Home | Pension360

S&P Threatens Illinois With Another Credit Downgrade In Wake of Pension Reform Uncertainty

In what has become an annual tradition, ratings agency S&P has threatened to further downgrade Illinois’ credit rating, whose bonds already carry among the lowest ratings in the country.

The main factor, according to S&P, was the status of the state’s pension reform law, which sits in legal limbo until a court decides its constitutionality.

From Reuters:

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services on Wednesday warned that Illinois’ already low credit rating could sink further if the state is unable to implement reforms to curb its big unfunded pension liability and balance its budget.

The credit rating agency revised the outlook on Illinois’ A-minus credit rating to negative from developing, citing a recent state supreme court ruling that could derail a new pension reform law and the state’s structurally imbalanced state budget.

“If the pension reform is declared unconstitutional or invalid, or implementation is delayed and there is a continued lack of consensus and action among policymakers on the structural budget gaps and payables outstanding, we believe there could be a profound and negative effect on Illinois’ budgetary performance and liquidity over the next two years and that this could lead to a downgrade,” S&P said in a statement.

It added that Illinois could achieve a stable outlook if the pension reform law Illinois enacted in December withstands constitutional challenges and the state takes “credible action” to balance its budget.

When a state’s credit rating is under review, ratings agencies assign it to one of three categories: positive, negative or developing. Positive indicates that the rating agency holds a positive outlook for the state’s credit rating and will likely upgrade it in due time.

Illinois’ outlook was previously developing. Now, it is negative, meaning S&P will likely downgrade the rating sooner than later.

S&P added, however, that Illinois could avoid a downgrade if the state’s pension reform law passed legal muster.

Judge Throws Out Pension Funds’ Lawsuit Against JP Morgan

A lawsuit alleging that JP Morgan knew more than it let on about Bernie Madoff’s massive Ponzi scheme was dismissed yesterday by a judge, who said there wasn’t enough evidence that the bank’s board members breached their duty to shareholders by ignoring alleged “red flags” around Madoff’s fraudulent activities.

The suit was filed by two pension funds – the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund in Pittsburgh and Central Laborers’ Pension Fund in Jacksonville, Illinois – that are both shareholders of JP Morgan.

CalSTRS Fighting For Changes At PepsiCo After Underwhelming Performance

The California State Teacher’s Retirement System (CalSTRS) owns a $250 million dollar stake in PepsiCo. That makes the fund one of the corporation’s 60 largest shareholders, and it means that the fund’s opinions hold a certain power with PepsiCo—a power that they are now attempting to use after becoming dissatisfied with PepsiCo’s performance of late.

From the Financial Times:

One of the US’s largest pension funds has asked Pepsi to give activist investor Nelson Peltz a seat on the board, after becoming disillusioned with the soft drinks maker’s performance.

Although Mr Peltz’s investment firm, Trian Partners, has made little headway in its year-long battle to persuade Pepsi to split off its snacks business, his meetings with scores of shareholders have persuaded some that his voice should at least be heard in the boardroom.

Calstrs is not backing the break-up call, but wrote in a letter dated June 30 that Trian could help Pepsi address its operational performance and open management to new ideas.

“Trian has a long history of doing very well at these food and beverage companies,” said Aiesha Mastagni, investment officer at Calstrs, who wrote the letter, citing its previous activist positions at Heinz, Snapple and Kraft.

CalSTRS isn’t the only major shareholder looking for change. A few other major players have come forward in favor of change, albeit anonymously. From FT:

[CalSTRS’] concerns were echoed by top 10 shareholders who did not want to be identified.

One said: “They are good shareholders and they have ideas worth looking at, so we are hoping everybody comes together.”

Another top 10 investor explicitly backed the idea of a board seat for Trian, saying Pepsi could learn from the investor’s industry experience while Mr Peltz could learn more about the business before continuing his campaign to split it in two.

“The bigger issue is leadership,” this shareholder said. “The CEO does not have the respect of the investor community. If Trian were on the board, maybe she would listen. I would like to think she is still flexible enough to adapt.”

CalPERS is also a major PepsiCo shareholder. But the fund has stayed on the sidelines during this ordeal and has no plans to join CalSTRS’ corner.

CalPERS To Pull Back 40% of Hedge Fund Investments

There is a growing desire by funds around the country to avoid large investment fees, and that trend has led many funds to reduce their investments in hedge funds. Now, CalPERS has hopped on that train. From MarketWatch:

[CalPERS’] hedge-fund investment is expected to drop this year by 40%, to $3 billion, amid a review of that part of the portfolio, said a person familiar with the changes. A spokesman declined to comment on the size of the reduction but said the fund is taking more of a “back-to-basics approach” with its holdings.

CalPERS’ decision comes on the heels of a similar move by the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions fund. The difference is, the LA fund separated itself from hedge funds altogether. From MarketWatch:

The officials overseeing pensions for Los Angeles’s fire and police employees decided last year to get out of hedge funds altogether after an investment of $500 million produced a return of less than 2% over seven years, according to Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions General Manager Ray Ciranna. The hedge-fund investment was just 4% of the pension’s total portfolio and yet $15 million a year in fees went to hedge-fund managers, 17% of all fees paid by the fund.

The HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index, which measured hedge fund performance, indicated hedge funds returned 3.2 percent in the first six months of 2013, compared to a 7.1 return for the S&P 500 index.

New Jersey Fund Rakes In Nearly 16 Percent Returns For Year

Amidst all the pension-related turmoil in New Jersey, a piece of bright(er) news: the state’s pension fund raked in double-digit returns for fiscal year 2013-14, which ended June 30. The fund returned more than double the actuarially assumed rate of return, although the S&P 500 returned about 25 percent over the same period.

From Bloomberg:

New Jersey’s pension fund return is expected to exceed 16 percent for fiscal 2014 on gains that include an unanticipated $6.1 billion, according to the state Treasury Department.

Data as of June 30, which exclude some investments reported on a delayed basis, showed returns of 15.9 percent, treasury officials said in a statement. The fund’s total value was $80.6 billion, up from $66.9 billion four years earlier. The state investment division will report the performance to its oversight council at a meeting tomorrow.

Interestingly, unions are now presenting the argument that the strong returns only further demonstrate the need for the state to make its full contributions into the system. From NorthJersey.com:

The impressive returns, however, highlight an argument from unions that New Jersey may have missed out on even bigger gains in recent years because state contributions into the pension fund have been reduced or cut altogether, including the payment Governor Christie slashed at the end of June. Christie said he cut that payment — from a planned $1.57 billion, to $697 million — to prevent tax hikes or funding cuts to schools, hospitals and other crucial services amid a $1 billion budget shortfall.

New Jersey’s actuarially assumed rate of return stands at 7.9 percent.

Kentucky Ends Contract With Non-Profit Looking to Get Out of State Pension System

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

Seven Counties, a group that provides fostering and other family services, filed for bankruptcy in 2013, and as part of the proceedings they were hoping to get out of Kentucky’s pension system to avoid increasing contributions. The judge allowed the maneuver.

But now, angry lawmakers seem to not want the organization in the state at all. They chose not to renew Seven Counties’ contract with the state. From the Courier-Journal:

Prompted by angry legislators, state officials agreed Friday to jettison a $3.7 million contract with Seven Counties Services as the agency continues efforts to exit Kentucky’s underfunded pension system.

The contract provided family preservation services in the Louisville area, using in-home counselors to help families in crisis with the aim of keeping children at home or reuniting them with parents.

It will remain effective through Oct. 31 as families and children are transitioned, and officials “will move with all due haste” to execute a contract with a new provider, according to a letter from the Cabinet for Health and Family Services.

Seven Counties has provided the services for decades, and warned that cancelling the contract would harm at-risk children and around 300 families that participate in the program.

But last week, the Government Contract Review Committee rejected a proposal to renew the deal for two more years after lawmakers cited concerns over Seven Counties’ high-profile bankruptcy case.

Lawmakers are concerned that if the Seven Counties ruling stands, other state agencies will rush to get out of the state’s pension system. That would mean less contributions coming into the system.

From WFPL:

The state would have to cover $2.5 billion in unpaid pension obligations, Kentucky Retirement Systems executive director Bill Thielen said.

“The actuaries have determined it would increase the contribution rate over a 20 year period, it would ratchet up a little bit each year over 20 years about 6.5 percent, which would amount to about $2.4 billion of additional moneys over the 20 year period that would have to be picked up by the remaining employers in the system,” Thielen said.

In that vein, the contract non-renewal sets a precedent for other groups looking to follow in Seven Counties’ footsteps: if you leave the pension system, you leave the state too.

The Cities Scaling Back Pension Benefits Are The Same Ones Upgrading Their Sports Stadiums

Cash-strapped cities around the country have two things in common: one, they are slashing pension costs by scaling back benefits. Two, they are spending tens of millions of dollars on building and subsidizing sports stadiums. David Sirota has more on this interesting juxtaposition:

In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel recently passed a $55 million cut to municipal workers’ pensions. At the same time, he has promoted a plan to spend $55 million of taxpayer money on a hotel project that is part of a larger stadium redevelopment plan for Depaul University.

In Miami, Bloomberg News reports that the city “approved a $19 million subsidy for the professional basketball arena” and then six weeks later “began considering a plan to cut as many as 700 (librarian) positions, including a fifth of the library staff and more than 300 police.”

In Arizona, the Phoenix Business Journal reports that regional governments in that state have spent $1.5 billion “on sports stadiums, arenas and pro teams” since the mid-1990s. At the same time, legislators are considering proposals to cut public pension benefits, while voters in Phoenix may face a pension-cutting ballot initiative in November.

In Jacksonville, Florida, officials have not fully funded the pension system leading to a recent credit downgrade by Moody’s. At the same time, city officials just approved a $63 million plan to upgrade EverBank Field.

In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie is trying to block a planned $2.4 billion payment to the pension system, at the same time his administration has spent a record $4 billion on economic development subsidies and tax breaks to corporations. That includes an $82 million subsidy for the construction of a practice facility for the Philadelphia 76ers

In Louisville, Kentucky, up to $265 million in state and local tax revenues were used to finance the construction of the KFC Yum! Center, which opened in 2010. Only a few years later, Kentucky legislators enacted major cuts to the state’s pension system.

Is there an economic basis for these decisions? Sports stadiums are typically considered an economic boon for the long-term business they bring to certain areas, not to mention the jobs created during construction. But a few studies negate the notion that stadiums are economically sound investments for cities. More from David Sirota:

The officials promoting these twin policies argue that boosting stadium development effectively promotes broad economic growth. But many calculations rely on controversial and dubious assumptions that have been widely challenged.

A landmark 1997 Brookings Institution study by sports economist Andrew Zimbalist concluded that “a new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment” and that few facilities “have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment” for taxpayers.

That finding was confirmed by University of Maryland and University of Alberta researchers, whose 2008 review of major academic research found that “sports subsidies cannot be justified on the grounds of local economic development.” In addition, a 2012 Bloomberg News analysis found that taxpayers have lost $4 billion on such subsidies since the mid-1980s.

At the same time, cuts to pension contributions are rarely described by public officials as negative for local economic growth, though economic data suggests otherwise. An analysis by the Washington, D.C.-based National Institute on Retirement Security notes that spending resulting from pension payments had “a total economic impact of more than $941.2 billion” and “supported more than 6.1 million American jobs” in 2012.

The timing is particularly bad in Detroit; the day voters approved a measure to cut their pensions was incidentally the same day the Detroit Red Wings unveiled their plan for a new, taxpayer-funded stadium.

Detroit Deal Leaves Pension Protection in Legal Limbo

Municipal bankruptcies are increasingly becoming a reality in the United States, and it’s changing what we know about how—and to what extent—state laws protect pension benefits.

Detroit made big waves this week when its citizens voted to cut their own pensions. But if they had not approved the ballot measure, the city would have tried to cut their benefits by even greater margins. The fact that this took place in a state with stringent legal protections for pension benefits is making observers elsewhere wonder if a new precedent has been set. From NPR:

Pension benefits already earned have always been sacrosanct, protected by federal law and, often, state constitutions. Retirees could rest easy, knowing their money couldn’t be touched.

The in Detroit by retired city workers to cut their own benefits by 4.5 percent calls all that into question.

“Detroit has raised it as a possibility,” says Daniel DiSalvo, a political scientist at City College of New York who studies public sector labor issues. “I don’t think that most people, maybe with the exception of some unions, think pensions are inviolable.”

With several other cases pending, it’s not at all clear whether federal bankruptcy law trumps traditional pension protections. Pensions continue to have strong legal protection, and there’s not going to be any great rush among states and cities to test whether cutting benefits for current retirees is something that will necessarily fly with the courts.

But the vote in Detroit does suggest that at least some pensioners might have to give up more than they ever expected.

And it won’t be too long until the possibility of more pension cuts are raised elsewhere in Michigan. Flint is considering filing for bankruptcy, as well. From Money News:

Flint, the birthplace of General Motors that once had 200,000 residents, has also endured a spectacular drop in population and factory jobs and a corresponding rise in property abandonment, much like its insolvent big brother an hour’s drive south.

If a judge rules against Flint’s effort to cut its retiree health care benefits, the city is expected to join about a dozen cities or counties that have sought help from the courts since the start of the recession.

“If we don’t get any relief in the courts … we are headed over the same cliff as Detroit,” said Darnell Earley, the emergency manager appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder to manage Flint’s finances. “We can’t even sustain the budget we have if we have to put more money into health care” for city workers.

And, if Flint follows a similar path to Detroit after declaring bankruptcy, it could mean pension benefits are the first thing on the chopping block.

This will all become a bit clearer when Detroit bankruptcy judge Steven Rhodes makes his ruling on the city’s restructuring plan. That won’t come until sometime in September.

Longer Life Expectancy Will Lead to Spike in Liabilities In Near Future

Hundreds of pension funds across the country are struggling to rein in their liabilities, but their funding situations may soon be considered even worse. That’s because an actuarial tweak that takes into account greater life expectancy will increase the liabilities on the books of many plans. From Pensions & Investments:

The measured value of liabilities for most defined benefit plans will increase between 3% and 8% with the adoption of new mortality tables, said a report from Wilshire Consulting.

The tables, released by the Society of Actuaries in exposure draft form in February, reflect an increase in the life expectancy of Americans, resulting in increased pension plan liability values and liability durations.

For women ages 25 to 85, the liability increase ranges from 5.5% to 10.5%. For males in that age group, the increase ranges from 2.5% to 17.4%.

The tables most DB plans now use to measure pension liabilities were published by the Society of Actuaries in 2000.

Some pension plans will be affected more than others, as P&I explains:

The impact of the updated tables on a particular plan will depend on the makeup of its participants, said Jeff Leonard, managing director at Wilshire Associates Inc. and head of the actuarial services group of Wilshire Consulting, based in Pittsburgh.

Some public and corporate plans are large enough to use custom mortality table and likely will stick with them, Mr. Leonard said.

For U.S. plans that rely on the industry tables, however, the mortality assumption changes are “another nail in the coffin” and might encourage some sponsoring entities to move away from DB plans altogether, Mr. Leonard said.

These changes haven’t come out of nowhere, and they won’t go into effect right away; according to Wilshire, the new tables likely won’t affect funding ratios until 2016.

Photo by Alexander Baxevanis via Flickr CC License

Puerto Rico’s Pension Obligations May Lead to US-Style Bankruptcy

Puerto Rico may not have statehood status, but it’s picking up some of the United States’ habits. Lately, that means weighing bankruptcy. And, like the United States, ballooning pension obligations are a major reason Puerto Rico is wearing the proverbial fiscal handcuffs.

From Reuters:

Momentum is building toward a deal that would make painful losses inevitable for investors holding about $20 billion in bonds issued by Puerto Rico’s highway, water and electricity authorities even as some big U.S. mutual funds launch a legal battle to squelch a new law that authorizes a restructuring.

The Puerto Rican government and most of its creditors have hired U.S.-based bankruptcy experts to advise them through the Caribbean island’s efforts to solve its debt problem, and the resolution figures to look a lot like a U.S.-style bankruptcy.

The crisis came to a head late last month when Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla pushed through the Public Corporations Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act to create a bankruptcy-like process for restructuring the debt of commonwealth-run corporations.

This isn’t coming out of nowhere; the writing has been on the wall recently. Just two weeks ago, Fitch downgraded a number of Puerto Rico’s bonds. From a Fitch press release via Business Wire:

Puerto Rico’s bonded debt levels and unfunded pension liabilities are very high relative to U.S. states, with a large amount of outstanding debt issued for deficit financing purposes. Pension funding will remain exceptionally low even with the significant pension reform effort undertaken by the current administration, and the April 2014 Puerto Rico Supreme Court decision finding recent reforms of the teachers’ retirement system unconstitutional presented the administration with yet another challenge. The Commonwealth has stated in the past that without reform the teachers retirement system would confront an annual cash flow deficit beginning in fiscal 2020.

Puerto Rico tried earlier this year to reform its teacher pension system, which is set to run out of money by 2020. The Island passed a law that increased retirement ages and employee contributions, while mandating that the system adopt more 401(k) qualities. But a court struck down the law in April.

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