private equity | Pension360

Pensions Eye Indian Infrastructure

In December, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) made a $157 million investment in the infrastructure arm of an Indian engineering company.

The CPPIB says investments with India are a “key part” of its long-term plans.

Other pension funds may also find the county’s infrastructure to be an attractive investment. From the Economic Times:

Indian road projects are likely to post a significant rise in merger and acquisition activity in 2015 as pension and private equity funds are eyeing these projects for handsome returns.

Increase in road traffic and a better economic climate have made the sector lucrative for investors with deep pockets, looking for long-term investment opportunities. In the last one month, two road projects have changed hands and sector players and experts anticipate more such deals in the offing.” Funds and institutional investors are interested in high yield, long-term investments and road projects offer a good opportunity.

[…]

“Revenue from roads will improve as GDP picks up, so it is an attractive investment option. The slowdown in the last two-three years has dampened the price expectation of developers, so the mismatch in valuation expectation has reduced,” said MK Sinha, managing partner and chief executive officer of IDFC Alternatives.

[…]

Infrastructure industry players said that more pension funds are in the market scouting for investment opportunities, with a clear preference for operational road projects. Pension funds primarily manage funds for people who are retiring and looking for low-risk investments with consistent returns for in the long term. Their interest in Indian infrastructure will augur well for the capital-intensive business whose long-term capital needs cannot be met my banks alone.

In 2014 the CPPIB announced plans to open an India office.

Preqin: More Pensions Invested in Private Equity, But Average Allocation Down From 2013

Data from Preqin shed some light on private equity activity in 2014, and showed that more public pension funds invested in private equity in 2014.

Even still, public pensions’ average allocation to private equity has dipped slightly since 2013.

From ThinkAdvisor:

Preqin, the investment alternatives data provider, found that the number of active U.S.-based public pension funds in private equity has risen year over year, from 266 in 2010 to 299 in October 2014. The average allocation to private equity was 7% as of October 2014, down from 7.2% a year earlier.

Preqin said private equity looked set to remain an important component of U.S.-based public pension funds’ portfolios for years to come, offering investors good portfolio diversification and outsized returns over the long term.

Fundraising for the year was likely to be strong, Preqin reported, with $254 billion raised by funds that closed in the first half.

A record 2,205 funds are currently in the market seeking an aggregate $774 billion, compared with 2,098 funds that were looking to raise $733 billion in January.

Preqin also reported that its internal data showed co-investment would increase in 2014. It acknowledged that concerns about high expenses and competition were holding back some general partners from offering co-investment opportunities. But researchers found that co-investment figured prominently in the plans of many GPs and limited partners.

Preqin said that as the private equity industry matures and investors become more sophisticated, co-investment activity could increase, with benefits for both fund managers and limited partners.

Preqin also found that venture capital funds raised more money in 2014 than in 2013.

Photo by jjMustang_79 via Flickr CC License

Is It Harder Than Ever for Pension Funds to Invest With Top Private Equity Funds?

Many more private equity funds reached or surpassed their hard caps in 2014 than in 2013, and the funds are also raising capital at a faster pace.

As a result, many pension funds are finding it difficult to put their money in the most sought-after private equity funds.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Heated competition to get into top private-equity funds is leaving some investors out in the cold.

Pension funds, endowments and wealthy individuals that invest with private equity are finding it increasingly hard to get into the most sought-after funds, according to data and industry participants.

Private-equity firms, which raise money from such investors and then put it to work in various investment strategies, are generally filling their coffers faster this year from clients. The proportion of private-equity funds that reached or exceeded the maximum amount the firms set out to raise this year is at its highest level since at least 2009, according to a snapshot of funds for which private-equity tracker Preqin has data. Typically, firms put a limit on the size of the fund they are raising, known as a hard cap, at the beginning of the fundraising process. That hard cap generally can’t be exceeded without approval from fund investors.

As of Nov. 13, 55% of roughly 280 funds for which Preqin had hard-cap data reached or surpassed that maximum size. Last year, 43% of funds hit or exceeded those limits.

Also, private-equity firms have taken an average of 16.4 months to raise capital for funds that have closed this year, Preqin data show. That’s two months shorter than the average time it took to raise funds that closed in 2013.

“The number of quick fund closings has been especially pronounced this year,” said Cathy Konicki, a partner at investment-consulting firm NEPC LLC.

Read the entire Wall Street Journal report here.

Photo by Matthias Ripp via Flickr CC License

Private Equity Firm Allows Investors to Hire Advisor to Monitor Governance, Review Financial Records

A New York Times report over the weekend posed the question: is private equity becoming less private?

One private equity firm, Freeman Spogli & Company, recently revealed that it allowed investors in one of its funds to hire an outside adviser to “monitor the fund’s practices”.

Investors in the fund include several of the country’s largest pension funds, including the New York State Common Retirement Fund.

From the New York Times:

Is private equity about to get a little less private?

Perhaps so, judging by the decision of a venerable private equity firm to allow investors in one of its funds to hire an independent adviser to monitor the fund’s practices. Beyond reviewing the books and financial records at the fund, the outside adviser would also be permitted to scrutinize the fund’s governance practices for conflicts of interest, the firm said.

This shift in practice, which has not been previously reported, was disclosed to investors in June by Freeman Spogli & Company, a $4 billion private equity firm created more than 30 years ago, in a letter laced with legal jargon that obscured the import of the decision.

The new policy applied to the firm’s newest fund: FS Equity Partners VII, which opened for investment this year and has closed with $1.3 billion in committed funds. Investors in that fund include pension funds and public investments, such as the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, the New Mexico State Investment Council and the New York State Common Retirement Fund.

[…]

Allowing the appointment of a monitor is no small matter. Giving an outsider routine access to internal fund operations is practically unknown in the $3.5 trillion private equity industry, where powerful firms operate in near secrecy and hold so much sway that many investors say they feel fortunate to be allowed to put money into the funds. The independent adviser will report to the fund’s investors.

Karl Olson is a partner at Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski who has sued the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as Calpers, to force it to disclose fees paid to hedge fund, venture capital and private equity managers. He said he had never seen a provision allowing an independent monitor at a private equity fund.

“It does seem like a step in the right direction because too often the limited partners are unduly passive,” he said, referring to investors. “They should feel they are in the driver’s seat and that they have an obligation to drive a hard bargain with the funds.”Phone calls seeking comment at both the New York and Los Angeles offices of Freeman Spogli were not returned.

The NY Times report speculates that the firm may have allowed the hiring of the independent adviser after the SEC began asking questions about “several of the firm’s practices”.

Sentencing Pushed Back For Defendant in CalPERS Bribery Case

The sentencing of Fred Buenrostro, the former CalPERS executive who pleaded guilty over the summer to accepting bribes, has been pushed back nearly five months to allow further cooperation with the government.

From the Sacramento Bee:

Fred Buenrostro, who left the California Public Employees’ Retirement System in 2008, will now be sentenced May 13 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Buenrostro, who is free on bond, was originally scheduled for a Jan. 7 sentencing.

Buenrostro pleaded guilty in July to accepting bribes from former CalPERS board member Alfred Villalobos, a Reno businessman who earned millions in commissions securing pension fund investments for various private-equity firms. Buenrostro said he took more than $250,000 in cash, casino chips and other benefits from Villalobos, who prosecutors say was trying to gain favor for his investment clients.

As part of his guilty plea, Buenrostro agreed to testify against Villalobos, who has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors and Villalobos’ lawyer filed a joint statement in court last week asking for the postponement “in order to permit Mr. Buenrostro’s ongoing cooperation with the government.”

Judge Charles Breyer agreed to reschedule the sentencing. Buenrostro is expected to get a five-year prison term, according to the plea agreement, although the judge will have the final say.

Villalobos, who is also free on bond, is scheduled to go to trial in February on three felony charges. If convicted, the 70-year-old Villalobos could be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison. Villalobos is a former deputy mayor of Los Angeles who served on the CalPERS board in the early 1990s.

More Pension360 coverage of the bribery scandal can be read here.

Cuomo Rejects Bill To Increase Alternative Investments By Pensions

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo on Thursday vetoed a bill that aimed to raise the percentage of assets New York City and state pension funds could allocate towards hedge funds and private equity.

From Bloomberg:

Governor Andrew Cuomo vetoed a bill that would have allowed New York state, city and teachers pension funds to allocate a larger percentage of their investments to hedge funds, private equity and international bonds.

The measure approved by lawmakers in June would have increased the cap on such investments to 30 percent from 25 percent for New York City’s five retirement plans, the fund for state and local workers outside the city, and the teachers pension. The funds have combined assets valued at $445 billion.

“The existing statutory limits on the investment of public pension funds are carefully designed to achieve the appropriate balance between promoting growth and limiting risk,” Cuomo said in a message attached to the veto. “This bill would undermine that balance by potentially exposing hard-earned pension savings to the increased risk and higher fees frequently associated with the class of investment assets permissible under this bill.”

[…]

A memo attached to the New York bill said raising the allotment for hedge funds and other investments is necessary for flexibility to meet targeted annual returns. A swing in the value of the funds’ publicly traded stocks can push the pensions “dangerously close” to the investment cap, the memo said. The change would also better enable the funds’ advisers and trustees to “tactically manage the investments to take advantage of market trends, react to market shocks and potentially costly rebalances or unwinds at inopportune times,” it said.

New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer supported the bill.

Photo by Tim (Timothy) Pearce via Flickr CC License

Kolivakis Weighs In On CalPERS’ PE Benchmark Review

It was revealed last week that CalPERS has plans to review its private equity benchmarks. The pension giant’s staff says the benchmark is too aggressive – in their words, the current system “creates unintended active risk for the program”.

Pension360 last week published the take of Naked Capitalism’s Yves Smith on the situation. Here’s the analysis of pension investment analyst Leo Kolivakis, publisher of Pension Pulse, who takes a different stance.

____________________________________

By Leo Kolivakis [Originally published on Pension Pulse]

I was contacted in January 2013 by Réal Desrochers, their head of private equity who I know well, to discuss this issue. Réal wanted to hire me as an external consultant to review their benchmark relative to their peer group and industry best practices.

Unfortunately, I am not a registered investment advisor with the SEC which made it impossible for CalPERS to hire me. I did however provide my thoughts to Réal along with some perspectives on PE benchmarks and told him unequivocally that CalPERS current benchmark is very high, especially relative to its peers, making it almost impossible to beat without taking serious risks.

Almost two years later, we now find out that CalPERS is looking to change its private equity benchmark to better reflect the risks of the underlying portfolio. Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism, aka Susan Webber, came out swinging (again!) stating CalPERS is lowering its private equity benchmark to justify its crappy performance.

There are things I agree with but her lengthy and often vitriolic ramblings just annoy the hell out of me. She didn’t bother to mention how Réal Desrochers inherited a mess in private equity and still has to revamp that portfolio.

More importantly, she never invested a dime in private equity and quite frankly is far from being an authority on PE benchmarks. Moreover, she is completely biased against CalPERS and allows this to cloud her objectivity. Also, her dispersion argument is flimsy at best.

Let me be fully transparent and state that neither Réal Desrochers nor CalPERS ever paid me a dime for my blog even though I asked them to contribute. I am actually quite disappointed with Réal who seems to only contact me when it suits his needs but I am still able to maintain my objectivity.

I remember having a conversation with Leo de Bever, CEO at AIMCo, on this topic a while ago. We discussed the opportunity cost of investing in private markets is investing in public markets. So the correct benchmark should reflect this, along with a premium for illiquidity risk and leverage. Leo even told me “while you will underperform over any given year, you should outperform over the long-run.”

I agreed with his views and yet AIMCo uses a simple benchmark of MSCI All Country World Net Total Return Index as their private equity benchmark (page 33 of AIMCo’s Annual Report). When I confronted Leo about this, he shrugged it off saying “over the long-run it works out fine.” Grant Marsden, AIMCo’s former head of risk who is now head of risk at ADIA, had other thoughts but it shows you that even smart people don’t always get private market benchmarks right.

And AIMCo is one of the better ones. At least they publish all their private market benchmarks and I can tell you the benchmarks they use for their inflation-sensitive investments are better than what most of their peers use.

Now, my biggest beef with CalPERS changing their private equity benchmark is timing. If we are about to head into a period of low returns for public equities, then you should have some premium over public market investments. The exact level of that premium is left open for debate and I don’t rely on academic studies for setting it. But there needs to be some illiquidity premium attached to private equity, real estate and other private market investments.

Finally, I note the Caisse’s private equity also underperformed its benchmark in 2013 but handily outperformed it over the last four years. In its 2013 Annual Report, the Caisse states the private equity portfolio underperformed last year because “50% of its benchmark is based on an equity index that recorded strong gains in 2013″ (page 39) but it fails to provide what exactly this benchmark is on page 42.

Also, in my comment going over PSP’s FY 2014 results, I noted the following:

Over last four fiscal years, the bulk of the value added that PSP generated over its (benchmark) Policy Portfolio has come from two asset classes: private equity and real estate. The former gained 16.9% vs 13.7% benchmark return while the latter gained 12.6% vs 5.9% benchmark over the last four fiscal years. That last point is critically important because it explains the excess return over the Policy Portfolio from active management on page 16 during the last ten and four fiscal years (click on image).

But you might ask what are the benchmarks for these Private Market asset classes? The answer is provided on page 18 (click on image).

What troubles me is that it has been over six years since I wrote my comment on alternative investments and bogus benchmarks, exposing their ridiculously low benchmark for real estate (CPI + 500 basis points). André Collin, PSP’s former head of real estate, implemented this silly benchmark, took all sorts of risk in opportunistic real estate, made millions in compensation and then joined Lone Star, a private real estate fund that he invested billions with while at the Caisse and PSP and is now the president of that fund.
And yet the Auditor General of Canada turned a blind eye to all this shady activity and worse still, PSP’s board of directors has failed to fix the benchmarks in all Private Market asset classes to reflect the real risks of their underlying portfolio.

All this to say that private equity, real estate, infrastructure and timberland benchmarks are all over the map at the biggest best known pension funds across the world. There are specific reasons for this but it’s incredibly annoying and frustrating for supervisors and stakeholders trying to make sense of which is the appropriate benchmark to use for private market investments, one that truly reflects the risks of the underlying investments (you will get all sorts of “expert opinions” on this subject).

Photo by rocor via Flickr CC License

San Francisco Pension Postpones Appointment of Board Member in Wake of Ethics Complaint

San Francisco’s former first lady Wendy Paskin-Jordan sits on the board of the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System (SFERS); her seat is appointed by city mayor Ed Lee, who was ready to appoint her to another term.

But an ethics complaint has put Paskin-Jordan’s appointment “on hold”. The details of the complaint:

The main issue discussed Tuesday was her investment in Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo and Co., an investment firm, in which the employees’ pension fund has invested $388 million. In a required financial disclosure statement filed last year, Paskin-Jordan reported she had invested between $100,000 and $1 million in GMO in August 2011. That amount, however, is below the company’s minimum investment threshold of $10 million.

City law prohibits board members from investing in private equity, limited partnerships and in nonpublically traded mutual funds doing business with the Employees’ Retirement System. Additionally, city law prohibits a board member from soliciting or accepting “a business opportunity, a personal loan, a favor or anything of value from any public entity or firm doing business with SFERS.”

Paskin-Jordan has been out of town recently, but the rest of the board wants to give her a chance to explain the situation for herself in front of the board. Meanwhile, she has the support of the retirement system’s Executive Director. From the SF Examiner:

In a Dec. 8 letter to the Ethics Commission, retirement system Executive Director Jay Huish argues that both these laws were not broken by Paskin-Jordan’s investment.

Huish noted that GMO is considered a manager of public-market assets, and that Paskin-Jordan had received a threshold waiver to invest in GMO from her former employees who went on to work there. That waiver, Huish said, was granted before she was appointed to the board and exercised after she was on the board.

The San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System manages about $20 billion in assets.

Photo by ilirjan rrumbullaku via Flickr CC License

Washington Pension Manager Commits $1.1 Billion to REOCs

The Washington State Investment Board, the entity that manages Washington state’s pension assets, has committed a total of $1.1 billion to two funds that invest in real estate operating companies (REOCs).

From IPE Real Estate:

Commitments of $600m and $500m were made to Calzada Capital Partners and Evergreen Real Estate Partners, respectively.

[…]

Calzada, which buys real estate operating companies in the Americas, places capital with companies investing in major property sectors.

It has around $4bn in assets under management.

The private equity firm has invested in Terramar Retail Centers, which owns neighbourhood shopping centres on the US West Coast, as well as in Corporate Properties of the Americas, which owns industrial property in Mexico.

Hometown America, an owner and operator of manufactured housing, Pacific Beachcomber, a luxury hospitality renovation firm in French Polynesia and Pivotal Capital Group have also received capital as part of Calzada’s niche investment strategy.

Evergreen, which invests in US-based real estate operating companies, will use capital for future growth.

The company mostly makes investments in the office, industrial, retail and apartment sectors.

The Board manages $103.6 billion in assets.

Photo credit: “Washington Wikiproject” by Chetblong – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Institutional Investors Bullish on Stocks, Alternatives in 2015

Institutional investors around the globe believe equities will be the best-performing asset class in 2015, according to a survey released Monday.

Investors are also bullish on alternatives, but not as thrilled when it comes to bonds, according to the survey.

The results summarized by Natixis Global Asset Management:

Forty-six percent of institutional investors surveyed say stocks will be the strongest asset category next year, with U.S. equities standing above those from other regions. Another 28 percent identify alternative assets as top performers, with private equity leading the way in that category. Only 13% predict bonds will be best, followed by real estate (7%), energy (3%) and cash (2%).

Natixis solicited the market outlook opinions of 642 investors at institutions that manage a collective $31 trillion. The survey found:

– Realistic expectations of returns: On average, institutions believe they can realistically earn yearly returns of 6.9 percent after inflation. In separate surveys by Natixis earlier this year, financial advisors globally said their clients could anticipate earning 5.6 percent after inflation1 and individuals said they had to earn returns of 9 percent after inflation to meet their needs.2

– Geopolitics leads potential threats: The top four potential threats to investment performance in the next year are geopolitical events (named by 17% of institutional investors), European economic problems (13%), slower growth in China (12%) and rising interest rates (11%).

– Focus on non-correlated assets: Just under three-quarters of respondents (73%) say they will maintain or increase allocations to illiquid investments, and 87% say they will maintain or increase allocations to real estate. Nearly half (49%) believe it is essential for institutions to invest in alternatives in order to outperform the broad markets.

– Words of advice for retail investors: Among the top investment guidance institutions have for individuals in the next 12 months: avoid emotional decisions.

[…]

“Institutional investors have an enormous fiduciary responsibility to fund current goals and meet future obligations,” said John Hailer, president and chief executive officer for Natixis Global Asset Management in the Americas and Asia. “The current market environment makes it difficult for institutions to earn the returns that are necessary to fulfill both short-term and future responsibilities. Building a durable portfolio with the proper risk management strategies can help investors strike a balance between pursuing long-term growth and minimizing losses from volatility.”

[…]

“Institutional investors have an unusually good perspective about markets and long-term prospects,” Hailer said. “Like ordinary investors, institutions have short-term worries. They also feel the pressure to take care of current needs, no matter what the markets are doing. Because of their longer-term time horizon, they offer valuable perspective.”

The full results of the survey can be read here.

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