Ted Ballantine | Pension360

Interview: Hedge Fund Mogul Talks CalPERS’ Pullout, Manager Selection and Justifying Fees

Forbes released an interview Thursday morning with Anthony Scaramucci, founder and co-managing partner of alternatives investment firm SkyBridge Capital.

The interview touched on CalPERS’ hedge fund exit, how the pension fund picked the wrong managers and how to pick the right ones. Later, Scaramucci touched on justifying the industry’s fee structure.

On CalPERS’ pullout:

Steve Forbes: Thank you, Anthony, for joining us. To begin, in terms of hedge funds, as you know the overall performance of hedge funds has lagged the market in recent years. CalPERS, the largest hedge fund in the country, made headlines by saying, “We’re getting out of this.” What is that a sign of? Either the hedge fund industry is going away and is only sustained because there’s nothing else around that’s suppressing interest rates or is this a sign of the bottom? When a big one gets out does that mean this is the time to get in?

Anthony Scaramucci: Well, so, the question’s is it going to get easier or harder from here? That was a good start, Steve. But the short answer is that there’s a lot of reasons why the industry’s underperformed. The main one has to do with something you often talk about, which is Federal Reserve monetary policy.

So, the policy since March of 2009 has been to hammer down the rates, artificially stimulate the market. This makes it impossible for about 40% of the hedge fund managers to perform. If you look at the overall hedge fund manager index, 40% of it is in long-short managers.

And so if you’re long something, you’re doing great in this market. But I’ve got to tell you something, Steve. If you’re short something, even if you’re right on the security analytics, you’re going to be wrong on the momentum of the market. And so what’s happened to the long-short managers is the longs are going up, the shorts are going up, and they have this little tight spread. They’re making 3%, 4%, 5% when the market’s rip roaring and the media is writing all these nasty articles about them.

But there are places to make money. There’s structured credit, activism. There’s a whole host of distressed guys that have done well over the last six years. But I think the media has been justified in pointing out that, in general, the hedge funds have not done well.

The CalPERS thing is a little different. They only had 1.5% of their assets there. Joe Dear, who was a legendary guy at CalPERS, when he passed I think it became one of those things where they weren’t going to get bigger for political reasons, and so they decided to get way smaller. But I don’t think it’s a death knell of the industry yet. In fact, I’ll make a prediction that we’ll look back two or three years from now and say that they caught the bottom of the hedge fund performance market.

On manager selection:

Forbes: You said that they [CalPERS] picked the wrong hedge fund managers.

Scaramucci: Yes.
Forbes: How do you pick the right ones? Because it’s fine to say, “Well, if you look at the top 10%, you would have done nifty.”

Scaramucci: Yes.

Forbes: But, like, the top 10% of stocks, how do you do it on a consistent basis?

Scaramucci: Well, okay. So, not to use a baseball analogy, but just think of it this way.

Forbes: You can, I’m a fan.

Scaramucci: Okay. So, well then you’ll probably know this from the Bill James Abstracts. Sixty percent of the everyday players are batting .260 or below, yet every midsummer classic we see 40 guys on the field that are Hall of Famers or the top of what they do. And I think that’s indicative of most industries, frankly, whether it’s the media, the hedge fund industry or, you know, political landscape and so forth. And so there are certain metrics that you can use to identify who’s going to do well. But the number one metric is the macro environment.

If you tell us what the economic dashboard looks like over the next 12 to 18 months, we have pretty high capabilities on the prediction side of what sectors are going to do well. As an example, 2009, if you and I were having this conversation, I would have told you that the residential mortgage-backed security market was going to do very, very well. Those assets were distressed. They were technically oversold by the large institutions. The Federal Reserve monetary policy at that time with Helicopter Ben bringing things down so aggressively, that was going to be an easy place to make money.

And so if you looked at SkyBridge at that period of time, we had about 45% of our assets there. So, the first factor is the macroeconomic factor. The second factor then is, once you figured out what sector you’re going to be in, who are the best guys in that sector and why are they the best? And frankly, a lot of them will be different depending on different markets. Some guys are longer than others. They’ll always be longer. Lee Cooperman is an example of that. If you’re a bull on the market, Lee’s a good bet. It’s that sort of thing.

On the fee structure of hedge funds:

Forbes: You’re a fund of funds, so to speak.

Scaramucci: Yes. Yes.

Forbes: And you know the rap, hedge funds 2%, 20%.

Scaramucci: Sure.

Forbes: Now your fees 1.5%, whatever it is, on top of that.

Scaramucci: Yes. Yes.
Forbes: How do you justify your existence?

Scaramucci: Well, listen. We’re up there with child molesters with most people, so I’ve got a hard time in justifying my existence at times. But I tell people the same thing that I think you would tell them if you were in my seat. Focus on net performance.

If you’re worried about fees, well then you certainly shouldn’t be in the hedge fund industry. But I think what we’ve proven, if you look at our long-term track record, we can help clients get to their actuarial goals by taking less risk, or less beta, if you will.

And so our performance is high single-digit, low double-digit over the last ten years with relatively low volatility. And so I think we’ve been able to justify that. But we did shift our model. I often talk about hedge fund fund of funds 3.0 in the sense that we’re viewing ourselves more like a multi-strat now. We look at the macro environment rather than trying to hug the index, like some of our peers.

The typical fund of funds got a bad rap because they weren’t doing the due diligence. And then they give you 50 managers. They’d give you a 2% in each of those managers. And you’d be hugging the index on your way to mediocrity. What we’ve tried to do, is we’ve tried to concentrate our portfolio on things that we think are working. We have a dynamic approach, where we will move out of securities or move out of hedge funds quickly if we think the market environment has changed. And we believe in concentration.

So, the top ten managers for us, Steve, are about 65% of the assets. And I think that’s differentiated us from our peer group. One last point, if you don’t mind me making it is that, if I’m giving a billion dollars out to somebody, if SkyBridge is giving out a billion dollars, we’re asking for fee concessions. And so we pass those on to our investors. So, even though we have all these loaded fees, so to speak, we’re giving back 75, 80 basis points a year in fee concessions, which I think is meaningful.

The entire interview can be read here.

Fort Worth Firefighters To Sue City Over Benefit Cuts

The Fort Worth firefighters union announced plans Tuesday to file a lawsuit against the City Council over a series benefit cuts that would scale back retirement benefits for new hires.

The union claims the cuts represent a breach of contract and a violation of the Texas constitution.

From the Star-Telegram:

The president of the Fort Worth Professional Firefighters said Tuesday night that the group plans to move forward with a lawsuit against the city over the benefit reductions that the City Council approved by a 6-3 vote.

“When these pension changes go into effect, it will be a taking. We will be joining the police officers in that federal suit,” said Jim Tate, the association’s president. The group must vote on filing the lawsuit, Tate said.

The cuts will affect firefighters hired before Jan. 10, 2015, and include reducing the multiplier used to calculate benefits from 3 percent to 2.5 percent, using the high five years instead of three years to determine retirement pay, and eliminating overtime that is not built into a firefighter’s salary from calculations.

[…]

The lawsuit accuses the city of contract impairment, violation of due process, unlawful taking of property, and violating the U.S. and Texas constitutions in reducing pension benefits for future service. The council reduced the multiplier used to calculate benefits, raised the number of years for retirement pay and eliminated overtime from calculations.

City Manager David Cooke said that the situation between the two groups is not “combative” but that “we both agreed to let the courts decide who is right.”

“One of the challenges certainly is we are in litigation with the police over our ability to do what we already did. The firefighters have simply said they are going to join the police and see what the courts will actually decide,” Cooke said.

City Council members, who passed the benefit cuts by a 6-3 vote, weighed in on both sides of the issue. From the Star-Telegram:

“It does put the fire on par with the rest of our employees, and going forward this is all going to get resolved in federal court. We believe that putting them in the same plan with the rest of our employees is the proper thing to do at this time,” said Councilman W.B. “Zim” Zimmerman, who voted for the reductions.

Council members Jungus Jordan, Ann Zadeh and Kelly Allen Gray voted against the changes.

“On the vote to make changes for new hires, it was a little easier for me. But making changes to people who already have pensions they are depending on in place, that is a little bit harder for me to do,” Zadeh said.

Tate said the reductions will force firefighters to retire later to maintain their current benefits. The current average retirement age is 59, he said, but he expects that to jump into the 70s.

“I feel bad not only for the firefighters but for the citizens of this city that the interest of the wealthy business owners takes precedence over the citizens who are going to be served by these elderly firefighters in the years to come,” Tate said.

Union members still must vote to approve the lawsuit.

Louisiana Teacher’s Pension Defends Private Equity Investment With Carlyle

The New York Times recently obtained a copy of private equity limited partnership agreement that demonstrated how opaque the world of private equity is.

The agreement in question was for the Carlyle V fund – a fund that, as Pension360 covered, many public pension funds have invested in.

One such fund is the Teacher’s Retirement System of Louisiana, and it is now defending its private equity investments in light of the New York Times’ story. From the Baton Rouge Business Report:

The Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana…is responding to questions raised by a recent article in The New York Times about one of the private equity funds in which TRSL has invested.

The investigative report, published Sunday, details a “code of secrecy” it says exists between many large private equity funds and the state pension systems that invest in them. According to the story, pension systems are often hit with fees and the tab for hefty legal settlements incurred by the funds, without the knowledge of system members.

The story cites TRSL’s investment in the Carlyle V fund as one such example. It points to provisions in TRSL’s contract with Carlyle V that protects the fund’s partners from certain liabilities that investors—TRSL members—could ultimately have to pay.

TRSL defends its investment in Carlyle V, saying TRSL managers evaluate all investment opportunities and recommend investment only in funds with the best track records, terms and risk/return profiles.

“For the past 10 years, private equity investments have been TRSL’s highest performing asset class,” says Philip Griffith, TRSL chief investment officer. “Carlyle has been one of the system’s better-performing private equity funds.”

Griffith notes that TRSL’s total investment return in FY 2013 was 19.9%, the second-highest in the nation.

“Private equity returns were key to achieving this distinction,” he says.

State Treasurer John Kennedy, who sits on the TRSL board, declines to comment.

TRS Louisiana manages $17.5 billion in assets.

To read a copy of the Carlyle V agreement, click here.

Detroit Announces Trustees For New Pension Investment Committees

One of the final pieces of Detroit’s bankruptcy plan is setting up committees responsible for reviewing investments made by the city’s two major pension funds: the Police and Fire Retirement System and the General Retirement System.

Detroit announced this week the trustees that will sit on those committees. From the Detroit Free Press:

The appointees reflect one of the final steps in reshaping how Detroit’s retiree health insurance benefits are delivered and how two independently controlled pension funds are operated.

The new governance structure for the pension funds and the reduced health benefits for retirees were part of a negotiated settlement to Detroit’s historic Chapter 9 bankruptcy.

Judge Steven Rhodes will rule in the first week of November on whether the city’s plan of adjustment is fair and feasible.

Here are the new appointees, according to a draft version of the city’s eighth amended plan of adjustment, which was filed with the Bankruptcy Court early this morning:

The initial independent members of the committees are:

– Police and Fire Retirement System investment committee: Mark Diaz, Sean Neary, Louis Sinagra, Mike Simon, Woodrow S. Tyler, McCullough Williams III, Robert C. Smith, Joseph Bogdahn and Rebecca Sorenson.

– General Retirement System investment committee: Kerrie VandenBosch, Doris Ewing, Robert Rietz, David Sowerby, Thomas Sheehan, June Nickleberry and Ken Whipple.

As of fiscal year 2012-13, the General Retirement System managed over $2 billion in assets and the Police and Fire Retirement System managed $3.4 billion in assets.

With $40 Million Pension Payment Looming, Jacksonville Mayor Says He Won’t Raise Taxes To Pay Down Pension Shortfall

The city of Jacksonville agreed earlier this year to pay $40 million annually for the next 10 years to its Police and Fire Pension Fund.

But the city hasn’t yet decided where it will get that money. But Mayor Alvin Brown made it clear Wednesday that a tax increase is not in the cards.

From the Jacksonville Daily Record:

How will the city pay an additional $40 million each year to more quickly pay down its unfunded liability?

If it’s up to Mayor Alvin Brown, it won’t be a sales tax. Or a property tax. Or any tax for that matter.

If council ends up seeking the Legislature’s approval to put such a funding mechanism on the ballot, Brown would not support it.

“No, sir. I wouldn’t sign it,” Brown responded when council member John Crescimbeni asked if he’d support a bill for a tax referendum.

Brown later went a step further, telling council member Bill Gulliford he’d veto any such attempt.

“I don’t think we have to do any taxes to solve this,” Brown said.

[…]

Brown and Police and Fire Pension Fund administrator John Keane struck a deal this year that has the city paying a total of $400 million over the next 10 years make the stabilize the plan. That $40 million each year would be determined annually by a newly formed committee. For months, council members have said not having an identified source is a chief concern — sentiments that spilled into Wednesday’s almost four hours of talks.

Council member Lori Boyer said not having the source identified was “totally irresponsible.” The burden, she said, would come back to council for the financial wrangling “and everyone (else) can stay hands off.”

Brown told the group he and his administration are “working on it.” Chris Hand, Brown’s chief of staff, said there isn’t a dedicated funding source “yet.” The JEA proposal is the only one the administration has pitched as a funding source to this point.

The Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund is 43 percent funded and is shouldering $1.6 billion of unfunded liabilities.

The Effect of Age On Portfolio Choices

Does a person’s willingness to hold risky assets diminish as they grow older and get closer to retirement? How does aging affect portfolio choices?

A paper published in the October issue of the Journal of Pension Economics and Finance aims to tackle those questions.

The authors analyzed administrative data from an Italian defined-contribution plan spanning 2002-08. Here’s what they found:

We studied investors’ portfolio choices in a very simple real-world setup. Some results prove quite robust across all the empirical exercises we performed. In particular, we found a pronounced tendency to choose safer portfolios as people age. This effect is still there after controlling for several demographic factors, for time effects, and for the sub-fund chosen in the previous period. This result is broadly in line with other micro-evidence from the US market, and is consistent with models of life-cycle rational portfolio allocation.

[…]

The effect of age is more pronounced in the last years of the sample. This might be due to the fact that investors learn form the experience of their colleagues. Indeed, in our sample there have been periods of disappointing stock market performance. Having seen that people who retired during these bear market periods have been severely hit might have pushed investors toward a more active behaviour. A better understanding of this form of learning appears to be an interesting issue for further research.

But not all plan participants reduced risk as they approached retirement. From the paper:

Not all elderly people in our sample reduced their exposure to risk. Looking at the ones present in the sample from the start, it turns out that more than 30% of the elderly workers who were exposed to stock market risk in 2002 were still exposed to it in 2008. As the stock market events of the last decade show, an elderly worker taking risk on the stock market could pay a high price if stocks fall. This evidence suggests that life cycle funds could be a valuable instrument, given that they automatically bring all the participants toward less risky allocations as they get near to retirement (Viceira, 2007). In the Chilean system, for example, a lifecycle fund is the default option for all the workers. Moreover, the riskiest sub-funds are closed to individuals older than a certain age.

The authors also found that job position and education are factors that play into people’s risk choices:

People with a higher position tend to take more risks. This tallies with previous empirical analyses and can be consistent with optimal portfolio allocation. We also found that education has no clear impact on portfolio choices, even if it slightly increases the likelihood of switching for those in the zero-shares sub-funds. The weakness of this effect could be due to the easy set up provided by the fund, and/or to strong social interaction effects, in which the financial skills of the educated employees who make up most of our sample also benefit the few uneducated participants.

Read the entire paper, titled “the effect of age on portfolio choices: evidence from an Italian pension fund”, here.

Photo by www.SeniorLiving.Org

CalSTRS: Financial Risk of Climate Change “Very Real” For Institutional Investors

CalSTRS has been one of the most active (and vocal) pension funds in the world this year when it comes to exploring the financial risk of climate change.

The fund announced last month it was joining forces with Mercer and a handful of other pension funds to study the market impact of climate change.

Now, CalSTRS has commented on a new report showing the “profound lack of preparedness” for climate change among the nation’s insurance companies.

The pension fund calls for institutional investors to be “more mindful of market exposures to environmental risks.”

From a CalSTRS release:

The Insurer Climate Risk Disclosure Survey Report & Scorecard: 2014 Findings & Recommendations was released today by Ceres, a nonprofit sustainability organization mobilizing business and investor leadership on climate change and other sustainability challenges, ranks property & casualty, health, and life & annuity insurers that represent about 87 percent of the total U.S. insurance market. Ceres found strong leadership on the issue in fewer than a dozen companies nationwide.

“Environmental, social and governance risks and issues such as climate change are very real for CalSTRS. This new report enables large institutional investors to be more mindful of market exposure to environmental risks through our insurance investments,” said CalSTRS Chief Executive Officer Jack Ehnes. “More importantly, the report gives us better perspective on how well, or not, insurance companies are responding to climate change risk.”

The report states, “… insurers are on the veritable ‘front line’ of climate change risks, and there is compelling evidence that those risks are growing. Rising sea levels and more pronounced extreme weather events will mean increasingly damaging storm surges and flooding. Hurricane Sandy alone resulted in over $29 billion in insured losses.”

“Meaningful change in the recognition of climate risk to the investment portfolio will come from an alignment of interests, and who better to take leadership this effort than the insurance industry,” added Ehnes. “The foundation of the insurance model is based on risk analysis, so ignoring the risk of climate changes seems most imprudent. Clearly, more action on the part of the insurance sector is needed.”

Last month, CalSTRS announced plans to double down on its clean energy investments.

Chart: How Did Kentucky’s Pension System Become So Underfunded?

Here’s a chart of the funding situations of Kentucky’s largest public pension funds as of 2012. At 27 percent funded, the KERS non-hazardous fund was considered among the unhealthiest in the country. Since 2012, its funding ratio has dipped even further. But the entire system is experiencing big shortfalls.

How did they get this way? Pension360 covered earlier today the system’s lackluster investment performance — but the state’s funding shortfall has been influence by a confluence of factors.

One of the largest reasons for the shortfall is the state failing to make its actuarially-required payments into the system:

Chart credits: Pew Charitable Trusts

Arizona’s Largest Pension May Boost Retiree Benefits, Lower Employee Contributions

The Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) says there could be a permanent benefit increase on the horizon—the first since 2005. System officials also indicated that public workers could see their contributions decrease.

ASRS is 77 percent funded – but officials say higher investment returns, better cash flow and reduced liabilities have opened the door for the potential benefit increases.

From the Arizona Republic:

Paul Matson, chief executive of the $32 billion Arizona State Retirement System, said he expects retirees could see a permanent benefit increase, of undetermined size, sometime in the next three or four years. The last increase for the pension fund and its more than half-a-million members came in 2005. Benefit hikes are made possible by excess investment earnings, largely from the stock market, he said.

Similarly, an improving financial backdrop for the pension system also could mean that more than 200,000 public-sector workers in Arizona — along with the cities, counties, state agencies, school districts and other entities that employ them — could start paying slightly lower contributions to support the system, Matson added.

[…]

At a time when public pension programs including the Arizona State Retirement System remain significantly underfunded, Matson’s assessment was surprisingly upbeat. But recent fixes and long-term trends have put the system in much better shape, he said.

“We have a strong, healthy system that’s fully sustainable on the retirement and health sides,” he said in an interview with The Arizona Republic. The program provides retirement, health and long-term disability benefits.

In an interview with the Arizona Republic, ASRS chief executive Paul Matson expounded on the reasons behind the proposed benefit increase:

Matson cited three main reasons for the improvement:

– Changes in certain benefit formulas have reduced the system’s liabilities. Working with the Legislature over the past decade, the Arizona State Retirement System has closed loopholes and made other adjustments. One involved new workers joining the system. In prior years, many new hires were allowed to purchase retirement-service credits at a cost of about 40 cents on the dollar. That unsustainable practice and about a dozen others have been restricted or eliminated, Matson said.

– Contribution increases have boosted the system’s cash flow and assets. Employees and their employers each currently make contributions into the system equivalent to 11.6 percent of worker salary. That’s up from an unsustainably low 2.5 percent a dozen years ago. As noted, the recent trend of contribution hikes eventually will be followed by modest decreases, before contributions level out around 6.75 percent many years down the road.

– Higher investment returns have bolstered the system’s assets. The stock market has been on a tear, rising about 200 percent between the bottom in early 2009 and the recent peak in September of this year. Although prices have retreated over the past few weeks, the trend for most of the last five years has been favorable. The Arizona State Retirement System generated an average yearly compounded return of 14.2 percent over the five years through June 2014, including a gain of 18.6 percent in the most recent year. Those returns are after expenses.

Matson did say he doesn’t expect investment performance to be quite as good, year in and year out, as it has been the previous 5 years.

ASRS has 551,000 members and manages $32 billion of assets.

Kentucky Pension CIO Talks About “Challenging Start” To Fiscal Year As Investments Decline

The first quarter of fiscal year 2015 ended last month, and investment performance at the Kentucky Retirement Systems came in below benchmarks for the period.

Including October, KRS investments are down 3 percent since July 1.

The system’s chief investment officer, David Peden, revealed the performance data at a board meeting on Tuesday.

Reported by the Lexington Herald-Leader:

Hedge funds and other alternative investments are the only assets currently gaining value for the Kentucky Retirement Systems, however controversial they might be otherwise.

For the first quarter of fiscal 2015, ending Sept. 30, its investments declined 1.41 percent overall, worse than the comparable benchmark, David Peden, chief investment officer for Kentucky Retirement Systems, or KRS, told the Public Pension Oversight Board on Tuesday.

“It’s been a challenging start to the year,” he said. “October hasn’t helped any. It’s actually a little worse — down by about 3 percent if you include October.”

After the meeting, Peden said KRS’ worst losses were in public equities — traditional stocks and bonds, especially those based in other countries. By contrast, he said, hedge funds were up 0.74 percent, private equities were up 1.49 percent and real estate was up 2.03 percent.

[…]

Experts consider KRS the weakest state retirement system in the country. It faces $17 billion in unfunded liabilities due largely to inadequate state payments for most of the past 15 years, starting during Gov. Paul Patton’s administration.

[…]

Jim Carroll, co-founder of the advocacy group Kentucky Government Retirees, told the board that KRS needed a massive infusion of cash, possibly from a pension bond that would require legislative approval. KRS now has so little money that even a booming stock market isn’t enough to prop it up, Carroll said.

“Over the last three years, the fund has exceeded its assumed rate of return and yet lost a staggering $952 million,” he said. “In other words, positive market performance has become disconnected from asset growth. The run-out date — the date when the fund would be depleted if there were no more assets coming in — has shrunk to two years and 10 months.”

KRS investments returned 15.5 percent in fiscal year 2013-14.

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