private equity | Pension360

NYC Pension Appoints New Heads of Private Equity, Hedge Fund Investments

The New York City Bureau of Asset Management – the entity that manages assets for the city’s retirement systems—has appointed two staffers to head its private equity and hedge fund investments, respectively.

The backgrounds of the appointees, from Chief Investment Officer:

Effective immediately, NYC’s comptroller appointed Alex Doñé as head of private equity and Neil Messing to take over the hedge fund portfolio.

Doñé has worked at the bureau, investing the city’s five pension funds, since 2012. Prior to the promotion, he served as the fund’s executive director of private equity and oversaw its $5.6 billion emerging managers program.

He spent the bulk of his earlier career in the private sector, with 16 years of experience in investment banking and private equity. Doñé has worked at Clearlake Capital Group, KPMG Corporate Finance, and Merrill Lynch. For two years, he served as a presidential appointee at the US Department of Commerce’s Minority Business Development Agency.

The NYC pensions’ new head of hedge funds likewise built his background in the private sector before becoming an asset owner in 2011. Messing most recently served as the fund’s senior investment officer responsible for hedge funds. According to the NYC comptroller’s office, he “built and managed a diversified $4 billion portfolio of direct hedge fund investments and a fund-of-hedge funds” for the pensions.

The CIO of the city’s pension system commented on the appointments:

“The appointment of Alex and Neil will strengthen the investment operations of the Bureau of Asset Management,” said Scott Evans, CIO of the New York City Pension Funds. “Alex and Neil are ethical and sophisticated investment managers and I am excited to see them take on new roles as part of senior leadership.”

The New York City Bureau of Asset Management manages $160 billion in assets for the city’s pension systems.

Pension Funds Criticize Excessive Private Equity Fees; More Look To Direct Investing

Pension fund officials from Canada and the Netherlands expressed their frustration with private equity fees during a conference this week.

The chief investment officer of the Netherlands’ $220 billion healthcare pension fund said it needs “to think about” the fees it is paying, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Ruulke Bagijn, chief investment officer for private markets at Dutch pension manager PGGM, said a Dutch pension fund for nurses and social workers that she invests for, paid more than 400 million euros ($501.6 million) to private-equity firms in 2013. The amount accounted for half the fees paid by the PFZW pension fund, even though private-equity firms managed just 6% of its assets last year, she said.

“That is something we have to think about,” Ms. Bagijn said.

Among the things pension officials are thinking about: bypassing private equity firms and fees by investing directly in companies. From the Wall Street Journal:

Jane Rowe, the head of private equity at Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, is buying more companies directly rather than just through private-equity funds. Ms. Rowe told executives gathered in a hotel near Place Vendome in central Paris that she is motivated to make money to improve the retirement security of Canadian teachers rather than simply for herself and her partners.

“You’re not doing it to make the senior managing partner of a private-equity fund $200 million more this year,” she said, as she sat alongside Ms. Ruulke of the Netherlands and Derek Murphy of PSP Investments, which manages pensions for Canadian soldiers. “You’re making it for the teachers of Ontario. You know, Derek’s making it for the armed forces of Canada. Ruulke’s doing it for the social fabric of the Netherlands. These are very nice missions to have in life.”

But an investment firm executive pointed out that direct investing isn’t as cost-free as it sounds. From the WSJ:

[Carlyle Group co-founder David Rubenstein] warned that investors who do more acquisitions themselves rather than through private-equity funds will have to pay big salaries to hire and retain talented deal makers.

“Some public pension funds will just not pay, in the United States particularly, very high salaries and will not be able to hold on to people very long and get the most talented people,” Mr. Rubenstein said at the conference. “I don’t think there are that many people who will pay their employees at these sovereign-wealth funds and other pension funds the kind of compensation necessary to hold on to these people and get them.”

[…]

Mr. Rubenstein had a further warning for investors seeking to compete for deals with private-equity firms. “If you live by the sword you die by the sword,” he said. “If you are going to do disintermediation you can’t blame somebody else if something goes wrong.”

Pension360 has previously covered how pension funds are bypassing PE firms and investing directly in companies. One such fund is the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System. The fund’s Euporean head of Private Equity said last month:

“The amount of fees that we were paying out for a fund, 2 and 20 [percentage points] and everything that goes with that, was a huge amount of value that we were losing to the fund,” Mr. Redman said. “If we could deliver top quartile returns and we weren’t hemorrhaging quite so much in terms of fees and carry that would mean that we would be able to meet the pension promise.”

Photo by http://401kcalculator.org via Flickr CC License

Naked Capitalism Publishes Ten More Private Equity Limited Partnership Agreements

The Naked Capitalism blog has been given ten private equity limited partnership agreements from “a source authorized to receive them who is not bound by a confidentiality agreement.”

Pension funds sign limited partnership agreements when they do business with private equity firms. Observers are typically very interested in seeing the documents because they are usually kept under lock-and-key, as PE firms claim the documents contain “trade secrets” that would harm business if made public.

The agreements received by Naked Capitalism can be read here.

Here’s an excerpt of the Naked Capitalism post accompanying the release of the documents:

__________________

By Yves Smith

There is a vital public interest in having this information in the open. Public pension funds, which are government bodies, are the biggest single group of investors in private equity, representing roughly 25% of total industry assets. Yet private equity limited partnership agreements are the only contracts at the state and local government level that are systematically shielded from public scrutiny, through state legislation or favorable state attorney opinions.

Yet in countries less captured by rampant free market ideology and private equity political donations, a revolt is underway against this secrecy regime. As the Financial Times reported:

Anger has erupted over the practice of asset managers coercing pension funds into signing non-disclosure agreements. Pension schemes argue it is uncompetitive and prevents them from securing the best deals for their members.

The imposition of confidentiality agreements means pension funds are not able to compare how much they are being charged by fund managers, potentially exposing them and their scheme members to unnecessarily high fees.

The practice is of particular concern with respect to public sector pension plans, which are effectively funded by the taxpayer.

David Blake, director of the Pensions Institute at Cass Business School in London, said: “Local authorities are not allowed to compare fee deals, and that is an outrage. It should be made illegal that fund managers demand an investment mandate is confidential.”

How do private equity kingpins justify their extreme demands for confidentiality, their assertion that limited partnership agreements in their entirety are trade secrets? Consider this “we’ll fight them on the beaches” argument from this Monday’s Private Fund Management, that if general partners, meaning the private equity funds, are forced to divulge fees, they’ll eventually have to expose more of the limited partnership agreement. And of course they claim that would do them competitive harm:

It’s impossible to have a debate about public pension plans disclosing their fee payments without first acknowledging why GPs want them kept private in the first place…

In this context, GPs are being portrayed as secretive and heavy-handed. But so far, what hasn’t been addressed properly is why GPs are apparently so keen to prevent fee receipts from entering the public domain in the first place.

Speaking to pfm off the record, no manager has ever told us that they consider management fees a vital trade secret. No one has defended the idea that disclosing them can make or break a firm.

What we are hearing instead is that GPs perceive the fee debate as a proxy battle for disclosing other data that really are sensitive to the firm’s ability to do business, such as the finer points of their investment strategies, key man clauses and the like. All these things are documented in the LPA, and if the LPA can no longer be subjected to non-disclosure, then sooner or later demands will be made to publish other types of fund-specific information also.

_________________________

The full post can be read here.

Illinois Teachers’ Pension Official Praises Asian Private Equity

Speaking at the AVCJ Private Equity & Venture Forum last week, Illinois Teachers Retirement System investment officer Kenyatta Matheny expressed his bullishness on Asian private equity. Recapped by Asian Investor:

Matheny is very positive on the region. “If you’re building a global private equity portfolio, you would be remiss to not earnestly look to having an allocation to Asia and, quite frankly, with China as the anchor,” he said.

The Illinois fund last month struck a partnership with Asia Alternatives, one of the biggest Asia-focused PE fund-of-funds managers with $3 billion in AUM. At the end of October it approved a $200 million commitment to the manager. This followed a period of 18 months to two years spent developing the relationship, Matheny noted.

Illinois Teachers had spent two or three years visiting the region to understand the landscape in the mid-2000s and subsequently made direct investments in PE funds and sought a local investment partner. It now has $5 billion of assets invested in private equity and another $3 billion of unfunded commitments, amounting to an $8 billion portfolio overseen by Matheny.

He was effusive about the benefits of the relationship with Asia Alternatives. “We think alike, we’re looking at the same managers, underwriting from the same perspective, but now you’ve got this piece that we don’t have: you can access small managers, you’ve helped fund a few start-ups” he said.

Matheny also spoke about an increased number of partnerships between U.S. and Asian private equity firms. From Asian Investor:

Kenyatta Matheny, who co-runs the PE portion of Illinois Teachers, has seen more cross-border partnering taking place between PE firms in Asia and the US, in both directions.

“This has been more recent, within the past 12 months, where there may be an Asia-specific PE fund with an asset that can continue to scale, but they’re looking to exit.” One route for them has been for an international PE firm taking on the asset and expanding it beyond China to other markets, such as Southeast Asia.

Matheny has also seen such deals originating outside Asia. “With an asset that has 5-10% exposure to China, we can pick up the phone and call counterparts in Asia. We’ve scaled the asset via acquisitions at home.”

The conference also featured a panel discussion on “Why Asia Still Matters for Private Equity.” The audio of the panel can be heard here.

Photo Credit: “Asia Globe NASA”. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

Pennsylvania Teachers’ Pension Puts $2 Billion of Private Equity Stakes Up For Sale

The Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System (PSERS) is attempting to sell a significant portion of its stakes in various private equity funds.

The pension fund is looking to sell off $2 billion of such investments, a total that amounts to about 22 percent of its private equity holdings.

PSERS is putting the stakes up for sale to cash in on high prices.

From Bloomberg:

Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System is offering about $2 billion of private-equity fund stakes for sale after prices for such investments reached the highest levels since the 2008 financial crisis

The $53.3 billion system, known as Psers, hired Dallas-based investment bank Cogent Partners to manage the sale process, said three people with knowledge of the matter, who asked not to be identified because the information is private. The amount for sale is less than a quarter of the plan’s $8.7 billion private-equity holdings as of June 30.

“We are considering a secondary sale since we are overweight in our long-term allocation to private equity and have been since coming out of the financial crisis,” said Evelyn Tatkovski Williams, a spokeswoman at the plan.

The pension system’s level of private-market investments was near its 21 percent target as of June 30, according to data on the Psers website. Private markets includes private equity, private debt and venture capital.

Bill Murphy, a managing director at Cogent in New York, declined to comment on the sale process.

The pension plan reported a net investment return of 3.3 percent for private markets during the quarter ended June 30 and 14 percent for the latest fiscal year.

PSERS manages $53.3 billion in assets and is 63.8 percent funded.

Photo by Simon Greig via Flickr CC License

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

Canada Pension Plan Among Bidders For $10 Billion of Cement Facilities

The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) has teamed up with Blackstone Group and Cinven to bid on $10 billion of cement assets that are being sold as a result of a pending merger between two major building material suppliers.

The CPP is one of 60 parties who have placed bids.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Private-equity firms are jostling to acquire more than $10 billion of cement facilities being sold as part of the merger of two large European companies, reflecting the dearth of buyout deals available in the region.

The sale of the cement assets in Europe, Canada, Brazil and the Philippines are a precondition to winning antitrust approval of a $50-billion merger between French cement giant Lafarge SA and Swiss rival Holcim Ltd.

The assets have attracted interest among cash-flush private-equity firms. Some 60 parties, a mixture of buyout firms and building-materials companies, have submitted bids for all or some of the assets, said Holcim finance chief Thomas Aebischer. Private-equity bidders include Blackstone Group, KKR & Co. and other top firms, according to people familiar with the matter.

[…]

The cement deals are “sort of classic private-equity assets,” said Josh Lerner, a professor at Harvard Business School, of the Holcim and Lafarge sales. “The idea of a transaction that has the classic PE kind of recipe, where this is a mature industry, is a good thing for them.”

The deal is also attractive because it could create an entirely new cement rival overnight. Some argue creating a new company with the assets could be a challenge for buyers, since the facilities are spread across the globe and aren’t independent companies at this stage.

The $10 billion price-tag on the for-sale assets is too big for many private-equity firms to digest on their own. Many are forming groups to bid for the assets, a practice they have moved away from in recent years since investors prefer to spread their money among several funds invested in different assets.

Among the private-equity bidders are: a group consisting of Blackstone Group, Cinven and the Canada Pension Plan; BC Partners and Advent International; Bain Capital and Onex Partners; and KKR., according to the people familiar with the matter. Industry bidders include Irish cement maker CRH PLC, according to people familiar with the matter. The structure of the consortia could still change, said one person familiar with the deal.

The Canada Pension Plan has $227 billion in assets, which are managed by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

Photo by Parée via Flickr CC License

CalPERS Commits $80 Million to Californian Private Equity

CalPERS announced Wednesday it had committed $80 million to a private equity fund focused on Californian companies. The commitment is part of the pension fund’s California Initiative program.

From a press release:

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) has committed $80 million with GCM Grosvenor (Grosvenor) in a California-focused private equity fund. The new commitment will be deployed through a direct investment vehicle starting by the end of the current year.

The new fund will be known as California Mezzanine Investments and is the third phase in CalPERS’ California Initiative program. It will be managed by Grosvenor’s Private Markets team.

“CalPERS is committed to California,” said Ted Eliopoulos, CalPERS Chief Investment Officer. “It’s great to have a hand in stimulating job creation and economic growth in our home state as we seek the best risk-adjusted returns for the portfolio.”

The fund will seek to invest in Californian companies using mezzanine debt financing to assist in supporting their growth and expansion.

The California Initiative was established by the CalPERS Investment Committee in 2001 as a $1 billion private equity investment vehicle that invests in private companies in traditionally underserved markets, primarily, but not exclusively, located in California. The objective is to generate attractive financial returns. As an ancillary benefit, the California Initiative was designed to create jobs and promote economic opportunity in California.

Grosvenor is one of the world’s largest independent alternative asset management firms, with approximately $47 billion in assets under management. It manages multiple emerging manager programs for large institutional investors, including public pension plans and corporate plans. Grosvenor and its predecessors have been managing private equity investment portfolios since 1999.

CalPERS manages $300 billion in assets. The fund has a $31 billion private equity portfolio.

Private Equity Firm Threatens To Shut Out Iowa Pension Over FOIA Request

Over at Naked Capitalism, Yves Smith has penned a long post expounding on the practice of private equity firms dissuading public pension funds from complying with FOIA requests related to investment data – often with the threat of shutting out pension funds from future investment opportunities.

The post stems from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal report covering the same topic.

Here’s the Naked Capitalism post in full:

_________________________________

By Yves Smith

A new story on private equity secrecy by Mark Maremont at the Wall Street Journal started out with a bombshell, that of private equity industry kingpin KKR muscling a public pension fund to deny information requests about KKR’s practices:

KKR & Co. warned Iowa’s public pension fund against complying with a public-records request for information about fees it paid the buyout firm, saying that doing so risked it being barred from future private-equity investments.

In an Oct. 28 letter to the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System, KKR General Counsel David Sorkin said the data was confidential and exempt from disclosure under Iowa’s open-records law. Releasing it could cause “competitive harm” to KKR, the letter said, and could prompt private-equity fund managers to bar entree to future deals and “jeopardize [the pension fund’s] access to attractive investment opportunities.”

The article also demonstrated, as we’ve pointed out earlier, than many investors are so cowed that they don’t need to be on the receiving end of overt threats:

Once public pension funds start releasing detailed information in response to public-records requests, “that’s the moment we’re done,” said Linda Calnan, interim chief investment officer of the Houston Firefighters’ Relief and Retirement Fund. “These are sensitive documents that managers don’t want out there.”

This risk, that private equity funds might exclude public pension funds that the general partners deemed to be insufficiently zealous in defending their information lockdown, has long been the excuse served up public pension funds for going along with these secrecy demands. As we demonstrated in May, the notion that the information that the funds are keeping hidden rises to the level of being a trade secret or causing competitive harm is ludicrous. We based that conclusion on a review of a dozen limited partnership agreements, the documents that the industry is most desperate to keep under lock and key.

But the only known instance of that sort of redlining actually taking place, as the Journal notes, took place in 2003 after CalPERS said it would start publishing limited data on financial returns as a result of a settlement of a Public Records Act (California-speak for FOIA) lawsuit. As we wrote in April:

Two venture capital firms, Sequoia and Kleiner Perkins, had a hissy fit and refused to let funds that would disclose their return data invest in them. Now this is of course terribly dramatic and has given some grist to the public pension funds’ paranoia that they’d be shut out of investments if they get too uppity. But the fact is that public pension funds overall aren’t big venture capital investors. And people in the industry argue that there was a obvious self-serving motive for Sequoia to hide its returns. Sequoia has launched a number of foreign funds, and many are believed not to have performed well. Why would you invest in Sequoia’s, say, third India fund if you could see that funds one and two were dogs?

So why has industry leader KKR stooped to issue an explicit, thuggish threat? Why are they so threatened as to cudgel an Iowa pension fund into cooperating with KKR and heavily redacting the response? Just as with the Sequoia and Kleiner Perkins case, it’s naked, and not at all defensible self interest.

Law firm Ropes & Gray, which counts Bain Capital among its clients, issued what amounted to an alarm to its private equity and “alternative investment” clients over an increase in inquiries to public pension funds about the very subject that the SEC had warned about in May, about fee and expense abuses, as well as other serious compliance failures. It’s a not-well-kept-secret that many investors were correctly upset about the SEC’s warnings, and some lodged written inquires with general partners as to what specifically was going on. We’ve embedded an unredacted example of one such letter at end of this post. It was the same one that CalPERS board member JJ Jelincic used to question investment consultants last month because the letter ‘fessed up to an abusive practice called evergreen fees.

Journalists like Maremont and interested members of the public have written public pension funds to obtain the general partners’ responses to these questionnaires. And this is a matter of public interest, since shortfalls in private equity funds, even minor grifting, is ultimately stealing from beneficiaries, and if the pension fund is underfunded, from taxpayers. Yet notice how Ropes & Gray depicts questions about what are ultimately taxpayer exposures as pesky and unwarranted intrusions:

We have recently observed a surge in freedom-of-information (“FOIA”) requests made by media outlets to state pension funds and other state-government-affiliated investment entities. Although the requests have so far concentrated on information related to private equity sponsors, they have also sought information about investments with other alternative investment fund sponsors. The requests tend to focus on information about advisers’ treatment of fees and expenses, issues raised as areas of SEC interest in a speech by an SEC official earlier this year. The requests may also ask for information concerning recent SEC examinations of fund managers. Many state-level FOIA laws exempt confidential business information, including private equity or other alternative investment fund information in particular, from disclosure. Nonetheless, record-keepers at state investment entities may reflexively assume that all information requested should be disclosed. But a prompt response, supported by the applicable state law, can help ensure that confidential information that is exempt from FOIA disclosure is in fact not released.

The sleight of hand here, which we’ve discussed longer-form, that merely asserting that something is confidential does not exempt it from disclosure. In fact, if you look at the examples from selected states that Ropes & Gray cites in its missive, states have tended to shield certain specific types of private equity information from disclosure, including limited partnership agreements and detailed fund performance information, but generally restrict other disclosures not on the basis of mere confidentiality but on trade secrecy or similar competitive harm, meaning the private equity firm’s competitors might learn something about the fund’s secret sauce if they obtained that information.

Please look at the first letter at the end of this post and tell me what if anything in it is so valuable that competitors might seek to copy it. Contrast that with a second letter from a Florida pension fund, from KKR that the Journal obtained and see how much is blacked out.

The fact is that the various FOIAs focused on getting at SEC abuses aren’t about protecting valuable industry intelligence, to the extent there really is any in any of their documents; it’s simply to hide their dirty laundry. The Wall Street Journal story reports how in Washington, Florida, and North Carolina, public pension fund officials have been acceding to private equity fund “concerns” and using strategies ranging from foot-dragging to woefully incomplete disclosure to outright denial to stymie inquiries.

The interesting thing about KKR’s exposure is that its defensiveness is likely due to how much scrutiny it is getting from the SEC. Maremont earlier exposed how KKR’s captive consulting firm KKR Capstone appeared to be charging undisclosed, hence impermissible fees to KKR funds. KKR has attempted to defend the practice by arguing that KKR Capstone isn’t an affiliate. We debunked that argument here.

Even though we have criticized the SEC for its apparent inaction on the private equity front, in terms of following through with Wells notices after describing widespread private equity industry malfeasance, we have been told that the agency is in the process of building some major cases against private equity firms. Given how many times KKR’s name has come up in Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Financial Times stories on dubious private equity industry practices, one has to imagine that KKR would be a likely target for any action that the SEC would consider to be “major”.

This is an area where readers can make a difference. The one thing public pension funds, even one like CalPERS, are afraid of is their state legislature. Call or e-mail your state representatives. If you have the time and energy, also write to the editor of your local paper and the producers of your local television station. Tell them you’ve read in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (and if you are in California, the Sacramento Bee) about public pension funds refusing to provide information to members of the public about fees as well as widespread abuses that the SEC discussed at length in a speech this year. Tell them that the SEC has made it clear that private equity can’t be treated on a “trust me” basis any more. The time has come for more pressure on public pension funds to weight the public interest more strongly in dealing with these inquiries, and if needed, new legislation to force more accountability from private equity funds and their government investors.

$200 Million To Asia Private Equity Among Series of Moves By Illinois Teachers’ Fund

The Illinois Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) made a series of moves at Thursday’s board meeting that included making $300 million in commitments to two private equity funds and approving the hire of a firm to manage domestic stocks.

The system made several new commitments, including $300 million to two private equity funds, one focusing on Asia and the other on technology. From Pensions & Investments:

Siris Capital Group […] graduated from the emerging managers program with a commitment of $100 million to its technology-focused private equity fund, Siris Partners III. TRS invested $12.5 million in Siris Partners II.

TRS committed up to $200 million to a customized Asia-focused private equity strategy managed in a strategic partnership by Asia Alternatives Management. The allocation will be split evenly between a diversified fund of funds and a co-investment fund. The goal is to eventually move some of the Asian private equity managers from the fund of funds into TRS’ direct investment portfolio, Stefan Backhus, private equity investment officer, told trustees.

Taurus Funds Management, a new manager for the TRS, right, received a $30 million commitment to its Taurus Mining Finance Fund.

Active large-cap value equity managers Affinity Investment Advisors and Lombardia Capital Partners each received $25 million commitments from the emerging managers program for domestic and international portfolios, respectively.

Trustees ratified staff-initiated co-investments of $18.5 million and $20 million to existing managers Carlyle Group and Natural Gas Partners, respectively.

Funding for the Siris, Asia Alternatives, Taurus, Affinity, Lombardia, Carlyle Group and Natural Gas Partners hires will come from cash, index funds and rebalancing.

TRS also hired a new firm to manage domestic equities, promoted one other firm and fired another. From P&I:

Trustees of the $43.5 billion pension fund ratified the hire of LSV Asset Management by investment staff in August to manage $360 million in active domestic large-cap value stocks. LSV, which already managed $1.3 billion for TRS in two other equity strategies, replaced Loomis Sayles & Co., which was terminated in August.

Active bond manager Garcia Hamilton & Associates, was promoted from the pension fund’s $732 million emerging managers program to manage a 4% allocation from the fund’s $7.7 billion fixed-income portfolio. The $61 million Garcia Hamilton previously managed will be returned to the emerging managers program. Funding for the new account will come from reducing Prudential Asset Management’s core-plus bond portfolio and rebalancing among other fixed-income managers.

[…]

In further changes to the fixed-income portfolio, Hartford Investment Management was terminated as manager of a $350 million U.S. Treasury inflation-protected securities portfolio. Investment staff “believes the net-of-fees results from these mandates can be improved through two mandates. Further, staff prefers to utilize global inflation-linked mandates, while Hartford’s portfolio is U.S. only,” said R. Stanley Rupnik, chief investment officer, in an answer to a request for clarification.

The Illinois Teachers’ Retirement System manages $43.5 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