Pennsylvania Public Schools Fund Commits $200 Million To Real Estate

businessman holding small model house in his hands

The Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System (PSERS) has announced its decision to allocate an additional $200 million to its real estate portfolio; $100 million will go to the AG Core Plus Realty Fund IV, which targets a return of 14-15 percent before fees.

From IP Real Estate:

The plan made two new $100m commitments to the AG Core Plus Realty Fund IV and the pension fund’s in-house co-investment and secondary real estate programme.

Pennsylvania is the second US public pension fund to approve a new commitment to Realty Fund IV, following the Illinois State Board of Investment, which made a $30m allocation.

Courtland Partners, the real estate consultant for Pennsylvania, said Angelo Gordon & Co would continue its core-plus strategy of acquiring equity interests in high-quality assets likely to appreciate over time.

The fund will target underperforming office, retail, apartment and industrial assets, with an emphasis on the Top 15 US markets, shunning development projects.

Most assets will be in the US, although the fund can invest as much as 25% outside North America.

[…]

Targeted gross returns for the fund are 14-15%, with the current income component of the return projected to be 7-8%.

The fund will have a leverage component of 55-65%.

Pennsylvania has now committed a total of $200m to in-house co-investments and its secondary investment strategy.

The capital can be invested via co-investments on specific transactions with other funds, as well as by buying out other limited partners from existing positions in funds.

PSERS is also exiting the Prologis North American Industrial Fund, a fund of logistics and distribution facilities in the U.S.

PSERS committed $200 million to that fund in 2006, but the investment is now thought to be worth $167 million.

Colombia To Spearhead Pension Reform Study; Country Calls Itself “Pension Time-Bomb”

Colombia

Colombia announced over the weekend that it’s seeking to study possible pension reforms to head off what the country’s President called a “pension time-bomb”. Colombia is asking international economic organizations to help with the study.

From Reuters:

Finance Minister Mauricio Cardenas will request that the Inter-American Development Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development conduct the study, [Colombia President] Santos said at a business conference in Cartagena.

“I have given him instructions to start an in-depth study about the possibility of pension reform,” Santos said, referring to Cardenas.

The announcement comes amid calls from pension funds and insurance industry groups for the government to reform the pension system, which they say is unsustainable.

Colombia is confronting a “pension time-bomb” according to Santiago Montenegro, the president of the Asofondos pension group, as only 7.5 million of 21 million workers currently make pension contributions, a figure which points to labor market informality of close to 65 percent.

Colombia has budgeted 34 trillion pesos ($16.6 billion) for pensions in 2015, some 4.1 percent of gross domestic product.

The education and defense sectors contribute the most to pension funds, with 28.9 trillion and 28.2 trillion respectively.

The country pays monthly pensions to 1.9 million people.

 

Photo by Pedro Szekely via Flickr CC License

How Does Implementation Cost Affect Private Equity Performance?

graphs and numbers

A recent paper in the Rotman International Journal of Pension Management analyzes the costs and performance of private equity investments of large public pension funds.

There were a few interesting findings, but the authors admitted that the “most interesting” was how drastically implementation style affects performance.

The paper finds that “higher-cost implementation styles resulted in dramatically reduced net performance”.

But a larger problem is that this cost isn’t often adequately reported in financial statements.  Further analysis from the paper, titled “How Implementation Style and Costs Affect Private Equity Performance”:

Our findings confirm those of other CEM research indicating that the highest-cost implementation styles have the worst net returns. We believe that since costs have such a significant impact on performance, fund managers should understand the true costs of investing in private equity. However, CEM experience indicates that costs are underreported in the financial statements of many funds. This is unfortunate, because what gets measured gets managed, and what gets poorly measured gets poorly managed. This underreporting is not intentional. In fact, the accounting teams of many funds believe they are reporting all costs.

The four most common reasons that private equity costs are underreported are the following:

• Accounting teams often rely on capital call statements to collect management fees. Yet these statements often show management fees on a net basis, whereby the management fee owing is offset by the LP’s share of transaction and other revenues (commonly called rebates) generated and kept by the general partner (GP). Therefore, accounting teams have no record of their share of the gross management fee paid to the GP.

• The repayment of management fees before the carry has been paid is treated as a reduction in cost. This is an accounting shift; no money is coming back. For every dollar of repayment, there is a dollar of carry.

• Carry (e.g., performance fees) is excluded.

• For FOF LPs, the costs of the underlying funds are excluded. The underreporting in financial statements is material. For example, the cost of private equity LPs is frequently reported to be less than 0.70% by funds’ financial statements, whereas Dutch funds that are beginning to collect and report all private asset costs are reporting a median of 3.03% (0.12% internal monitoring costs + 1.66% management fees + 1.10% carry or performance fees + 0.15% transaction fees. For a fund with US $5.0 billion in private equity assets, the difference between 0.70% reported and 3.03% actual represents US$116 million in costs.

There’s much more analysis available in the full paper, which can be read here.

Arkansas Teacher’s Fund Fires PIMCO, Withdraws $475 Million From Firm

PIMCO's Newport Beach Office
PIMCO’s Newport Beach Office

The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System is pulling its money out of PIMCO, the fund announced today. Its investments with PIMCO had totaled $475 million.

More from Pensions & Investments:

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Little Rock, terminated Pacific Investment Management Co., which managed about $475 million its Total Return strategy for the pension fund, said George Hopkins, executive director.

Mr. Hopkins said the decision to terminate PIMCO was twofold. Officials at the pension had been looking to derisk the fund’s fixed-income portfolio, and the September departure of William H. Gross, PIMCO’s co-founder and chief investment officer, contributed to the decision to move out of the strategy completely.

“[Mr. Gross’] departure came at an inopportune time,” Mr. Hopkins said.

The assets will be transferred to a fixed-income index fund managed by State Street Global Advisors. State Street currently manages about $250 million in the index fund, Mr. Hopkins said.

The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System manages over $14 billion of pension assets.

Some Pension Funds Want Longer Private Equity Deals; Funds Bypassing PE Firms To Avoid Fees

flying one hundred dollar billsPrivate equity investments typically operate on a five-year timeline. But some pension funds are talking with private equity firms about longer-term deals. And at least one pension fund is cutting out the middleman and buying companies outright to avoid fees.

Reported by the Wall Street Journal:

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is “open to conversations” with private-equity firms about partnerships to buy and hold companies for longer than the traditional five-year investment period, said Neal Costello, a London-based manager at the C$227 billion ($203 billion) pension fund.

Blackstone Group LP and Carlyle Group LP are among private-equity firms exploring how they can do longer-term deals with investors such as CPP and sovereign-wealth funds, people familiar with the firms have said.

Such deals could represent a major shift in the private-equity industry. The firms may use their own balance sheets rather than their funds to buy large companies with investors, people have said.

[…]

Large institutional investors are balking at paying expensive private-equity fund fees, and they are seeking to hold investments for longer. CPP is already buying companies outright, in addition to investing in private-equity funds and taking direct stakes alongside those funds. Earlier this year, it bought insurance company Wilton Re for $1.8 billion.

“That’s a very long-term asset,” Mr. Costello said Thursday at a conference in London organized by the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association. “We can look at a 20-year investment period.”

Universities Superannuation Scheme, a London-based pension manager of £42 billion ($67.6 billion), would also consider longer-term deals in partnership with private-equity firms, according to Mike Powell, head of the private markets group at USS Investment Management.

“If we find good assets, we want to hold on to them as long as we can,” Mr. Powell said in an interview at the conference.

USS has already bypassed private equity and other fund managers entirely: It owns direct stakes in London’s Heathrow Airport and NATS, the U.K.’s air traffic service. Investing directly in infrastructure projects and companies is a way of avoiding paying high fees to fund managers, Mr. Powell said.

One problem that arises with a longer timeline is the issue of fees; most pension funds would balk at the additional expenses that accompany PE partnerships longer than five years. From the WSJ:

An obstacle to doing longer term deals with private-equity firms is figuring out how to pay the deal makers for such transactions, Mr. Powell said. Private-equity firms typically charge an annual fee of between 1% and 2% and keep 20% of profits when they sell a company, a model that won’t work if assets are held for many years.

“How do we remunerate them over the long term?” Mr. Powell said. “That’s up to Carlyle and Blackstone to come up with the answer.”

Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, a Canadian pension manager, has stopped investing in private-equity funds to avoid paying their fees, Mark Redman, the European head of its private-equity group said at the conference. The pension fund is buying companies directly instead.

The switch will benefit the pensions of the Canadian workers such as firefighters and policemen by saving them money, Mr. Redman said.

“The amount of fees that we were paying out for a fund, 2 and 20 [percentage points] and everything that goes with that, was a huge amount of value that we were losing to the fund,” Mr. Redman said. “If we could deliver top quartile returns and we weren’t hemorrhaging quite so much in terms of fees and carry that would mean that we would be able to meet the pension promise.”

Pension funds might have some leverage here — Pension360 has previously covered how PE firms want more opacity in their dealings with pension funds. The firms have been upset about the amount of private equity information disclosed by pension funds as part of public records requests.

 

Photo by 401kcalculator.org

Ohio Teachers Fund Selling Big Stake in Madison Avenue Skyscraper

skyscraper

The State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS) is selling a big stake in 590 Madison Avenue, the 1 million square foot New York City skyscraper owned by the pension fund.

The fund will sell a 49 percent stake in the property.

From The Real Deal:

The State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio has put a 49 percent stake in 590 Madison Avenue on the market. The building, which was originally developed as IBM’s headquarters, could fetch as much as $1.5 billion, according to Crain’s.

Ohio STRS will still keep a majority interest in the 43-story, 1 million-square-foot tower. The property on the corner of East 57th Street and Madison Avenue includes a large public plaza.

By selling a stake, the pension fund can capitalize on New York City’s rising real estate prices, according to Crain’s, while still keeping control of an asset that continues to bring in cash. IBM is the building’s largest tenant and occupies 120,000 square feet.

A STRS spokesman talked to Crain’s New York about the decision:

“It is a situation where we would be looking to gauge interest in selling a portion of the building, but we want to retain control,” Mr. Treneff said. Mr. Treneff said that selling a stake would allow the pension fund to capitalize on the city’s soaring real estate prices while still holding onto the majority of what has been a very profitable investment that produces strong cash flow and will likely continue to appreciate.

The skyscraper’s notable tenants include Bain Capital, Morgan Stanley, IBM, Bank of America and Citigroup.

 

Photo by Sarath Kuchi via Flickr CC License

Chart: Comparing CalPERS to the Endowment Index

Endowment Index chart

The Endowment Index represents the asset allocation and returns of the world’s largest institutional investors.

The this chart [above], you can compare the asset allocation and 10-year returns of CalPERS to other massive institutional investors. This chart represents CalPERS’ allocation before its hedge fund exit, which is an ongoing process.

More on the Endowment Index:

The Endowment IndexTM is an objective benchmark for investors who implement a three dimensional portfolio that incorporates alternative investments. This investable* index is used for portfolio comparison, investment analysis, research and benchmarking purposes by fiduciaries such as trustees, portfolio managers, consultants and advisors to endowments, foundations, trusts, DB/DC plans, pension plans and individual investors. The Endowment IndexTM has been co-created by Endowment Wealth Management, Inc. and ETF Model Solutions, LLC.

Chart courtesy of Endowment Wealth Management.

Dozens of Pension Funds Are Reviewing PIMCO Investments After Bill Gross Departure

scissors cutting a one dollar bill in half

The United States’ public pension funds have tens of billions of dollars invested with PIMCO. But dozens of funds have put PIMCO on their “watch” lists – if they haven’t exited PIMCO already. From Bloomberg:

Illinois’s teacher retirement system, with $3 billion invested with Newport Beach, California-based Pimco, has had the money manager on its watch list since February, when former Chief Executive Officer Mohamed El-Erian left, according to an article published today. Texas Municipal Retirement System put Pimco on watch after Gross’s departure.

Managers of New York City’s retirement systems are reviewing $7.08 billion in Pimco investments, while those overseeing plans in Michigan, Indiana and North Dakota are monitoring the situation, according to the article.

A San Francisco city and county plan’s committee this week will hear from a consultant about $82 million invested in Pimco’s Total Return Fund. (PTTRX) A termination would mark the first time it has eliminated an offering, according to the interview with Jay Huish, the system’s executive director.

Gross, 70, who co-founded Pimco more than four decades ago, left last month for Janus Capital Group Inc. (JNS) after deputies threatened to quit and management debated his ouster. His departure prompted investors to review their Pimco holdings and triggered $23.5 billion in redemptions in September from the $201.6 billion Total Return Fund, which he previously ran.

Gross’s new Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund received $66.4 million in subscriptions last month, according to Morningstar Inc.

The Florida Retirement Systems, one of the largest public funds in the country, announced last week it would cut its investments with PIMCO.

Kolivakis: Time To Face The “Brutal Truth” About Defined-Contribution Plans

401k jar with one hundred bills inside

Leo Kolivakis, the man behind the Pension Pulse blog, has long been a critic of replacing defined-benefit plans with 401(k)-style plans as a means of reforming public pension systems.

The Canadian Public Pension Leadership Council released a report last week arguing that converting large public DB pension plans to DC plans would be costly and ineffective. In light of that report, Kolivakis took to his blog to re-explain his aversion to the oft-considered reform tactic. From Pension Pulse:

I’m glad Canada’s large public pension funds got together to fund this new initiative to properly inform the public on why converting public sector defined-benefit plans to private sector defined-contribution plans is a more costly option.

Skeptics will claim that this new association is biased and the findings of this paper support the continuing activities of their organizations. But if you ask me, it’s high time we put a nail in the coffin of defined-contribution plans once and for all. The overwhelming evidence on the benefits of defined-benefit plans is irrefutable, which is why I keep harping on enhancing the CPP for all Canadians regardless of whether they work in the public or private sector.

And while shifting to defined-contribution plans might make perfect rational sense for a private company, the state ends up paying the higher social costs of such a shift. As I recently discussed, trouble is brewing at Canada’s private DB plans, and with the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield sinking to a 16-month low today, I expect public and private pension deficits to swell (if the market crashes, it will be a disaster for all pensions!).

Folks, the next ten years will be very rough. Historic low rates, record inflows into hedge funds, the real possibility of global deflation emanating from Europe, will all impact the returns of public and private assets. In this environment, I can’t underscore how important it will be to be properly diversified and to manage assets and liabilities much more closely.

And if you think defined-contribution plans are the solution, think again. Why? Apart from the fact that they’re more costly because they don’t pool resources and lower fees — or pool investment risk and longevity risk — they are also subject to the vagaries of public markets, which will be very volatile in the decade(s) ahead and won’t offer anything close to the returns of the last 30 years. That much I can guarantee you (just look at the starting point with 10-year U.S. treasury yield at 2.3%, pensions will be lucky to achieve 5 or 6% rate of return objective).

Public pension funds are far from perfect, especially in the United States where the governance is awful and constrains states from properly compensating their public pension fund managers. But if countries are going to get serious about tackling pension poverty once and for all, they will bolster public pensions for all their citizens and introduce proper reforms to ensure the long-term sustainability of these plans.

Finally, if you think shifting public sector DB plans into DC plans will help lower public debt, think again. The social welfare costs of such a shift will completely swamp the short-term reduction in public debt. Only economic imbeciles at right-wing “think tanks” will argue against this but they’re completely and utterly clueless on what we need to improve pension policy for all our citizens.

The brutal truth on defined-contribution plans is they’re more costly and not properly diversified across public and private assets. More importantly, they will exacerbate pension poverty which is why we have to enhance the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) for all Canadians allowing more people to retire in dignity and security. These people will have a guaranteed income during their golden years and thus contribute more to sales taxes, reducing public debt.

Read his entire post on the subject here.

 

Photo by TaxCredits.net

World’s 4th Largest Pension Fund To Cut Alternatives, Load Up On Domestic Equities

globe

The South Korean National Pension Service (NPS), which manages $500 billion of assets, announced plans to reduce its alternatives, real estate and infrastructure investments to make way for a big increase in allocation to local stocks.

From Chief Investment Officer:

Next year, the NPS will build up its holding of local stocks to more than KRW 100 trillion (US$93 billion), around a fifth of its entire portfolio, according to a paper submitted the country’s National Assembly, the Korea Times reported.

This shift would move 16 percentage points more of its overall portfolio into equities. An additional KRW 60 billion would be held in foreign stocks while real estate and infrastructure allocations are to be reduced, the newspaper said, in order to build equity exposure.

The fund—which receives significant annual cash inflows—said it would also bring down its new spending on both international and local fixed income products.

However, last year, CEO Choi Kwang said he intended to boost the fund’s allocation to overseas assets to 30% over the next five years.

“NPS is working to overcome the limitations of the Korean market,” the annual report stated. “NPS is gradually expanding overseas investments in consideration with its role concerning incumbent effects on foreign exchange markets. It is also sharpening its in-house fund management capabilities through strategic alliances with other pension funds and global asset management companies.”

So far this year, the Korea Stock Exchange’s KOSPI Index is down 4.31%. Over a 12-month period, it is down 3.77%.

NPS’ is planning to allocate 20 percent of its portfolio to domestic stocks; if that target is reached, it would be its largest allocation ever towards local equities.


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