private equity | Pension360

Is There A Major Problem With the Endowment Model?

Over at Institutional Investor, Ashby Monk has posted a thought-provoking piece on the university endowment model and its shortfalls. An excerpt:

The endowment investment model, which is widespread among university endowments (hence the name), is often flagged as the best-in-class framework for long-term investors. This is an approach to institutional investment that is almost entirely outsourced and seeks to generate high returns through an aggressive orientation toward private equity and other alternative assets. In 2013 the average U.S. endowment had an allocation to alternatives of 47 percent, down from the previous year’s peak of 54 percent but still much higher than a decade before.

The model was pioneered by David Swensen, chief investment officer at Yale University, through the investment policies he implemented at the school’s endowment. Using this model, Swensen managed to generate a remarkable 15 percent internal rate of return over a 20-year stretch leading up to 2007. Because of Yale’s wild success, the endowment model was copied by hundreds (and probably thousands) of other endowments and institutional investors around the world. Although the model remains popular today, some institutional investors now see it as being at odds with long-term investing and perhaps even damaging to the long-term investment challenge.

Here’s why: The success or failure of this model seems to be based on access to top-performing managers, as endowments believe that certain managers can and do deliver alpha (returns above a market benchmark). The institutions that have privileged access to top managers see themselves as lucky passengers on an investment return rocket ship powered by hedge funds, private equity firms and other alternative managers.

So most (though not all) endowments won’t do anything to rock the boat with these managers. Thanks to this fear of restricted access, the asset managers would seem to hold the power to discipline and influence asset owners. It’s for this reason that many university endowments are more secretive than the most-secretive sovereign wealth funds. They are protecting their external asset managers from scrutiny. In addition, they are protecting themselves from having to inform their stakeholders about how much they are paying in fees (if they even know what they’re paying managers).

And therein lies a fundamental problem with the endowment model: The agents seem to be in charge of the principals.

Read the full piece here.

Photo by Chaval Brasil

Group Calls For Transparency In Canadian Pensions As Investment Expenses Rise

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) has been an active investor in private equity, real estate and infrastructure around the world. Pension360 has covered Board’s endeavors into infrastructure and real estate in India and warehouses in California.

But those kinds of investments carry fees and expenses, and one Canadian think tank is calling on the CPPIB to make those expenses clearer. From CBC News:

The report, by former Statistics Canada chief economic analyst Philip Cross and Fraser Institute fellow Joel Emes, says the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board should more clearly explain the added costs of its new approach to investing.

Beginning in 2006, the CPPIB broadened its holdings beyond traditional stocks and bonds to invest in areas such as international real estate and infrastructure projects.

That new approach resulted in an additional $782 million for external management fees and $177 million on transaction fees, the authors say.

The CPPIB, which manages the funds not needed in the near term to pay Canada Pension Plan benefits, has moved away from traditional holdings because of low interest rates that keep bond returns low, according to CEO Mark Wiseman. In the past year, it has also invested selectively in stocks because of their high valuations.

Wiseman says the “active investment” approach is needed to create value “over an exceedingly long investment horizon” and to diversify the CPPIB portfolio.

The CPPIB has invested in infrastructure projects in countries such as Brazil and India and real estate portfolios in the U.S. and Australia.

The strategy led to returns of around 16 percent in 2013. But investment expenses have spiked as a result of the active management. From CBC:

The Fraser Institute argues the CPP has faced a big hike in the cost of its investments as a result of its new strategy — from $600 million or 0.54% of assets in 2006 to $2 billion or 1.15 per cent of its assets in 2013.

That figure includes the cost of collecting the CPP from Canadian paycheques and sending benefits to pensioners.

It is being less than transparent in failing to report its external management fees and transaction costs as part of CPPIB accounts, the report says. Instead those costs appear in federal government public accounts and overall accounts for CPP.

“The CPPIB needs to be more transparent about the expense of designing and implementing its investment strategy; every dollar spent on behalf of the CPP is one less dollar available to beneficiaries,” the Fraser Institute says.

External management fees might include investment banking fees, consulting fees, legal and tax advice and taxes on transfer of real estate, which would apply to the new style of investing, but might not be as high in stock and bond investing.

The Fraser Institute, the think tank that produced the report, advocates for smaller government and greater personal responsibility.

Memphis Fund Ramps Up Risk With New Investment Strategy

It’s been brewing for months, but now the decision is unanimous: the board that governs the City of Memphis Retirement System has decided to turn to a higher-risk investment strategy involving increased allocations toward private equity, hedge funds and foreign stocks and bonds. From the Commercial Appeal:

The Memphis pension board cast a unanimous voice vote Thursday morning to shift hundreds of millions of dollars in retirement assets out of U.S. stocks and bonds and into assets with higher risk and potentially higher rewards, such as international stocks and bonds, and new investments in private equity and hedge funds.

The city would sell a large portion of its U.S. stocks and bonds and increase its holdings of foreign stocks from 22 percent of the portfolio to 31.7 percent. The fund would also invest 13.4 percent of the portfolio in bonds from abroad.

The pension fund would invest 4.4 percent of its portfolio in private equity companies and 4.2 percent of its holdings in hedge funds.

These numbers are “targets” — the actual percentage of investments in each class can change depending on various factors, such as investment performance.

Earlier this summer, the fund approved doubling its real estate allocation—from 5 percent to 10 percent.

Some members of the board wondered what would happen it the strategy turned sour. The Commercial Appeal reports:

“If we went with these changes, what’s the worst case scenario?” pension board member Derek Brassell asked before the vote.

“The worst case is the same worst case we would have with the existing portfolio. So it’s no different than it was before,” responded Lawrence H. Marino, senior vice president with the city’s investment advisory firm Segal Rogerscasey.

“What we’ve done is by diversifying, we can get lower risk with the same return, or we can get higher return with the same risk. Here we’re opting to get higher return with the same risk.”

Other experts had previously advised the fund that, though higher risk was guaranteed, higher returns were not a given.

“Only time will tell,” said Don Fuerst, senior pension fellow at the American Academy of Actuaries.

Does Rhode Island’s Pension Fund Performance Justify Its Fees?

David Sirota is shining more light on the Rhode Island pension system’s investment returns—and fees—under Treasurer Gina Raimondo. According to his reporting, the combination of fees and “below-median” returns are costing the state’s taxpayers. From Sirota:

According to four years’ worth of state financial records, Rhode Island’s pension system has delivered an average 12 percent return during Raimondo’s tenure as general treasurer. That rate of return significantly trails the median rate of return for pension systems of similarly size across the country, based on data provided to the International Business Times by the Wilshire Trust Universe Comparison Service.

Meanwhile, the pension investment strategy that Raimondo began putting in place in 2011 has delivered big fees to Wall Street firms. The one-two punch of below-median returns and higher fees has cost Rhode Island taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, according to pension analysts.

Under Raimondo’s watch, the state’s pension fund has adopted an investment strategy that heavily utilizes private equity, hedge fund and venture capital investments. The New York Times reported that those alternative investments constitute almost a quarter of the fund’s assets. Sirota writes:

The high fees associated with those alternative investments — costing Rhode Island $70 million in the 2013 fiscal year alone, the Providence Journal reported — are supposed to buy above-average investment performance. However, according to pension consultant Chris Tobe, the gap between Rhode Island and the median, a gap to which the fees contributed, means the state effectively lost $372 million in unrealized returns.

By way of comparison, $372 million represents more than one-half of the entire annual budget of the state’s largest city, Providence. In all, had Rhode Island’s pension system merely performed at the median for pension systems of similar size, the state would have 5 percent more assets in its $7.5 billion retirement system.

Raimondo’s office defends the investment decisions. A spokesperson told Sirota that the strategy needs to be judged over a longer timeline to more accurately assess its effectiveness.

Private Equity Coming to Your 401(k)?

Private equity has become a staple in defined-benefit plans around the world. But it’s becoming increasingly common for employers to phase out defined-benefit plans and shift new hires into defined-contribution systems.

Accordingly, private equity funds are now setting their sights on 401(k) plans. Daisy Maxey writes in the Wall Street Journal:

Some big names of the private-equity world are working to make private-equity funds an option in defined-contribution retirement plans, such as 401(k)s, as soon as next year.

Pantheon Ventures LLP, a private-equity fund investor overseeing $30.5 billion, is shopping its plan to offer a private-equity product to defined-contribution plans. The firm is in talks with plan sponsors, and anticipates striking a deal to bring the product to defined-contribution plans next year, says Michael Riak, head of the firm’s U.S. defined-contribution business.

…Private-equity investments are already offered within some defined-contribution plans, though that is rare and the products don’t offer daily pricing and liquidity, says David O’Meara, a senior investment consultant at Towers Watson Investment Services.

Private equity isn’t being welcomed into defined-contribution plans with open arms—plan sponsors maintain skepticism that those investments are the right fit for 401(k) plans.

But those in the private equity field think some plan sponsors will soon change their tune, especially if they’ve dealt with private equity in the course of administering defined-benefit plans. From the WSJ:

Though some asset managers, such as Pantheon, have the products ready to go, and are now looking for plan sponsors to participate, there remains some healthy skepticism within the 401(k) marketplace, he said.

“I would presume that the early adopters of private equity in defined-contribution plans would be large plan sponsors that have used private equity within their defined-benefit plans historically, and understand the asset class and how to evaluate its risks and returns,” he said.

Which Pension Fund Is Best At Investing In Private Equity? The Results Are In

Reuters PE Hub recently surveyed 160 public pension funds across the country in an attempt to pinpoint the fund with the highest-performing private equity portfolio.

The results of the survey were released this month, and the fund with the best performance from private equity was the San Diego City Employees Retirement System (SDCERS). From KUSI News:

SDCERS’ private equity portfolio consists of 45 different funds, with commitments of $580 million. The survey noted 47 percent of SDCERS’ funds performed in the top 25 percent of all funds surveyed. The private equity program invests in all types of assets and strategies globally, including buyouts, special situations and venture capital funds.

“The success of SDCERS’ private equity program can be attributed to the thoughtful way in which the program was constructed, and the quality of the dialogue between staff and consultants,” SDCERS CEO Mark Hovey said. “I am proud of our investments team and the Board of Administration, who work tirelessly to secure a retirement future for more than 200,000 members through an effective investment strategy focused on delivering long-term results.”

SDCERS shouldn’t be confused with the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, which gained notoriety this week when the Wall Street Journal reported on the fund’s heavy reliance on alternative investments.

SDCERS was 68.6 percent funded as of 2013.

Memphis’ Pension Fund Is Considering Going All-In On High-Risk Strategies

For the last two years, the City of Memphis Pension Fund has been considering an overhaul in investment strategy. The strategy: re-allocating hundreds of millions of dollars from U.S. stocks and bonds into higher-risk investments. That entails increased allocations toward private equity, hedge funds, foreign stocks and bonds and real estate investments.

On August 28, the board that makes investment decisions for the fund will vote on the change in policy.

The board had already voted at its last meeting to allow the fund to double its real estate investments, from 5 percent of its portfolio to 10 percent.

CalPERS Rescinds $700 Million Investment With Private Equity Fund Headed By Doctor With No Private Equity Experience

You probably trust your doctor with your life. But with your money? Many people might balk at the notion of their doctor making their investment decisions for them.

But back in 2007, CalPERS made a big bet: a $705 million investment in a private equity fund, Health Evolution Partners Inc., specializing in health care companies.

The CEO of the fund, David Brailer, is a nationally renowned physician who had previously been the “health czar” under George W. Bush. But this was his first foray into the investment space, and he had no experience running an investment fund or making private equity investments.

Still, he reportedly promised the CalPERS board healthy returns in excess of 20 percent.

But through seven years, the fund has never managed to exceed single-digit returns. And portions of CalPERS’ investment have actually experienced negative returns.

That has led CalPERS to cut ties with the fund, according to Pensions & Investments:

CalPERS is ending its unique experiment as the sole limited partner of Health Evolution Partners Inc., a private equity firm that focuses on health-care companies.

…

CalPERS data show the HEP Growth Fund had an internal rate of return of 6.5% from its inception in mid-2009 through Dec. 31, 2013. By contrast, the $5.3 billion growth fund portion of CalPERS’ private equity portfolio returned 12.72% for the five years ended Dec. 31, the closest comparison that could be made with the data the pension fund made available.

The HEP fund of funds has had more serious performance problems. Its IRR from inception in 2007 through Dec. 31, 2013 was -5.2%, show CalPERS statistics. CalPERS also wants out of that investment, but sources say a complicated fund-of-fund structure may make that difficult.

Mr. Desrochers would not comment on HEP, telling a Pensions & Investments reporter the matter was too sensitive to discuss.

CalPERS spokesman Joe DeAnda, in an e-mail, said, “We continue to evaluate all options relating to Health Evolution Partners.”

Mr. Brailer did not return several phone calls.

CalPERS paid the fund over $18 million in fees in the fiscal year 2011-12, according to the System’s financial report.

Meanwhile, CalPERS is gearing up for another large investment partnership, to the tune of $500 million, that will focus on infrastructure investments. FTSE Global Markets reports:

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) today announced a new $500m global infrastructure partnership with UBS Global Asset Management.

CalPERS, the largest public pension fund in the US, will contribute $485m to the newly formed company, while UBS will contribute $15m and act as managing member.

The partnership will operate as Golden State Matterhorn, LLC and is set to pursue infrastructure investment opportunities in the US and global developed markets.

“UBS brings extensive experience and a proven track record in global infrastructure investing that makes them a great fit for this partnership,” says Ted Eliopoulos, CalPERS Interim Chief Investment Officer. “We’re excited to work with them as we identify and acquire core assets that will provide the best risk-adjusted returns for our portfolio.”

The CalPERS Infrastructure Program seeks to provide stable, risk-adjusted returns to the total fund by investing in public and private infrastructure, primarily within the transportation, power, energy, and water sectors.

Infrastructure investments returned 22.8% during the 2013-14 fiscal year and 23.3% over the past five years, outperforming the benchmark by 17.23 and 16.6 percentage points, respectively.

CalPERS holds about $1.8 billion in infrastructure assets.

Photo by hobvias sudoneighm via Flickr CC License

Private Equity Sets Sights on 401(k)s

Private equity funds have been a staple of the investments of defined-benefit plans for decades. But as the prominence of defined-benefit plans diminish and defined-contribution plans rise in their place, private equity firms now have their eyes on another prize: 401(k)s.

So said several major private equity players who spoke as part of a panel discussion at the Fifth Annual Innovative Alternative Investment Strategies Conference on Thursday.

From Financial Advisor magazine:

[Red Rocks Capital co-founder Mark] Sunderhuse sees big opportunity for private equity in the defined contribution space. “Target-date plans will use private equity,” he said. “There’s a lot of work with consultants going on, and different types of products will fit different boxes. We’ve had conversations with a number of people in more mainstream mutual fund-type formats where they’ll use it [the Red Rocks fund]. Our product is primarily used in investment models where people want private equity exposure in way where they can manage the risk and be able to reallocate it and rebalance it.”

Kevin Albert, a partner at Pantheon, a global private equity investment company, said U.S. public pension plans on average have 10 percent of their assets in private equity. But defined benefit pension plans are becoming dinosaurs both in the U.S. and abroad.

“That has motivated the best firms in the private equity industry to raise capital from other sources, and the two biggest other sources are defined contribution plans and private affluent investors,” Albert said. “And that’s a good thing because 15 years ago it was hard to convince a top 10 private equity fund to raise a feeder fund or to participate in an offering that would go to individual investors. They saw it as less prestigious, and viewed it as more complicated from a regulatory perspective.

“Now you’re seeing firms like Carlyle, KKR and Blackstone at the vanguard of this,” he continued. “So I think we’re in the middle of an amazing revolution in the repackaging of private equity to make it attractive to defined contribution plans, which have different needs and desires than defined benefit plans did. So I think that will be a meaningful difference in this industry from five, 10, 15 years ago.”

The discussion came up when the panelists were asked to explain a few key trends they see playing out in private equity in the next five years.

Photo by 401kcalculator.org

Maryland’s Top Fund Returns 14 Percent for Year

The Maryland State Retirement and Pension System is the latest fund to release its investment performance data for fiscal year 2013-14, and the fund returned over 14 percent for the year, the System’s second consecutive year of double-digit investment returns. From the Baltimore Post-Examiner:

Maryland’s pension system for state employees and teachers had another strong investment performance for the fiscal year which ended June 30 earning 14.37%, bringing the value of the portfolio to $45.4 billion, a gain of more than $5 billion.

It was the second year in a row of strong performance due to sharp upturns in stocks, according to Chief Investment Officer Melissa Moye. The fund exceeded its target of 7.7% and its market benchmark of 14.16% — what its basket of assets would have been expected to earn.

The System is still in a hole due to its unfunded liabilities, which sit at about $20 billion. But the major credit rating agencies, even while weary of the liabilities, have commented on the improved health of the system of late as the effects of several reform measures have been positively felt. From the BPE:

These liabilities are consistently mentioned as a negative financial factor by all three bond rating agencies as they did earlier this month.

But the three New York agencies also note the improvements made in Maryland’s pension outlook after employee contributions were raised and benefits reduced by the legislature in 2011.

“The funds annual returns continue to reflect the strong market environment that has prevailed since the end of the credit crisis,” State Treasurer Nancy Kopp, chair of the pension board, said in a statement.

Typically, the System released investment performance figures by asset category. This year, the system only released aggregate returns and did not specify returns by asset category, although those figures may be released to the public eventually.

The S&P 500 returned around 21 percent for fiscal year 2014.

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