transparency | Pension360

Kentucky Lawmakers to Push for Pension Reforms Before Funding Teachers’ System

The Kentucky General Assembly is considering issuing billions of dollars worth of bonds to help fund the state’s Teachers’ Retirement System (KTRS).

But the funding may come with a catch as many lawmakers want to attach strings to the funds, which range anywhere from forcing new transparency requirements on the system to making benefit changes.

From the Courier-Journal:

So far, legislators have pre-filed at least four bills that would alter some aspect of teacher pensions, and leaders from both the House and Senate say any bonding needs to be paired with reforms.

“There is not a lot of enthusiasm for borrowing more money to pay off the KTRS debt without structural changes accompanying that effort,” said Senate Majority Leader Damon Thayer, R-Georgetown.

Thayer said lawmakers need to consider adjustments to employee contributions and cost-of-living increases, along with new policies that promote transparency in the system.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo, who argues that bond proposals have merit under today’s market conditions, likewise favors measures to improve oversight and transparency as part of the overall funding scheme.

“I think to sell it, it needs to be part of the package,” Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, said.

[…]

McDaniel, R-Latonia, is sponsoring a bill that would require public retirement systems — including KTRS — to disclose more information about use of investment middlemen known as placement agents.

In the House, Rep. Jim Wayne, D-Louisville, has pre-filed legislation that would, among other things, ban the use of placement agents and require KTRS to publicly disclose information about investments and contracts.

Wayne said the bonding proposal makes some fiscal sense if the state can borrow money at a interest rate lower than its investment return.

But he warned that lawmakers can’t trust the system to act in the best interest of retirees without more transparency, and he says the funding problem is better addressed through tax reform.

KTRS manages $17.5 billion in assets.

Texas Pension Accounting Tweak Will Shift Debt to Schools, If Only Symbolically

In light of newly adopted GASB accounting rules, the Teacher Retirement System of Texas in 2015 will require school districts, colleges – and any other government entities that pay into the system – to declare their employees’ pension liabilities on their books.

From the Killeen Daily Herald:

School districts across the state will soon have more debt listed on their general fund balances and teachers could see a smaller paycheck…

[…]

“TRS does not want to put this liability on their books so they are taking the allocation to the districts and the cities and colleges and saying, ‘You record this amount; I’ll record this amount,” said Dane Legg, a partner at Lott, Vernon and Company PC, the Killeen Independent School District’s external auditing firm.

Legg reviewed the upcoming financial policy change with board members at their mid-December workshop.

In laymen’s terms, this means Killeen ISD will have to show a $48 million liability in its budget for about 28 years, the amount TRS said it owes toward Killeen ISD employees’ pensions.

The liability stems from the TRS Trust Fund, which is underfunded but will be fully funded in 28 years.

“It’s not set in stone — that number has not been set yet — but this was what they were charged to do to give people a heads up and go ahead and come up with their best guess,” Legg said.

TRS is $28.9 billion underfunded statewide, Legg said. And officials expect many government entities will take issue with the new GASB 68 policy because it will force some of them to look like they are in debt.

“TRS determines how that liability gets allocated by the district, and TRS is only taking a small piece of that $28 billion, and they are giving most of the rest to the district to record,” said Megan Bradley, the chief financial officer for Killeen ISD.

The district will not have to fund the liability, it will simply be a book entry, Legg said. TRS will fund it, however, by changing its member contribution rates and possibly the district’s match rate.

The Teachers Retirement System of Texas managed $124 billion in assets as of the end of 2013.

Photo by www.SeniorLiving.Org

As Demand for Green Bonds Grows, So Does Desire for Transparency

There is growing demand for environmentally friendly investments, and as a result, “green bonds” have become an increasingly popular investment vehicle.

For proof, look no further than CalSTRS, which increased its purchases of “green bonds” by 300 percent in 2014.

But with increased popularity comes increased demands for transparency: what exactly qualifies as a “green” investment?

From Institutional Investor:

With green bonds’ rising prominence comes a need for a single set of clear and science-based criteria for what constitutes “green.” Nuclear power is low carbon, but some would balk at calling it green. And the coal industry would like investors to count fitting a coal-fired power plant with technology to reduce carbon emissions as a clean energy project, although fossil fuel consumption is hardly carbon neutral.

“When you get into the corporate space, you’re dealing with a large number of companies, and transparency is not always as good,” says Colin Purdie, head of global investment-grade credit at London-based asset management firm Aviva Investors.

None of this means Aviva wouldn’t invest in a bond because it doesn’t qualify as “green.” It just means the firm wouldn’t call it that. And therein lies the conundrum. A lot of these bonds would hit investors’ desks even without the green label. If the market is to grow into the large liquid powerhouse its proponents want, it needs a significant roster of corporate issuers to issue green bonds.

Also at issue are third-party verifications proving that issuers are spending funds on the environmentally friendly projects the bonds were designed to finance. This has begun to happen already. More than half of the green bonds issued in 2014 included an independent second opinion on their environmental credentials, from watchdogs such as the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo and Vigeo in Paris, according to data from the Climate Bonds Initiative.

[…]

“I think the biggest concern right now is trying to grow the market and getting more issuers to issue bonds,” says Catherine DiSalvo, investment officer at the California State Teachers’ Retirement System. “We do support third-party verifications. The only problem is that it adds to the expense of issuing a green bond.”

Read the whole piece on green bonds here.

Photo by penagate via Flickr CC License

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

He went on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by World Economic Forum via Wikimedia Commons

Kentucky Chamber of Commerce Calls For Audit of State Pension System

The Kentucky Chamber of Commerce is pushing for an audit of the Kentucky Retirement Systems – specifically, a review of its investment performance and policies.

Reported by the Courier-Journal:

Chamber President and CEO Dave Adkisson announced Thursday that the group wants a review of the investment performance and use of outside investment managers — among other issues — at Kentucky Retirement Systems, which has amassed more than $17 billion in unfunded liabilities.

While the state has made progress in addressing pensions, “serious problems persist that pose a significant threat to the state’s financial future,” Adkisson said. “The business community is concerned about the overall financial condition of our state.”

[State Auditor Adam] Edelen said in a statement Thursday that he shares the chamber’s concerns, but he also noted that at least three major reviews of KRS have occurred over the past few years.

[…]

KRS Executive Director Bill Thielen said officials will fully cooperate if Edelen decides to perform an audit. But also he pointed out that the system has been subject to continuous examinations, including audits, legislative reviews and a two-year investigation of investment managers by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission.

“None of those have turned up anything that is out-of-sorts,” he said. “A lot of the questions or concerns that the chamber seemingly raised have been answered numerous times.”

Thielen added that KRS doesn’t disclose the individual fees it pays managers because confidentiality helps officials negotiate lower rates.

State Auditor Adam Edelen said Thursday he hadn’t made a decision on whether to begin an audit of KRS. He said in a press release:

“For this proposed exam to add value and bring about real fixes to the system, it will require broad, bipartisan support and additional resources for our office to conduct the highly technical work…We have begun discussing the matter with stakeholders. No final decision has been made at this time.”

The founder of one retiree advocate group laid blame for the system’s underfunding on the state’s contributions, not investment policy, and was skeptical that the audit would yield fruitful results. Quoted in the Courier-Journal:

Jim Carroll, co-founder Kentucky Government Retirees, a pension watchdog group organized on Facebook, called the proposed audit a “red-herring” and argued that the financial problems in KERS non-hazardous are the result of year of employer underfunding.

He said KRS investments don’t yield the returns of some other systems because the low funding levels force them to invest defensively.

“I’m skeptical that anything useful would come out of another audit,” he said. “Not to say that there shouldn’t be more transparency, but that’s a separate issue.”

KRS’ largest sub-plan – KERS non-hazardous – is 21 percent funded.

OECD Report: Longer Life Expectancy Threatening Pension Sustainability; More Reforms Needed

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development released a report Monday morning highlighting the challenges that longer life expectancy poses to pension systems around the world.

From CNBC:

The world’s retirement bill is coming due—and many countries aren’t ready to pay it.

That’s the conclusion of a report Monday from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based group representing the world’s developed countries.

With populations aging and lifespans rising, government-supported pensions are cutting deeper into national budgets, crowding out spending on other programs and services. The added burden comes as the economies of the developed world are growing slowly, putting added pressure on the tax revenues needed to pay rising pension costs.

[…]

“The ongoing rapid demographic shift and the slowdown in the global economy highlight the need for continuing reforms,” OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said. “We must communicate better the message that working longer and contributing more is the only way to get a decent income in retirement.”

The report acknowledges numerous pension reforms by countries and states in recent years, but says more needs to be done. The report presented a handful of reform proposals. From the OECD:

Increasing the effective retirement age can help but more efforts are needed to assist older workers find and retain jobs. Public policies to reduce age discrimination, improve working conditions and increase training opportunities for older workers are essential.

Countries have also introduced reforms to strengthen funded private pensions. The report highlights the importance of increasing coverage rates in countries where funded pensions are voluntary. Auto-enrolment programs have been successful in raising coverage in the countries that have implemented them.

The report also calls for strengthening the regulatory framework to help pension funds and annuity providers deal with the uncertainty around improving life expectancy. It argues that regulators should make sure that providers use regularly updated mortality tables, which incorporate future improvements in mortality and life expectancy. Failure to account for such improvements can result in a shortfall of provisions of well over 10% of the pension and annuity liabilities.

Capital markets could offer additional capacity for mitigating longevity risk, but the transparency, standardization and liquidity of instruments to hedge this risk need to be facilitated. The regulatory framework will also need to reflect the reduction of risk exposure these instruments offer by ensuring they are appropriately valued by accounting standards and lowering the level of required capital for entities hedging their longevity risk.

Issuing longevity bonds and publishing a longevity index to serve as a benchmark for the pricing and risk assessment of hedges would support the development of longevity instruments.

Rebuilding trust is also an important challenge that policy makers face, says the OECD. Young people in particular need to trust the long-term stability of the pension system and the pension promise that is made to them. Communication campaigns and individual pension statements to explain the need for reform and facilitate choice by individuals are needed, says the OECD.

The full OECD report can be read here.

Photo by Horia Varlan via Flickr CC License

Newspaper: Kentucky Pension System is Public Business

Pension360 covered the push last week by several Kentucky lawmakers to make the state’s pension system more transparent.

But at least one lawmaker wasn’t on board with those plans. House State Government Committee Chairman Brent Yonts had this to say about his colleagues’ proposals, which included public disclosure of pension benefits, management fees, and other data:

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

The Lexington-Herald Leader editorial board weighed in on the issue on Wednesday. The newspaper’s stance: public pensions should be public business. From the editorial:

Rep. Brent Yonts, D-Greenville, is certainly right that the public “is not entitled to know every little thing about us.”

We don’t need to know Yonts’ blood pressure or where he gets his hair done, or which, if any, bourbon he likes to sip of an evening.

But taxpayers are entitled to know how much he and every other state employee will receive from our public pension systems.

Yonts, chairman of the House State Government Committee, made his “every little thing” remark while explaining his opposition to two bills — prefiled for the upcoming session — that would increase transparency in the beleaguered public retirement systems.

Specifically, Yonts thinks the public just doesn’t have the right to know how much retirees are drawing in public pension benefits.

“Frankly, I don’t think that’s the public’s business,” he told reporter John Cheves.

It is all the public’s business: How much people draw and how much the retirement systems pay hedge fund managers and other investment advisers.

Right now the largest of these funds, the Kentucky Employees Retirement System, which covers workers in non-hazardous jobs, is at a perilous 21-percent funding level. That means it has only about one in five of the dollars it is obligated to pay out.

This has happened for several reasons, undoubtedly the most important being that governors and the General Assembly have balanced too many budgets by forgoing the state’s annual match to the money paid in by employees. That’s a breach of promise and an unconscionable slap at state workers.

[…]

And, then there’s the $55 million that the retirement systems paid to investment managers with very little disclosure about what we got for that money.

It’s impossible to fix Kentucky’s public pension mess without laying all the cards on the table. How much do the spikers, double-dippers and well-retired lawmakers cost the system? No one knows, or if they do they’re not telling. How are the investment advisers’ fees set and what do we get for them?

Yonts and public employees who say retirement benefits are none of our business should get over it.

Employees are absolutely right that they took jobs and paid into the retirement system on the belief the money would be there.

But taxpayers funded those salaries and will pay the lion’s share of the bill to solve the pension mess. They have the right to know every little thing.

The full editorial can be read here.

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.

Researcher: High Transition Costs For States Switching From DB to DC Plans Are a “Myth”

Anthony Randazzo, director of economic research for the Reason Foundation, recently sat down with CapCon to talk about the concept of a state switching from a defined-benefit system to a defined-contribution system.

Disclosure: the Reason Foundation is a libertarian-leaning research organization.

Randazzo has published research in the past claiming that the “transition costs” of switching from a DB to a DC plan are largely a myth – and he expanded on that view in the interview.

From Michigan Capitol Confidential:

Michigan Capitol Confidential: You argue that these “transition costs” are a myth. What’s the basis for that myth?

Randazzo: The myth is based on two mistaken assumptions that certain steps need to be taken when switching from a defined-benefit system to a defined-contribution system. They are:

(1) That government must start making bigger debt payments to the defined-benefit system after it is closed.

(2) That a defined-benefit system needs new members in order to keep it solvent.

Neither of these assumptions are true. Regarding the first mistaken assumption; it might be recommended that a government increase the size of its debt payments after the system has been closed in order to pay off the debt sooner, but there is no legal requirement that it do so.

Regarding the second mistaken assumption, defined-benefit systems are supposed to be fully funded on a yearly basis by employer and employee contributions plus investment earnings. These systems are not based on new workers subsidizing older workers.

Michigan Capitol Confidential: So we have this disagreement between independent pension experts and individuals with an interest in the current systems. What’s at the core of this disagreement?

Randazzo: I think it is a disagreement between philosophies. It’s true that a defined-benefit system could be changed to a defined-contribution system that would be more expensive. But to prevent this, all you would have to do is put in a defined-contribution rate that ensures lower costs. Therefore, if the defined-contribution system – that’s put in place to try to solve a growing debt problem being created by a defined-benefit system – ends up costing too much, to me, that’s not a transition cost, it’s just the result of a bad policy decision.

[…]

Michigan Capitol Confidential: And you would argue that switching to a defined-contribution pension system would do away with most of the guesswork.

Randazzo: A defined-contribution system is 100 percent more transparent than a defined-benefit system because it requires zero actuarial assumptions about the future, and zero backroom negotiations with pension boards and union members. The costs of a defined-contribution system are clear every year: it is simply whatever the government body has chosen to be the contribution rate to each employee’s retirement account. The cost is known each year, and taxpayers don’t have to worry about whether investment returns will equal assumptions, or whether people will wind up living longer than expected and costing the system more money than it has projected pensions to cost.

Read the full interview here.

Photo by 401kcalculator.org

Pension Funds: Hedge Funds Should Meet Benchmarks Before Charging Fees

Pension funds and other investors called for changes Tuesday in the way hedge funds charge fees.

The proposed changes were outlined in a statement by the Alignment of Interests Association (AOI), a hedge fund investor group to which many pension funds belong.

The group said that hedge funds should only charge performance fees when returns beat benchmarks, and that fee structures should better link fees to long-term performance.

More details from Bloomberg:

The Teacher Retirement System of Texas and MetLife Inc. are among investors that yesterday called on managers to beat market benchmarks before charging incentive fees in a range of proposals that address investing terms. Funds should base performance fees on generating “alpha,” or gains above benchmark indexes, and impose minimum return levels known as hurdle rates before they start levying the charges, said the Alignment of Interests Association, a group that represents investors in the $2.8 trillion hedge fund industry.

“Some managers are abiding by the principals to some extent but we are hoping to move everyone toward industry best practices,” said Trent Webster, senior investment officer for strategic investments and private equity at the State Board of Administration in Florida. The pension plan, a member of the association, oversees $180 billion, of which $2.5 billion is invested in hedge funds.

[…]

To better link compensation to longer-term performance, the AOI recommended funds implement repayments known as clawbacks, a system in which incentive money can be returned to clients in the event of losses or performance that lags behind benchmarks. The group said performance fees should be paid no more frequently than once a year, rather than on a monthly or quarterly basis as they are at many firms.

AOI also called on the hedge fund industry to lower management fees – or make operating expenses more transparent so higher management fees can be justified. From Bloomberg:

Management fees, which are based on a fund’s assets, should decline as firms amass more capital, the investor group said.

“We need good managers, not asset gatherers,” Webster said. “The incentives are currently skewed.”

[…]

Firms should disclose their operating expenses to investors so they can assess the appropriateness of management fee levels, the group said.

“Management fees should not function to generate profits but rather should be set at a level to cover reasonable operating expenses of a hedge fund manager’s business and investment process,” the AOI said.

The fees should fall or be eliminated if a manager prevents clients from withdrawing money, according to the group.

Hedge funds typically utilize a “2 & 20” fee structure; but in the second quarter of 2014, hedge funds on average were charging “1.5 & 18”.

Photo by TaxRebate.org.uk 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