Moody’s Weighs In On Kansas Bond Plan; Gov. Officials Defend Plan

480px-Seal_of_Kansas.svg

Kansas on Wednesday began the process of issuing $1 billion in pension bonds; in a corresponding report, rating agency Moody’s this week weighed in on the plan – and the agency didn’t like what it saw.

The gist of the Moody’s report: the bonds will add long-term risk to the state’s pension funding but will do little to improve its funding problems. The state making its full annual contributions would be a sounder strategy.

Reuters summarized the report:

The state is taking on more long-term risk to achieve near-term budgetary relief, according to the ratings agency. With the scheduled bond sale, the state reduced its pension contributions for the next few years, Moody’s said.

The $1 billion increase from the sale has only a modest impact on pension funding levels, the rating agency said. Kansas projects that the bond sale will improve the funded ratio for pensions to 73 percent in 2020 from 59 percent at the end of 2014.

“Although the (pension obligation bonds) fit into a plan to achieve full pension funding by 2033, adding $1 billion of debt to do it represents a riskier strategy than the simpler alternative of making larger annual pension contributions,” Moody’s said.

Kansas officials took the opportunity to defend the bond issuance, the success of which relies on investment returns outpacing the interest paid on the bonds.

From the Kansas City Star:

State officials expect the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System to earn more from investing the funds raised from the bonds than they will pay investors over the 30-year life of the debt, making it easier to close a long-term funding gap facing the system. Supporters compare the move to paying off high-interest credit card debt with a lower-interest loan.

“This isn’t a crap shoot on the part of the state,” said Kansas Senate pensions committee Chairman Jeff King, an Independence Republican.

[…]

Kansas officials argued that issuing the bonds immediately boosts the pension system’s funding ratio and makes it easier to close the long-term gap.

“It is unfortunate that previous administrations chose to underfund KPERS,” Brownback budget director Shawn Sullivan said in an emailed statement.

The interest rate on the bonds is 4.68 percent, according to the Star. That means for the state to break even, the ensuing pension investment will need to earn 4.68 percent over the life of the bonds.

 

Photo credit: “Seal of Kansas” by [[User:Sagredo|<b><font color =”#009933″>Sagredo</font></b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sagredo|<font color =”#8FD35D”>&#8857;&#9791;&#9792;&#9793;&#9794;&#9795;&#9796;</font>]]</sup> – http://www.governor.ks.gov/Facts/kansasseal.htm. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_Kansas.svg#mediaviewer/File:Seal_of_Kansas.svg

Full Steam Ahead on the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan?

496px-Canada_blank_map.svg

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

Ashley Csanady of the National Post reports, Ontario to start implementing new pension plan in 2017, with full roll-out expected by 2020:

Ontario’s pension plan will come in waves, but all employees in the province will be covered by a workplace plan or the new provincial design by 2020, Premier Kathleen Wynne said Tuesday.

The Ontario Retirement Pension Plan will start requiring contributions from the largest employers, those with more than 500 workers, in 2017. However, employers who already offer mandatory, registered pension coverage will be exempt if their plan is deemed comparable to the ORPP by the province. Companies whose pension plans are currently optional for employees or who don’t meet that threshold will have until 2020 to bring their plans up to snuff.

After the announcement, she admitted that the Liberals have no idea how much it will cost to run the new pension plan.

“We don’t know what those costs will be yet,” she said.

The pension plan was a major plank of the Liberals 2014 budget and the subsequent election campaign. Though some details were announced at the time, Tuesday marked the first time the province clarified who the ORPP would capture and how it plans to phase in the plan.

In 2022, people who are 65 or older can start drawing on the ORPP, though how much they will be eligible for is not yet known. Workers, whether part-time or full-time, will start contributing at age 18 and can do so until they turn 70. The Canada Pension Plan, upon which the ORPP is modelled, exempts workers who make less than $3,500 a year, but the province is still consulting on that minimum threshold.

The goal is to bridge the gap for the two thirds of Ontarians without a workplace pension plan and the half of workers who contribute to neither a workplace plan nor an RRSP. The hope is 3.5 million Ontarians will be part of the plan by 2020 and all workers will be enrolled either in the provincial option or a workplace pension.

The plan will collect 1.9 per cent of a workers’ income up to $90,000 from both employers and employees to a total of 3.8 per cent, or a combined total of $3,420 a year. That means those making $90,000 a year would pay just under $33 a week into the ORPP if they don’t have a comparable workplace plan and their employers would match that. That province believes that will result in over $12,800 a year in retirement income once the plan is fully implemented and if they pay into the ORPP for 40 years.

People making $45,000 a year, would pay just over $16 a week into the plan, which would also be matched by employers for an annual combined contribution of $1,710. Estimates suggest they will receive over $6,400 a year in retirement income once the plan is fully implemented and if they pay into the ORPP for 40 years.

The contributions will likely be slightly lower once an exemption for the first few thousand dollars of income earned is accounted for, as is the case with the Canada Pension Plan

Administration costs for the plan will likely run between $130 a person and $200 a person, officials said.

Employers with mandatory defined benefit plans — plans that offer a set amount of retirement income that remains constant over employees’ lifetimes — that save at least 0.5 per cent will be exempt. Employers with defined contribution plans — plans that don’t offer a set amount of income but are instead open to the fluctuations of the market — must sock away at least 8 per cent of employees’ income. All employees in a company must be enrolled for it to be exempt. Employers with optional plans will have until 2020 to make them mandatory or they will have to join the ORPP.

The costs to employers who must enroll will be 1.9 per cent of their total payroll.

Richard J. Brennan of the Toronto Star reports, Wynne calls proposed Ontario pension plan ‘right thing to do’:

Premier Kathleen Wynne is standing firm on bringing in a made-in-Ontario pension in the face of widespread criticism.

After details for the proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan ‎(ORPP) were revealed Tuesday, Wynne said something has to be done for the two-thirds of workers in the province who don’t have a workplace pension.

“I believe it is the right thing to do,” Wynne said of the plan, noting that two our of three Ontario workers have no pension plan other than the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), which she says is just not enough at an average of $6,900 a year.

Her biggest critic, federal Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, who was campaigning in the GTA, said the proposed pension plan was a job-killing tax.

“That’s a huge tax hike. It’s not a good idea. It’s a bad thing for the middle class and it’s obviously a bad thing as well for jobs. And it’s a bad thing for our economy,” said Harper in Markham.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, representing small- and medium-sized business, is also fiercely critical of the Ontario pension plan, predicting it will result in job loss.

Wynne acknowledged the missing piece remains how much it could cost to create the ORPP.

But she said she is determined to ignore the critics and push ahead on the plan that would see all Ontario employees belong to a workplace pension plan of one kind or another in five years.

Companies that already have comparable workplace pension plans will be exempt from the ORPP, which is to be phased in by 2020. Like the Canada Pension P‎lan, the ORPP would be equally funded by both employers and employee — 1.9 per cent from each.

ORPP details show that a person making $45,000 a year will pay $2.16 a day. It will go up to $4.50 a day for someone making the maximum of $90,000 annually.

The plan, according to a Liberal government release, will be fully implemented by 2020 and affect about 3.5 million in Ontario, with benefits starting to be paid out two years later. Participants must be 65 or older before they can collect.

According to the ORPP details, a person making $45,000 a year for 40 years will receive $6,410 a year for life, compared to $12,815‎ a year for life for the top $90,000 earners — equal to about a 15 per cent return after four decades.

If approved, the ORPP would begin in 2017 with large-size employers — 500 or more employees — without registered workplace pension plans. Medium-size employers with 50 to 499 employees without registered workplace pension plans would start to contribute in 2018. The plan will not include small-size employers until 2019.

Harper has refused to increase CPP benefits as requested by several provincial leaders; he has also has decided the federal government will not administer the plan for Ontario.

He said he was “delighted” his government’s refusal to co-operate with the plan is making it harder for the Ontario government to implement the program.

Wynne said Harper, whose federal pension would be about $140,000 a year, has decided there isn’t a need across Canada for supplementary provincial pension plans “and is now standing in the way of trying to help us implement this plan.”

Federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has said if his party were to form a government it will look at expanding the CPP, along the lines of what Wynne is suggesting.

Harper was not alone in his condemnation of the ORPP, which would be phased in over the next five years for firms that don’t have a pension plan at all, or one that is not comparable to the ORPP. Business leaders say ‎many companies simply can’t afford it and that if it is forced on them it could mean layoffs.

“I have to make it clear that most small- and medium-size businesses don’t have a pension plan right now, not because they don’t want to have one, it’s because they can’t afford it. And I think that is a point this government has missed since the very beginning of this conversation,” said Plamen Petkov, CFIB’s Ontario vice-president.

Petkov said employers will be left with having to leave the province altogether or reduce staff in order to cover their pension contributions.

Progressive Conservative MPP Julia Munro said people are going to lose their jobs because of this pension plan.

“Small businesses in particular will be forced to reduce their staff to compensate for the mandatory contribution of nearly 4 per cent (in total) from each employer and employee,” Munro said, who further criticized the government for not producing a cost/benefit analysis.

Allan O’Dette, president and CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, said the OCC remains concerned the ORPP in its current form “will have a negative impact on business competitiveness.”

Sid Ryan, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, said the fact the ORPP is not going to be universal — unlike the CPP — will cause no end of problems, including driving up the cost of administration.

“The magic of the CPP is that it is universal — all workers are covered — and as a result of that you have low administration costs. What was announced today is a mish-mash of that,” he told reporters.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Labour Congress is calling for a doubling of the CPP benefits.

By the numbers

— With files from Bruce Campion-Smith

For the 3.5 million workers expected to participate in the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan:

  • An employee making $45,000 a year will contribute $2.16 a day or $788.40 a year.
  • An employee paid $70,000 a year will contribute $3.46 a day or $1,262.90 a year.
  • An employee earning the maximum of 90,000 annually will shell out $4.50 a day or $1,642.50 annually.

Payouts after 40 years:

  • An employee making $45,000 a year would receive $6,410 a year for life.
  • An employee with a salary of $70,000 a year would receive $9,970 a year for life.
  • An employee making $90,000 a year would receive $12,815‎ a year for life.

When fully implemented the ORPP would bring in about $3.5 billion annually.

Lastly, Robyn Urback of the National Post reports, Kathleen Wynne doubles down on pension plan that will cost TBD and solve (insert):

On Tuesday morning, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne stood in front of a group of reporters as they asked her questions about the new provincial pension plan, to be rolled out in phases between 2017 and 2020. The premier had just delivered a near 20-minute monologue about the accolades of the new program, despite the fact that many of the specifics will surely depend on who forms the new federal government after the October election. Indeed, it probably would have made more sense to give an update in the fall, but why put off until tomorrow when you can remind Ontarians that Stephen Harper is “standing in the way” of comfortable retirement today?

Tuesday marked the first time Wynne clarified some of the exemption rules of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (ORPP), which the Liberals campaigned on during last year’s provincial election. As of 2017, companies with more than 500 employees will be required to start contributing to the plan, unless they already offer comparable mandatory defined benefit or contribution pension plans. Those without will be required to contribute 1.9 per cent of each employee’s salary up to $90,000, which combined with an equal contribution from employees will mean a total of 3.8 per cent. According to briefing documents, those earning $45,000 would contribute $2.16 per day to the plan, whereas an employee earning the maximum amount — $90,000 —would contribute $4.50 per day. By the time the program is fully implemented to include all employers by 2020, the government expects 3.5 million Ontarians will be covered by the ORRP.

Naturally, the briefing left some questions unanswered: How will the ORPP incorporate self-employed Ontarians? Would the Ontario government scrap the program if the federal government expands CPP? And what will be the administrative costs of rolling out the program?

The answer, in each case, was essentially a shrug: “We are working to make this a low-cost plan,” the premier said, conceding that at this point she can’t speak to numbers. That is, of course, quite rich from a government lecturing Ontarians about improperly managing their finances. Pressed on how the plan might affect employees who might not be able to afford setting aside an extra 1.9 per cent, Minister of Finance Charles Sousa cited the billions in unused RRSP contributions as evidence that people can save for retirement, but are choosing not to.

In fact, there is ample evidence that Ontarians are much better prepared for retirement than the government would have us believe, between CPP, Old Age Security, RRSPs, savings and private equity. Indeed, a June report from the C.D. Howe Institute suggested that most of us can retire comfortably on less than the traditional 70 per cent of pre-retirement income target, considering that many of our daily budget strains (childcare, mortgage payments, etc). settle by the time we reach retirement age.

What’s more, another recent study from the Fraser Institute found that forced government savings plans might very well offset Canadian households’ private savings after looking at CPP investment in the 1990s and finding that with every percentage point increase in CPP contributions, private savings dropped by 0.895 percentage points. This suggests that Ontario’s forced savings plan won’t actually ensure that Ontarians save more, but simply that they save differently. It also just so happens to ensure that the $3-billion or so to be collected annually by the time the ORPP is fully implemented in 2020 will kept in the hands of the government, allowing for “new pools of capital for Ontario-based project such as building roads, bridges and new transit,” as stated in last year’s budget. Oh yes, and for your retirement.

In sum, the Ontario government is excitedly moving forward on a plan that will cost X, to solve Y, which will cost you 1.9 per cent of your annual income. The government may or may not abandon the plan if the federal government expands CPP, but hey, we might be able to finance new roads! Ontarians cannot afford to retire, but they can afford another forced savings plan. Any questions?

Yes, I have a question. When did the National Post become a preeminent authority on good pension policy? Citing research from right-wing think tanks like the Fraser Institute and the C.D. Howe Institute which are funded by Canada’s powerful financial services industry isn’t exactly what I call objective reporting. It’s sloppy and heavily biased reporting.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the affluent, pro-Conservative readers of Ontario who read the National Post as if it were the bible of reporting lap this stuff up. Unfortunately, it’s inaccurate at best, complete scaremongering rubbish at worst.

This is all part of a series of dumb attacks on the ORPP which fail to delve deeply into why absent an enhanced CPP initiative, which will never happen under Harper’s watch, the ORPP makes good sense from a pension and economic policy perspective:

[…] there is no denying that Ontario has the best pension plans in the world. Go read my comment on Ontario Teachers’ 2014 results as well as that on the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan’s 2014 results. There are a lot of talented individuals working there that really know their stuff and you have to pay up for this talent. The same goes for CPPIB, OMERS, and the rest of the big pensions in Canada. If you don’t get the compensation right, you’re basically condemning these public pensions to mediocrity.

What else does the National Post comment miss? It completely ignores the benefits of Canada’s top ten to the overall economy but more importantly, it completely ignores a study on the benefits of DB plans and conveniently ignores the brutal truth on DC plans.

But the thing that really pisses me off from this National Post editorial is that it fails to understand costs at the CPPIB and put them in proper context relative to other global pensions and sovereign wealth funds with operations around the world and relative to the mutual fund industry which keeps raping Canadians on fees for lousy performance. It also raises dubious and laughable points on the Caisse and QPP with no proper assessment of the success of the Quebec portfolio or why our large public pensions can play an important role in developing Canada’s infrastructure.

But the National Post is a rag of a national newspaper and I would expect no less than this terrible hatchet job from its editors. The only reason I read it is to see what the dimwits running our federal government are thinking. And from my vantage, there isn’t much thinking going on there, just more of the same nonsense pandering to Canada’s financial services industry and the brain-dead CFIB which wouldn’t know what’s good for its members if it slapped it across the face (trust me, I worked as a senior economist at the BDC, the CFIB is clueless on good retirement policy and many other policies).

I might come off like an arrogant jerk but I stand by every word I wrote in that comment. Canada has some of the best defined-benefit plans in the world and instead of building on their success and enhancing the retirement security for millions of Canadians, our Prime Minister is pandering to the financial services industry and lying by claiming the contributions from enhancing the CPP or initiating an ORPP is a “tax” and jobs killer”.

Canada is going to experience a major economic slowdown in the next couple of years. The unemployment rate will soar but it has nothing to do with ORPP or enhancing the CPP. It’s called the business cycle and the fact that Canadians were living in dreamland for so many years benefiting from China’s insatiable appetite for our resources and the U.S. recovery after the 2008 crisis.

But the good times are over for Canada. Canadians are in for a very rude awakening as the China bubble bursts and China’s big bang wreaks havoc on our stock market and overvalued real estate market. I’ve actually been short the loonie since December 2013 and think it can head lower, especially if global growth doesn’t pick up in the months ahead.

So why would you want to enhance the CPP or introduce the ORPP in this wretched environment? The answer is that stock market and economic fluctuations aside, bolstering our retirement system makes good sense from an economic perspective over the very long-run. It will actually help create jobs as workers retire and receive a secure payment for life, consume more, pay more in sales taxes and don’t require government assistance to get by.

Is the ORPP a perfect solution? Of course not. I want to see the federal government wake up already and enhance the CPP for all Canadians. I want to build on the success of our existing large defined-benefit plans and provide better coverage for all Canadians, just like we do in healthcare and education.

As far as the three parties running now, in terms of pension policy, I don’t like any of them. The Liberals want to introduce “voluntary CPP” which is a stupid idea (make it mandatory!) and the NDP are fuzzy when it comes to mandatory, enhanced CPP and want to increase corporate taxes to fund their social initiatives at the worst possible time.

I also think the Liberals are stupid for wanting to get rid of TFSAs or clawing back on them. TFSAs are far from perfect but they’re popular with Canadians, especially doctors, lawyers, accountants and other hard working professionals who have no retirement plan and need to save more. I personally love the TFSA and the Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP) which Jim Flaherty introduced back in 2008 (God bless him).

But now that Jim Flaherty departed us, there isn’t much economic thinking going on with the Tories. In fact, the Conservatives pledged Wednesday to let first-time buyers withdraw as much as $35,000 from their registered retirement savings plan accounts to buy a home, in a yet another election move aimed at the housing market. Great move, have people take out money from their RRSPs to buy an overvalued house right before the great Canadian real estate bubble bursts!

 

Photo credit: “Canada blank map” by Lokal_Profil image cut to remove USA by Paul Robinson – Vector map BlankMap-USA-states-Canada-provinces.svg.Modified by Lokal_Profil. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canada_blank_map.svg#mediaviewer/File:Canada_blank_map.svg

Video: Global Pension Funds Under The Spotlight

In this discussion, panelists talk about how pension funds around the globe are evolving and innovating.

Panelists include:

John Panagakis, Head of Asset Management Business Development at TIAA-CREF

Joanne Segars, Chief Executive at the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF)

This discussion took place at the 2015 Conference of Major Super Funds, which is Australia’s largest conference for pension professionals and trustees.

 

Video source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGD4LGBB_Go

Photo by  Horia Varlan via Flickr CC License

Video: I’m Not An Impact Investor…Or Am I? [Panel Discussion]

Here’s a great panel discussion that took place at the Milken Institute’s 2015 Global Conference.

The panelists:

Janet Cowell – Treasurer, North Carolina
Sharon Hendricks – Vice Chair, CalSTRS Board; Professor, Communication Studies, Los Angeles City College
William Lee – Chief Investment Officer and Vice President, Foundation and Pension Investments, Kaiser Permanente
Shawn Wischmeier – Chief Investment Officer, Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies

From the video description:

Too many investors associate “impact investing” with high risks and below-market returns. Often, that is because they don’t realize the scope of investments that fall within the category.

A smart investor can make the world a better place and still enjoy a healthy profit. For example, renewable-energy projects and sovereign issuances for developing countries that need funds for infrastructure development are financially sound yet socially responsible investments.

Using environmental, social or governance screens, investors can practice impact investing without sacrificing returns or absorbing any more significant a risk than a mainstream investment. And in some cases, impact investing involves asset classes that are less vulnerable to general market risks.

So are you an impact investor? Hear from panelists about their experiences with impact investing and how to move past the stereotype to reveal tangible investment opportunities.

 

Video credit: The Milken Institute

Photo by Roland O’Daniel via Flickr CC License

Christie Vetoes Pension Bills For Quarterly Payments and $300 Million “Pre-Payment”

ChrisChristie2

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Monday vetoed two pension-related bills that had been passed recently by the Democrat-controlled state legislature.

The first bill (S3100) would have forced the state to make its pension contributions on a quarterly basis, as opposed to an annual basis.

The second bill (S3107) would have mandated the state make a $300 million “pre-payment” on next fiscal year’s pension contribution; the money would have come from an unexpected influx in tax revenue.

NJ.com explains Christie’s objections to the measures:

The first bill (S3100) sought to set a schedule for pension payments during the year, which Democrats said would provide more certainty to Wall Street that payments were being made and would better maximize investment earnings.

The change also would make it harder for Christie to make last-minute cuts to balance the budget.

“This bill represents an improper and unwarranted intrusion upon the longstanding executive prerogative to determine the appropriate timing of State payments in order to match properly the timing of large annual expenditures with the timing of the actual receipt of state revenues,” the governor wrote.

He added,”Enacting new laws to compel specific payments on specific dates does nothing at all to repair or reform the fundamentally unsustainable pension and health benefits systems currently in place.”

[…]

The governor also vetoed as “accounting gimmickry” a bill (S3107) to make a supplemental payment of $300 million into the pension system as part of the fiscal year that ended June 30, saying the money did not exist in the budget.

“This bill proves that even the massive tax increases embedded in the Legislature’s proposed FY 2016 budget were insufficient to support the pension contribution it pretended to make,” Christie said in his veto message.

He also said there was no additional $300 million in the budget to spend on the payment, and that the Legislature was spending money “that doesn’t exist.”

“Instead of accounting gimmickry, the legislative majority should embrace reality and join with my Administration in a realistic discussion of necessary reforms to the pension and health benefits systems,” Christie said.

Christie has spent the last year pushing for pension reform via benefit cuts; meanwhile, the Democrat-controlled legislature has consistently argued for a more consistent payment schedule, arguing that state payments are the key to better pension funding.

 

Photo By Walter Burns [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

CalPERS Board Members Talk About CIO’s Method, Performance

Calpers

Bloomberg published a very interesting piece this week featuring interviews with several CalPERS board members who talked about the pension fund’s chief investment officer, Ted Eliopoulos.

The piece is timely because CalPERS returned 2.4 percent in the most recent fiscal year, a number that falls short of the fund’s assumed rate of 7.5 percent. This came after several years of strong returns in the high-teens.

Bloomberg also talked to Eliopoulos himself, who re-iterated his long-term approach to managing the fund’s portfolio – an approach where overall process is more important than any one-year’s return. Eliopoulos told Bloomberg:

“We truly believe that a long-term investment horizon is both our responsibility and it’s our advantage,” Eliopoulos, 51, said at his Sacramento headquarters. “We think of everything we do in terms of the very long-term horizon.”

Board members made interesting, and largely supportive, comments about Eliopoulos:

“You’ve got to quit looking at the portfolio every day,” said Richard Costigan, a Calpers board member who backed Eliopoulos when the panel’s elected and appointed members replaced Joe Dear, who died of cancer last year. “I’ve got the little app on my phone that tells me what my portfolio is worth, and it stresses me out. One minute you’re up, two days later you’re down 3 percent, then you’re back up.”

“I’m very comfortable with what Ted’s doing.”

[…]

“When Ted became CIO, he told me he really wanted to be a CIO who focused on improving the management, the risk management and the efficiency of the operation,” said Phil Angelides, a close friend who served as California’s treasurer and was on Calpers’ board. “He was less interested in being a CIO who was known for his market insights.”

[…]

“His risk tolerance and my risk tolerance are just different,” said J.J. Jelincic, a former labor leader elected to the board in 2009 to represent workers. “In down markets, he looks a lot smarter than I am, and in up markets, I look a lot smarter than he does.”

It will be many years before any proper evaluation can be made of Eliopoulos’ tenure. He continues to shake up CalPERS’ portfolio by exiting hedge funds, culling private equity managers and selling off real estate.

These are strategies that, like CalPERS’ overall portfolio performance, can only be judged over the long-term.

California Pension Initiative Has ‘Significant’ Savings, Costs: Report

640px-Flag_of_California.svg

The official analysis of a proposed public pension initiative issued last week said “likely large savings” in retirement benefits would be offset by pressure for higher pay and other costs.

But the analysis does not estimate whether it would be a net gain or loss for government employers.

The initiative would open the door for what supporters of state and local government pensions have long feared — a switch to 401(k)-style individual investment retirement plans widely used by private-sector employers to avoid long-term debt and investment risk.

The basic clash, well known by now, is whether pensions are too generous, take money needed for basic services and will be “unsustainable” in the long run or, to the contrary, are affordable, manageable if correction is needed, and necessary to have quality government workers.

The initiative is based on a simple concept: For new state and local government employees hired on or after Jan. 1, 2019, require voter approval of their pensions and of government paying more than half the total cost of their retirement benefits.

Other provisions taking effect immediately for current workers would require voter approval of increased pensions and give voters the right to set their pay and retirement benefits.

But nothing simple about how the initiative would play out was found in the fiscal analysis sent to Attorney General Kamala Harris by nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor and Gov. Brown’s finance director, Michael Cohen.

The attorney general is expected to issue a title and summary for the initiative by Aug. 11. Two previous pension reform initiatives were dropped after the sponsors said Harris gave the measures inaccurate and misleading summaries, making voter approval unlikely.

Mac Taylor

The process that would be set in motion by passage of the proposed initiative has “significant uncertainty,” said the 11-page analysis

“Significant effects — savings and costs — on state and local governments relating to compensation for employees,” said the summary of fiscal effects. “The magnitude and timing of these effects would depend heavily on future decisions made by voters, governmental employers, and the courts.”

One certain effect is a major battle with public employee unions, if a bipartisan coalition led by former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and former San Diego Councilman Carl DeMaio gathers enough signatures to put the initiative on the fall ballot next year.

Reed and DeMaio led successful pension ballot measures in their cities, approved by two-thirds or more of voters. But several attempts to put a pension initiative on the statewide ballot have failed, including one by Reed and others last year.

The analysis of the new proposed statewide initiative said: “In the absence of voters approving the continuation of existing pension plans in a ballot measure — the measure closes existing governmental defined pension plans on Jan. 1, 2019.”

Voters also could be asked to approve a different pension plan for the new hires. But the authors of the initiative have said government employers would not need voter approval to offer new hires a 401(k)-style plan.

In the view of some supporters, the proposed initiative would, for new government hires, make the 401(k)-style retirement plan the “default,” the term for a preset option in the computer world.

It’s not clear that voters and government employers would want to end pensions for all new hires. In San Diego, for example, police were exempted in a pension initiative that switched new hires to 401(k)-style plans.

In a section labeled “Likely Large Savings Related to Retirement Benefits,” the analysis of the proposed initiative said some new hires are not expected to get pensions, then goes on to say in a following section that the 401(k)-style plan is most likely to replace a pension.

“Under this measure, defined benefit pension plans would not be available to new employees unless specifically authorized by voters,” said the analysis. “As such, it is likely that such benefits would be reduced or eliminated in many jurisdictions.”

Employees transferring from other government employers would receive the same retirement plan as the new hires, ending the “reciprocity” agreements that currently allow transfers with little or no change in pensions.

If voters approve a new pension plan for new hires, instead of continuing the current one, employer costs would be lower because new employees would be expected to pay half the pension and retiree health care cost, including the “unfunded liability.”

Currently, employer pension contributions often are two or three times larger than employee contributions. Only the employer is responsible for the “unfunded liability” resulting from investing shortfalls, demographic changes or retroactive pension increases.

Retiree health care often is pay-as-you-go with no pension-like investments to help pay future costs. Most state workers contribute nothing to a retiree health care plan that is more generous than the plan for active workers.

Offsetting the savings, said the analysis, likely would be pressure to raise pay and other compensation to attract and retain employees offered less generous pension and retiree health plans.

Higher wages increase Social Security and Medicare costs. Employers are likely to contribute to 401(k)-style plans. Some employees may be moved into Social Security, where employers and employees each contribute 6.2 percent of pay.

Disability benefits are likely to continue, particularly for police and firefighters. The costs could go up if new hires receiving lower retirement benefits continue working to an older age.

Another increased cost, said the analysis, is that as a closed pension plan “winds down” over the decades, with fewer members and less time to recover losses, pension boards are likely to shift to less risky investments, yielding lower returns.

If plans are closed to new members, the California Public Employees Retirement System is required by state law to terminate the plan, triggering a large payment to cover the pensions promised plan members.

The termination fee has been called a “poison pill” that prevents employers from switching to 401(k)-style plans. When Villa Park asked to close a 30-member CalPERS plan, seven active, the fee was $3.7 million, far too much for the small city to pay.

The initiative addresses this problem by requiring voter approval of termination fees and other plan closure costs. But the initiative analysis said the “full extent” that this provision would limit pension board power is not clear.

An early and important legal dispute between the initiative sponsors and a union coalition is over the provision giving voters the right to set pay and retirement benefits: Would it allow pensions earned by current workers in the future to be cut or eliminated?

Under the “California rule,” a series of state court decisions are widely believed to mean that the pension offered on the date of hire becomes a “vested right,” protected by contract law, that can only be cut if offset by a comparable new benefit.

Most pension reforms have been limited to new hires. But cutting pensions current workers earn in the future, while protecting amounts already earned, would get the immediate savings sought by those who say rising pension costs are starving other programs.

“Many of the measure’s provisions could be subject to a variety of legal challenges,” said the initiative analysis. “For instance, it is not clear to what extent allowing voters to use the power of initiative or referendum to determine elements of compensation for existing employees would change governmental employers’ contractual obligations under the California rule.”

Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at Calpensions.com.

Chart: Have Alternative Asset Classes Met Investors’ Expectations This Year?

Screen shot 2015-07-14 at 1.07.27 PM

Preqin released a report this month that shed light on how institutional investors perceive various alternative asset classes, and whether those investments are living up to expectations.

The report was the culmination of three months of surveys conducted by Preqin (the full report can be found here).

Hedge funds had the highest proportion of disappointed investors – 35 percent of survey respondents said their hedge fund investments fell short of expectations.

Meanwhile, investors were very happy with real estate, as 33 percent of survey respondents said their real estate investments had exceeded expectations.

Screen shot 2015-07-14 at 1.07.34 PM

In the chart to the right, Preqin measures investors’ general perception of each alternative asset class.

Investors were generally very positive about private equity (59 percent “positive” perception) and infrastructure (57 percent “positive” perception).

The highest proportion of investors had negative perceptions of hedge funds (20 percent) and private debt (16 percent).

The full, 60-page report can be found here.

NY Teachers’ Pension Hires New Private Equity Head

640px-Manhattan_amk

The New York State Teachers’ Retirement System has hired a new private equity chief – Gerald Yahoudy – after the retirement of John Virtanen last month.

Yahoudy has been with the pension fund for 13 years, and has been in the private equity department for five. He’ll now have the reins over the fund’s entire $8 billion PE portfolio.

More from the Wall Street Journal:

The New York State Teachers’ Retirement System picked Gerald Yahoudy as the new head of its private equity portfolio, choosing a familiar face to lead the program.

Mr. Yahoudy has been at the system for about 12 years and a manager on the private equity team since 2010.

[…]

U.S. state pension funds, unable to match Wall Street pay and working under public scrutiny, are vulnerable to churn. Sean Holland, who previously co-managed the New York State Teachers’ private equity program, left the pension fund in 2014.

New York State Teachers’ had 7.3% of its pension fund assets parked in private equity as of June 30, slightly above its goal of 7%. The pension fund has latitude to bring its private equity footprint to 12% of the portfolio.

[…]

Mr. Yahoudy did auditing and accounting for institutions including New York State Department of Tax and Financeas well as Commercial Travelers Mutual Insurance Co. before joining the pension system in 2003.

The New York State Teachers’ Retirement System manages $109 billion in assets.

 

Photo by Tim (Timothy) Pearce via Flickr CC License

Dutch Pension to Outside Money Managers: Fully Disclose Fees or Face Divestment

571px-EU-Netherlands.svg

One of the Netherlands’ largest pension funds is giving its outside money managers an ultimatum: fully disclose their fees or face divestment.

Dutch fund PGGM, which manages over $200 billion in assets, says it no longer wants to turn a “blind eye” to potentially high fees.

But it also acknowledges that its private equity investments have turned in strong performance of late. As a result, the fund has begun investing directly in PE-type investments.

Reported by the Wall Street Journal:

In a document seen by The Wall Street Journal, Dutch fund PGGM sets out for the first time what it deems to be acceptable compensation for money managers. It is worried that the pensions of its clients—social workers and nurses—are being undermined by high fees.

“The interests of our beneficiaries and the interests of the asset management industry are not always aligned,” Ruulke Bagijn, PGGM’s chief investment officer for private markets, said in an interview. “We are on the side of pension funds and we no longer want to turn a blind eye on difficult subjects like fees and compensation.”

[…]

PGGM will gradually introduce its new rules and will stop investing in funds that don’t disclose all fees by 2020, according to the document. It will also stop investing in funds whose fees are deemed to be “considerably higher than costs.” PGGM expects remuneration to be based mainly on the performance of managers’ funds, and it is monitoring how much of each manager’s own money is invested in their funds.

“Writing what we find acceptable and what we don’t find acceptable is new,” Ms. Bagijn said.

PGGM manages $208 billion in assets.


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