investment risk | Pension360

Chicago Treasurer Considers Using Pension Money To Make Direct Investments in Local Black Communities

Newly appointed Chicago Treasurer Kurt Summers last month announced his plans to invest portions of the city’s pension money locally.

Last week, he met with some local business owners and residents and talked further about his ideas, which include making direct investments in Chicago’s predominately black neighborhoods.

Heard by Progress Illinois:

Summers told the crowd that his office manages a combined $50 billion in investments as well as employee pension funds and retirement plans. He said he would like to see some of that money invested in neighborhoods like Bronzeville.

“I don’t view a neighborhood investment strategy as a risky strategy,” said Summers, a product of Bronzeville. “I don’t view that as any more risky than investing in Korea’s debt, which we do, or investing in a cement company in Mexico. I don’t believe investing in Bronzeville is any riskier than that.”

In fact, investing in neighborhoods makes good business sense, he said. It would boost the local economy, create jobs and a stronger tax base from new businesses and the entrepreneurs those investments would generate, Summers pointed out.

To invest in neighborhoods, changes need to be made to the city’s investment policies. Currently, Summers said, there is no mandate to invest pension fund money back into the city, even though cities in other states like New York, California and Florida already do so.

“City Council gives me an investment policy and parameters that I can invest with,” he said. “I likely will be proposing a new one to allow me to do some of the other things I want to do like invest in this community, which it doesn’t have a mandate for today.”

The plan doesn’t come without controversy. As a pension trustee, Summers has a fiduciary duty to make the city’s pension funds as healthy as possible. That means maximizing investment returns – a concept that may or may not square with local economic development.

Sacramento Pension CIO Talks Long-Termism and Investing in Infrastructure

Chief Investment Officer Magazine interviewed Scott Chan, CIO of the Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System, as part of its 2014 industry innovation awards series.

Some of the more interesting topics touched upon by Chan were the idea of being a long-term, “contrarian value investor” and the fund’s dive into infrastructure and energy.

Chan, on being a “contrarian value investor”:

“The price you buy something at does dictate your long-term returns,” [Chan] says. “I’ll be at pension conferences where people say they don’t think about those things—they just buy, buy, buy. We do define ourselves as long term, but that’s only part of it. We’re also contrarian value investors.” Chan spent seven years in San Francisco managing equity long/short and opportunistic hedge funds. Two years in the trenches with JP Morgan Securities’ technology equity research team came before that, as did an MBA from Duke University. Nearly a decade of living—and living off of—the “buy low, sell high” ethos made Chan uniquely unsuited to the “buy, hold, rebalance” approach so common among US public pension funds. The man can’t help but root out deals and invest to the rhythms of the business cycle.

“Take core real estate,” he says. “A lot of people view that as a ‘safe asset,’ but real estate has a lot of cyclicality risk embedded. In a full cycle, property values could go up 80% or 90%, and then back down. What you’re really getting is net operating income. The risk coming out of a depression is actually pretty low. But as the business cycle matures, and then begins to go down, every time real estate is going to have a problem. We can’t time that, but we know it will happen. Fast-forward to today, and you’re getting maybe 5.5% returns from core real estate. From how we’ve quantified the risk, there’s 25% to 45% upside for the rest of the cycle, but also 30% downside when the economy hands off from expansionary to recession. So you have to ask yourself: Are you getting paid for that risk?”

In Chan’s mind, the answer is “no.” Including real estate investment trusts, separate accounts, and limited partner stakes, the asset class accounts for 8.6% of Sacramento County’s $7.8 billion portfolio, down from 13% when Chan arrived in 2010.

Chan also talked about his fund’s investment in energy and infrastructure:

Like any good hedge fund manager, his next opportunistic play is already underway: infrastructure secondaries. In May, the institution partnered with fund-of-funds Pantheon Ventures to buy deeply discounted energy and infrastructure assets from investors who’ve had second thoughts about the highly illiquid space. In the first deal, the pension picked up two utilities—a power provider to San Francisco and a heating operation on the Marcellus Shale natural gas formation—at a 25% discount. A few months later, the general partner marked up the asset by 40%. “We’re penciling in 15% IRR [internal rate of return],” Chan says proudly, “and we’re trading cyclical risk for non-cyclical risk. When a recession comes, people still need their electricity and heating.” It’s this kind of thinking that wins Sacramento County’s CIO an Innovation Award—if not an invite to the next brunch party.

Read the full interview here.

Britain Secretary of Energy: Investing in Fossil Fuels Big Risk for Pension Funds

Last week the advisory board of one of the largest asset owners in the world, the $857.1 billion Norway Pension Fund Global, concluded that divesting from fossil fuels would be an unwise financial decision that would reduce returns.

But Edward Davey, Britain’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said Monday he thinks fossil fuel companies could become the sub-prime assets of the future.

He called on Britain’s pension funds to examine the risk associated with oil, gas and coal investments.

From the Telegraph:

Investing in fossil fuels is becoming increasingly risky because global action to tackle climate change will curb demand, forcing companies to leave unprofitable reserves in the ground, Ed Davey, the energy secretary, has warned.

Financial authorities must examine the risks posed by coal, oil and gas companies to prevent pension funds investing in what could become “the sub-prime assets of the future”, Mr Davey said.

The comments are Mr Davey’s first intervention into the debate over the “carbon bubble”, the theory that the world’s existing fossil fuel reserves are overvalued because the majority must be left unburned in the ground if extremes of global warming are to be avoided.

Mr Davey told the Telegraph: “One has got to worry about the investments for pensioners.

“If pension funds are investing in companies or banks that have on their balance sheets huge amounts of assets in fossil fuels, and those assets don’t give the return that people expect – because of changes in technology where low-carbon becomes cheaper or because of the world having to take action against carbon emissions – one has got to protect those pensioners and those investments.”

San Francisco Pension Postpones Hedge Fund Vote

The San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System is delaying a vote on a new proposal to begin investing in hedge funds.

The scaled-down proposal calls for investing a maximum of 5 percent of assets in hedge funds. Originally, the pension fund was considering a 15 percent allocation.

The vote will be held in February.

Biggs: Public Pensions Take On Too Much Risk

Andrew Biggs, former deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration and current Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, penned a column for the Wall Street Journal this week in which he posed the thesis that public pension funds invest in too many risky assets.

To start, he compares the asset allocations of an individual versus that of CalPERS. From the column:

Many individuals follow a rough “100 minus your age” rule to determine how much risk to take with their retirement savings. A 25-year-old might put 75% of his savings in stocks or other risky assets, the remaining 25% in bonds and other safer investments. A 45-year-old would hold 55% in stocks, and a 65-year-old 35%. Individuals take this risk knowing that the end balance of their IRA or 401(k) account will vary with market returns.

Now consider the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Calpers), the largest U.S. public plan and a trendsetter for others. The typical participant is around age 62, so a “100 minus age” rule would recommend that Calpers hold about 38% risky assets. In reality, Calpers holds about 75% of its portfolio in stocks and other risky assets, such as real estate, private equity and, until recently, hedge funds, despite offering benefits that, unlike IRAs or 401(k)s, it guarantees against market risk. Most other states are little different: Illinois holds 75% in risky assets; the Texas teachers’ plan holds 81%; the New York state and local plan 72%; Pennsylvania 82%; New Mexico 85%.

The column goes on:

Managers of government pension plans counter that they have longer investment horizons and can take greater risks. But most financial economists believe that the risks of stock investments grow, not shrink, with time. Moreover, while governments may exist forever, pensions cannot take forever to pay off their losses: New accounting rules promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and taking effect this year will push plans to amortize unfunded liabilities over roughly 15 years. Even without these rules, volatile pension investments translate into volatile contribution requirements that can and have destabilized government budgets.

Yet public-plan managers may see little option other than to double down on risk. In 2013 nearly half of state and local plan sponsors failed to make their full pension contribution. Moving from the 7.5% return currently assumed by Calpers to the roughly 5% yield on a 38%-62% stock-bond portfolio would increase annual contributions by around 50%—an additional $4 billion—making funding even more challenging.

But the fundamental misunderstanding afflicting practically the entire public-pension community is that taking more investment risk does not make a plan less expensive. It merely makes it less expensive today, by reducing contributions on the assumption that high investment returns will make up the difference. Risky investments shift the costs onto future generations who must make up for shortfalls if investments don’t pay off as assumed.

Read the entire column here.

Photo by dktrpepr via Flickr CC License

Norway’s Largest Pension Divests From Coal, But Sees Risks in Exiting Other Fossil Fuels

KLP, Norway’s largest pension asset manager, said it plans to divest from coal companies and increase investments in renewable energy.

The divestment from coal comes even as KLP remains heavily involved in oil and gas investments. That’s because an internal study suggested that divesting from all fossil fuel companies would pose big risks for KLP and harm future returns.

From IPE Real Estate:

It said it was doing this to contribute to the “urgently needed” switch from fossil fuel to renewable energy.

KLP defines coal companies as coal mining companies and coal-fired power companies that derive a large proportion of their revenues from coal.

At the very least, KLP will exclude those with 50% of revenues from coal-based business activities.

The names of the companies to be excluded will be published in an updated KLP list on 1 December.

KLP’s divestment from coal companies also applies to the KLP funds.

The public service pensions provider said preliminary estimates showed the divestment would lead to the sale of shares and bonds worth just under NOK500m.

[…]

The KLP Group, with total assets of NOK470bn, is already a major investor in renewable energy, with NOK19bn invested in Norway alone.

Last year, it also established a partnership with Norfund for direct investment in renewable energy and finance.

The additional NOK500m will be used for direct investments in increased renewable energy capacity in emerging economies, where KLP considers the need to be greatest.

The pension manager will not be divesting from oil and gas companies after a study suggested that doing so would diminish future returns. Details on the study from IPE Real Estate:

At present, the divestment does not apply to oil and gas companies.

KLP said this was because coal companies were considered to have the largest negative impact, both in terms of carbon emissions per unit of energy produced and local pollution in the vicinity of the coal-based facilities, even though there are significant variations between the different types of oil, gas and coal.

But KLP also said a withdrawal of investments in oil and gas companies would probably have a material impact on future returns, unlike the retreat from coal company stocks.

At the request of the Norwegian municipality of Eide, one of its customers, KLP carried out an assessment on the feasibility of pulling its investments out of oil, gas and coal companies without affecting future returns, in order to contribute to a better environment.

The report found no support for the “stranded assets” hypothesis, which posits that investments in companies with major fossil fuel reserves represent a greater financial risk than is normal for this type of undertaking.

It said: “On the contrary, a divestment from all fossil fuel companies would significantly increase KLP’s risk, particularly with respect to Norwegian shares.

“However, depending on the definition applied, divestment from coal companies alone would not represent any significant financial risk for KLP.”

KLP manages about $45 billion in pension assets.

Survey: 81 Percent of Pension Funds Looking to Bring More Investment Management In-House

CalSTRS recently announced its plans to eventually manage 60 percent of its assets internally. According to a recent survey, a majority of pension funds are beginning to think the same way.

A survey by State Street released this week found that 81 percent of pension funds are planning to bring more investment management duties in-house in the near future.

From BenefitsPro:

81 percent of funds are exploring bringing more management responsibilities in-house over the next three years.

Cost concerns are driving the trend, as 29 percent of funds said it is becoming more difficult to justify the fees paid to outside managers.

“Pension funds’ desire to deliver strong investment returns to their participants coupled with improved oversight and governance is leading to a need for more in-house accountability for asset and risk management,” said Martin Sullivan, head of asset owner sector solutions for North America.

The State Street data doesn’t suggest that outside management will become obsolete, but rather that pension funds are becoming more judicious about how they select and manage outside relationships.

The largest funds have the capacity to handle multi-asset management in-house, but they are in the minority, Sullivan noted.

“The majority of pension funds will need to make a choice about where to be a specialist and when a sub-contractor is needed,” he said.

The survey examined responses from 134 defined benefit and defined contribution funds around the globe.

The survey also found funds are willing to take on more risk:

While pensions funds re-examine their relationships with outside managers, 77 percent are also reporting a need to increase their risk appetite to boost lackluster returns.

That means a greater push into alternatives, as equities and fixed-income “may look pricey.”

“Pension funds are finding that a small allocation to alternatives is not sufficient to generate the required growth. This is forcing many of them to place bigger bets on alternatives,” according to the report.

The full report, called “Pension Funds DIY: A Hands-On Future for Asset Owners,” can be found here.

New Chicago Treasurer Makes Pension Funding His Priority

Chicago Treasurer Stephanie Neely is stepping down at the end of November.

Her replacement, Kurt Summers, said his priority will be fixing the city’s pension systems. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

The full City Council is expected to ratify the appointment of Kurt Summers at Wednesday’s meeting, but the incoming treasurer is not waiting for the vote before rolling up his sleeves and getting to work.

He’s already meeting with actuaries and pouring over the books of the four city employee pension funds.

They include the Municipal Employees and Laborers funds that have already been reformed and police and fire pension funds still waiting for similar action.

In 2016, the city is required by law to make a $550 million contribution to shore up police and fire pension funds with assets to cover just 29.6 and 24 percent of their respective liabilities.

Much of that money will have to come from Chicago taxpayers.

That’s because, unlike Municipal Employees and Laborers, police officers and firefighters do not get compounded cost of living increases.

The process of making the city’s pension funds healthy, he said, includes decreasing investment fees and increasing investment returns. In other words, “investing more efficiently and less expensively.” From the Sun-Times:

As a member of the board overseeing all four city employee pension funds, Summers said he can “make a dent” in the taxpayer burden by reducing investment fees and bolstering returns.

Summers noted that the firefighters and laborers pension funds are paying dramatically higher fees to their investment managers than the Municipal Employees and police pension funds.

“One fund is paying 80 percent more in fees. Another is paying 50 percent more. Yet, there’s one client: The city of Chicago. That’s real money. For fire, the value of that is about $2.5 million-a-year on $1 billion in assets,” he said.

“These kinds of things aren’t going to solve the kinds of holes we have. But any benefit we can find to invest more efficiently and less expensively is a benefit to taxpayers and retirees.”

Summers noted that the bill that saved the Municipal and Laborers Pension funds — by increasing employee contributions by 29 percent and reducing employee benefits — assumes an “actuarial rate of return” on investments of 7.5 percent-a-year.

That makes it imperative that the funds invest in the “right type of assets,” he said.

“If there’s market shock during that time that looks anything like what happened in 2008 — or even what we saw in July — then you end that period of fixed, graduated contributions with less funding than was modeled out in the legislation and there’ll have to be greater catch-up to get to 90 percent funding,” Summers said.

“We’ll have to have portfolio and asset allocation changes to protect our rate of return because ultimately, the taxpayers and retirees are relying on us to hit that number and, if we don’t, they have a bigger bill on the other side of the graduated payments structure.”

That doesn’t necessarily mean being conservative, he said.

“It’s a common misconception to say, `If I invest in the markets or fixed-income [instruments], we’re gonna be protected, but real estate, private equity or hedge funds are risky.’ That’s plain wrong,” Summers said.

“The reality is, you have just as much, if not more exposure to risk and volatility in the market with investments in basic public securities than you do with alternative products meant to mitigate risk and limit volatility. That’s the business I was in — trying to do that for clients around the world.”

As Treasurer, Summers would be a trustee of the city’s pension funds.

Detroit’s Pension Problems Not Over Yet – As Costs Remain High, City’s Payments Remain Small

Judge Steven Rhodes approved Detroit’s bankruptcy plan last week. But he used the moment to re-iterate that Detroit isn’t out of the water yet.

One thing in particular worries Judge Rhodes, who said his “greatest concern…arises from the risks that the city retains relating to pension funding.”

Retirees have accepted benefit cuts, but pension problems still linger. Among them: Detroit’s unwillingness to make full payments to its pension systems. From the New York Times:

Documents filed with his court show that Detroit plans to continue its past practice of making undersize pension contributions in the near term while promising to ramp them up in the future. This approach is by no means unusual; many other cities and states do it, on the advice of their actuaries. Detroit’s pension fund for general city workers, now said to be 74 percent funded, is scheduled to go into a controlled decline to just 65 percent by 2043; the police and firefighters’ fund will slide to 78 percent from 87 percent. After that, the city’s contributions are scheduled to come roaring back, bringing the plan up to 100 percent funding by 2053.

This will work, of course, as long as the city has recovered sufficiently by then. The state’s contribution to the grand bargain lasts until 2023, with the foundations and the art museum continuing to kick in until 2033. Eventually the payouts will begin to shrink some as current retirees fall off the rolls. Active workers have already shifted to a hybrid pension plan, and they will start to bear most of the new plan’s investment risk. But the city faces decades of payments for retirees under the old plan.

“The city has the potential to be saddled with an underfunded pension plan,” warned Martha E.M. Kopacz, the independent fiscal expert Judge Rhodes hired to help him determine whether Detroit’s exit strategy was feasible.

Ms. Kopacz, a senior managing director with Phoenix Management Services, did find it feasible, but expressed many reservations, especially about pensions.

“The city must be continually mindful that a root cause of the financial troubles it now experiences is the failure to properly address future pension obligations,” she said in her report. Judge Rhodes said on Friday that he agreed.

Despite benefit cuts, the city’s pension costs are still high. Since the city isn’t paying full contributions, even more pressure will be put on investment returns to cover costs. From the Times:

Even after the benefit cuts, the city’s 32,000 current and future retirees are entitled to pensions worth more than $500 million a year — more than twice the city’s annual municipal income-tax receipts in recent years. Contributions to the system will not be nearly enough to cover these payouts, so success depends on strong, consistent investment returns, averaging at least 6.75 percent a year for the next 10 years. Any shortfall will have to ultimately be covered by the taxpayers.

Judge Rhodes’ full opinion can be read here.

Report: Pension Funds Agreed To Risky, “Unusual” Contract Clause When They Invested in Vista Private Equity Fund

Vista Equity Partners has written an “unusual” clause into their contracts with limited partners, which include some major pension funds.

When pension funds invest with private equity firms, they sign “limited partnership” agreements. But a Reuters report says a certain clause included in Vista contracts is “atypical” for the industry, and potentially shifts more risk onto limited partners.

Details on the clause, from Reuters:

Vista Equity Partners has worked in an unusual clause in its contracts with private equity fund investors that gives it more financing flexibility and a leg up in leveraged buyouts, but also carries more risks for it and its investors, according to people familiar with the matter.

The agreement allows Vista to temporarily finance large corporate buyouts just with the cash from its $5.8 billion fund, as against using both debt and equity to buy companies. Under the right circumstances, this flexibility allows Vista to be nimble in auctions and secure the best possible debt financing after it has clinched a deal.

Two months ago, Vista used the clause in one of the largest private equity deals of the year, committing to fund the $4.2 billion takeover of TIBCO Software Inc with equity. One day later, it secured debt commitments from JPMorgan Chase & Co and Jefferies LLC for the deal, reducing its equity exposure to $1.6 billion.

The maneuver helped it not only outbid rival Thoma Bravo LLC in the TIBCO auction, but also use JPMorgan and Jefferies, which where were originally backing Thoma Bravo during the auction and were offering better financing terms, the sources said.

Investors in the Vista fund, known as limited partners, include some of the largest U.S. public pension funds, including the New Jersey State Investment Council and the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund. These funds do not disclose to their members and retirees all the risks they undertake, because the agreements with Vista and other private equity firms are confidential. The revelations highlight how important aspects of the investment of public money in private equity are shrouded in secrecy.

Industry insiders told Reuters that the clause is “highly atypical”:

Several pension fund investors, private equity placement agents and lawyers interviewed by Reuters said Vista’s terms are highly atypical and not widely known even within the private equity industry. Most firms have caps – usually around 15 to 20 percent of the fund – on how much equity they can commit to a particular deal. Private equity funds also rarely make all-equity commitments for such deals, preferring to tie up debt financing ahead of time. When they do make such all-equity commitments, the equity checks tend to be much smaller.

The reason is that doing so poses the risk that investors see their entire capital tied up in one investment, potentially hurting returns and denying them the benefits of diversification, these industry sources said.

Such a situation can arise, for example, if the debt market conditions were to suddenly sour, as it happened in the summer of 2007 before the financial crisis. In the TIBCO deal, Vista’s financial liabilities are capped at $275.8 million. But if the banks walk away before the deal closes, TIBCO can try to force Vista to close on the deal with its fund.

“It’s a bit like walking on a wire without a net,” said Alan Klein, a partner at law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Public pension funds that have invested in Vista funds include the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, the Virginia Retirement System, the Michigan Retirement System, the Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System and the Indiana Public Retirement System.

Photo by Juli via Flickr CC License

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