Ted Ballantine | Pension360

After Deadlock, Los Angeles Pension Lowers Assumed Rate of Return

The board of the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System (LACERS) has voted to lower its assumed rate of return from 7.75 percent to 7.5 percent – a move that was recommended by the fund’s financial consultants and supported by six of its seven board members.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Los Angeles city pension agency voted Tuesday to rein in its long-range earnings forecast, putting in place changes that could throw the city’s budget $50 million deeper into the hole next year.

The City Employees’ Retirement System board responded to financial consultants who said the agency should no longer assume that its investment portfolio — money that helps cover the cost of employee pensions — will deliver an average yearly return of 7.75%.

[…]

Pension board member Elizabeth Greenwood cast the only opposing vote, saying the city needs more time to emerge from its recent financial crisis. Greenwood had called for the change, which will reduce the system’s earnings assumption to 7.5%, to be delayed until 2017.

“There is no reason we need to rush into a change that is going to slam the city’s budget that hard,” said Greenwood, who was elected to the board by civilian city employees.

[…]

The issue of pension system earnings was raised earlier this year by the LA 2020 Commission, a 13-member group of business, union and civic leaders convened by Council President Herb Wesson. (The commission’s co-chairman, Austin Beutner, is now publisher of The Times.)

In a report released in April, the commission said the city’s pension earnings assumptions should be significantly decreased, so that they are in line with the earnings forecast of Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway.

The commission raised the possibility of a 6% yearly earnings assumption in its report. City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana, the high-level budget official, responded at that time by warning that such a move, if carried out for public safety and civilian workers, would rip a $566-million hole in the budget.

The retirement board initially deadlocked on the proposal to scale back its earnings assumptions. Two weeks ago, pension board member Nilza Serrano said she worried about putting additional pressure on the budget. During the meeting, she walked out of the room to avoid having to cast a vote, leaving her colleagues unable to muster a majority to make the change.

On Tuesday, Serrano reversed course and voted for the reduction, saying she had reviewed the proposal more carefully.

“I got educated,” said Serrano, a Garcetti appointee.

The decision has budgetary implications for the city, because a lower return assumption forces the city to set aside more money for retirement benefits. From the LA Times:

That decision could make it harder for Mayor Eric Garcetti and the City Council to restore services trimmed during the recession, since it forces them to set aside more money in the short term for retirement benefits.

[…]

Budget officials now expect a $165-million shortfall next year and have not factored in the pension board’s changes. The board’s consultant had warned that a failure to reduce the investment return assumption now would only force the city’s budget to pay more later if earnings fall short.

The retirement fund relies on three sources of revenue to cover pensions and healthcare for retired civilian city employees: contributions from workers’ paychecks, money taken from the city’s budget and earnings on the system’s $13.9-billion investment portfolio. When investment returns fall significantly below the agency’s projections, the gap has to be made up by the city budget, leaving less money for taxpayer services.

The board’s vote was opposed by the Coalition of L.A. City Unions, which represents about 20,000 city workers — and is now in salary talks with the city. Both the coalition and Councilman Paul Koretz portrayed the move as unnecessary, since the pension fund had strong investment earnings in recent years.

“This makes it more likely that it will be difficult to give employees any kind of a cost-of-living increase … and more likely that we will provide much fewer services than we would otherwise,” Koretz said.

LACERS manages $13.9 billion in assets.

Mississippi PERS Reports Boost in Funding Ratio, Drop in Liabilities

Actuaries for the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) reported during a board meeting Tuesday that the system’s funding ratio had risen from 57.7 percent to 61 percent during the course of fiscal year 2013-14, which ended on June 30.

The actuaries also reported that unfunded liabilities had dropped for the first time in at least 10 years.

From the Associated Press:

With stock market gains replacing steep losses in the accounting ledger, Mississippi’s main public employee pension fund posted stronger results last year.

Actuaries reported yesterday to the board of the Public Employees Retirement System that the funding percentage — the share of future obligations covered by current assets — rose to 61 percent as of June 30 from 57.7 percent on the same date in 2013.

The unfunded accrued liability, the amount of money that the system is short of being fully funded, fell last year for the first time in at least a decade, from $15 billion to $14.4 billion.

The system now projects that at current contribution levels, it will take 29.2 years to pay off the unfunded liability, down from a 32.2-year projected repayment period in June 2013.

PERS Executive Director Pat Robertson said the improvement supports the argument that the pension system can reduce its shortfall with time.

“I think it means that as we’ve indicated in the past, that time and patience will help get us back on the right path,” she said. “Our focus is long-term and our investments on a long-term basis will sustain the plan.”

The improvement comes, in part, because the fund’s 5-year smoothing period ended in fiscal year 2013. From the Associated Press:

The improvement stems from recent stock market gains as well as the end of an accounting period covering losses from the 2008-2009 stock market meltdown.

Like most pension funds, actuaries smooth out gains and losses over five years, booking 20 percent of the gain each year. Parceling out gains and losses is meant to reduce the volatility of market returns. In the 2012-2013 year, the system booked the last of five $1.05 billion losses from the 2008-2009 stock market meltdown.

Without that drag on results, the smoothed, actuarial value of the fund went up to $22.6 billion. Without such smoothing, the fund was in reality worth $24.9 billion at June 30, aided by an 18.7 percent investment gain in the previous 12 months. The fund has now achieved above its long-term goal of 8 percent gains in four of the last five years, giving it a tail wind for actuarial purposes in coming years, even if the stock market continues its recent decline.

“Even if we had a loss this year, we have some reserves from those gains that just happened,” actuary Edward Koebel told the board.

PERS will not be decreasing contribution rates for employees or governments as a result of the funding improvement. That’s because contribution rates were frozen by the PERS board in 2012 in an effort to pay down the system’s shortfall more quickly.

PERS manages $25.4 billion in assets.

Maryland Pension Fires REIT Manager, Will Transfer $311 Million Portfolio To New Firm

The Maryland State Retirement and Pension System is shaking up its domestic REIT portfolio as the fund has fired LaSalle Investment Management and will shift its $311 million domestic REIT portfolio to State Street Global Advisors.

From IPE Real Estate:

Maryland State declined to comment or provide a reason for the decision, while LaSalle failed to respond.

The $311m (€244m) domestic REIT portfolio will be transferred to State Street Global Advisors (SSgA), with a global investment strategy for REITs, benchmarked against the FTSE/EPRA NAREIT Developed Index.

Maryland State said it had a long relationship with SSgA across passive equities, core fixed income and EMD.

The pension fund also uses Morgan Stanley as a global REIT manager for a $387.6m foreign portfolio, also benchmarked against the FTSE/EPRA NAREIT Developed Index.

Maryland State has approved a $50m commitment to CBRE Strategic Partners US Value Fund VII.

CBRE Global Investors is raising $1.5bn for the US-focused fund, in which it will co-invest a maximum $30m.

The fund, which will invest in the office, industrial, hotel, retail and apartment sectors, has a targeted 15% gross IRR and a 12.8% net.

The pension fund has made nearly $280m in commitments to CBRE Investors since 2007.

The Maryland State Retirement and Pension System manages nearly $45 billion in assets and allocated 6.9 percent to real estate.

Chicago Teacher’s Pension Executive Director Resigns

Kevin Huber, the executive director of the Chicago Public Schools Teachers’ Pension & Retirement Fund, has announced his plans to resign from the fund. From a fund press release:

Kevin B. Huber, executive director of the Chicago Teachers’ Pension Fund (CTPF) submitted his resignation and will leave the fund effective December 31, 2014. Huber joined the fund as Chief Financial Officer in 1999, and was promoted to Executive Director in 2005. He has been on medical leave since May 2014.

“Our Trustees thank Mr. Huber for the outstanding leadership and guidance he has provided our fund during the past 16 years. As CFO and then as Executive Director, he has worked tirelessly on behalf of our members and our staff, and has set a high standard for our fund,” said Jay C. Rehak, president of the CTPF Board of Trustees. “He brought a rare combination of professional and interpersonal skills to this position and we will miss him greatly.”

The Board of Directors has initiated a national search for candidates to fill Huber’s position, and is working with executive search firm EFL Associates. The fund’s current Interim Executive Director, Peter A. Driscoll, will stay on with the fund through March 31, 2015, to ensure a smooth transition.

CTPF manages just under $11 billion in assets.

Chart: Alternatives Set To Double By 2020

A report recently released by PricewaterhouseCoopers finds that alternative assets held by the world’s largest asset managers will double by 2020 — a trend that will be driven largely by pension funds.

The makeup of alternative assets currently:

Chart credit: Chief Investment Officer and PwC

Are Affluent Households As Worried About Retirement As Everyone Else?

Are affluent households worrying about having enough money to last through retirement? According to a survey from Bank of America, the short answer is “yes” – in fact, it’s one of their biggest concerns.

Bank of America polled 1,000 “affluent” people with investable assets of between $50,000 and $250,000. The results were published in the October issue of Pension Benefits:

“More than half (55%) of the mass affluent (defined as individuals with $50,000 to $250,000 in total household investable assets) fear going broke during retirement-far more common than other stress-inducing pressures such as losing their job (37%).

More women than men (59% versus 51%) are frightened about the possibility of not having enough money throughout retirement, and the fear of an uncertain retirement is also most common among 61% of Gen Xers (aged 35 to 50) and 61% of Boomers (aged 51 to 64). Only 41% of Millennials (aged 18 to 34) feel this way.

Despite their fears about future finances, many mass affluent won’t consider cutting back on indulgences today to save for retirement-from entertainment (33%) to eating out (30%) to vacations (28%).

Even if they were faced with a hypothetical milliondollar windfall, fewer than one in five (19%) would make it a priority to set aside the ‘found money’ for their retirement years.

More Boomers (27%) than Gen Xers (16%) and Millennials (6%) would first consider allocating a million-dollar lottery prize to their retirement funds.

Additionally, the most common factors competing with respondents’ regular retirement savings are unexpected costs (33%) and paying off big debts (31%). Paying off large debts (such as student loans) has competed with the retirement savings of more Millennials (38%) than any other generation.

On average, retired respondents stopped working at age 68; however, those who have not retired plan to at age 65. Single mass affluents, on average, plan to retire or have retired at age 62. More than two in five (41%) mass affluents who have not retired yet imagine that they’ll need an annual income somewhere in the $50,000 to $99,999 range when they retire.

About a quarter of Millennials (24%) and Gen Xers (25%) believe they’ll need at least $150,000 annually when they retire-far more than Boomers, with just 11% believing they’ll need that much income in retirement.

As for when people began saving for retirement:

Most (90%) of the mass affluent have retirement savings and began saving at 33 years old, but Millennials are planning for the future at a much younger age, with more than half (54%) starting between the ages of 18 to 24- Eighty percent of Millennials currently have retirement savings.

The most common trigger for those with retirement savings to begin investing for retirement was an account being offered at work (48%). Far fewer were spurred to invest due to major life events like getting married (18%) or having their first child (12%).

More millennials (36%) and Gen Xers (32%) than Boomers (15%) and Seniors (12%) were motivated to save for retirement when they started their first jobs. Almost three in ten (28%) Millennials first started saving for retirement after a raise or promotion at work, versus 10% of older generations.

The article can be read in the journal Pension Benefits. The report can also be viewed here.

Photo by 401kcalculator.org

New Jersey Lawmaker Proposes Tweak in Pension Funding Formula To Reduce Burden

New Jersey Senator Stephen Sweeney (D) has proposed a plan to tweak the state’s pension funding formula, which would lower the state’s annual contributions to the pension system.

More details from NJ Spotlight:

Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) wants to overhaul the state’s pension funding formula to make annual state pension contributions lower and more “manageable” over the next decade while preserving benefits for retirees.

“Governor (Chris) Christie says the state can’t afford to get to 100 percent funding of the public employee pension system, and he used that argument to justify cutting pension contributions by $2.4 billion and to call for public employees to pay more,” Sweeney said in an interview with NJ Spotlight. “But he’s using the 100 percent funding target to inflate the size of the problem and make it look worse than it is for his own political purposes.”

“In the private sector, 85 percent funding is considered the ‘gold standard’ under ERISA,” Sweeney said, referring to the 1974 federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act that sets the guidelines for private pension systems. “That’s manageable. We can get to 85 percent funding, and at that level, we can restore the COLAs (cost-of-living adjustments) for retirees too.”

Sweeney’s plan to change the pension funding formula would save billions of dollars in pension payments in state budgets over the next decade, while still cutting the state’s unfunded pension liability for teachers and state government workers and retirees sufficiently to guarantee the solvency of the pension system. That unfunded liability is now expected to top $60 billion by FY18, up from $54 billion before Christie’s pension cuts.

But John Bury, an actuary that blogs at Bury Pensions, says the plan achieves savings through “manipulating numbers” and doesn’t address any of the real issues facing the state’s pension system. From Bury Pensions:

Most private sector funds (excluding multiemployer plans which are a mess but including ‘one-participant’ DB plans which are thriving) ARE funded at 100 percent and, if not, have to be funded at 100% within seven years under PPA funding rules and the actuarial assumptions that define 100% are legislated (though MAP-21 and HAFTA have watered those down). Apply those private sector PPA factors to public plans and New Jersey’s 54% funded ratio drops to 30%.

A pension system with 30 percent of the funding it needs to cover all accrued pension obligations is clearly regarded as dead to anyone in the business of understanding, and not manipulating, numbers.

Siedle: For Pension Funds, Private Equity Deals Can Come With Baked-In Conflicts of Interest

Over at Forbes, the “pension detective” Ted Siedle has penned an extensive column delving into the contractually-permitted conflicts of interest that can accompany private equity deals.

He hones in on Bruce Rauner and his firm, GTCR, which handled assets for numerous pension funds. Rauner and GTCR encapsulate the secrecy and potential conflicts of interest that pension funds can sign off on when they hand assets over to private equity firms.

Siedle writes of Rauner:

According to a report by Council 31 AFSCME Illinois, a few years ago Rauner’s firm received millions in Pennsylvania state pension assets to invest after a $300,000 campaign contribution to that state’s Democratic governor. In Illinois, a company owned by Rauner paid a member of the Illinois Teachers’ Retirement System Board more than $25,000 a month. His firm was selected to handle TRS pension dollars. The TRS member, Stuart Levine, is now in federal prison for public malfeasance.

It seems Rauner mastered the art of accessing public pension assets to manage, including (according to his firm’s SEC filings) reliance upon placement agents which have proven to be so controversial at public pensions across the country.

In my opinion, before Rauner can be deemed fit to serve as governor of Illinois, an in-depth review of his secret dealings with state pensions is called for– especially since the state’s pensions are in a crisis (which merits investigation) and 4 out of the state’s 7 last governors ended up in prison. The last thing Illinois needs is to compound its pension problems.

If Rauner wins, expect questions about his past and ongoing private equity business dealings to continue to swirl. In my forensic experience, greater scrutiny of opaque investments always reveals weaker investment performance.

Siedle dug through GTCR’s SEC filings. He found that when pension funds signed deals with the firm, they were often also permitting GTCR to engage in a multitude of scenarios that could lead to conflicts of interest for the firm. Siedle writes:

The litany of permissible conflict of interest scenarios (many of which are commonplace throughout private equity) detailed in Bruce Rauner’s firm SEC filings, should be disturbing to any so-called sophisticated investor. Unfortunately, public pensions routinely consent to such potentially harmful conflicts either because they don’t read, don’t fully comprehend the oblique disclosures, or simply don’t care that politically-connected insiders may be profiting at the expense of stakeholders. For example:

“The Adviser and certain employees and affiliates of the Adviser may invest in and alongside the Funds, either through the General Partners, as direct investors in the Funds or otherwise (emphasis added)…

The Adviser and its related entities may engage in a broad range of activities, including investment activities for their own account (emphasis added)…

The Adviser may, from time to time, establish certain investment vehicles through which employees of the Adviser and their family members, certain business associates, other “friends of the firm” (emphasis added) or other persons may invest alongside one or more of the Funds.

In certain cases, the Adviser may cause a Fund to purchase investments from another Fund, or it may cause a Fund to sell investments to another Fund.”

Translation from legal-speak: Rauner and his associates could invest directly, or create a special “family and friends” fund which could invest, at lower cost in shares of the same companies his firm purchased for funds in which public pensions invest. The associates, or “family and friends” fund, could profit by holding onto those shares, or immediately flip them, selling to the funds in which public pensions invest at a guaranteed, riskless mark-up.

Alternatively, GTCR could sell start-up companies it founded (or the family and friends fund could sell companies it purchased from GTCR) to funds the firm managed for public pensions at inflated prices.

“In addition, the Adviser may, from time to time, fund start-up expenses for a portfolio company and may subsequently sell such portfolio company to a Fund. Such transactions may create conflicts of interest because, by not exposing such buy and sell transactions to market forces, a Fund may not receive the best price otherwise possible, or the Adviser might have an incentive to improve the performance of one Fund by selling underperforming assets to another Fund in order, for example, to earn fees.”

Improve the performance of the friends and family fund by selling the laggards to other GTCR funds in which public pensions invest? Seems possible, based upon the firm’s SEC filings.

Read Siedle’s full column, which contains more analysis and insights, here.

Surveys: Institutional Investors Disillusioned With Hedge Funds, But Warming To Real Estate And Infrastructure

Two separate surveys released in recent days suggest institutional investors might be growing weary of hedge funds and the associated fees and lack of transparency.

But the survey results also show that the same investors are becoming more enthused with infrastructure and real estate investments.

The dissatisfaction with hedge funds — and their fee structures — is much more pronounced in the U.S. than anywhere else. From the Boston Globe:

Hedge funds and private equity funds took a hit among US institutions and pension managers in a survey by Fidelity Investments released Monday.

The survey found that only 19 percent of American managers of pensions and other large funds believe the benefits of hedge funds and private equity funds are worth the fees they charge. That contrasted with Europe and Asia, where the vast majority — 72 percent and 91 percent, respectively — said the fees were fair.

The US responses appear to reflect growing dissatisfaction with the fees charged by hedge funds, in particular. Both hedge funds and private equity funds typically charge 2 percent upfront and keep 20 percent of the profits they generate for clients.

Derek Young, vice chairman of Pyramis Global Advisors , the institutional arm of Fidelity that conducted the survey, chalked up the US skepticism to a longer period of having worked with alternative investments.

“There’s an experience level in the US that’s significantly beyond the other regions of the world,’’ Young said.

A separate survey came to a similar conclusion. But it also indicated that, for institutional investors looking to invest in hedge funds, priorities are changing: returns are taking a back seat to lower fees, more transparency and the promise of diversification. From Chief Investment Officer:

Institutional investors are growing unsatisfied with hedge fund performance and are increasingly skeptical of the quality of future returns, according to a survey by UBS Fund Services and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

The survey of investors overseeing a collective $1.9 trillion found that only 39% were satisfied with the performance of their hedge fund managers, and only a quarter of respondents said they expected a “satisfying level of performance” in the next 12-24 months.

[…]

The report claimed this showed a change in expectations of what hedge funds are chosen to achieve. Investors no longer expect double-digit returns, but instead are content to settle for lower fees, better transparency, and low correlations with other asset classes.

Mark Porter, head of UBS Fund Services, said: “With institutional money now accounting for 80% of the hedge fund industry, they will continue seeking greater transparency over how performance is achieved and how risks are managed, leading to increased due diligence requirements for alternative managers.”

Meanwhile, the USB survey also indicated investors are looking to increase their allocations to infrastructure and real estate investments. From Chief Investment Officer:

“Despite the challenges of devising investment structures that can effectively navigate the dynamic arena of alternative markets, asset managers should remain committed to infrastructure and real assets which could drive up total assets under management in these two asset classes,” the report said.

“This new generation of alternative investments is expected to address the increasing asset and liability constraints of institutional investors and satisfy their preeminent objective of a de-correlation to more traditional asset classes.”

The report noted that despite waning enthusiasm for hedge funds, allocations aren’t likely to change for the next few years.

But alternative investments on the whole, according to the report, are expected to double by 2020.

Would Phoenix’s Proposition 487 Hurt Public Safety Workers?

In exactly one week, Phoenix voters will determine the fate of Proposition 487 – the controversial ballot measure that would, among other things, end the city’s defined-benefit plan for all new hires and shift them into a 401(k)-style plan.

The measure excludes public safety workers, so nothing would change for police and firefighters. Or would it?

In recent weeks, a fiery debate has emerged over whether Prop 487 would actually harm the retirement security of the city’s public safety workers.

Dustin Gardiner at the Arizona Republic writes:

Hundreds of firefighters and police officers chant “No on 487!” outside an upscale Biltmore office tower, rallying against a ballot initiative they contend will gut their most critical benefits.

They say the measure…would jeopardize their retirement security and death and disability benefits.

That dire situation they portrayed at the protest earlier this month — suggesting Prop. 487 will eviscerate the pensions of officers and firefighters and leave families of fallen first responders without benefits — is improbable given that state law prohibits it.

Nevertheless, the hotly disputed claim has become the dominant argument in the final stretches of the campaign over the measure, which would close Phoenix’s employee-pension system for new hires and replace it with a 401(k)-type plan. The initiative is on the Nov. 4 ballot for city voters.

[…]

“Given that police officers and firefighters don’t receive Social Security and judges are apt to make unpredictable rulings, we refuse to take such risks with the public safety of our community,” leaders of the city’s police and fire unions wrote in a joint letter this week.

The Arizona Republic editorial board published a piece on Monday calling the arguments of public safety unions “thin”:

Prop. 487, which applies only to the Phoenix-run retirement system for non-public-safety employees, expressly excludes police and fire pensions. State law requires cities to contribute to the statewide public-safety pension system. The Arizona Constitution explicitly protects personnel already enrolled. Legal precedent clearly is on the side of public safety.

Even attorneys opposing Prop. 487 acknowledge that their arguments are thin. So why the fierce opposition?

Part of the explanation must be set at the feet of the Phoenix City Council, a majority of which opposes the proposition. The council created ballot language that disingenuously depicts the proposition taking action that is constitutionally forbidden.

The council majority and staff have made it clear which side they favor. It isn’t the side of the city’s taxpayers, who must bear the rapidly increasing expense of the city’s grossly underfunded pension plans.

But, largely, the anti-Prop. 487 campaign appears to be a statement by the city’s public-safety unions, which will adamantly oppose any effort to change any public-employee retirement system that promises to lessen the financial burden on the city’s taxpayers.

Even to the point of rising up against a ballot measure that will in no way affect their benefits.

But union leaders call the measure “poorly written” and maintain that the ambiguity of the measure doesn’t bode well for public safety workers. From a column in the Arizona Republic authored by the presidents of three Arizona public safety unions:

Prop. 487 will impact Phoenix police officers and firefighters. The only question is: Exactly how much?

Because of this measure’s contradictory language and because, according to the city’s analyses, Prop. 487 has the potential to make it illegal for the city to contribute to the public-safety retirement system, our groups oppose this ballot measure. Simply put: It is the wrong kind of reform.

Inevitably, Prop. 487 will end up in court for a years-long legal fight. Our opponents and The Arizona Republic editorial board have discounted that risk — and the looming massive legal bills.

However, given that police officers and firefighters don’t receive Social Security and judges are apt to make unpredictable rulings, we refuse to take such risks with the public safety of our community. We hope Phoenix residents will refuse, as well.

Read the entire column from the union leaders here.

You can read the Arizona Republic’s editorial board piece here.

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