Ted Ballantine | Pension360

Auditors Asking Questions on Record-Setting Bonuses Given to Wisconsin Investment Board

Everyone appreciates a pat on the back for a job well done.

But auditors are raising concerns about whether the Wisconsin State Investment Board, the entity that handles investments for the state’s pension funds, went a little overboard by handing out $13.3 million worth of bonuses in 2013—the most ever handed out by the Board.

The Legislative Audit Bureau, the agency set up by Wisconsin to evaluate and audit other state agencies, is asking the Investment Board to review its compensation policy in light of the bonuses.

Bonuses included, the overall compensation the Board paid employees was 14 percent higher than the median among its peers, according to the Twin Cities Pioneer Press.

Divesting From Gun Manufacturers Is Still On The Minds of Some Large Pension Funds

The politics of guns isn’t a topic too often broached at shareholder meetings.

But that’s exactly the topic that was the center of attention at Alliant Techsystems’ annual shareholder meeting on July 30, which included a shareholder resolution asking the Virginia-based defense and sporting goods company to comply with some of the Sandy Hook Principles—an initiative requesting that firearms manufacturers comply by certain guidelines, for example, developing better safety technology.

The message of the Sandy Hook Principles: comply or be sold.

And who filed that shareholder resolution? The Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds as well as the New York State Common Retirement Fund.

According to a press release, the resolution asked for the following from Alliant Techsystems:

* Promoting restrictions on firearms and ammunition sales, transfers and possession to keep guns out of the hands of children, persons with mental illness or mental health challenges, criminals, domestic or international terrorists and anyone else prohibited from possessing them under federal law;

* Supporting the establishment of a federal universal background check system for every sale or transfer of guns or ammunition conducted by the company;

* Reevaluating policies regarding the sale, production, design or conversion of military style assault weapons for use by civilians, including the distribution of any materials/information that may be used to assist in such conversions;

* Taking steps to promote the conducting of background checks for every sale or transfer of guns or ammunition by business clients, including gun show operators or gun dealers.

* Supporting a federal gun trafficking statute to ensure stronger punishment for individuals engaging in the trade of selling firearms to anyone prohibited from possessing them under federal law; and

* Promoting gun safety education at the point of sale and in the communities in which the company conducts business operations.

It’s only the latest in a string of “social Investment” decisions that imply institutional investors are considering divesting from gun manufacturers.

In February, a professor convinced his institution, Occidental College, to pass a resolution banning firearm investments by the school. It was the first college in the United States to do so.

A Pennsylvania volunteer group called Delco United is attempting to convince various municipalities to divest from guns, and in at least one case it worked: after a visit from Delco, the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs subsequently sold its holdings in Sturm, Ruger & Co.

Last year, CalPERS voted to sell about $5 million worth of securities related to gun manufacturers. CalSTRS, and others, followed suit. From Governing:

The $154-billion California State Teachers’ Retirement System, the country’s second largest government retirement plan, took a similar action.

CalSTRS and CalPERS took up the divestment issue at the request of state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, a member of both boards. Lockyer called the vote “largely symbolic” but stressed that it’s an important way to spur incremental change.

“We’re limited by the constraints of our responsibility and the rules that CalPERS has,” said Lockyer. “There’s only one way that we speak and that’s with money.

Funds in Chicago, New York state, New York City, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts have publicly said they are exploring such divestments.

The Philadelphia Board of Pensions threatened to divest its $15.3 million share in various gun manufacturers if they didn’t sign on to the Sandy Hook Principles.

Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel ordered the city’s funds to divest from firearms manufacturers, but only one fund complied.

But when it comes to social investing, is the probability of making a change worth the chance of “fiscal peril” posed by potentially higher administrative costs and lower returns associated with divesting? One prominent retirement researcher thinks not. From Governing:

Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, is an outspoken critic of social investing. After years of social investment decisions in regard to South Africa, the Sudan and other countries and causes, Munnell sees fiscal peril in forcing portfolio managers to add non-monetary considerations to investment decisions. “Introducing another dimension creates a risk that portfolio managers will take their eyes off the prize of maximum returns and undermine investment performance.”

As she sees it, the people making the social investment decisions are not the people who will bear the burden if anything goes wrong. “If divestiture produces losses either through higher administrative costs or lower returns,” she says, “tomorrow’s taxpayers will have to ante up or future retirees will receive lower benefits.”

Private pension plans, which are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, are prohibited from social investing. Munnell believes public plans should follow suit. Not that there isn’t room for other groups to do social investing. “If rich people want to adjust their own portfolios, that is perfectly reasonable,” she says. “But for public plans to do it is not.”

Social investment advocates argue they have a moral responsibility to society. As Chicago Alderman Will Burns put it earlier this year, “The damage caused by these weapons is far greater than any return on investment.”

It’s a strong argument, and one that Munnell says makes her position “not a pleasant one.” When the genocides in Darfur were occurring and pension plans were talking of disinvesting, Munnell disagreed vocally with that policy. “I sounded pro-genocide. Now I sound anti-gun control. I’m neither. I just don’t think social investing is effective. It can harm the performance of public plans.”

Connecticut Treasurer Denise Nappier has a different view.

“These companies will enhance their long-term shareholder value if they are seen as a reasonable public voice in the debate over the proper response to the Newtown tragedy”, said the Treasurer in a statement to Institutional Investor. “At the same time, they will suffer if the public perceives them as unwilling to consider reasonable voluntary measures, such as the Sandy Hook principles.”

Photo by Mitch Barrie via Flickr CC License

For Chicago, Property Taxes Still A No-Go As City Turns Elsewhere to Fix Pension Pains

ct-met-0129-chicago-pension-debt-gfc — Source: The Chicago Tribune and Morningstar

In Chicago, property taxes are among the most politically unpalatable ideas one can bring to the table.

But Illinois law requires the city to dramatically increase its payments to its two major pension funds to the tune of $500 million by 2016. In the past, the city has levied property taxes a year or two in advance of the payments in order to fund the required contribution.

One glance at Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel’s actions of late, however, confirms that property taxes remain off the table. Tasked with improving the fiscal health of the city’s pension systems, Emanuel is exhausting all his policy options—without turning to property tax increases.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Since taking office in 2011, Emanuel has cut the size of the city workforce, reduced health care costs and found other efficiencies, like organizing garbage collection by grids rather than a ward-by-ward basis.

The mayor also has increased a host of fees, fines and taxes. He’s held the line on property tax hikes at City Hall, though Chicago Public Schools has increased them under his tenure. Some revenues, like real estate property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes, have rebounded slightly as the economy has slowly improved.

Emanuel previously declined to identify any way to come up with additional city revenue for the city worker and laborers funds until he had worked out an overall pension change plan this spring that lowered annual cost-of-living increases for retirees and boosted employee pension contributions. He’s taking the same approach to police and fire pensions by declining to discuss additional revenue before an overall pension change plan is worked out.

Pension360 covered earlier this week a hike in telephone fees that will net the city $50 million this year and next.

Still, Chicago’s budget gap is projected to be around $297 million in 2015. With the $500+ million pension payment looming as well, the pressure is mounting and Chicago officials may have to make some politically unpopular decisions.

City officials can still change their minds and hike property taxes—but the deadline to do so is last Tuesday of December 2015.

Private Equity Sets Sights on 401(k)s

Private equity funds have been a staple of the investments of defined-benefit plans for decades. But as the prominence of defined-benefit plans diminish and defined-contribution plans rise in their place, private equity firms now have their eyes on another prize: 401(k)s.

So said several major private equity players who spoke as part of a panel discussion at the Fifth Annual Innovative Alternative Investment Strategies Conference on Thursday.

From Financial Advisor magazine:

[Red Rocks Capital co-founder Mark] Sunderhuse sees big opportunity for private equity in the defined contribution space. “Target-date plans will use private equity,” he said. “There’s a lot of work with consultants going on, and different types of products will fit different boxes. We’ve had conversations with a number of people in more mainstream mutual fund-type formats where they’ll use it [the Red Rocks fund]. Our product is primarily used in investment models where people want private equity exposure in way where they can manage the risk and be able to reallocate it and rebalance it.”

Kevin Albert, a partner at Pantheon, a global private equity investment company, said U.S. public pension plans on average have 10 percent of their assets in private equity. But defined benefit pension plans are becoming dinosaurs both in the U.S. and abroad.

“That has motivated the best firms in the private equity industry to raise capital from other sources, and the two biggest other sources are defined contribution plans and private affluent investors,” Albert said. “And that’s a good thing because 15 years ago it was hard to convince a top 10 private equity fund to raise a feeder fund or to participate in an offering that would go to individual investors. They saw it as less prestigious, and viewed it as more complicated from a regulatory perspective.

“Now you’re seeing firms like Carlyle, KKR and Blackstone at the vanguard of this,” he continued. “So I think we’re in the middle of an amazing revolution in the repackaging of private equity to make it attractive to defined contribution plans, which have different needs and desires than defined benefit plans did. So I think that will be a meaningful difference in this industry from five, 10, 15 years ago.”

The discussion came up when the panelists were asked to explain a few key trends they see playing out in private equity in the next five years.

Photo by 401kcalculator.org

Nevada PERS to Release Member Data After Years-Long Legal Fight

A three-year legal battle concluded this week when the Nevada Public Employment Retirement System (NVPERS) agreed to release extensive data on its members, including benefits, in compliance with a state Supreme Court order from April.

The data to be released, according to a NVPERS notice (also embedded at the bottom of this post):

-Date of hire

-Date of termination

-Date of retirement

-Retirement option

-Employer name

-Contributions to system

-Service credit

-Beneficiary information

-Gross benefit amount

-Base retirement amount

-Adjustments to base

-Post retirement increase amount

-Retirement stop date and reason

-Marital status

-Fund status

-Gender

The court order forces a stark change in policy for a retirement system that had kept a notoriously tight grasp on its member and retiree records since the 1970s.

But a state Supreme Court order—an order issued last December but not clarified until this month—made it clear that, while individual retiree records will remain confidential, any reports based on that data produced by NVPERS are not confidential. In the words of the court:

Where information is contained in a medium separate from the individuals’ files, including in administrative reports generate from data contained in individuals’ files, such reports or other media is not confidential merely because the same information is also contained in individuals’ files.

That means NVPERS now must turn over what it calls its “actuarial feed”, or the detailed reports—containing substantial amounts of member data—it gives to its actuarial consultants. The consultants use the data to determine benefits and make projections.

More on the “actuarial feed” from WatchdogWire:

The agency described the “actuarial data feed,” which now is to be made public, as “an extensive report always thought to be confidential between the System and our actuarial consultant protected through a confidentiality agreement which has now been determined in part to be public information.”

Geoffrey Lawrence, director of research and legislative affairs at the Nevada Policy Research Institute, said the data-feed information is vital if researchers are “to build a clear understanding about how public pension liabilities have accrued in Nevada.

…

Under Nevada public records law, personal information remains confidential. Thus, PERS emphasized, it “will NOT release any Social Security numbers, contact information (addresses, phone numbers, or email addresses), bank information, or minor child information.”

This legal fight began in 2011, when the Reno Gazette-Journal filed a public records request asking NVPERS to release data on its members, including benefit payments and work history.

NVPERS denied that request, a move consistent with the System’s long-standing interpretation of the Nevada Public Records Act—the interpretation being that all individual member and retiree records are confidential.

The Gazette-Journal subsequently filed a petition to bring the case in front of a District Court. The court eventually ruled that NVPERS did indeed have to turn over the names of its retirees and the benefits they receive, among other data.

NVPERS appealed that decision all the way to the state Supreme Court, which issued its ruling in December. But NVPERS requested another hearing, held in April, to have the court clarify exactly what records it wanted NVPERS to disclose.

The results of that hearing were released just this month.

The data to be released by NVPERS can eventually be found on Transparent Nevada.

[iframe src=”<p style=” margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;”> <a title=”View NVPERS Public Notice on Scribd” href=”http://www.scribd.com/doc/235555892/NVPERS-Public-Notice” style=”text-decoration: underline;” >NVPERS Public Notice</a></p><iframe class=”scribd_iframe_embed” src=”//www.scribd.com/embeds/235555892/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true” data-auto-height=”false” data-aspect-ratio=”undefined” scrolling=”no” id=”doc_60316″ width=”100%” height=”600″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>]

Photo by Bruce Fingerhood via Flickr CC License

In Louisiana, A Behind-Closed-Doors Pension Tweak Could Carry Significant Costs

It was the closing hours of Louisiana’s legislative session, and a seemingly routine bill was whizzing through the Senate and House as lawmakers were preparing to leave for their recess.

But lost in the shuffle was the fact that this bill was anything but run-of-the-mill. That’s because it included an earmark, written behind closed doors and tacked on at the last minute, increasing pension benefits for two state police officers to the tune of $300,000.

Since the pension provision was attached to a larger, unrelated bill, the provision wasn’t debated and didn’t go through the traditional legislative process of passing through committees before seeing the floor for a vote.

From the Associated Press:

In the final hours of the legislative session, state lawmakers crafted a pension law change that gives Louisiana’s state police superintendent and one other trooper a sizable retirement boost, with no public debate of the implications or the cost.

The price tag is estimated to be $300,000.

The deal was struck in a six-person legislative committee behind closed doors, with the bill’s sponsor saying he had no understanding what the law change would do and no one directly taking ownership of the proposal.

“Either somebody’s not being candid or somebody didn’t read this bill. That much is clear,” said state Treasurer John Kennedy, who has raised concerns about the legislation.

The superintendent, Col. Mike Edmonson, says the change in the way his retirement benefits will be calculated was about fairness.

However, that argument was never given a public vetting because the merits of the law change didn’t go through the traditional hearing process for legislation. Instead, it was tacked into a bill dealing with a different subject and rushed through the House and Senate as they were getting ready to go home.

The board for the Louisiana State Police Retirement System is now investigating whether the pension provision went through the proper channels before being tacked on to the larger bill and subsequently passed.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator J.P. Morrell (D-New Orleans), wasn’t aware of the details of the earmark until his staff told him. From AP:

Morrell said he doesn’t know who sought the add-on to his bill, which initially dealt with the rights of law enforcement officers under investigation. He said he was told by legislative staff that the new language was an innocuous retirement fix for law enforcement officers.

But he acknowledges he didn’t follow up.

“When someone’s hitchhiking on your bill at the last minute of session and the hitchhiker was seemingly innocuous, it was my responsibility to make sure it was innocuous and I didn’t do that,” Morrell said.

Police Col. Mike Edmonson, the beneficiary of the pension tweak, said the change in benefits was fair. But he also expressed reservation about the process that led to the change.

“I do agree that the timing, the way it comes out at the end like that, it looks like it’s something that shouldn’t have happened,” Edmonson told the Associated Press. “It was fair. It’s just unfortunate that it came out in the last point of the session like that.

The previous formula used to calculate the two officers’ benefits was left over from a now-defunct retirement plan. The new tweak in the benefits formula for the officers puts them more in line with how other current state employees’ benefits are calculated.

Photo by Daniel Foster via Flickr CC License

Lawmaker Comes Out in Support of Seven Counties in Kentucky Pension Dispute

Video courtesy of CNJ2

Pension360 has previously covered the story of the Kentucky-based non-profit, Seven Counties Services, leaving the Kentucky Retirement System due to the increased contributions that would have been required from the group to stay in the system.

A judge ruled last month that Kentucky-based non-profit Seven Counties Services could legally remove itself from the state’s pension system. But lawmakers weren’t happy with the pension obligations—allegedly to the tune of $90 million—that the organization was leaving behind.

In response, lawmakers chose not to renew Seven Counties’ contract with the state.

“This sends a signal that we are not happy with an agency that contracts with the state and leaves us a bill for $90 million,” said Rep. Brent Yonts, D-Greenville.

But at least one lawmaker says Seven Counties is getting the short end of the stick in the situation.

“Going forward they should be allowed to continue the good works they’ve always done,” said Rep. Julie Raque Adams, R-Louisville.

She also defended the non-profit against claims that they were leaving the system with a massive lump of pension debt.

“I think that the $90 million is in dispute as well. Seven Counties has made every single contribution required of them to this point — before they had to file for bankruptcy,” Adams said. “The problem is we have these agencies that are so vital to our most vulnerable citizens, because you can’t pay 40 cents of every dollar into a pension system and think they’re going to be able to keep serving the most vulnerable in our communities.”

Watch the full video of the exchange above.

A great refresher of the lead-up to this situation, from Leo Weekly:

Seven Counties was one of many nonprofits allowed to join KRS over the past few decades, hoping to lure qualified employees who would overlook meager salaries due to the security of a good pension after retirement.

Up until 2006, this arrangement appeared to work, as the employer contribution rate for pensions was only 5.9 percent of payroll. However, after a decade of Frankfort severely underfunding the required employer contribution, the growing unfunded liability of KRS — especially the Kentucky Employee Retirement System, which houses those nonprofits and is now the worst-funded public pension in the country — led to ballooning costs. By 2012, the contribution rate grew to 20 percent; last year it was 27 percent, and for the current year, it is almost 39 percent.

While the pension reform legislation SB 2 passed in 2013 aimed to solve this crisis by requiring full payment by employers, for nonprofits such as Seven Counties, it only exacerbated the problem. Unable to make such pension payments and stay afloat financially, they declared bankruptcy and filed suit to pull out of KRS. In May, the judge ruled in their favor, saying that the state is obligated to pay out KRS pension benefits to the employees of Seven Counties who paid into it.

Seven Counties Services was granted leave from the pension system in June through bankruptcy proceedings as their portion of the pension payments grew to nearly 40 percent of payroll. In the 2014 budget process the General Assembly provided $19 million to other mental health agencies — not counting Seven Counties — to help them meet increased pension costs.

The Kentucky Retirement Systems actuaries estimate that Seven Counties owes roughly $90 million in liabilities to the system.

Pension360 will keep you updated on subsequent developments.

North Carolina Ends Pension Spiking By High-Paid Officials

As of January 1, 2015, highly paid government workers in North Carolina will no longer be able to “spike” their pensions, thanks to a law signed yesterday by North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory.

Pension spiking happens when public workers accumulate sick leave, vacation time, bonuses and other benefits until the year before they retire. In their final year on the job, they cash out all those benefits—inflating their final year salary.

Since final year salaries play a big role in calculating a worker’s pension benefits, spiking can increase a retiree’s annual pension by thousands of dollars per year. The practice is currently legal in most states.

But the practice is now outlawed in North Carolina for all state and local workers who make $100,000 or more annually. From the News & Observer:

The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, comes after The News & Observer in November reported how four community college presidents and their boards converted tens of thousands of dollars in perks to pay as they neared retirement age, creating pension boosts the retirement system will have to subsidize. The retirement system is funded by contributions from employees, taxpayers through employer contributions, and investment returns.

“This law prevents North Carolina state employees from having to subsidize artificially inflated pensions of high earners at the end of their careers,” McCrory said in a statement. “It protects the retirement system from abuse and ensures state employees are rewarded for their important investments in our state.”

State Treasurer Janet Cowell has claimed in the past that pension spiking in the state is limited to only the highest-paid state workers. Thus, the current legislation outlaws spiking for those workers by creating a “contributions cap”. The News & Observer explains:

The law creates a new method of identifying pension spiking through a contributions cap that is based on the actual amount of money state and local employees and employers put into the retirement system. Those hired before Jan. 1 would continue to receive the difference created through the pension spiking, but it would have to be paid for by that unit of government, not the retirement system. Those hired after Jan. 1, would have the choice of the employer paying, the employee paying or a reduced benefit.

The law also returns the pension vesting period for state and local employees to five years. Three years ago it was doubled to 10 years as a cost saving measure, but Cowell’s staff said the savings were minor, roughly $1 million a year, while making the state less competitive in the job market.

“Returning to a five-year vesting period is critical step in North Carolina becoming more competitive in recruitment and retention relative to other public and private employers,” Cowell said in the release.

Unions Rev Up New Appeal In New Jersey Pension Case – Read the Full Complaint Here

Unions lost the first round in the pension case playing out in New Jersey, when a judge ruled last week that New Jersey was too cash-strapped to make its full contribution to the pension system. The state instead diverted that money, totaling over $800 million, towards balancing the state budget.

Unions were hoping, and still are, for a court ruling that would reverse state Gov. Chris Christie’s decision to divert that money.

To that end, attorneys for the labor groups amended their court filings on Wednesday to update their argument that Christie broke the law when he slashed the state’s pension contribution.

The contribution, unions argue, was legally required due to a law that Christie himself signed in 2011. From the Asbury Park Press:

The updated court filings are a step toward a new hearing, expected in August, and fuller vetting of the issue by Jacobson, who said claims about the 2015 budget and pension payments needed time to become “ripe.” Christie made changes in the new budget days after Jacobson’s prior ruling.

“The amended filings reflect the fact that the governor didn’t make the full 2014 payment and made his changes in the 2015 budget,” said NJEA spokesman Steve Baker. “Other than that, there’s no substantive difference in the arguments we’ve had all along.”

Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts pointed to the Republican governor’s past comments on the court case, when Christie called the spending cut “one of the hard choices the people of New Jersey expect me to make.”

“For our state’s families who are already overburdened by high taxes, raising taxes even further would not solve a problem created by decades of neglect and irresponsibility,” Christie also said.

The unions will have to make a stronger argument to Jacobson about Christie’s ability as governor to set fiscal priorities for such things as hospitals, nursing homes, tuition aid and other programs. In the June court hearing, the unions also failed to force Christie to turn $300 million from state surplus as a down payment on the shorted pensions. “The governor determined it would be extremely unwise to not maintain that amount,” Jacobson told the lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Read the full complaint here:

[iframe src=”<p style=” margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;”> <a title=”View Complaint – NJ Education Association on Scribd” href=”http://www.scribd.com/doc/235461708/Complaint-NJ-Education-Association” style=”text-decoration: underline;” >Complaint – NJ Education Association</a></p><iframe class=”scribd_iframe_embed” src=”//www.scribd.com/embeds/235461708/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true” data-auto-height=”false” data-aspect-ratio=”undefined” scrolling=”no” id=”doc_95456″ width=”100%” height=”600″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>”]

Photo: “New Jersey State House” by Marion Touvel Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

Philadelphia Funds Return 15 Percent As New Investment Strategies Play Out

The Philadelphia Board of Pensions, the entity that handles investments for the city’s pension funds, released its annual return data this week. The fund returned just over 15 percent for the fiscal year. From the Philadelphia Enquirer:

The total fund ended the fiscal year up 15.6 percent, outperforming its benchmarks by 1.96 percent. A more narrow portfolio, managed internally, did well, too, showing an 11.97 percent return, about 3.5 percent higher than similar benchmark funds.

The city’s pension system is severely unfunded, with only about half the money it needs to pay its $5 billion in obligations to current and future retirees.

The fund altered its investment strategy in recent years, in large part to the hiring of Chief Investment Officer Sumit Handa. From the Inquirer:

The board’s investment strategy has been revamped with the arrival three years ago of Handa and executive director Francis X. Bielli.

Investments were tweaked, Handa said, particularly the pension board’s fixed-income portfolio.

While investment firms handle the bulk of funds, the pension board staff manages a portfolio of about $260 million, or 5.3 percent of the pension fund. Known as the Independence Fund, it is designed as a “tactical” fund, Handa said, to be used to rapidly respond to opportunities the staff might see.

It strives for high returns at low risk. Since it was established in early 2012, it has been an overachiever by those standards. Outperforming its benchmark, it has shown only a third of the risk associated with investing in the S&P 500, while achieving 60 percent of the rate of return.

This marks the third consecutive year the fund has outperformed its benchmark. Previous to that, the fund has underperformed its benchmarks over the past five and ten-year periods.

The S&P 500 returned 21 percent over the period (July 1- June 30) that the Board of Pensions reported their annual return.

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