Carlyle Nabs Senior Official From Canada’s Largest Pension Fund

One of the top investment staffers at the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is moving to Carlyle Group.

CPPIB made several new appointments following the move.

More on the Carlyle move from the Wall Street Journal:

Carlyle Group LP hired a senior executive from Canada’s biggest pension fund to oversee debt investing, part of the asset manager’s effort to regroup from setbacks in its credit and hedge funds business.

Washington, D.C.-based Carlyle tapped Mark Jenkins, most recently head of global private investments at Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, for the newly created position, according to a statement.

Global market strategies has been a sore spot for Carlyle, largely because of struggles at its hedge funds Claren Road Asset Management, Vermillion Asset Management LLC and Emerging Sovereign Group LLC. In May, Mitch Petrick stepped down from a role running the $34.7 billion business. Carlyle tasked longtime private-equity executive Kewsong Lee to rebuild it and has said it is reviewing options to improve the unit’s performance.

Mr. Jenkins is focused on the unit’s credit investing, which includes energy lending, providing capital to mid-sized companies and bets on distressed debt.

[…]

During his eight years at CPPIB, he built the pension fund’s direct-lending business and oversaw its $12 billion acquisition of General Electric Co. ’s private-equity lending business, Antares Capital. Before that, Mr. Jenkins co-led Barclays PLC’s leveraged-finance business in New York and worked in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ’s finance and fixed-income departments.

And the other moves at the CPPIB, from a press release:

--  Graeme Eadie is appointed Senior Managing Director & Global Head of Real
    Assets, a new investment department that brings together the Real Estate
    Investments department with our existing Infrastructure and Agriculture
    groups. This change will create a better alignment with our Strategic
    Portfolio. Mr. Eadie has been with CPPIB since 2005, and was most
    recently Senior Managing Director & Global Head of Real Estate
    Investments. 
    
--  Shane Feeney is appointed Senior Managing Director & Global Head of
    Private Investments. Mr. Feeney will also join CPPIB's Senior Management
    Team. In this role, Mr. Feeney will be responsible for CPPIB's private
    investment activities and will report to Mark Machin. Mr. Feeney was
    most recently Managing Director, Head of Direct Private Equity for
    CPPIB. He joined CPPIB in 2010 and has 18 years of private equity
    experience. Before joining CPPIB, he was a partner and founding member
    of Hermes Fund Managers Limited's direct private equity business. He had
    also previously been an Associate Director with Morgan Grenfell Private
    Equity in London.  
    
--  Ryan Selwood is appointed Managing Director, Head of Direct Private
    Equity, and will be responsible for overseeing co-sponsorships and other
    direct private equity transactions. Mr. Selwood was most recently a
    Managing Director in the Direct Private Equity group and lead for
    CPPIB's financial institutions investing initiative. Mr. Selwood
    previously led CPPIB's direct private equity activities in Europe. Prior
    to joining CPPIB in 2006, Mr. Selwood was a Vice-President at Merrill
    Lynch & Co. in the Financial Institutions Group in the Investment
    Banking Division in New York.

New York City Pension to Study Divesting From Private Prisons

The board of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System voted this week to explore the possibility of divesting from private prisons.

City Comptroller Scott Stringer said he’d propose the same resolution at the city’s other four pension funds, as well.

More from Politico:

The city’s five pension funds, which hold a cumulative $154 billion in assets, altogether have an estimated $20 million worth of holdings in private prisons, and NYCERS, which holds roughly $51.2 billion in assets, has private prison holdings worth roughly $6 million.

“Prisons should not be profitable at the expense of humane conditions and safety,” said John Adler, the Director of the Mayor’s Office of Pensions and Investments and chair of the NYCERS Board, in an emailed statement.

“If NYCERS can responsibly divest from corporations that run private prisons, the City is eager to do its part in working to eliminate private prisons,” Adler said.

Rahm Emanuel Whips Out Numbers On Pension Funding Proposal

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel this week released an actuarial report on his proposal to raise the city’s water and sewer tax and use the revenue to fund the city’s pension funds.

Emanuel is trying to prove to lawmakers that the windfall of new revenue from the tax will be sufficient to improve pension funding.

But some lawmakers are peeved that Emanuel waited so long to produce the hard numbers.

From the Chicago-Sun Times:

On the eve of a crucial Finance Committee vote, Mayor Rahm Emanuel released an actuarial analysis in hopes of proving to aldermen that his 29.5 percent tax on water and sewer bills will be enough to save the largest of Chicago’s four city employee pension funds.

It didn’t work with the anti-Emanuel Progressive Caucus that demanded the study of the mayor’s plan for the Municipal Employees Pension Fund weeks ago and was miffed about getting it hours before the vote.

“The numbers just don’t add up . . . In 2023, there will be a pretty huge gap. There’ll have to be some other source to pay for that gap,” said Ald. Scott Waguespack (32nd).

[…]

Civic Federation President Laurence Msall said the analysis shows that the infusion of $1 billion in new revenue from the new utility tax by 2023 will put the city’s largest pension fund in a “significantly better place.”

But Msall noted that even with that windfall — and continued contributions from property taxes, the corporate fund and enterprise funds that support operations of O’Hare and Midway Airports as well as the city’s water and sewer systems — the condition of the pension fund will continue to drop over the next five years with “more benefits going out than coming in.”

City CFO Carol Brown defended the proposal:

Budget Director Alex Holt and Chief Financial Officer Carole Brown acknowledged that increased funding will be needed after the “ramp-up” to a so-called “actuarially required contribution.”

[…]

Noting that the 29.5 percent tax on water and sewer bills would be phased in, Holt said, “It’s the growth over four years that gets us to the ramp. At the end of that period, there will need to be further savings or further revenue to fund the ongoing increase. There is room for further increasing the water-sewer tax. But there are other possibilities as well. The mayor has been big on further benefit reforms. Those may produce future savings. There are other options as well. Going from contributing $1 billion in six years to $3 billion in six years should help investment returns and allow them to not have to spend so much of their assets on benefits.”

The More You Know: For Participants, Retirement Confidence Comes From Engagement, Education

Credit: BlackRock DC Pulse Survey
Credit: BlackRock DC Pulse Survey

Barely a majority of 401(k) participants are confident about their retirement readiness, and many were unsure of their investment options and how much they should be saving, according to a new survey from BlackRock.

Further, education and engagement can serve as wellsprings of confidence for unsure participants.

PlanAdviser has the cliffnotes:

BlackRock’s DC Pulse Survey of 1,003 DC plan participants found 28% reported feeling “unsure” about whether they are on track for retirement.  The survey revealed people “unsure” about their retirement prospects are much more likely than those “on track” to admit that “I don’t know as much as I should about investing for my retirement” (66% vs. 38%, respectively) and “I don’t know how much money I need to save in order to fund the retirement I want” (68% vs. 32%, respectively).

“Unsure” participants also are less likely to be taking proactive steps to improve their knowledge.

[…]

According to BlackRock’s analysis, the link between a basic understanding of key retirement planning principles and retirement confidence holds true for people at all income levels—suggesting that such confidence is not simply a function of greater financial resources.

“Unfortunately, many individuals who consider themselves ‘off track’ face financial realities requiring support beyond their DC plan,” says Anne Ackerley, head of BlackRock’s U.S. & Canada Defined Contribution Group. “But the good news is that people who are unsure about their retirement standing may be able to build their confidence with relative ease by working in the near term to close critical knowledge and saving gaps.”

BlackRock’s findings on engagement:

The survey also found that across the board, “unsure” individuals are less likely than “on track” participants to engage with their DC plan. Those “unsure” were less likely than those “on track” to say they take full advantage of retirement savings guidance provided by their employer (43% vs. 67%, respectively) and also less likely to have increased their contribution in the past 12 months (35% vs. 47%). They also reported less engagement in evaluating their investment options (25% vs. 38%) and were less likely to report that they evaluate their investment options at least quarterly (29% vs. 50%).

“Our survey shows that plan engagement is a key vehicle for boosting retirement confidence—and that’s a critical message for plan participants and sponsors alike,” says Ackerley. “Individuals need to take greater advantage of the tools already available to them through their plan. And plan sponsors can feel confident that adding more and better tools for their DC participants is a worthy effort—because a robust, participant-focused DC plan really does have the power to make a difference.”

Inside Knowledge: An Advisor’s Take on What Makes A Great Retirement Plan Advisor

Three out of four plan sponsors hire the services of an advisor for their plan, according to the Retirement Advisor Council. And they’re looking for more from their advisor than ever before.

What makes an advisor stand out?

Mark Davis, Senior Vice President of CAPTRUST Financial Advisors, offers his insight in a column published in the Summer issue of the Journal of Pension Benefits.

We picked out some key excerpts, below.

On plan design:

Going forward, in many states, we may well see a growth in usage of state-sponsored plans or mandatory IRA solutions for the smallest of employers. In order to justify the cost of using a company-sponsored plan, advisors will need to know the details of sophisticated plan designs or partner with TPAs who do. Advisors who want to serve larger plans need to show their ability to think strategically and recommend that their clients act tactically to accomplish plan goals.

On participant engagement:

It is the advisor’s job to help make sure the benefit is attractive to and valued by participants. I think it is a plan advisor’s job to help sponsors to leverage every bit of participant support they can get from their plan’s primary retirement services vendors. What is the sponsor, or more importantly, the participant already paying for as part of their fees? Can the advisor help the sponsor strategically use services like auto-enrollment, managed accounts, or advice services? It takes a lot of experience and access to volumes of data to be able to answer these questions. For example, most of the major vendors in the marketplace offer only one choice of managed account alternative and, in some cases, it is a proprietary solution. How can a fiduciary make a prudent choice to select an investment alternative from a universe of one choice?

On investment management:

An advisor’s investment process also needs to be different—and better—than what plan sponsors can do on their own. Gone are the days when a mass produced report from Morningstar, Fi360, or another vendor can just be used to paper a file.

[…]

Advisors need to have a thorough understanding of the various types of investments used by defined contribution plans, and how they can be mixed and matched in menus. They need to understand the basics of behavioral finance—especially the risk of “choice overload” and its potential impact on participation and participant actions.

Advisors need to be able to understand the broad range of qualified default investment alternatives available in the marketplace and be fluent in the differences, particularly between target date funds.

Leaders on my investment team count over 80 distinct target date solutions today, each with their own assumptions, approaches, strengths, and weaknesses.

An advisor needs to be equally comfortable with risk and age-based solutions. Advisors should be able to demonstrate that they have no agenda in the active versus passive investment debate.

Illinois Law Bans Pensions For County Board Members

Future county board members in Illinois won’t be receiving pensions unless they meticulously documents their work hours and pass a certain threshold, according to a statewide law signed by Gov. Bruce Rauner.

The law follows a controversy around board members claiming their pensions without working the required amount of hours.

The law received a rare showing of bipartisan support in the state legislature.

From the Chicago Tribune:

[State Rep. Jack Franks] got pension fund officials to investigate whether McHenry board members were improperly claiming the pensions despite not working the required 1,000 hours a year.

Eighteen of the 24 board members signed affidavits saying that they had worked enough hours to qualify. But when pension fund Executive Director Louis Kosiba asked to verify their claims, board members said they could not go back and document all their hours, noting that much of their work occurs outside of official settings, reading documents and talking to constituents.

In general, county board members are required to work at least 600 or 1,000 hours each year, varying by the county, to qualify for the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund pension.

The retirement fund guidelines stated that a 1,000-hour limit — equal to about 20 hours a week — would make it “highly unusual” for any county board members to qualify.

Franks objected that county board members were trying to get a full-time taxpayer benefit for part-time work.

401(k) Nepotism: Menu-Setters Show Favoritism Towards Own Funds, Says Study

Do 401(k) service providers show favoritism towards their own mutual funds when setting investment menus?

This is the question that three researchers – Clemens Sialm, Irina Stefanescu and Veronika Pool – sought to answer in a new paper published in the Journal of Finance.

The short answer, according to the paper, is that setting a 401(k) menu is not a purely meritocratic process: plan sponsors are influenced by service providers to include propriety funds on menus, and poor-performing affiliated funds are less likely to be removed from menus. These under-performing funds then continue to perform poorly.

The authors find that affiliated funds are less likely to be removed from investment menus than unaffiliated funds regardless of past performance; but the disparity widens for the poorest-performing affiliated funds. From the paper:

The figures show that affiliated funds are less likely to be deleted from a 401(k) plan than unaffiliated funds regardless of past performance. More importantly, the difference in deletion rates widens significantly for poorly performing funds. For example, funds in the lowest performance decile in Panel A have a probability of deletion of 25.5% for unaffiliated funds but of only 13.7% for affiliated funds. Indeed, the deletion rate of affiliated funds in the lowest performance decile is lower than the deletion rates of affiliated funds in deciles two through four.

Overall, the difference in deletion rates between affiliated and unaffiliated funds is statistically significant for the nine lowest performance deciles.

The researchers bring up a solid rebuttal to their own thesis: what if service providers aren’t simply displaying favoritism; what if providers actually have more favorable, superior information on their own funds?

So, the authors investigated:

While our evidence on favoritism is consistent with adverse incentives, plan sponsors and service providers may also have superior information about the affiliated funds. It is therefore possible that they show a preference for these funds not because they are necessarily biased toward them, but rather due to favorable information that they possess about these funds. To investigate this possibility, we examine future fund performance. For instance, if, despite lackluster past performance, the decision to keep poorly performing affiliated funds on the menu is information-driven, then these funds should perform better in the future. We find that this is not the case: affiliated funds that rank poorly based on past performance but are not deleted from the menu do not perform well in the subsequent year. We estimate that, on average, they underperform by approximately 3.96% annually on a risk- and style-adjusted basis. These results suggest that the menu bias we document in this paper has important implications for employees’ income in retirement.

The full paper – which presents its arguments in significantly more depth than presented in this post – can be read in full here.

 

Photo by thinkpanama via Flickr CC License

Massachusetts Pension Hedge Fund Chief Touts Lower Fees, Greater Transparency With Managed Accounts

Massachusetts PRIM’s senior investment officer talked to Bloomberg BNA this week about the board’s success using managed accounts to change the landscape of its hedge fund portfolio.

Among the benefits: lower fees and greater transparency. From BNA:

Hedge Fund Transparency

[…] Managed accounts provide full transparency over what a hedge fund is doing with PRIM’s investments, said Nierenberg.

This enables PRIM, which has about $6 billion—or about 9 percent of its assets—in hedge funds and related investments, to “see in virtually real time” whether a hedge fund has been doing what it was hired to do.

PRIM may learn, for instance, that it needs to “fill in the gap” with other investments to account for what the hedge fund hasn’t been investing in, he said. Such transparency allows PRIM to accurately know how much risk exposure it has at any given time.

Negotiating Lower Fees

Many investors, including public plan trustees, have been concerned about the high fees charged by hedge funds, which commonly charge 2 percent in fees in addition to 20 percent of the hedge fund’s gains.

Nierenberg said that PRIM has been able to keep fees down by negotiating fee structures that are much lower than those typically charged to commingled account investors.

He said that the typical fee structure assessed in commingled arrangements may give way to something more like a 1 percent management fee and a 10 percent of gain carry. “Both the management fee and the carry are separate forms of manager compensation that can be negotiated,” he said.

In addition, Nierenberg said that PRIM has negotiated lower fees by customizing the services it gets in its managed accounts. For example, sometimes expenses that should be absorbed by the fund will get passed on to commingled account investors, he said. In managed accounts, the PRIM can negotiate the specific expenses that it will pay for, he said.

California Legislature Passes State-Run Retirement Plan Proposal for Private Workers

The California legislature last week sent a bill to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk that would require all businesses with more than 5 employees to either offer a retirement plan or enroll their employees in the state-run Secure Choice plan.

[Read the bill here].

More from the LA Times:

Secure Choice would be structured as an individual retirement account but operate much like a 401(k), with a small percentage of every paycheck automatically diverted into the program unless workers take action to opt out.

Workers could take their accounts with them when they change jobs and would face a penalty for withdrawing money before retirement. It has not yet been decided whether the deductions will be made pretax like a traditional IRA or post-tax.

Once the bill is signed into law, there will be a significant buffer period before employees can be enrolled. More details from the LA Times:

State officials said it will take months, if not more than a year, to work out all the details before the plan can begin enrolling employees.

The Secure Choice program will be overseen by a state board, but most of the work of administering the program — sending account statements, tracking worker contributions and investing money for the program — will be handled by private companies. The board will have to choose those contractors before the program can start enrolling workers.

Once the program starts, it will take as long as three years for all workers to be covered. SB 1234 calls for companies with more than 100 employees to enroll workers within a year of the program’s launch. Smaller employers will have as much as two additional years, depending on their size, to get their workers signed up.

A trade group representing some investment managers penned a letter to Gov. Brown urging him not to sign the bill.

Meanwhile, the New York Times’ editorial board last week endorsed California’s Secure Choice plan was a “better way to retire”.

DOL Eases Way For State-Run Retirement Plans For Private Workers

The Department of Labor this week announced a series of proposals and regulatory clarifications regarding state-run retirement plans for private workers — including a key clarification regarding state plans and ERISA.

Among the announcements was a proposal to let large cities operate retirement plans for private workers, if there is no statewide plan. From On Wall Street:

The department also proposed an addition to the rule allowing cities to create similar retirement savings plans if they are in a state that lacks a statewide retirement savings program for private sector employees. Under the proposal, the initiative would be limited to cities with populations at least equal to the least populous state, Wyoming, which has about 582,000, according to the U.S. Census.

More than 30 cities had populations greater than that of Wyoming, according to census data.

The department is soliciting comments from the public on the proposal.

Other key notes from Employee Benefit Adviser:

The Labor Department’s new rule aims to expand Americans’ access to tax-advantaged retirement savings plans, by clarifying the regulatory rules that would govern state-run plans.

In order to qualify as a non-ERISA plan, a state-run program would have to be established and administered by the state; provide a limited role for employers; and be voluntary for employees.

State governments had requested regulatory clarification, according to Perez, which he addressed during the call.

“This regulation does not prevent a state from establishing an ERISA plan. There is nothing to stop a state from doing that,” Perez says. “The eight states to which I am referring to, have chosen a different route. Their concern as expressed to me was: How can we establish this voluntary plan in such a way that will not run afoul of ERISA?”


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