featured | Pension360

New Jersey Pension Encounters Difficulty Exiting Investment With Firm At Which Mary Pat Christie Holds Top Job

It’s been nearly four years since New Jersey’s pension system terminated an investment with Angelo, Gordon & Co, an investment firm where Mary Pat Christie, wife of Gov. Chris Christie, is managing director.

But as the International Business Times reports, the pension system is still paying fees to the firm because certain portions of the investment are particularly illiquid – the pension system has yet to be able to exit them fully.

Some say the situation is a troubling conflict of interest. Others say it is emblematic of one of the criticisms of alternative investments: pension funds can’t exit whenever they like.

From the International Business Times:

When the New Jersey pension system terminated a $150 million investment in a fund called Angelo, Gordon & Co. in 2011, that did not close the books on the deal. In the three years since state officials ordered the withdrawal of that state money, New Jersey taxpayers have forked over hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees to the firm. As those fees kept flowing, Angelo Gordon made a prominent hire: Mary Pat Christie, wife of Gov. Chris Christie, who joined the company in 2012 as a managing director and now earns $475,000 annually, according to the governor’s most recent tax return.

The disclosure that New Jersey taxpayers have been paying substantial fees to a firm that employs the governor’s spouse — years after state officials said the investment was terminated — emerged in documents released by the Christie administration to International Business Times through a public records request.

[…]

New Jersey’s original $150 million investment in Angelo Gordon was initiated in 2006, under Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat. By October 2011, state records show, the investment — which was in a multi-strategy hedge fund called AG Garden Partners — had generated just a 5.5 percent return in six years. That month, New Jersey investment officials sent a letter telling the firm to “withdraw, as of December 31, 2011, one hundred percent of the [state’s] capital account.” Yet the state subsequently paid Angelo Gordon management fees of more than $255,000 in 2012, more than $132,000 in 2013 and more than $82,000 for the first three quarters of 2014.

[New Jersey Treasury Department] Spokesman Santarelli told IBTimes that while “New Jersey redeemed its interest in the AG fund and ended its investment [in 2011] we still have a remaining market value of $6.6 million invested related to illiquid investments, which have been winding down slowly over the last few years.”

New Jersey State Investment Council chairman Thomas Byrne gave his reaction to the IB Times:

“This is standard; we are not doing something different here that is outside the norms of the financial industry and the world of private partnerships,” he said.

“We are paying fees on whatever money is left in there, so it could be an asset that could be increasing in value,” Byrne said. “So why should the manager work for free if they are hamstrung in the short term but they have made an investment that makes sense? A contract is a contract and presumably both sides are working in good faith to get out of it, and a deal is a deal.”

Read the entire IB Times report here.

Photo by Timothy Appnel via Flickr CC License

Report: Institutional Investors Plan to Increase Private Equity, Decrease Hedge Fund Allocations in 2015

A Coller Capital report released Monday showed two strong trends in institutional investor sentiment.

Forty percent of investors are planning on increasing their allocations to private equity in 2015. Meanwhile, 33 percent of those same investors said the see themselves decreasing their hedge fund portfolios.

Paul Singer Says CalPERS Was “Wrong to Desert” Hedge Funds

Paul Singer, a hedge fund manager, activist investor and billionaire, again questioned CalPERS’ decision to pull out of hedge funds at a conference Friday in New York. Heard by Businessweek:

Paul Singer, who runs hedge fund firm Elliott Management, said the decision by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to stop investing with hedge funds was a mistake.

“Calpers is not too big to have a group of trading firms in their mix,” Singer said today at a conference in New York sponsored by the New York Times’ DealBook. “I think they are wrong to desert the asset class.”

The remarks were brief – but it’s not the first time he’s expressed the sentiment. Last month, he made similar statements in a letter to clients of his firm Elliott Management. Pension360 covered the remarks, which were originally reported by CNBC:

“We are certainly not in a position to be opining on the ‘asset class’ of hedge funds, or on any of the specific funds that were held or rejected by CalPERS, but we think the decision to abandon hedge funds altogether is off-base,” Singer wrote in a recent letter to clients of his $25.4 billion Elliott Management Corp.

[…]

On complexity, Singer wrote that it should be a positive.

“It is precisely complexity that provides the opportunity for certain managers to generate different patterns of returns than those available from securities, markets and styles that are accessible to anyone and everyone,” the letter said.

He went on:

“We also never understood the discussions framed around full transparency. While nobody wants to invest in a black box, Elliott (and other funds) trade positions that could be harmed by public knowledge of their size, short-term direction or even their identity.”

Singer also slammed CalPERs for its complaint about the relative high cost of hedge funds.

“We at Elliott do not understand manager selection criteria based on the level of fees rather than on the result that investors could reasonably expect after fees and expenses are taken into account,” he wrote.

The broader point Singer makes is on the enduring value of hedge funds to diversify a portfolio.

“Current bond prices seem to create a modest performance comparator for some well-managed hedge funds. Moreover, stocks are priced to be consistent with bond prices, and we have a hard time envisioning double-digit annual stock index gains in the next few years,” the letter said.

“Many hedge funds may have as much trouble in the next few years as institutional investors, but investors should be looking for the prospective survivors of the next rounds of real market turmoil.”

Photo by World Economic Forum via Wikimedia Commons

CalPERS Puts Private Equity Benchmarks Under Review

CalPERS’ private equity portfolio underperformed its benchmark by 3.3 percent last fiscal year – but that’s only one of the reasons that the country’s largest public pension fund is putting its private equity benchmarks under review.

Reported by Pensions & Investments:

CalPERS’ $31 billion private equity portfolio has underperformed its policy benchmark over both long- and short-term periods, shows a review of the program, but pension fund officials feel part of the problem is that the benchmark seeks too aggressive a return and are seeking revisions.

The private equity staff review, to be presented to the investment committee Dec. 15, shows that as of June 30 the private equity portfolio produced an annualized 10-year return of 13.3%, compared to its custom policy benchmark of 15.4% annualized.

Over the shorter one-year period, CalPERS’ portfolio returned 20%, compared to the benchmark’s 23.3%; over three years, it returned 12.8% annualized compared to the benchmark’s 14.5%; and over five years, it returned 18.7% compared to the benchmark’s 23.2%.

But the report says the benchmark — which is made up of the market returns of two-thirds of the FTSE U.S. Total Market index, one-third of the FTSE All World ex-U.S. Total Market index, plus 300 basis points — “creates unintended active risk for the program, as well as for the total fund.”

California Public Employees’ Retirement System investment officials have said publicly at investment committee meetings that they feel the private equity benchmark they are shooting to outperform is too aggressive.

CalPERS manages $295 billion in assets, of which $31 billion is private equity.

Photo by rocor via Flickr CC License

For Bond Buyers, Illinois is “Problem State” Until Pension Limbo Resolved

Illinois has been in a state of pension limbo since July, when a state Supreme Court ruling on healthcare premiums hinted that the state’s pension reform law would be struck down by the courts.

Now, bond buyers are watching closely how the Supreme Court rules on the state’s pension reform law – but until then, investors are marred in “uncertainty” and are calling Illinois a “problem state”.

From The Street:

Municipal debt investors are watching the appeals process that will decide whether or not the State of Illinois’ pension reform bill ends up in the wastebasket, which would send the Land of Lincoln back to square one in its attempts to battle its pension funding crisis.

“There’s so much uncertainty there,” Daniel Solender, the lead portfolio manager for municipal bonds at investment manager Lord Abbett & Co., said by phone Wednesday. “It’s hard to know what the right valuation is [for the state’s bonds].”

So far, investors are waiting and watching. Solender noted that there hasn’t been much trading in Illinois’ bonds in response to a Nov. 21 Circuit Court decision that said the reform bill was unconstitutional. If the Illinois Supreme Court upholds that decision, Solender expects a negative effect on the state’s bond values.

“For investors to get comfortable, there has to be some idea of a plan [for pension reform], and there doesn’t seem to be one [now],” he said.

Still, he is confident that Illinois has time to work out its pension issues one way or another.

Solender and other sources are looking optimistically to Governor-elect Bruce Rauner, a Republican, to address the issue. Rauner will replace Pat Quinn, a Democrat, on Jan. 12.

Illinois’ unfunded pension liability has ballooned to $111.2 billion, according to a November report by the Illinois Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. The Teachers’ Retirement System accounts for about half of that at $61.6 billion, the report said.

A June 24 report by Standard & Poor’s revealed that Illinois has, by far, the lowest level of pension funding in the country at 40.4% funded, followed by Connecticut (49.1%).

As part of a Dec. 1 panel in New York City that discussed municipal debt restructuring, William A. Brandt Jr., president and CEO of Development Specialists Inc., said that Illinois holds 43% of the public pensions in the U.S. According to Brandt, who is also the chair of the Illinois Finance Authority, those amount to some 652 public pensions.

“Illinois is your problem state,” he warned.

Moody’s gives Illinois’ credit an A3 rating – the lowest of any state.

General Partners Gain Upper Hand Over Pension Funds As Raising Capital Becomes Easier

Pensions & Investments released an interesting report yesterday outlining the balance of power in the private equity world between general partners and pension funds.

In the last few years, the balance of power has shifted dramatically towards GP’s, according to the report.

From Pensions & Investments:

Until the 2008 financial crisis, general partners pretty much set the rules, leaving most limited partners little say on terms, including on fees and expenses, when they committed to funds. Then fundraising got harder, and even the most popular private equity managers had to accept investors’ demands for lower fees and expenses and a greater degree of transparency.

Now, the highest-returning general partners are regaining the upper hand.

“Certainly, the pendulum has swung more toward the GP compared to 2009,” said Kevin Campbell, managing director and portfolio manager in the private markets group at fund-of-funds manager DuPont Capital Management, Wilmington, Del. The firm was spun out from the pension management division of DuPont’s pension plan in 1993.

[…]

Said DuPont’s Mr. Campbell: “I’ve seen the pendulum of power change positions several different times during the last 15 years,” where private equity fund terms are determined by the GP and sometimes they are more influenced by the LP.

Strong-performing managers that retain the same team and the same investment strategy used when they earned their strong returns have the most influence over fund terms, Mr. Campbell said. These managers also are raising a fund that is similar in size to their last fund and they have a “good investor base,” meaning investors who routinely commit to their funds, he said.

[…]

Some are increasing their negotiating clout by getting large capital commitments from sovereign wealth funds before the first close, enabling them to give other interested institutional investors a take-it-or-leave-it deal, said Stephen L. Nesbitt, chief executive officer of Marina del Rey, Calif.-based alternative investment consulting firm Cliffwater LLC.

Part of the reason GPs have power over LPs has to do with fundraising. GPs are having an easy time raising capital, which means they don’t have any incentive to negotiate terms with LPs. From P&I:

It’s easier to raise capital now; funds are raised more quickly and general partners have more influence on terms, he added.

Indeed, some private equity funds are closing very quickly, with access to much more capital than they need. Instead of holding several fund closings — giving general partners the ability to invest the capital commitments before the final close — a number of firms are having “one-and-done” closings. Because there are asset owners willing to invest on those terms, the GPs have little reason to give in to limited partners demanding changes to fund terms.

For example, Veritas Fund Management in August held a first and final close at $1.875 billion for its latest middle-market private equity fund, after just three months of fundraising. And private equity real estate manager Iron Point Partners LLC in November closed the Iron Point Real Estate Partners III LP at $750 million, well above its $450 million target.

And KPS Capital Partners LP held a first and final closing last year of its $3.5 billion KPS Special Situations Fund IV, above its $3 billion target. It was KPS’ third oversubscribed institutional private equity fund, according to a statement from the firm at the time.

Read the full report here.

How Credit Rating Agencies Reacted to Illinois Pension Ruling

None of the three major rating agencies changed their outlook on Illinois’ credit in the wake of a lower court ruling that deemed the state’s pension reform law unconstitutional.

But rating agencies are certainly keeping a close watch on the state as the reform law moves up to the Supreme Court. And all three agencies had something to say after the ruling.

Moody’s had the harshest take, calling the ruling “credit negative” that leaves the door open for a rating downgrade. Summarized by Governing:

[Moody’s] issued an analysis on Nov. 24 that said the “state’s negative outlook indicates the possibility that factors such as further growth in the state’s pension liabilities will drive the rating lower still.” The state is appealing the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court but Moody’s was wary of its chances and pointed out that the top court this summer indicated in a separate case on retiree health benefits that would adhere strictly to the pension protection clause.

A top Moody’s official commented further in a WUIS report:

“The average state from our perspective or the expected rating for a state is AA1, which is our second highest rating. And so Illinois is A3, so that’s five rating notches below that,” said Ted Hampton, a Vice President at Moody’s Investor Service. “Which is to say, it’s still an investment-grade rating. It’s still a strong rating in the context of every kind of security that we rate. But it’s far below all of the other states.”

Hampton says Moody’s saw Illinois’ passage of the pension overhaul as beneficial, but not enough to move the credit ratings needle – because a court challenge was suspected. The recent court ruling likewise wasn’t not enough to prompt a change, though Moody’s called the decision “credit negative” in a notice sent out Tues., Nov. 24.

“We do get a lot of inquiries about states, particularly Illinois where there are problems that are in the news, and where the situation is in flux. And publishing these comments helps us get our opinion out to those investors, or to the general public,” Hampton said.

Fitch and S&P said the pension ruling didn’t move the needle much as far as the state’s credit rating. From Governing:

Fitch Ratings and Standard & Poor’s were far more forgiving. Both said they had already factored in the likelihood of court challenge into their current ratings for Illinois. “More importantly, from a credit perspective,” S&P added, savings from the pension reform are not included in the fiscal 2015 budget.”

Interestingly, Fitch’s main concern wasn’t the pension ruling. Instead, the agency said the real concern was the expiration of several tax increases. From Governing:

Fitch did note another trouble spot for Illinois’ credit lurking just ahead: the scheduled expiration of temporary tax increases in 2015. “The state passed a placeholder budget for the current fiscal year with a stated intent to revisit the issue after the November elections,” Fitch said. “Taking steps to address the long-standing structural mismatch between revenues and spending would put the state on more solid financial footing, while failure to take action would be a return to past practices and leave the state poorly positioned to confront future downturns.”

State Funds For Kentucky Pension Systems Could Come With Strings Attached As Lawmakers Push For Pension Transparency

The Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System (KTRS) and the Kentucky Employees Retirement System Non-Hazardous Plan (KERS Non-Haz) could both be in line for state money sooner than later.

But there might be some strings to that state funding, as lawmakers push for more transparency around investments and placement agents associated with the pension systems.

One lawmaker wants the pension systems to make the search for investment firms more competitive – and more public. From the Lexington Herald-Leader:

Rep. Jim Wayne, D-Louisville, wants the pension systems to use the state’s competitive bidding process to solicit investment proposals, rather than award the lucrative deals privately. Terms of each deal, including the management fees, would be made public. Wayne also would ban payments to third-party “placement agents,” middlemen who help private investment firms sell their products to pension funds.

“The status quo works for the special interests on Wall Street because it hides what they’re making off our pension system,” Wayne said.

Another lawmaker wants to know the fees paid to placement agents, as well as the pension benefits received by state lawmakers:

Sen. Chris McDaniel, R-Taylor Mill, wants full disclosure of placement agent fees. He also wants the public to see how much money individual members of the General Assembly expect to collect through pensions or how much they do collect if they are retired. Kentucky’s part-time lawmakers not only have awarded themselves state pensions, but they also carefully keep them in a separate system, apart from KRS, that is 62 percent funded.

Last winter, several bills along these lines were ignored by House and Senate leaders, including one that would have required public disclosure of all state retirees’ pensions. This time, McDaniel said, he has narrowed the focus to his fellow lawmakers.

“I’ve told people, 95 percent of state workers don’t receive a very big pension when they retire. But there are a handful of pension abuses, and it would be useful for us to understand how it works. So at the very least, the legislature can lead from the front and require transparency for its own pensions,” McDaniel said.

Not everyone in Kentucky politics agrees with the transparency initiatives. In fact, one powerful lawmaker says he won’t consider either of the aforementioned ideas:

House State Government Committee Chairman Brent Yonts, D-Greenville, said he’s not inclined to consider Wayne’s or McDaniel’s bills this winter.

“I’m reluctant to support a can-opener approach to the pension system without knowing the consequences of that and without knowing why it’s currently done this way,” Yonts said.

Outside investment managers might not want to accept KRS’ and KTRS’ money if they know their fees will be publicly disclosed, Yonts said. And nobody who gets a state pension should have to share that information with the public, he said.

“Frankly, I don’t think that’s the public’s business,” Yonts said. “They have access to the public payroll and salary information. They can theorize about what we’re going to collect in pensions. But the public is not entitled to know every last little thing about us.”

Both of the state’s major pension plans are dangerously underfunded, but the KERS Non-Haz plan is among the unhealthiest in the country, with a funding ratio of 21 percent. KTRS is 52 percent funded.

Chart: How Much Are CalPERS’ Board Members Paid?

The above graphic comes from a new Sacramento Bee investigation into CalPERS’ compensation policies, which at least one expert called “highly irregular”. The full investigation can be read here, but the above graphic gives an overview of the how much the pension fund’s board members get paid.

San Diego County Pension Weighs Major Governance Changes After Expert Recommendations

San Diego City Employees Retirement System is on the cusp of firing its controversial outsourced chief investment officer and bringing more investment management in-house. But that’s not the only change that could be coming for the fund.

The fund’s former CIO spoke to the board of trustees on Thursday and suggested major changes to its governance model. The trustees were extremely receptive to the suggested changes.

More details from the San Diego Union-Tribune:

David Wescoe, who stabilized the San Diego City Employees Retirement System after an underfunding crisis nearly bankrupted the city a decade ago, said the county should have a single person report to the board — not one for administration and one for investments, as it has now.

“I’m strongly for the linear model,” Wescoe told pension trustees during a two-day retreat that began Thursday. “The board should have one direct report.”

Under its current governance model, the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association has two people who report directly to the board: CEO Brian White and outsourced portfolio strategist Lee Partridge.

[…]

Wescoe also said the fund would be much better served by recruiting and hiring its own lawyer as well, rather than an outside contractor.

“It’s an absolute necessity for a very well functioning management team,” Wescoe said. “They can prevent little issues from becoming big issues.”

[…]

After Wescoe’s presentation, at least two trustees said they were ready to begin implementing his suggestions.

“I would love to see the board adopt the recommendations you put forward,” said Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who represents the county Board of Supervisors on the retirement panel. “We have an opportunity to bring the same kind of changes here for SDCERA, and I think we should take advantage of it.”

County Treasurer Dan McAllister, who also serves on the board as part of his elected duties, said he hopes trustees can schedule a debate on Wescoe’s recommendations as soon as next month.

“We owe it to ourselves to discuss those issues,” McAllister said.

Wescoe also addressed the potential hiring of a new CIO to internally manage investments. From the UT:

Wescoe, who oversaw the city pension fund from 2006 to 2009, said he knew many local investment professionals who would relish the chance to manage the $10 billion county portfolio for around $200,000 a year.

“It’s the professional opportunity of a lifetime,” he said.

Partridge and his company, Salient Partners of Houston, Texas, are paid more than $10 million a year.

His predecessor, an in-house chief investment officer, was paid $209,000 a year. The position was outsourced to allow for higher pay. Despite that, Salient’s investment returns have not kept pace with those of peer pension systems.

The pension fund is also missing its internal benchmark for earnings. For the 12 months ending Oct. 31, the most recent available, the agency’s benchmark was 9.1 percent and the fund earned 8.22 percent, according to a preliminary report by Salient.

Last month, the board of trustees informally voted to fire their outsourced CIO, Lee Partridge and his firm Salient Partners.

The vote was not official.

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