Category: Pension Newsroom

Leo Kolivakis is a blogger, trader and independent senior pension and investment analyst. This post was originally published at Pension Pulse.

Benefits Canada reports, Ontario Teachers’ acquires U.S. oil and gas assets:

The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan – along with RedBird Capital Partners and Aethon Energy Management – will acquire J-W Energy’s assets in north Louisiana and northeast Texas.

Redbird, a North American-based principal investment firm, and Aethon, a Dallas-based onshore oil and gas investor, have partnered with the pension plan to purchase oil and gas upstream and midstream assets. Additional assets obtained in the partnership will be combined with the J-W assets to form a joint group, Aethon United.

“We are looking forward to partnering with Aethon, a proven firm with an exceptional track record and strong alignment with Ontario Teachers’, as well as expanding our strategic relationship with RedBird,” said Jane Rowe, senior vice-president of private capital at Ontario Teachers’. “These assets are a strong fit with our private equity energy portfolio and represent a compelling investment opportunity with an established base of long-life proven reserves and attractive growth opportunities.”

The Texas and Louisiana properties comprise approximately 84,000 acres and 380 miles of gathering and processing infrastructure which, added to Aethon United’s existing assets, results in a 350,000 net acres, the other portion of which is made up from previous deals with Encana, Noble Energy and SM Energy.

Ontario Teachers’ put out a press release on this deal:

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (“Ontario Teachers'”) RedBird Capital Partners (“RedBird”), and Aethon Energy Management (“Aethon”) today announced the acquisition of J-W Energy’s (“J-W”) oil & gas upstream and midstream assets located in northeast Texas and north Louisiana. Additionally, Haynesville and Rockies assets acquired in partnership by Aethon and Redbird are being consolidated with the J-W assets, forming a joint partnership (“Aethon United”).

Located in north Louisiana and northeast Texas, the J-W Energy assets comprise approximately 84,000 net acres and 380 miles of associated gathering and processing infrastructure. The collective reserve base of the J-W assets combines low risk, long life, and highly predictable production with attractive development opportunities.

With this acquisition, Aethon United now operates in excess of 350,000 net acres and 166 MMcfe/d of production. In addition to the J-W Energy assets, Aethon United operates approximately 91,000 net acres in the Haynesville previously acquired from SM Energy and Noble Energy, as well as approximately 181,000 net acres in the Wind River Basin of Wyoming previously acquired from Encana.

Albert Huddleston, Founder & Managing Partner of Aethon, commented, “We are excited to partner with Ontario Teachers’ and continue our long-standing partnership with RedBird to acquire J-W Energy’s high quality, low risk, unconventional assets, which continues to expand our acreage in the Arkansas-Louisiana-Texas area. The J-W Energy assets help to diversify and expand our existing portfolio, and highlights Aethon’s ability to identify attractive E&P assets, offering strong risk-adjusted returns in the current market environment and in the future. We are grateful for the confidence shown in the Aethon Energy team for the series of investments in partnership with us by noted investors Ontario Teachers’ and RedBird, which ratifies our 26 year track record.”

“We are looking forward to partnering with Aethon, a proven firm with an exceptional track record and strong alignment with Ontario Teachers’, as well as expanding our strategic relationship with RedBird” said Jane Rowe, Senior Vice President of Private Capital. “These assets are a strong fit with our private equity energy portfolio and represent a compelling investment opportunity with an established base of long-life proven reserves and attractive growth opportunities.”

“Aethon has been a tremendous partner with RedBird in the build-up of our collective energy investments, and we’re excited to expand this partnership with our friends at Ontario Teachers’ with whom we have a very strong strategic relationship,” said Hunter Carpenter, Partner at RedBird Capital. “This partnership is an example of RedBird’s unique ability to identify proven owners and entrepreneurs like Aethon Energy who are frequently unavailable to traditional institutional capital. Aethon Energy represents a rare combination of investing and operating expertise providing superior historical performance and operating skill.”

About Aethon Energy Management

Aethon Energy Management LLC is a Dallas-based private investment firm that has managed and operated over $1.6 billion of assets, and is focused on direct investments in North American onshore oil & gas. Since its inception in 1990, Aethon has maintained a focus on acquiring under-appreciated assets where opportunities exist to add value through lower-risk development, operational enhancements and Aethon’s proprietary technical knowledge. Aethon’s 26-year track record spans multiple energy cycles and has consistently provided compelling asymmetric returns for its institutional and high net worth investors through disciplined buying and value creation. For more information, go to www.AethonEnergy.com.

About Ontario Teachers’

The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (Ontario Teachers’) is Canada’s largest single-profession pension plan, with $171.4 billion in net assets at December 31, 2015. It holds a diverse global portfolio of assets, 80% of which is managed in-house, and has earned an annualized rate of return of 10.3% since the plan’s founding in 1990. Ontario Teachers’ is an independent organization headquartered in Toronto. Its Asia-Pacific region office is located in Hong Kong and its Europe, Middle East & Africa region office is in London. The defined-benefit plan, which is fully funded, invests and administers the pensions of the province of Ontario’s 316,000 active and retired teachers. For more information, visit www.Otpp.com and follow us on Twitter @OtppInfo.

About RedBird Capital Partners

RedBird Capital Partners is a North America based principal investment firm focused on providing flexible, long-term capital to help entrepreneurs grow their businesses. Based in New York and Dallas, RedBird seeks investment opportunities in growth-oriented private companies in which its capital, investor network and strategic relationships can help prospective business owners achieve their corporate objectives. RedBird’s private equity platform connects patient capital with business founders and entrepreneurs to help them outperform operationally, financially and strategically. For more information, go to www.RedBirdCap.com.

J-W Energy Company also put out a press release on this deal:

J-W Energy Company is pleased to announce the closing on July 1, 2016 of the sale of substantially all of the oil and gas assets owned by J-W Operating Company and substantially all of the midstream assets owned by J-W Midstream Company to affiliates of Aethon United LP. The assets included in the transaction are located mainly in the North Louisiana and North Texas areas and are comprised of approximately 95,000 net acres and 380 miles of associated gathering and processing infrastructure. The sale is an exit from the upstream and midstream business by J-W Energy Company, which will continue to own the largest privately-held compression fleet in the U.S. through its wholly-owned subsidiary, J-W Power Company. Over the past ten years, J-W Energy has exited from its drilling, valve manufacturing, gas measurement and wireline businesses as well, as part of a planned reallocation of company resources.

“This exit from the upstream and midstream businesses will allow J-W Energy Company to focus on our compression business, which has been less capital intensive than the upstream and midstream businesses. Despite this sale marking the end of J-W Energy’s long and successful history in the upstream and midstream businesses, we are confident that the dedicated employees of J-W Operating and J-W Midstream will be instrumental in the future success of this endeavor,” said David A. Miller, President of J-W Energy Company.

Wells Fargo Securities, LLC served as the exclusive financial advisor to J-W Energy on the transaction.

You can also read more about J-W Midstream Company here:

J-W Midstream Company is a natural gas gathering and processing company that has been active in the gathering, dehydration, treating, processing and transmission of natural gas for over thirty years. With that experience, we understand the producer’s need for high quality, cost-effective, completely reliable services.

From engineering and construction to contract gathering and processing, J-W Midstream Company is committed to providing a continuously uninterrupted flow of gas to our customers and real value to their bottom lines.

J-W Midstream Company operates more than 400 miles of natural gas pipeline systems in Louisiana and Texas, as well as processing facilities that range from small refrigeration and J-T skids to 25 MMSCFD cryogenic units.

Through an affiliate company, J-W Midstream Company can supply outsourced gas sales and other gas management functions.

So, what is this deal all about and why is Ontario Teachers’ partnering up with Aethon Energy and RedBird Capital to buy J-W Energy Company’s upstream and midstream businesses?

This is how private equity works. J-W Energy is a private company which is an industry leader in the leasing, sales and servicing of natural gas compression equipment, in both standard and custom packages. It has been leasing compressor and compressor/maintenance packages for more than 40 years.

The company was looking to exit its upstream and midstream businesses to focus on its core business which is the compression business. Once this opportunity presented itself, Aethon, RedBird and Ontario Teachers’ pounced to act quickly and acquire these assets.

This was a co-investment where Teachers’ invested a substantial amount alongside its partners and didn’t pay any fees. Along with Atheon and RedBird, Teachers’ will look to develop J-W Energy’s upstream and midstream businesses and because it’s a pension with a very long investment horizon, it doesn’t have the pressure that a traditional private equity fund has to unlock value of these business units during three or four years.

In other words, the deal is a win for J-W Energy Company and if Teachers’ and its partners succeed in improving the operations of the upstream and midstream businesses over the next five to ten years, it will be a win for them, the employees of these businesses and of course, Teachers’ contributors and beneficiaries.

Why invest in energy now? Last December, I wrote a comment on why Canada’s pensions are betting on energy and in November of last year, I met up with AIMCo’s president Kevin Uebelein here in Montreal on the day they announced a major transaction buying a $200M stake in TransAlata’s renewable energy business.

When it comes to energy, focus on what Jane Rowe said in the press release: “These assets are a strong fit with our private equity energy portfolio and represent a compelling investment opportunity with an established base of long-life proven reserves and attractive growth opportunities.”

When you are a pension the size of an Ontario Teachers’ you will seek attractive opportunities in down-beaten sectors across public and private markets and use your long investment horizon to realize big gains. This is a competitive advantage all of Canada’s large pensions have over traditional private equity funds, namely, they have very deep pockets and a much longer investment horizon to ride out short-term cyclical swings.

Teachers’ isn’t the only large Canadian pension looking to capitalize on energy opportunities. Lincoln Brown of Oilprice.com reports, Two Pension Fund Groups Bid for TransCanada’s $2B Mexican Pipeline:

A TransCanada Mexican pipeline is drawing significant interest from pension funds. Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Public Sector Pension Investment Board and Borealis Infrastructure Corp. have created a consortium in order to purchase up to 49.9 percent of the business, which has been estimated to be worth some US$2 billion.

Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec’s new Mexican joint venture, CKD Infraestructura Mexico SA, are also interested in purchasing stakes, along with three other unnamed businesses.

That information comes from a source with knowledge of the situation who spoke to Bloomberg but asked not to be identified. TransCanada spokesman Mark Cooper has confirmed the company is seeking investors but would not comment beyond that. The Calgary-based company is trying to sell its minority stake in the pipeline, along with power plants in the northeastern United States to generate cash to buy Columbia pipeline Group Inc. That deal is estimated at US$10.2 billion.

Mexico is increasingly drawing the attention of investors. The country recently began a US$411 billion plan for its infrastructure, focusing on transportation and energy. Canada Pension and the Ontario Teacher’s Pension Plan already made an investment last month in a toll road operator in Mexico.

In June, the company announced it would build and operate a US$2.1 billion natural gas pipeline in Mexico. The company said it would parent with Sempra Energy’s IEnova unit, with TransCanada owning a 60 percent stake in the venture. The effort will be backed by Mexico’s state-owned power company and is expected to be in service by 2018. TransCanada recently made news in the United States when it announced a lawsuit against the state because of the suspension of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project.

Lastly, Benefits Canada recently reports, Ontario Teachers’, PSP increase stakes in sustainable investment firm:

The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and the Public Section Pension Investment Board will buy out Banco Santander’s interest in Cubico Sustainable Investments. The three firms launched the London-based renewable energy and water infrastructure company in May 2015.

After the acquisition, PSP Investments and Ontario Teachers’ will each own 50 per cent of Cubico’s shares.

Cubico’s initial portfolio included 18 water, wind and solar infrastructure assets with a net capacity of 1.2 gigawatts. The company has since acquired four new assets, bringing its net capacity to 1.62 gigawatts. Cubico’s 22 assets are in Brazil, Italy, Ireland, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom and Uruguay.

“Our increased participation in Cubico is aligned with PSP Investments’ long-term investment approach and strategy to leverage industry-specific platforms and develop strong partnerships with liked-minded investors and skilled operators,” Guthrie Stewart, senior vice-president and global head of private investments at PSP Investments, said in a release.

“Cubico’s flexible investment and acquisition approach fits well with Ontario Teachers’ approach to private investments,” Andrew Claerhout, senior vice-president of infrastructure at Ontario Teachers’ said in the release.

As you can see, Canada’s large public pensions have been busy hunting for traditional and alternative energy deals all around the world. They’re using their internal expertise and their expert network of partners to capitalize on opportunities as they arise, and that is why they are way ahead of their global counterparts when it comes to opportunistic, long-term investing.

Institutional investors aren’t racing each other; even still, it’s interesting to see how they stack up against one another.

Corporate ERISA plans posted a higher median return in the second quarter of 2016 than any other plan type, according to Northern Trust data; public pensions came in second, with endowments trailing.

The ranking holds when the timeline is expanded to the last 5 years.

More from PlanSponsor:

In the second quarter of 2016, the corporate Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plans category fared best among all plan types with a median return of 3%, Northern Trust finds. Public funds were close behind with 1.7% in gains, while foundations/endowments netted 1.5% in the second quarter.

“Differing returns across plan types were driven largely by the duration of their fixed-income investments,” explains Bill Frieske, senior investment performance consultant, Northern Trust Investment Risk and Analytical Services. “In an effort to de-risk their defined benefit pension plans, corporate ERISA plan sponsors have been lengthening the duration of their fixed-income programs. Interest rates declined in the second quarter, which increased returns for long duration bonds and helped boost corporate ERISA plan returns.”

[…]

For public funds, returns were dampened by a larger allocation to international equities (15% at the median), which produced the lowest median return of the major asset classes. For foundations and endowments, returns were muted by weak performance from a significant 11% allocation to private equity, “the second lowest returning major asset class at 0.2%.”

Long-term data reported with the quarterly results shows corporate ERISA plans have enjoyed 5-year trailing returns of 7.5%, while public funds earned 6.9% and foundations/endowments netted 5.7%.

Leo Kolivakis is a blogger, trader and independent senior pension and investment analyst. This post was originally published at Pension Pulse.

Darrell Preston of Bloomberg reports, Bill Gross’s Admonishment Supported By Illinois Pension Fund:

Illinois’s largest public pension agrees with Bill Gross’s admonishment that it’s time to face up to the reality of lower returns and reduce assumptions about what funds can make off stocks and bonds.

Fund managers that have been counting on returns of 7 percent to 8 percent may need to adjust that to around 4 percent, Gross, who runs the $1.5 billion Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund, said during an Aug. 5 interview on Bloomberg TV. Public pensions, including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest in the U.S., are reporting gains of less than 1 percent for the fiscal year ended June 30.

Illinois’s largest state pension, the $43.8 billion Teachers’ Retirement System, plans to take another look at how much it assumes it will make in the coming year as part of an asset allocation study, said Richard Ingram, executive director. Currently it assumes 7.5 percent, lowered from 8 percent in June 2014. Plans for the study were in place before Gross made his remarks.

“Anybody that doesn’t consider revisiting what their assumed rate of return is would be ignoring reality,” Ingram, whose pension is 41.5 percent funded, said in a phone interview. The fund has yet to report its June 30 return.

Lowering how much pensions assume they can earn from investment of assets could put many in the difficult position of having to cut benefits or ask for increased contributions from workers and state and local governments that sponsor them or risk seeing the amount of assets needed to pay future benefits shrink. The $3.55 trillion of assets now held by public pensions is about two-thirds the amount needed to pay retirees, according to Federal Reserve data.

Since the financial crisis, the interest rates earned on bonds have remained low as stock prices have brought strong returns some years and more modest returns in other years. Calpers earned 0.6 percent in the fiscal year ended June 30, with an average gain of 5.1 percent over 10 years.

Illinois is struggling with $111 billion of pension debt, and more than half of that, or about $62 billion, is for the Teachers’ Retirement System. The partisan gridlock that spurred the longest budget impasse in state history only exacerbated the problem. Governor Bruce Rauner and lawmakers have made no progress in finding a fix for the rising liabilities that helped sink Illinois’s credit rating to the lowest of all 50 states.

Lagging Returns

Others also have reported meager returns recently, including a 0.19 percent gain for New York state’s $178.1 billion retirement system and a 1.5 percent increase in New York City’s five pension funds with $163 billion of assets, the smallest gain since 2012.

Government-retirement systems have lagged return targets after U.S. stocks declined last year and bond yields hold near record lows, leaving little to be made from fixed-income investments. Large plans have an average of 46 percent of their money in equities, with 23 percent in bonds and 31 percent in other assets such as private equity, Moody’s Investors Service said in a July 26 report, citing its review of fund disclosures.

“If investment returns suffer, you have to look at reality until we return to a more normal investment environment,” said Chris Mier, a municipal strategist with Loop Capital Markets in Chicago. “Some pensions don’t like changing those assumptions because then their liabilities increase.”

Pensions’ push into stocks and other high-risk investments have exacerbated pressures on the funds because of the “significant volatility and risk of market value loss” at a time when governments have little ability to boost contributions if returns fall short, Moody’s said in its report.

Dialing Back

Public pensions over 30-year-or-so horizons traditionally could hit targets for returns of 7 percent to 8 percent. But that was in an era before the Fed began holding down interest rates to stimulate the economy and returns in the stock market were not high enough to offset lower fixed-income investments.

Public pensions have been reducing assumed rates of returns, cutting from a median of 8 percent six years ago to 7.5 percent currently, said Keith Brainard, who tracks pensions for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. Now “more than a handful” are below 7 percent, he said.

“We’ve seen a pronounced decline in return assumptions,” said Brainard.

Public pensions have been hurt by the Fed’s zero-rate policy that Gross says has led to “erosion at the margins of business models” such as the ones used for funding public pensions, which depend on assumptions about returns over time horizons of 30 years or more.

“Pensions have to adjust,” said Gross. “They have to have more contributions and they have to reduce benefit payments.”

Bill Gross is right, low returns are taking a toll on US pensions, especially delusional public pensions that refuse to acknowledge that ultra low and even negative rates are here to stay, and that necessarily means they need to assume lower returns ahead, cut benefits and increase contributions.

Of course, astute readers of this blog know my thoughts, cutting benefits and increasing contributions is the easy part. So is hiking property taxes and utility rates to fund unfunded public pensions, just like Chicago just did. Sure, it takes political courage to admit your public pensions are effectively bankrupt and require drastic measures to get them back to an acceptable funded status, but that isn’t the hard part.

It’s much harder introducing real change to US public pensions, change that I discussed in the New York Times three years ago when I wrote about the need for independent, qualified investment boards and governance rules that mimic what Canada’s large public pensions have done.

Importantly, apart from years of mismanagement, the lack of proper governance is a huge factor as to why so many US public pensions are in such dire straits yet very few politicians are discussing this topic openly and in a constructive manner.

And instead of cutting their assumed rate of return, what are US public pensions doing? What else, they’re taking more risks in alternative investments like private equity and hedge funds.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t panned out too well (shocking!). Private equity’s diminishing returns and hard times in Hedge Fundistan are hitting public pensions very hard.

In fact, Charles Stein of Bloomberg reports, Hedge Funds Make Last Place at $61 Billion Massachusetts Pension:

Public pension funds have soured on hedge funds.

The New Jersey Investment Council last week voted to cut its target allocation to hedge fund managers by 52 percent, following similar moves by pensions in California and New York. The institutions are disappointed by the combination of high fees and modest returns the hedge funds have delivered.

The chart below explains some of that unhappiness. In the 10-years ended June 30, the $60.6 billion Massachusetts public fund realized a 3.2 percent average annual return, net of fees, from the hedge funds in which it invests. That was the worst performance of seven asset classes the fund holds, according to data released last week for the Pension Reserves Investment Trust Fund. Private equity, with a 14.4 percent annual gain, was the top performer. The fund overall returned 5.7 percent a year.

It’s not that Massachusetts picked especially bad managers. Its hedge fund returns are roughly in line with industry averages. The fund weighted composite index created by Hedge Fund Research Inc. gained 3.6 percent a year over the same stretch.

Unlike some of its peers, Massachusetts hasn’t reduced its roughly 10 percent allocation to hedge funds. Rather, the pension in 2015 began making investments in the asset class through managed accounts rather than co-mingled accounts. The strategy has resulted in fee discounts of 40 to 50 percent, said Eric Nierenberg, who runs hedge funds for Massachusetts’ pension.

“We are hedge fund skeptics,” he said in an e-mailed statement. The investments made through the new structure have performed “considerably better” than the pension’s legacy holdings, Nierenberg said.

[Note: If you are looking for a managed account platform for hedge funds, talk to the folks at Innocap here in Montreal. Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan uses their platform for its external hedge funds and they know what they’re doing monitoring operational and investment risks on Teachers’ behalf.]

I guarantee you over the next ten years, returns on all these asset classes will be considerably lower, especially private equity. And the most important asset class for all pensions in ten years will likely be infrastructure, but even there, returns will come down as more and more pensions chase stable yield.

The crucial point I want to drive home is this:  Yields are coming down hard across the investment spectrum and all pensions need to adjust to the new reality. Low returns are taking a toll on all pensions, especially US public pensions, but it’s record low and negative yields that are really hurting them. There is no big illusion in the bond market; it’s sending an ominous warning to all investors, prepare for lower returns ahead.

On that note, back to trading my biotech shares because when they start running, they run fast and hard and I need to capitalize on these rallies (click on image):

Sometimes I wonder how are hedge funds commanding 2 & 20 for mediocre returns when I can’t get more large pensions to subscribe or donate to my blog? Oh well, go figure.

U.S. public pension funds take a more aggressive approach to risk than their private — or foreign — peers.

Why? A recent paper examined the regulatory incentives that make U.S. public pensions different than their counterparts in the private sector and in other countries.

From the Economist:

As a recent paper* by Aleksandar Andonov, Rob Bauer and Martijn Cremers shows, that different approach is driven by a regulatory incentive—the rules that determine how pension funds calculate how much they must put aside to meet the cost of paying retirement benefits. Usually, the bulk of a pension fund’s liabilities occur well into the future, as workers retire. So that future cost has to be discounted at some rate to work out how much needs to be put aside today.

Private-sector pension funds in America and elsewhere (and Canadian public funds) regard a pension promise as a kind of debt. So they use corporate-bond yields to discount future liabilities. As bond yields have fallen, so the cost of paying pensions has risen sharply. At the end of 2007, American corporate pension funds had a small surplus; by the end of last year, they had a $404 billion deficit.

American public pension funds are allowed (under rules from the Government Accounting Standards Board) to discount their liabilities by the expected return on their assets. The higher the expected return, the higher the discount rate. That means, in turn, that liabilities are lower and the amount of money which the employer has to put aside today is smaller.

Investing in riskier assets is thus an attractive option for a public-sector employer, which can tap only two sources of funding. It can ask its workers to contribute more, but since they are well-unionised that can lead to friction (after all, higher pension contributions amount to a pay cut). Or the employer can take the money from the public purse—either by cutting other services or by raising taxes. Neither option is politically popular.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, the academics found that American public pension funds choose a riskier approach.

The Illinois Teachers’ Retirement System will consider revising its assumed rate of return downward as part of an upcoming asset allocation study, according to a report by Bloomberg.

Return targets have been in the news lately, as the country’s largest pension funds have announced investment results that underperform assumptions. Bill Gross went on Bloomberg TV last week and called for pension funds to revise return targets downward to 4 percent.

More from Bloomberg:

Illinois’s largest state pension, the $43.8 billion Teachers’ Retirement System, plans to take another look at how much it assumes it will make in the coming year as part of an asset allocation study, said Richard Ingram, executive director. Currently it assumes 7.5 percent, lowered from 8 percent in June 2014.

“Anybody that doesn’t consider revisiting what their assumed rate of return is would be ignoring reality,” Ingram, whose pension is 41.5 percent funded, said in a phone interview. The fund has yet to report its June 30 return.

[…]

Public pensions over 30-year-or-so horizons traditionally could hit targets for returns of 7 percent to 8 percent. But that was in an era before the Fed began holding down interest rates to stimulate the economy and returns in the stock market were not high enough to offset lower fixed-income investments.

Public pensions have been reducing assumed rates of returns, cutting from a median of 8 percent six years ago to 7.5 percent currently, said Keith Brainard, who tracks pensions for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. Now “more than a handful” are below 7 percent, he said.

[…]

Fund managers that have been counting on returns of 7 percent to 8 percent may need to adjust that to around 4 percent, [Bill] Gross, who runs the $1.5 billion Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund, said during an Aug. 5 interview on Bloomberg TV.

Leo Kolivakis is a blogger, trader and independent senior pension and investment analyst. This post was originally published at Pension Pulse.

Rory Carroll and Edward Krudy of Reuters report, Low investment returns taking a toll on U.S. pension funds:

For the second straight year, U.S. public pension funds have fallen well short of their investment targets, swelling their vast unfunded liabilities and placing a greater burden on municipalities to offset the underperformance through increased contributions, estimates show.

The funds, which guarantee retirement benefits for millions of public workers, logged total returns of around 1 percent for the fiscal year ending June 30, while private pension funds earned more than triple that, according to preliminary estimates from consulting firms Wilshire Consulting and Milliman, respectively. Those figures could change as complete data for the period becomes available.

That is a poor showing relative to the 7 percent or more that pension funds seek to earn annually.

The shortfalls could add fuel to the growing debate about the long-term viability of public pensions – which financier Warren Buffett once referred to as a “gigantic financial tapeworm.”

The funds have suffered from years of underfunding exacerbated by states lowering their contributions when the funds were performing well, political resistance to increasing taxpayer contributions, overly optimistic return assumptions and retirees living much longer than they used to.

The 100 largest U.S. public pension funds were just 75 percent funded, according to a 2015 study conducted by Milliman.

The pension funds have been challenged by a multi-year environment of rock-bottom interest rates and mixed stock market performance.

Public pension funds likely did worse than private funds, because the public funds had more money in short-term bonds which, during the fiscal year, underperformed the long-term bonds that private pension funds favor, said Ned McGuire, vice president and member of the Pension Risk Solutions Group at Wilshire Consulting.

Complete data on the public funds isn’t available yet, but early reporters reveal significant underperformance.

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPers) and The California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalStrs), the two largest public pension funds, returned 0.6 percent and 1.4 percent respectively, in the 12 months ending June 30. That is a huge miss compared with the 7.5 percent they need to reach fund their liabilities in the long run.

The New York State Common Retirement Fund, the nation’s third-largest public pension fund, earned just 0.19 percent return on investments, missing its 7 percent target.

The Wisconsin Retirement System, the ninth-largest U.S. public pension fund, had a return of 4.4 percent for its core fund in fiscal 2016, well below its assumed rate of return of 7.2 percent.

In response to missing its target, also known as its “discount rate,” CalPers on Monday said it was reviewing the changing demographics of its members, the economy and expectations for financial markets.

“We will conduct these reviews over the next year to determine if our discount rate should be changed sooner rather than later,” CalPers said in a statement.

Public funds had a return of just over 1 percent, while corporate funds had a return of 1.64 percent, according to a report released on Tuesday by Wilshire Trust Universe Comparison Service, a database service provided by Wilshire Analytics.

At the same time, the top 100 corporate funds returned 3.3 percent, according to Milliman. Becky Sielman, an actuary at Milliman, said the most recent underperformance is harder to handle because it continues a troubling trend for public and private funds.

“It’s easier to absorb one down year followed by a good year,” she said. “Likely what we have here for many plans is two down years in a row.”

There is a lot to cover here and while these reporters do a good job giving us a glimpse of what is going on at US public and private pensions, their analysis is incomplete (it’s not their fault, they report on headline figures). As such, let me dig deeper and take you through the key points below.

The first thing I would say is returns are coming down everywhere. Pension funds, mutual funds, insurance funds, hedge funds, private equity funds, and sovereign wealth funds. Why? Well, when interest rates around the world are at record lows or even negative territory, financial theory tells you that returns across the investment spectrum will necessarily come down.

You can’t manufacture returns that aren’t there; the market gives you what the market gives you and when rates are at record lows, you need to prepare for much lower returns ahead. This holds true for institutional and retail investors.

Interestingly, I posted an article on Twitter and LinkedIn yesterday on how a big Wall Street cash cow is slowly getting cooked. The article explains why many big banks are seeing fees from wealth and investment management divisions fall, putting a crimp in critical revenue at a time when Wall Street is having an increasingly tough time matching their return on equity targets.

In fact, Wall Street is now bracing for its worst two years since the financial crisis. With fees coming down, the big banks’ revenues are getting hit which is why they are in cost-cutting mode, preparing to navigate what will likely be a long deflationary slump. The only good news for Wall Street banks might be the $566 billion business of packaging commercial mortgages into securities (and even that isn’t good news if the CMBS market crashes).

But make no mistake, record low rates are hitting all financial companies (XLF), including life insurers like MetLife (MET) which plunged more than 8.5% Thursday after reporting earnings well below expectations and a $2 billion charge related to its planned spinoff of its US retail business.

On Friday morning, following the “blowout” US jobs report, yields backed up in the US bond market but nothing frightening. At this writing, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note backed up 6 basis points to 1.57% but the bond market isn’t worried of major gains ahead (quite the opposite).

In fact, while everyone is getting excited about the latest jobs report, I retweeted something from @GreekFire23 which should put a damper on expectations of a Fed rate hike any time soon (click on image):

Before you dismiss this, you should all take the time to also read Warren Mosler’s analysis on Trade, Jobs, SNB buying US stocks, German Factory Orders.

My take on the July US jobs report? It definitely surprised everyone to the upside but when you dig a little deeper, the employment picture is hardly as strong as the headline figure suggests.

Either way, I remain long the US dollar for the remainder of the year and as I wrote in my comment on “sell everything except gold” two days ago, I remain long the biotech sector (IBB and XBI) and short gold miners (GDX), oil (USO), metal & mining (XME), energy (XLE) and emerging market (EEM) shares. I also still consider US bonds (TLT) as the ultimate diversifier in a deflationary world.

Enough on my investment thoughts, let’s get back to analyzing the article above. Investment returns are coming down as rates hit record lows but that is only part of the picture.

Importantly, all pensions around the world are getting slammed by lower returns but more worryingly by higher future liabilities due to record low rates.

Remember what I keep harping on, pensions are all about managing assets AND liabilities. When risk assets (stocks, corporate bonds, etc.) get hit, of course pensions get hit but when rates are at record lows and keep declining, this is the real death knell for pensions.

This is why I keep warning you deflation will decimate all pensions. Why? Because deflation will hit assets and more importantly, liabilities very hard as it means ultra low and possibly negative rates are here to stay. [For all you finance geeks, the key thing to remember is the duration of pension liabilities is much bigger than the duration of pension assets so a drop in rates, especially from historic low levels, will disproportionately and negatively impact pension deficits as liabilities soar.]

This is the reason why UK pensions just got hammered following the Bank of England’s decision to cut rates. Lower rates mean pensions have to take more risk to meet their actuarial return target in order to make sure they have enough money to cover future liabilities.

But lower rates also mean public and private pensions need to get real about their investment assumptions going forward. When I went over whether CalPERS smeared lipstick on a pig, I didn’t blast them for their paltry returns but I did question why they’re still holding on to a ridiculously high 7.5% annualized investment projection to discount future liabilities. And CalPERS isn’t alone, most US public pensions are delusional when it comes to their investment projections. There’s definitely a big disconnect in the pension industry.

By contrast, US corporate plans use corporate bond yields to discount their future liabilities and most of them practice much tighter asset-liability matching than public pensions. This effectively means they carry more US bonds in their asset mix as they derisk their portfolios which explains why the top 100 corporate funds returned 3.3% as of the fiscal year ending in June when public pensions returned only 1% during the same time (domestic bonds outperformed global equities during this period).

But if you go look at the latest report on Milliman’s Pension Funding Index, you will see despite higher returns, corporate plans aren’t in much better shape when it comes to their funded status:

The funded status of the 100 largest corporate defined benefit pension plans dropped by $46 billion during June as measured by the Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI). The deficit rose to $447 billion at the end of June, primarily due to a decrease in the benchmark corporate bond interest rates used to value pension liabilities. As of June 30, the funded ratio decreased to 75.7%, down from 77.5% at the end of May.

The decision of the U.K. to separate themselves from the other 27 European Union countries will cause the most damage (compared to expectations) to the balance sheet of employers with a fiscal year that ends on June 30, 2016, and collateral damage to pension cost for fiscal years starting on July 1, 2016. The impact on pension cost could vary depending on the selection of a mark-to-market methodology or smoothing of gains and losses.

The projected benefit obligation (PBO), or pension liabilities, increased to $1.839 trillion at the end of June from $1.785 trillion at the end of May. The change resulted from a decrease of 23 basis points in the monthly discount rate to 3.45% for June, from 3.68% for May. The discount rate at the end of June is the lowest it has been in 2016 and is the second lowest in the 16-year history of the Milliman 100 PFI. Only the January 2015 discount rate of 3.41% was lower. We note that the funded status deficit in January 2015 was $427 billion. The highest funded status deficit in dollars was $480 billion in October 2012.

And again, US corporate plans use corporate bond yields to discount their future liabilities. If US public pensions adopted this approach, most of them would be insolvent. 

I leave you with something I wrote in my last comment on Chicago’s pension woes:

There’s an even bigger problem which I want policymakers to wrap their heads around: chronic public pension deficits are deflationary.

Let me repeat that: Chronic and out of control public pension deficits are DEFLATIONARY. Why? Because it forces governments to introduce more property taxes or utility rate increases (another tax) to address them, leaving less money in the hands of consumers to spend on goods and services.

The other problem with raising taxes and utility bills is they are regressive, hurting the poor and working poor a lot more than Chicago’s ultra rich.

Now I’m going to have some idiotic hedge fund manager tell me “The answer is to cut defined-benefit pensions and replace them with cheaper defined-contribution plans.” NO!!! That is a dumb solution because the brutal truth on DC plans is they are failing millions of Americans, exposing them to pension poverty which is even MORE DEFLATIONARY!!

I want all of you to pay attention to what is going on in Chicago because it’s a cancer which will spread throughout parts the United States where chronic pension deficits are threatening municipalities, cities and states. And this slow motion train wreck will have drastic economic consequences for the entire country.

I cannot over-emphasize how important it is to get pension policy right. Good pension policy based on facts, not myths, is good economic policy for the very long run.

The problem with US public pensions isn’t their nature (we under-appreciate the benefits of DB plans), it’s the ridiculous investment assumptions, poor governance and lack of risk-sharing that underlie them.

The deadline is closely approaching for the New Jersey Senate to approve a ballot measure that would ask voters whether the state’s constitution should be amended to require full pension contributions be made on a quarterly basis.

The deadline is Monday, and even the bill’s sponsor – top Democrat Steve Sweeney – says the bill might not get to a vote.

From Bloomberg:

Lawmakers face a Monday deadline to authorize a ballot measure, which if approved by voters in November would require the state to pay what it owes to pension plans that have less than half of what’s needed to cover obligations. Senate President Steve Sweeney, a Democrat and union official who sponsored the bill, said Thursday he won’t put it up for a vote until he wins an agreement on transportation funding. He accused two unions of trying to illegally coerce the vote.

The constitutional amendment would put the state on track to make full actuarially required contributions by 2022 and cut the unfunded liability by $4.9 billion over three decades. The quarterly payments would strain the state’s cash flow, Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global Ratings said. Republican Governor Chris Christie, whose signature isn’t required, has called the measure a “road to ruin” that would mandate massive tax increases.

“Getting the funding up is going to be painful,” said Tamara Lowin, director of research at Rye Brook, New York-based Belle Haven Investments, which oversees $5.3 billion of municipal debt. “Making it a forced, fixed expense and making it senior to appropriation debt is a credit weakness, despite the fact that it will eventually bring the state to fiscal stability.”

Leo Kolivakis is a blogger, trader and independent senior pension and investment analyst. This post was originally published at Pension Pulse.

Reuters reports, Chicago mayor’s big plan to save its pension fund:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel unveiled a plan on Wednesday that he called “an honest approach” to save the city’s biggest retirement system from insolvency with a water and sewer tax to be phased in over five years starting in 2017.

The municipal retirement system, which covers about 71,000 current and former city workers, is projected to run out of money within 10 years as it sinks under an unfunded liability of $18.6 billion.

The new tax would generate $56 million in its first year and increase to $239 million annually by 2020, the mayor’s office said.

“Today, one of the big question marks that hung around the city because of past decisions — or past decisions that were not made — we have addressed,” Emanuel told an investor conference in Chicago.

“Every one of the city’s pensions has a dedicated revenue stream … to keep the promise not only to the employees, but to the city’s future and do it in a way that does not undermine the economic well-being of the city,” he said.

The plan would require approval by Chicago’s city council, which Emanuel said he intends to seek in September. Chicago then needs the Illinois legislature to approve a five-year phase-in of the city’s contribution to the pension system to attain a 90 percent funding level by 2057.

The tax comes on top of an increase in water and sewer rates between 2012 and 2015 to generate money to repair and replace aging infrastructure. Revenue rose from $644.1 million in 2011 to $1.125 billion in 2015.

The rescue plan for the municipal system follows previous action by the city to boost funding for police and fire pensions through a phased-in $543 million property tax increase, and its laborers’ system through a hike in a telephone surcharge.

Chicago’s big pension burden was a driving factor in the downgrade of the city’s credit rating last year to the “junk” level of ‘Ba1′ by Moody’s Investors Service. Standard & Poor’s warned in June it may cut the city’s ‘BBB-plus’ rating in the absence of a comprehensive pension fix.

The task of fixing the city’s pensions became harder after the Illinois Supreme Court in March threw out a 2014 state law that reduced benefits and increased city and worker contributions to the municipal and laborers’ funds.

Hal Dardick, Bill Ruthhart, and John Byrne of the Chicago Tribune also report, Emanuel proposes water, sewer tax to shore up ailing pension fund:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday called for a new tax on city water and sewer bills to stabilize the city’s largest pension fund, a move he portrayed as his latest tough decision to secure Chicago’s financial future.

Emanuel’s plan, which would increase the average water and sewer bill by 30 percent over the next four years, was quickly met with resistance from some aldermen who argued the city would be better off adding business taxes or even raising property taxes again to come up with the hundreds of millions of dollars a year needed to keep the city’s municipal workers’ pension fund from going bust.

Still, Emanuel projected confidence his plan ultimately would win approval in the City Council, which rarely rebuffs the mayor’s proposals and has yet to independently provide its own solution to solidify any of the city’s four major pension systems that have been woefully underfunded for more than a decade.

In a speech to about 200 financial investors Wednesday, Emanuel unveiled his water and sewer tax plan while making the case to Wall Street that his administration has done the hard work to brighten Chicago’s dark financial picture.

For the first time since he took office in 2011, Emanuel said, there are concrete plans to properly fund the retirements of the city’s police officers, firefighters, laborers and municipal workers. He told the Chicago Investors Conference that the city’s budget deficit is at a 10-year low. And he sought to make the case it all had been done without disturbing a business climate that has appealed to major corporations and startups.

“The city of Chicago met our challenges head on, dealt with them systematically, did it in a way that’s complementary to our overall economic strategy to contribute to the well-being and the overall growth strategy that is laid out for the city of Chicago,” Emanuel said from the Symphony Center’s ornate stage. “We addressed the past, but did it in a way that did not shortchange the future of the city of Chicago.”

But even as the mayor seemingly claimed victory on fixing Chicago’s financial woes, challenges remain.

Debt rating agencies have repeatedly lowered the city’s credit rating in recent years, with one placing it at junk status. The picture at Chicago Public Schools is even worse, with all three major rating agencies terming the district’s bonds junk while the Emanuel-appointed Board of Education plans to raise property taxes by $250 million next year to help pay for teacher pensions.

And several aldermen expressed opposition to Emanuel’s new utility tax, including Ald. Roderick Sawyer, chairman of the City Council’s Black Caucus. Sawyer, 6th, predicted Emanuel would have a hard time building enough council support for the water and sewer tax after asking aldermen to pass a record property tax increase to fund police and fire pensions last year.

“We understand that the can had been kicked down for many, many years, and now it’s incumbent upon us to find solutions,” Sawyer said. “This is a tough one, though. This is an additional tax that ramps up to many, many dollars a month.”

‘Pitchforks and torches’

Under Emanuel’s proposal, the new utility tax would be phased in over the next four years, with the average homeowner’s water and sewer bills increasing by $53 next year, or $8.86 on the bills sent out every two months. By the end of the four-year phase-in, that same homeowner would pay an additional $226 per year in water and sewer taxes, or $37.65 on each bill.

After four years, the proposal would amount to a 30 percent tax on water and sewer bills, or $2.51 for every 1,000 gallons of water used, the Emanuel administration said. The average annual water and sewer bill, based on 90,000 gallons of water, currently is about $684. The bills also would rise each year at the rate of inflation.

Once fully phased in, the new tax would produce an estimated $239 million a year to help reduce the $18.6 billion the city owes the municipal workers’ fund, which represents nearly all city workers except police officers, firefighters or employees who do manual labor.

Emanuel’s goal is to restore the municipal workers’ account to 90 percent funding over the next 40 years. The mayor and aldermen already have raised taxes to do the same for the city’s three other major pension funds for police, firefighters and laborers. Emanuel said he will seek a City Council vote on the water and sewer tax in September.

“I don’t take this lightly, but we are fixing the problem that has penalized the city’s potential to grow economically, and there’s a finality to it,” Emanuel said in an interview late Wednesday. “All four pensions have a revenue source.”

The taxes will be tacked on to bills that went up when, shortly after taking office in 2011, Emanuel set in motion a series of water and sewer fee increases that more than doubled those bills to upgrade water and sewer systems.

Ald. Ameya Pawar, 47th, called the new tax “the right thing to do,” noting that the alternative of not properly funding the pensions would be “catastrophic.”

But with homeowners already starting to feel the hit from last year’s property tax increase combined with a new round of assessments, Pawar acknowledged aldermen can expect complaints from constituents.

“People will be upset,” said Pawar, an Emanuel ally. “They’ve seen their water rates go up.”

Far Northwest Side Ald. Anthony Napolitano, 41st, said it’s going to be difficult for him to face constituents reeling from the huge property tax increases in bills they just received and tell them to brace themselves for another hit.

“Pitchforks and torches, probably,” he said when asked how residents would react. “It’s not going to be good. Because my reaction now, in my neighborhood, after these (property) tax bills came out is, ‘We’re leaving. We’re out.’

“I get that we’re in some tough times. And people get that we have to make some concessions, that we’re going to pay more in tax dollars. People get that,” Napolitano said. “But when it happens year after year after year, people are saying ‘Why am I staying here?'”

Northwest Side Ald. Milagros “Milly” Santiago, 31st, said the mayor should consider other revenue ideas brought forward in the past year by the council’s Progressive Caucus. Those have included a tax on financial transactions, a commuter tax, a graduated income tax, a “stormwater stress” tax on businesses with large parking lots and a move to return more money to the general fund from special taxing districts throughout the city.

“We’re here evaluating the whole thing and seeing if it’s legitimate for us to vote next month on this idea,” Santiago said as she left a briefing on the mayor’s plan at City Hall. “I don’t think it’s a good idea. We’re going to have to have a closer look at it and see if there’s other ways to do it. But it’s just not good news.”

Sawyer also advocated for Emanuel to consider some of the Progressive Caucus’ tax ideas, but many are long shots or would take time and approval elsewhere.

A financial transaction tax would require state and federal approval. A graduated income tax would require approval from a gridlocked Springfield. A commuter tax, which amounts to an income tax on suburban residents working in the city, would require state approval while critics argue it could cause a flight of businesses from the city or prevent new ones from moving in.

Only the stormwater tax on businesses and shifting more money from special taxing districts are within the City Council’s power alone.

“We did get a commitment that they’re going to look at all options this year. We’re going to hold them to that,” Sawyer said.

Aldermen did come up with additional ideas. Napolitano suggested allowing video gaming, which long has been banned in the city. Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th, called for charging tolls on expressways at the Chicago border.

Ald. Howard Brookins, 21st, urged a more traditional solution: another property tax increase. Brookins argued raising property taxes is more fair to lower-income residents and can be written off on federal tax returns. But he acknowledged another increase might not have enough support.

“This (the water and sewer tax), everyone is going to pay it equally; whether you live in a million-dollar home or a $50,000 home, we all have to use water, and it disproportionately affects the people of my community,” Brookins said. “We have to think long term and get away from the stereotypes about property taxes and start explaining to people why a property tax is fairer than the other taxes and fees that they are going to ultimately end up paying.”

Ald. Joe Moore, an Emanuel ally, said he’d be willing to entertain Brookins’ push for another property tax increase, but said “it’s kind of difficult to go to that well again” so soon. The water and sewer tax, he said, “might be the best of a bad set of options. … We have to do something.”

‘Once and for all’

While Emanuel’s utility tax would not require approval from state lawmakers, proposed changes he laid out Wednesday in how municipal workers contribute to their retirements would.

The mayor plans to ask the General Assembly and Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner to sign off on altering the municipal fund pension system to save about $2 billion over the next 40 years. The legislative changes to the pension fund would require newly hired employees, starting next year, to increase their retirement account contributions to 11.5 percent of their salary from 8.5 percent.

Employees who were hired from 2011 to 2016 and already receive lower retirement benefits would have the option of increasing their contributions to 11.5 percent. In exchange, they would be eligible to retire at age 65 instead of 67.

But employees hired before 2011 would see no changes, after the Illinois Supreme Court struck down Emanuel’s earlier attempt to reduce their benefits, citing a constitutional clause that states their benefits shall not be diminished or impaired. “You can’t touch existing employees, that’s walled off,” Emanuel told investors.

Emanuel and affected unions have an “agreement in principle” on identical changes to the much smaller city laborers fund, with additional city contributions coming from a $1.90-per-month-increase on landline and cellphones billed to city addresses that was approved by the City Council two years ago.

Last year, the mayor pushed through a $543 million property tax increase, phased in over four years, to come up with enough funding for police and fire pensions. No changes were made to the retirement age or contribution amounts for those two unions.

Emanuel stressed in his speech to investors that Chicago’s overall fiscal health is on the rebound.

“Chicago was in a pension penalty box. It had not addressed its problems,” Emanuel said. “Denial is not a long-term strategy, and for too long Chicago was operating where denial was the long-term strategy.”

Richard Ciccarone, president and CEO of the municipal bond analysis firm Merritt Research Services, attended the conference and said he thought the crowd was generally impressed with the mayor’s argument.

“He reinforced his strategy, which he said has been his since Day One, and that is that you can’t solve the fiscal problems without having economic growth. I think he made his case,” Ciccarone said. “I got the impression that they made headway with a lot of people here.”

In a question-and-answer session with the investors after Emanuel’s speech, the mayor was asked if he had enough votes from aldermen to pass the plan. “Yes,” Emanuel replied without hesitation.

The mayor continued to project that certainty in his interview with the Tribune, while also lavishing praise on the aldermen he must win over.

“The lion’s share of the aldermen did not create the problem, but the lion’s share of the aldermen in there have been part of the solution. I am confident they will take the necessary steps,” Emanuel said.

“They have never wavered, their knees have never buckled and they will answer the call of history to solve the problem once and for all.”

Back in May, I covered Chicago’s pension patch job and stated this:

When Greece was going through its crisis last year, my uncle from Crete would call me and blurt “it’s worse than Chicago here!”, referring to the old Al Capone days when Chicago was the Wild West. Little did he know that in many ways, Chicago is much worse than Greece because Greeks had no choice but to swallow their bitter medicine (and they’re still swallowing it).

In Chicago, powerful public unions are going head to head with a powerful and unpopular mayor who got rebuffed by Illinois’s Supreme Court when he tried cutting pension benefits. Now, they are tinkering around the edges, increasing the contribution rate for new employees of the city’s smallest pension, which is not going to make a significant impact on what is truly ailing Chicago and Illinois’s public pensions.

All these measures are like putting a band-aid over a metastasized tumor. Creditors know exactly what I’m talking about which is why I’ll be shocked if they ease up on the city’s credit rating.

Importantly, when a public pension is 42% or 32% funded, it’s effectively broke and nothing they do can fix the problem unless they increase contributions and cut benefits for everyone, top up these pensions and introduce real governance and a risk-sharing model.

When people ask me what’s the number one problem with Chicago’s public pensions, I tell them straight out: “Governance, Governance and Governance”. This city has a long history of corrupt public union leaders and equally corrupt politicians who kept masking the pension crisis for as long as possible. And Chicago isn’t alone; there are plenty of other American cities in dire straits when it comes to public finances and public pensions.

But nobody dares discuss these problems in an open and honest way. Unions point the finger at politicians and politicians point the finger at unions and US taxpayers end up footing the public pension bill.

This is why when I read stupid articles in Canadian newspapers questioning the compensation and performance at Canada’s large public pensions, I ignore them because these foolish journalists haven’t done their research to understand why what we have here is infinitely better than what they have in the United States and elsewhere.

Why are we paying Canadian public pension fund managers big bucks? Because we got the governance right, paying public pension managers properly to bring assets internally, diversifying across public and private assets all around the world and only paying external funds when it can’t be replicated internally. This lowers the costs and improves the performance of our public pensions which is why none of Canada’s Top Ten pensions are chronically underfunded (a few are even over-funded and super-funded).

What else? Canada’s best public pensions — Ontario Teachers, HOOPP and even smaller ones like CAAT and OPTrust — have implemented a risk-sharing model that ensures pension contributors, beneficiaries and governments share the risk of the plan so as not to impose any additional tax burden on Canadian taxpayers if these plans ever become underfunded. This level of governance and risk-sharing simply doesn’t exist at any US public pension which is why many of them are chronically underfunded or on the verge of becoming chronically underfunded.

I have not changed my mind on Chicago’s pension patch job. It’s going from bad to worse and just like Greece, they’re implementing dumb taxes to try to shore up insolvent public pensions instead of addressing serious governance and structural flaws of these pensions.

But unlike Greece, Chicago and Illinois are part of the United States of America, the richest, most powerful country in the world, so they can continue kicking the can down the road, for now. Still, what message is Chicago sending to its own residents and to potential workers looking to move there?

I’ll tell you the message: apart from one of the worst crime rates in the nation, get ready for more property taxes and hikes in utility rates to conquer a public pension beast which has spiraled out of control.

And the sad reality is while these taxes might help at the margin, they’re not going to make a big difference unless they are accompanied by a change in governance, higher contributions and a cut in benefits (get rid of inflation protection for a decade!).

There’s an even bigger problem which I want policymakers to wrap their heads around: chronic public pension deficits are deflationary.

Let me repeat that: Chronic and out of control public pension deficits are DEFLATIONARY. Why? Because it forces governments to introduce more property taxes or utility rate increases (another tax) to address them, leaving less money in the hands of consumers to spend on goods and services.

The other problem with raising taxes and utility bills is they are regressive, hurting the poor and working poor a lot more than Chicago’s ultra rich.

Now I’m going to have some idiotic hedge fund manager tell me “The answer is to cut defined-benefit pensions and replace them with cheaper defined-contribution plans.” NO!!! That is a dumb solution because the brutal truth on DC plans is they are failing millions of Americans, exposing them to pension poverty which is even MORE DEFLATIONARY!!

I want all of you to pay attention to what is going on in Chicago because it’s a cancer which will spread throughout parts the United States where chronic pension deficits are threatening municipalities, cities and states. And this slow motion train wreck will have drastic economic consequences for the entire country.

On a personal note, it’s sad to see what is happening to this great American city. My father did his psychiatry residency in Chicago after leaving Greece over fifty years ago. His uncle had left Greece long before him and owned a great restaurant in Chicago for many years. He even had Al Capone as a silent partner (not by choice) and the restaurant was thriving during the city’s heydays (Capone would send two guys to pick up his share of the revenues every week and once in a while the guys would be replaced because they stole money and were probably left sleeping with the fish. Capone never bothered my great uncle).

Anyways, Chicago’s glory days are long gone. This city is headed the way of Detroit (some think it’s already there and even a lot worse). No matter what Mayor Rahm Emanuel does, there is no saving Chicago from its pension hellhole.

Though sources confirmed Rahm Emanuel’s proposal earlier this week, the Chicago mayor on Wednesday officially unveiled his proposal to raise utility taxes to generate revenue for pension contributions to the city’s largest funds.

The tax will hit water and sewer bills, and is expected to raise in the neighborhood of $230 million annually.

From NBC Chicago:

In a speech to investors Wednesday, Emanuel suggested applying a tax on the city water and sewer bills under a plan that would increase the utilities by close to 30 percent over the course of four years.

By the end of the four-year phase, the average homeowner would pay an additional $226 per year, the Tribune reports, or close to $38 on each bill.

Emanuel believes the new tax will help stabilize the city’s pension fund. With the new revenue source, the city could raise close to $239 million a year to help reduce the multi-billion dollar municipal workers fund that the city of Chicago owes.

The mayor says he will seek a City Council vote on the water and sewer tax in September.