Ted Ballantine | Pension360

Pension Scandals Put Christie In Deep Hole

Over at Naked Capitalism, Yves Smith has written a great post recapping the recent pay-to-play allegations surrounding Chris Christie and Robert Grady and untangling the web of relationships at the heart of the scandal. The post, in full, is below.

________________

By Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism

Memo to Chris Christie: when you are in a hole, quit digging.

If you have any appetite for political slugfests, an unusual one is playing out in New Jersey. Former Pando, now International Business Times reporter David Sirota has been digging into dubious connections between officials in various states who have influence over pension fund investments and their well-heeled Wall Street connections and patrons.

To give a very short summary of Sirota’s biggest current story, the IBT journalist has uncovered questionable connections with two prominent figures, Charlie Baker, who is a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Massachusetts, and former New Jersey pension fund chief Robert Grady.

First, a short background on the Baker story: Sirota showed how that Baker made a $10,000 donation to the New Jersey Republican Party shortly before Christie officials gave Baker’s firm a pension management contract. That donation ran afoul of the Garden State’s pay-to-play rules that bar contributions from executives and partners of entities that manage state pension funds.

New Jersey launched an investigation into Sirota’s charges and announced that as a result, it was exiting the contract with Baker’s firm.

In a sign that Sirota is drawing blood, Christie himself, as well as members of his administration, have launched personal attacks on Sirota rather than making honest rebuttals to his charges (another strategy has been to misrepresent the stringent requirements of the state pay-to-play law). The paper of record in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe, has yet to deign to report on this scandal.

Sirota has also been probing the relationships among state pension fund investments and the holdings of long-standing Christie friend and pension fund overseer Robert Grady. The Christie administration has denied, forcefully, that Grady had any financial interest in firms that benefitted from New Jersey pension fund investments on his watch. That word “interest” is critical, because that’s the term of art in the New Jersey pay-to-play law. And in reading the discussion that follows, bearing in mind that New Jersey rules bar state officials from “being involved” in “any official manner” in which they have direct or indirect personal or financial interest.*

From the article:

Grady was pursuing a new strategy, shifting money into hedge funds and private equity holdings in the name of diversification and higher returns. He was now pushing to entrust up to $1.8 billion of New Jersey pension money to the Blackstone Group, one of the largest players in private equity.

But one special feature of that Blackstone bet underscores the interlocking relationships at play as states increasingly rely on the counsel and management of Wall Street institutions to invest their pension dollars: One of the private equity funds New Jersey was investing in – a pool of money called Blackstone Capital Partners VI – claimed among its investors a Wyoming-based company named Cheyenne Capital. That company’s list of partners included one Robert Grady.

In short, Grady was pushing to invest New Jersey public money in the same Blackstone fund in which his own firm was investing — without disclosing that fact to N.J. officials.

There are two legs to Sirota’s charges. One is that Grady’s firm looks to have gotten preferential treatment from Blackstone. Documents from an SEC investigation state that Cheyenne made a total investment in the Blackstone fund of $2.69 million. That is well below its minimum investment requirement of $20 million.

Due to the opacity of these investments, it is impossible to ascertain whether Cheyenne might have gotten other concessions, such as reduced fees in the fund itself, by lowering the management fees or the performance fees paid by investors in the fund.

Another way that private equity funds reward preferred parties is by giving them co-investment rights, which allows them to invest in the portfolio companies directly and bypass fees at the fund level. We explained how that works last year:

Let’s look at a particularly egregious conflict involving the Boston law firm Ropes & Gray. Ropes is Boston’s ultimate Brahmin firm, with a pedigree dating back to 1865. Past partners including Henry Cabot Lodge and Archibald Cox.

Industry insiders report that Ropes does the legal work for Harvard’s investments in private equity funds… Ropes & Gray also represents two of Boston’s leading PE firms: Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners

The March 6, 1998 Federal Register contained an application to the SEC by Ropes & Gray to form an in-house 1940 Act “investment company” that would be owned by the employees of the firm in order to invest their capital. Critically, as part of its investment company application, Ropes sought and was granted by the SEC an exemption from the normally comprehensive and ongoing public reporting requirements to the SEC that investment companies normally provide.

How has RGIP been investing the Ropes partners’ money? Thanks to the SEC waiver, it’s impossible to know everything. But RGIP appears regularly as an investor in Bain and Thomas H. Lee (another top Boston-based PE fund) deals.

Pay attention, because the distinction I’m about to make is critical to understanding how stinky this is. I am not talking about RGIP being an investor in Bain and Thomas H. Lee funds. To the extent that were the case, RGIP’s interests would be aligned with Harvard as a fellow fund investor, since they’d be in all the same deals, be subject to the same gains and losses, and presumably pay the same or similar fees.

Instead, Ropes & Gray, Harvard’s counsel, is investing alongside Bain and Thomas H. Lee funds in which Harvard is an investor. From an economic perspective, Ropes & Gray is investing ahead of Harvard, because it is not paying the fees a limited partnership investor pays. Moreover, it may well be in an even more advantaged position by virtue by getting access to only the best deals (as in cherrypicking within the funds**) and could potentially better rights on other fronts than its client.

Let me stress: we have no evidence that Cheyenne got this sort of sweetheart deal. But we also can’t be certain that it didn’t. The cult of secrecy around private equity investments means the public, including New Jersey taxpayers, has no idea of knowing, beyond the concession on the minimum investment, whether Grady’s firm got other sweeteners as a result of the New Jersey investment in the same fund. And that is precisely why the New Jersey statues are so draconian on the issue of possible personal and financial conflicts of interest.

Grady provided strenuous denials that he has an “interest”; those statements don’t pass the smell test. As private equity industry expert Eileen Appelbaum remarked:

“Whether or not he has a direct piece of the action from this particular investment, he is a partner in the company that is going to benefit from the investment,” said Eileen Appelbaum, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and author of the book “Private Equity at Work.” “If the investment in Blackstone turns out to be profitable, his company is going to benefit from that.”

And don’t kid yourself that Grady was too remote to have had anything to do with the pension fund investment in Blackstone VI:

State Investment Council records show that Grady himself made the formal motion to approve the Blackstone deal, and then voted for it along with most members of the council. Former State Investment Council member Jim Marketti told International Business Times he had no recollection of Grady disclosing his firm’s investment in Blackstone at the time Grady had the council vote on the Blackstone investments.

Another questionable relationship involves the same Blackstone fund’s salvage of Knight Capital. Grady was on the board of Stifel, which was a significant customer of Knight and also joined in the rescue.

The details:

In August 2012, Blackstone Capital Partners VI used money from its investors to finance a deal involving Knight Capital Group, according to SEC documents. Knight had notably suffered losses in the wake of news that a computer glitch in its electronic trading system had sent share prices plummeting on the New York Stock Exchange. The infusion of Blackstone money stopped the bleeding. Blackstone had been joined in its rescue of Knight by another firm, Stifel Financial, which later acquired a piece of Knight’s trading and sales operations. Among the members of Stifel’s board was Grady, according to corporate documents.

According to SEC documents, Grady also owns more than 10,000 shares of the company’s stock, and N.J. financial disclosure forms show Grady is compensated for his position at Stifel.

In short, Blackstone Capital Partners VI applied its investors’ money — including funds from the New Jersey pension system — to co-invest with Stifel, whose board included among its ranks the overseer of New Jersey’s pension investments.

Does this look arm’s length to you? Factor this into your assessment:

[Christopher] Santarelli, the New Jersey Treasury department spokesman, said Grady’s State Investment Council would have no knowledge or influence over how Blackstone opted to invest the money in its fund. Yet a New Jersey investment official previously declared that state officials often influence the financial decisions of the private equity funds in which the state invests.

“We’re a large player,” said then-Division of Investment executive director Timothy Walsh, in a May 2011 interview with the Bergen Record. “We have impact.” He told the newspaper that state pension officials sit on advisory boards for most of the private equity firms with which New Jersey invests, adding that New Jersey’s pension system is better able to influence private equity firms’ decisions than those of companies whose stock it owns.

The New Jersey state pension system listed 600,000 shares of Stifel in its portfolio in 2013, according to the New Jersey Department of Treasury’s annual report. Stifel executives made $15,000 worth of contributions to the New Jersey Republican Party in 2011, according to campaign finance disclosures.

Assemblyman John Wisniewski, who heads the state’s Select Committee on Investigation, is pushing for an official probe into l’affaire Grady.

Even though it seems unlikely in the cesspool of New Jersey politics, it is still entirely possible that Robert Grady’s conduct regarding his dealings with Blackstone, both with the fund investment and the Knight rescue, were on the up and up. But even so, he clearly looks to have violated the state’s stringent laws about conflicts of interest.

And this case serves as yet another object lesson in how private equity’s draconian secrecy policies can foster corruption. Even if it didn’t actually occur here, it would be easy for it to have taken place.

___
*Clearly, this restriction would not apply to cases where a pension fund executive held a public stock and a New Jersey pension fund bought shares in the same stock. The impact of the New Jersey buy, if any, would be too small and short term for the state official to derive any benefit.

Study: Retirement Savings Have Grown Across All Age Groups Since 2007

Data shows that nest eggs, on the whole, are smaller these days. But a recent survey suggests a bit of good news: since the financial crisis, median retirement savings across age groups have grown by leaps and bounds.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Despite all the attention paid to insufficient total savings, median retirement savings among working-age households have grown considerably over the past five years, according to the 15th Annual Retirement Survey from the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. The survey tracked median retirement nest eggs among employed American baby boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials between 2007 and 2014. For each age group, median savings either doubled or tripled within that seven-year span.

“We’ve seen a healthy increase in savings for employed people,” says Catherine Collinson, president of the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies based in Los Angeles, in a phone interview. The recession, she notes, “set off the alarm bells in a way that they weren’t ringing before and took [saving money] to a new level of urgency, and that’s a good thing. If we look at the national dialogue, it’s difficult to turn on the Internet, TV, or radio without hearing some form of conversation about the need for people to plan and save and think about their loved ones.”

Millennials, perhaps predictably, reported the most robust savings growth of the three groups, more than tripling their savings from $9,000 in 2007 to $32,000 in 2014. Xers, the first of whom will start turning 50 next year, doubled their nest eggs, from $32,000 to $70,000. For boomers, median savings increased from $75,000 to $127,000.

There are a host of reasons for the savings increase. Perhaps the biggest is that in a world where defined-contribution plans are overtaking defined benefit plans, the bullish stock market has been a boon for 401(k)s.

Photo by 401kcalculator.org

Craig Douglas: Massachusetts Candidates Need To Take Page Out of Gina Raimondo’s Book

Rhode Island’s pension system, and the race for governor surrounding it, has been grabbing all the headlines of late. But it’s neighbor, Massachusetts, is probably just as deserving of the press.

Data from the Center for Retirement Research suggests that Massachusetts’ various retirement systems are among the most underfunded in the country. And, like Rhode Island, the state will soon vote for its new governor.

Craig Douglas, the managing editor of the Boston Business Journal, says Massachusetts’ candidates for governor would do well to take a page out of Gina Raimondo’s book. From his editorial in the Providence Journal:

It’s high time Massachusetts had a governor who actually acknowledged the state pension system for what it is: a ticking time bomb.

[…]

Whereas Raimondo fought to overhaul Rhode Island’s worst-offending pension plans, Massachusetts has been a serial can-kicker. In 2011, Gov. Deval Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo were quick to dole out the back slaps after amending the state pension system’s funding schedule and benefits for newly hired employees. The moves, they said, would lower the state’s annual pension payments by a cumulative $5 billion through 2040.

What they didn’t mention is that, by extending the system’s payoff period by 10 years, they were baking in an additional $26.4 billion in costs for the state, according to an analysis by The Pioneer Institute. Welcome to the Bluto Blutarsky School of Pension Math.

I asked Baker and Coakley to reflect on Raimondo’s approach and whether it jives with their own pension policies. Their responses? Egh.

The Coakley camp “applauds” Patrick’s efforts to address the state’s retiree obligations, and used all sorts of buzz words and nuance to make clear that she is no Gina the Reformer. When politicians couch pension reform with terms such as “we need to take a serious look” and “additional reforms for new workers,” you can bet they are peddling yesterday’s meatloaf as today’s sloppy Joe.

As for Baker, well, his response was at once promising and disappointing. While he hit all the right talking points — better funding ratios, smarter investment strategies, an end to kicking “the can down the road” — Baker’s blueprint to tackle those problems is both vague and short on specifics. He even suggested more local aid could help address the equally frightening pension crisis affecting Massachusetts towns and cities. Come on Charlie, you’re better than that.

Or maybe not. If candidates are unwilling to take a tough stance on the fiscal straits facing Massachusetts today, when will they?

Massachusetts’ pension systems were 61 percent funded in 2013, collectively.

CalSTRS, Others Bankroll Study on Economic Impact of Climate Change

To date, there have been zero state-level pension funds that have heeded public calls to divest from fossil fuel-dependent companies.

But that doesn’t mean some pension funds aren’t interested in learning the impact climate change could have on their investments in the future.

Several of the world’s largest pension funds, including CalSTRS, have joined with Mercer to conduct a study forecasting the impact of climate change on markets over the next 40 years. From Chief Investment Officer:

The study aims to map out potential climate scenarios and their impacts on economies and markets, with forecasts stretching out to 2030 and 2050.

It follows a weekend of marches across the world calling for action on climate change, as the United Nations prepares to meet for a Climate Summit in New York on September 23.

Among the pension funds signed up to the study are the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), New Zealand Super, and Sweden’s AP1. In total, Mercer said asset owners representing $1.5 trillion were backing the survey.

Jane Ambachtsheer, head of Mercer’s global responsible investment team, said the survey’s objective was “to help investors make robust, well–researched investment decisions that factor in a consideration of climate change”.

“New data points and scientific evidence are now available, including the topical subject of the potential risk posed by so-called ‘stranded’ carbon assets,” she added. “Ultimately, it’s about enabling institutional investors to adapt over the longer-term.”

Brian Rice, portfolio manager at CalSTRS, was among those welcoming the launch of the study. “The multi-scenario, forward looking approach to this study makes it unique,” he said. “Investors will be able to consider allocation optimisation, based on the scenario they believe most probable, to help mitigate risk and improve investment returns.”

A few days ago, CalSTRS announced plans to triple its investments in clean energy.

Photo: Paul Falardeau via Flickr CC License

Canada Pension Fund Begins $1.3 Billion Spending Spree on Paris Real Estate

The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) has made its first investment in what’s likely to be a line of many in Paris real estate.

The first purchase: a $337 million office building in central Paris. The pension fund says it plans to invest another $850 million in Paris real estate over the next three years.

Reported by the Financial Times:

Oxford Properties, the real estate arm of giant Ontario fund Omers, has bought a 237,000 sq ft building in Rue Blanche, central Paris, from the Carlyle Group for €263m.

Its move into Paris is the fund’s first step into continental European offices.

Michel Vauclair, an Oxford Properties senior vice-president, said it aimed to build up its Paris portfolio to €1bn in the next three years.

It will focus on “assets where we can drive value through active asset management . . . and where we believe that current values do not reflect future market improvements”, Mr Vauclair said.

Until recently the Paris property market has been sluggish, partly as a result of the country’s economic weakness and political uncertainty. But Mr Vauclair said that Oxford Properties sees “the prospect for significant growth to come through infrastructure improvements and a broader economic recovery”.

OMERS isn’t the only organization buying up Paris property. In fact, many foreign investors are flocking to the city. From the Financial Times:

Janet Stewart-Goatly, a senior capital markets director at property advisers CBRE, said the Paris market had seen a 60 per cent increase in transactions year-on-year as foreign investors flood into the market.

“If you’re looking to build up your international portfolio, you can’t ignore Paris,” she said. “There is a massive weight of capital seeking to invest.”

As a result yields are about 4 per cent for Paris’s central business district and 5.5 per cent in the La Defense business cluster, she added.

La Defense had a 12 per cent vacancy rate last year – partly as a result of a handful of large companies relocating to the Paris suburbs – but vacancies are now falling as more businesses take up space, Ms Stewart-Goatly said.

OMERS says it is targeting Paris due to an improving economy coupled with the likely leveling-off of its high vacancy rate, which the fund says is “temporary”.

NYU President Speaks About $800,000 Pension

New York University President John Sexton has been a polarizing figure the last few years, not only for the large exit bonuses he approved for outgoing staff but also for his own $800,000 pension.

He addressed his pension at a dinner and question-and-answer session last week with NYU students. On his pension, from NYU Local:

“After taxes, that’ll provide 400,000 dollars a year, which is a good income. I have about fifteen to twenty people that are depending upon me. And my one indulgence—you’ll notice if you look carefully that I don’t own a suit, and I wear TravelSmith or expandable waist pants—the one thing I do is try to travel to places and to try to extend that to not only my family but to others, and I’d like to have the latitude to do that. That doesn’t mean I will do it. It doesn’t prevent me from donating some of that salary.”

“It’s because I don’t have a savings account that I do need that money.”

“I’ve never asked for a particular salary.”

And on his retirement plans:

“Gordon [Brown] is the UN High Commissioner for Education. He’s spending his life, and he wants me to spend my life other than my teaching, trying to get education to the abjectly poor: slums of India, Haiti, sub-Saharan Africa. I think that’s probably what I’m gonna do.”

“I do these periodic reflections. I’ve done about eight or ten of them. They’re on my website. The one I’ve been working on [recently] is how you could create a system in the United States that found the most talented students, matched them with the right school, and made it possible for them to go there.”

The rest of the questions didn’t have anything to do with pensions or retirement, but his answers are worth reading nonetheless. Check out the story here.

Pension Staffers Are Highest-Paid Workers on Virginia Payroll

The Richmond Times-Dispatch recently obtained salary data for all workers on Virgina’s payroll. Who topped the list of the state’s highest paid employees? Two top investment staffers at the Virginia Retirement System.

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

VRS Chief Investment Officer Ronald D. Schmitz tops the list, with $786,596 in cash compensation thanks to a hefty bonus. And former CIO Charles W. Grant, now director of internal asset management, earned $670,811.

[…]

The top pair earned more managing the $66 billion Virginia Retirement System than the top pair of employees for California’s $302 billion state employee retirement system, the largest in the nation. They also took home more than the top two managers in other states with larger portfolios, including Texas, New York and North Carolina.

“We’re basically paying, if you compare it to New York, three times the salary for a fund that is one half of New York’s,” Michael W. Thompson, chairman and president of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, said of the top earners. “When you just look at the numbers, you can’t help but wonder why we are special. What puts Virginia in a position to offer that kind of compensation?”

VRS officials say they have a fair compensation package designed to attract and keep the best investors. VRS paid $4.5 million in bonuses to 42 of its investment staff members for exceeding performance benchmarks.

Its investors make far less than they would on Wall Street or working for a private endowment. But that’s true of most government jobs, which in Virginia historically lag behind private business wages. A state Department of Human Resource Management report from December said state workers would need a 21 percent raise on average to make them equal to the private market.

The VRS board aims to pay better than 75 percent of public pensions.

Like most public pension funds, the Virginia Retirement System must manage a delicate balancing act: paying salaries high enough to hire and retain strong talent while taking care to not waste taxpayer money.

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, the entity that has oversight over VRS, said concerns about the high compensation totals were “valid.” The Commission will “monitor the situation.”

Quinn: No Plan “B” On Pension Reform

Most experts agree that Illinois’ pension reform law, passed in December, currently stands on shaky ground after a July ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court extended constitutional protection to retiree health premiums.

But Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn isn’t ready to write off the law just yet. In recent interviews, he’s also been steadfast that he’s not ready to start drawing up a backup plan, either.

From the Associated Press:

Gov. Pat Quinn argued Friday that it makes no sense to develop a contingency plan.

The Chicago Democrat, who “fervently” believes the plan is constitutional, said in an Associated Press interview that he’d like to get feedback from the courts before proceeding despite Illinois’ urgent financial difficulties.

“You don’t exactly help your position before the court if you say, ‘Well I’ve got a plan b out here, maybe you could take that instead,’ and it’s not even passed by the Legislature,” Quinn said. “That’s a very bad strategic position …”

Quinn’s comments come as he faces a tough re-election challenge from Republican businessman Bruce Rauner (ROW-nur). He opposes the law Quinn signed in 2013.

After years of debate, lawmakers approved a plan that cuts benefits for most employees and retirees aimed reducing the state’s massive unfunded liability.

Unions sued over the law, saying it violates the Illinois Constitution.

But in a separate case on retiree health care, the Illinois Supreme Court in July ruled a law requiring retirees to pay more for health insurance was unconstitutional. The decision centered on the constitution’s strong protections for retirement benefits.

Quinn has drawn criticism for the lack of backup preparations. Last week, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune wrote:

Gov. Pat Quinn says he doesn’t need a “Plan B” to address the problem because he believes the Illinois Supreme Court will uphold the pension reform law he signed in December.

[…]

Quinn’s faith in the Illinois Supreme Court is farfetched. In July, the court issued a thumping 6-1 ruling striking down a previous legislative effort to cut health care subsidies to state retirees and employing language that seemed to serve as a funeral oration for the pension reform law.

Addressing the state’s “but we can’t afford to provide the benefits we promised!” argument, the majority wrote that the unequivocal pension protection clause in the Illinois Constitution “was aimed at protecting the right to receive the promised retirement benefits, not the adequacy of the funding to pay for them.”

Even if Quinn genuinely has hope that the court will gymnastically OK the pending law nevertheless, he still owes it to us to reveal what he proposes to do when — I mean if — those hopes are dashed.

As Pension360 has covered, pensions are becoming a bigger part of the race for Illinois governor in light of the July court ruling that opened the door for reworked reform measures.

Study: Investors Think Pension Liabilities Are “Systematically Undervalued”

When it comes pension liabilities, investors are skeptical of the numbers they’re being presented with. That’s according to a study released today by Llewellyn Consulting that examined how investors react to the stated liabilities of corporate defined-benefit plans.

The study comes from the UK, but it has great relevance to the United States, where watchdog groups believe pension liabilities are chronically under-reported.
From Financial Times:

The study, to be published on Monday, found company valuations were being significantly impacted by investors taking a more sceptical view on the risk of defined benefit pension schemes, which remain a large and volatile component of corporate balance sheets.

“The implication is that reported pension liabilities are regarded by markets as being systematically undervalued; that markets give larger weight to pension liabilities than to pension assets; and/or that a higher level of liabilities is viewed as representing a higher risk,” said the report.

[…]

The report, conducted by Llewellyn Consulting, a London economics advisory, in conjunction with academics at Queen Mary University, is the first-in depth analysis to quantify the weight that investors put on DB pension scheme risk.

Researchers matched company financial and DB-pension-related data taken from FTSE 100 company statements from 2006-2012 with corresponding stock market performance and company valuation data.

The report found that FTSE 100 companies with the largest DB pension schemes were penalised “most heavily” by the market, even when the scheme was reported as fully funded, and regardless of the stated recovery plan.

The financial watchdog group Truth In Accounting believes that the United States is under-reporting its unfunded pension liabilities by $980 billion.

Photo by www.SeniorLiving.Org

A Step Toward Pension Transparency in Boston

As part of recent contract negotiations, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) has agreed to disclose more of its pension data to the public.

The MBTA retirement fund is among the most tight-lipped public pension funds in the country, due to laws that exempt it from following public records laws.

The MBTA will now release its members’ monthly pension benefits to the public. It will also improve its annual financial reports to include more information.

Reported by the Boston Globe:

Under the contract, the Boston Carmen’s Union adopted language to require the $1.6 billion T retirement fund to disclose members’ pension benefits to the MBTA at least monthly. The MBTA in turn will post them on the state website that discloses all public employee pensions, Open Checkbook.

In addition, the union agreed that fund trustees will improve the annual report to meet the standards of the Government Finance Officers Association.

The fund’s annual report for years has left out essential elements, prompting warnings from auditors. The fund also failed to disclose a $25 million loss on a hedge fund investment in 2012, until the matter was reported by the Globe last year. Currently, the loss is posted on the pension fund’s website.

The union, which also won a 10 percent pay increase over the next four years, approved the pension and work agreements last weekend. The Massachusetts Department of Transportation affirmed the $94 million accord Wednesday.

The T pension fund, partially supported by taxpayers, is organized as a trust and not required to follow public records laws. That position was upheld by the state Supreme Judicial Court in 1993.

Transparency advocates didn’t get everything they wanted, however. The fund is still refusing to disclose documents related to investment losses associated with certain hedge funds.

Photo by Truthout.org via Flickr CC License

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