $587 billion in assets under management, including the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS), Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP), Ontario Pension Board, and Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) Pension Trust.

On average, about 5 per cent of assets under management were in the form of fossil-fuel company stocks, which had a total value estimated at $27 billion prior to the oil-price crash. Six months later, the value of those equities had fallen by $5.8 billion, which the study called a conservative estimate.

Lee said losses can largely be blamed on declining oil and gas prices. He conceded that the analysis was limited by the lack of detailed disclosure from the funds’ managers.

“It’s why there needs to be more transparency,” he said. “That’s the conversation we hope to trigger with this report.”

Canadian pension funds have been largely silent on the issue of climate risks, while funds in Europe and parts of the United States have been much more engaged in the discussion, and are taking action.

In France, for example, amended legislation now requires institutional investors to report their carbon footprints and efforts to reduce them. Lawmakers in California have gone so far as to pass a bill forbidding its big pension funds from investing in coal stocks.

Last week, in advance of the G20 summit in Turkey, Bank of England governor Mark Carney proposed the creation of an industry-led disclosure task force on climate-related risks.

Carney, who is also chair of the Financial Stability Board, has previously warned that the “vast majority” of fossil fuel reserves may have to be left in the ground if the world is to keep global temperatures from rising to dangerous levels.

Disclosure of climate risks, Carney told a Lloyd’s of London event in September, “will expose the likely future cost of doing business, paying for emissions, changing process to avoid those charges, and tighter regulation.”

More big investors are choosing to reduce their exposure to climate risks. A recent report from consultancy Arabella Advisors found that 430 institutions, including the Canadian Medical Association, have committed to phasing out their fossil-fuel investments to some degree.

Meanwhile, more than 100 institutional investors representing $8 trillion in assets have signed the one-year-old Montreal Carbon Pledge. Those that took the pledge have committed to “measure, disclose and reduce portfolio carbon footprints.”

Addenda Capital, The Co-operators and the United Church are among the Canadian signatories, but so far there is no commitment from Canada’s largest pension funds.

That includes the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), which manages $273 billion of Canadians’ retirement savings.

A separate report released Monday by Corporate Knights Capital estimated that the CPPIB has sacrificed $7 billion (U.S.) in value since 2012 by not shifting investment from carbon heavy energy companies and utilities to companies that get at least 20 per cent of revenues from clean technologies or new energy.

Dan Madge, a spokesperson for the CPPIB, said the fund’s investment in Canadian equities closely resembles the broader TSX Composite, which is heavily weighted towards energy. Dropping a major sector from the portfolio “would not be prudent,” he said, adding that it would reduce diversification and prevent the CPPIB from engaging directly with energy companies on the need for better disclosure on climate risks.

“Engaging with companies on this topic and pressing for improvement are necessary to protect long-term value,” Madge said. “Selling our fossil-fuel holdings to investors who might not be as engaged as we are is not the most responsible course of action.”

Besides, he added, total long-term performance of the fund is what matters. On that front, the CPPIB fund has a 10-year nominal rate of return of 8 per cent.

Corporate Knights also analyzed 13 other prominent global funds, including the $40.5 billion (U.S.) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust Endowment, which gave up $1.9 billion, and the $5.6 billion University of Toronto pension and endowment fund, which sacrificed $419 million.

Had the U of T divested from fossil fuels three years ago, it could have generated a large enough return to pay tuition for its entire student body for four years, said Brett Fleishman, a senior analyst at 350.org.

The University of Toronto Asset Management Corporation declined comment for this story.

Demand for insight on how carbon risks can affect stock holdings led the Toronto Stock Exchange to launched three new indices last month that track a “fossil-free” and two carbon-reduced versions of the S&P/TSX 60.

This article is part of a series produced in partnership by the Toronto Star and Tides Canada to address a range of pressing climate issues in Canada leading up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, December 2015. Tides Canada is supporting this partnership to increase public awareness and dialogue around the impacts of climate change on Canada’s economy and communities. The Toronto Star has full editorial control and responsibility to ensure stories are rigorously edited in order to meet its editorial standards.

How weak energy prices hurts pensions

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives looked at how falling oil and coal prices from June to December 2014 affected fossil-fuel equity holdings in 20 Canadian pension funds.

Here are the estimated losses:

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan: $1.77 billion

Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System: $192 million

Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan: $53 million

Ontario Pension Plan: $154 million

Ontario Public Service Employees Union Pension Trust: $188 million

Source: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

You can read the report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives here. There’s no doubt that Ontario’s large public pension funds have lost a ton of money in energy and commodity shares over the last couple of years, and they will lose more in the future as I see no end to the deflation supercycle. The same goes for all of Canada’s large public pension funds which also invest a portion of their portfolio in Canada’s resource rich S&P/ TSX.

There’s also been a push to divest away from fossil fuel assets around the world. In June, Norway’s $890 billion government pension fund, the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, said it will sell off many of its investments related to coal, making it the biggest institution yet to join a growing international movement to abandon at least some fossil fuel stocks.

In September, California passed a bill requiring the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) to divest their holdings in companies that receive at least half their annual revenue from coal mining.

Over in Boston, Jameela Pedicini, the inaugural vice president of sustainable investing at the Harvard Management Company, will depart in December for the New York-based Perella Weinberg Partners. Pedicini, who will leave HMC after just two and a half years, departs after her department suffered criticism from environmental groups over the Management Company’s steadfast refusal to divest the endowment, now valued at $37.6 billion, from the fossil fuel industry.

So what’s wrong with this “social awakening” to push large pensions and endowments to divest away from fossil fuel assets and into socially responsible investments? On one level, nothing, provided they can find suitable investment opportunities elsewhere which will allow them to make their rate-of-return objective in clean energy and other socially responsible investments.

But as I argued three years ago when bcIMC was slammed over unethical investments, once you push the envelope on responsible investing, you quickly divest from many companies in all industries, including big pharma, big tobacco, big banks, and big fast food companies that need lots of cows to make hamburgers (and cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than cars).

There’s something else I want you to think about, pension funds have a fiduciary duty to achieve their return objective without undue risk. That’s investment risk, not undue risk to the environment. Clean energy sounds great, and I’m all for it, but these stocks are also very volatile (mostly follow trends in energy prices), not to mention these companies aren’t as big as fossil fuel companies so it’s impossible for pensions to easily make the switch out of fossil fuel into clean tech.

And another thing, what if all those investors betting big on a global recovery turn out to be right?  You will see a massive rally in coal, steel, oil and oil drilling stocks. I wonder then if the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives will publish research on the cost of divesting out of fossil fuels (it’s easier being an armchair quarterback when the prevailing trend is going your way).

 

Photo by  Paul Falardeau via Flickr CC License

Pennsylvania Senate Advances Bill Calling for Steep Municipal Pension Reforms

640px-Flag-map_of_Pennsylvania.svg

In Pennsylvania, lawmakers have been pushing for months to include state-level pension reforms in an upcoming budget deal.

But lawmakers are now also attempting to overhaul the state’s municipal pension system – and that initiative took a step forward this week as a municipal pension reform bill cleared the Senate Finance Committee.

More on the bill and what it would mean, from Keystone Crossroads:

Lawmakers have advanced a proposal meant to address Pennslvania’s multibillion-dollar municipal pension problem — but some critics say it would severely compromise retirement security and fail to adequately address how funds are managed.

Under the amendments, municipal workers already hired, vested or retired wouldn’t experience changes to their promised pensions. But all municipal pension plans also would be subject to stricter disclosure rules and parameters for actuarial assumptions. And they’d be prohibited from counting overtime more than 10 percent of a worker’s base salary as part of the compensation on which pension awards are based.

The amendments also call for overhauling the structure of some municipal pension funds, depending on funding levels — an estimate, essentially of how much money the fund’s expected to have relative to what it’s obligated to pay pensioners over their lifetimes.

[…]

The amendments discussed Wednesday would include Philadelphia, which was excluded from the prior bills on which they’re based. Because Philly’s police and fire pension funds are severely distressed, PMRS would manage them going forward if the amendments become law.

The state’s municipalities are collectively shouldering $7.7 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. But many lawmakers remain staunchly opposed to eroding retirement security to the extent that the latest bill would allow.

 

Photo credit: “Flag-map of Pennsylvania” by Niagara – Own work from File:Flag of Pennsylvania.svg and File:USA Pennsylvania location map.svgThis vector image was created with Inkscape. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

In CalPERS’ Quest to Get Carried Interest Data, Not Everyone Cooperating

Calpers

In June, CalPERS began collecting historical carried interest data from its general partners as part of a long-term project to develop a more robust reporting and monitoring system for its investments.

The vast majority of firms have now delivered the information to the pension fund, but not every general partner is cooperating.

Now, even as CalPERS readies to release it’s carried interest data to the public eye, several firms are holding out.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Among the firms that didn’t provide the information to Calpers in the requested form was Khosla Ventures , the eponymous firm of well-known venture capitalist Vinod Khosla . A spokeswoman for the firm said it “adheres to the disclosure requirements in the applicable legal agreements.”

Other firms that didn’t fully disclose fees included Pinnacle Ventures and Generation Partners, according to the FOIA request. Officials at the firms didn’t respond to requests for comment.

[…]

All of Calpers ‘s 10 largest private equity managers gave the full information it needed, according to an analysis of the public records by Dow Jones, highlighting its sway over those firms with which it invests the most.

[…]

Some managers that weren’t fully forthcoming were venture firms behind funds that are relics of the fast and furious dot-com era, a period not known for being investor-friendly. Several of these funds, while technically active, are now reaching the end of their lives and have struggled to deliver strong returns.

In part from concerns that it can’t get enough disclosure from venture-capital firms, Calpers has been cutting its exposure to these strategies down to a sliver, said people with knowledge of the matter.

CalPERS officials have said that moving forward, a manager’s willingness to disclose carried interest and other fee data will be a decisive factor in CalPERS’ desire to invest with that manager.

 

Photo by  rocor via Flickr CC License

WATCH: Opening Statements Made As Chicago Pension Case Hits Supreme Court

Chicago’s pension overhaul entered the halls of the Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday, as attorneys for both sides laid the groundwork for their respective arguments.

Watch a video of the proceedings above.

A brief recap of the statements, from the Northwest Herald:

Lawyers attempted to convince the Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday that Chicago’s plan to save its pension program from insolvency does not violate the state Constitution’s protection against reduced benefits because it ensures there will be, for decades to come, money to keep those checks moving.

Or, as city lawyer Stephen Patton put it: “The participants are immeasurably better off with it, than without it.”

In the second public pension-overhaul case before the high court in eight months, Patton tried to differentiate his arguments from a separate, landmark pension plan involving state-employee retirement funds that the same justices rejected. Patton said shoring up the city’s pension accounts trumps the benefit reductions for 75,000 city workers and retirees.

Lawyers for city workers contesting the law, however, tried to link it directly to the state case, which was argued in March. The court dumped that plan two months later, saying Springfield can’t cut into its $111 billion pension-account shortfall by unilaterally reducing benefits – a violation of the 1970 Constitution’s “pension protection clause.”

If the above video isn’t working, click this link.

 

Photo by bitsorf 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