Pensions and Real Estate Manager Due Diligence

Dr. Susan Mangiero, CFA, FRM is pleased to join a panel entitled "Manager Monitoring & Ongoing Due Diligence" on March 30, 2011 in New York City. Part of IMN's "Real Estate Investment & Search Consultants Congress: Meet the Gatekeepers" event, Dr. Mangiero will participate in a discussion about the following topics:

  • Factors used to evaluate fund managers;
  • Asset manager - client communication best practices;
  • Organization and strategies as relates to style shifts;
  • When to consider replacing a manager;
  • Duties of a limited partner;
  • Benchmarking against the agreed upon scope of work; and
  • Performance reporting pitfalls.

According to statistics published by the Pension Real Estate Association ("PREA"), real estate equity accounts for an average of roughly 4.6 percent of surveyed plans that control about $5 trillion in assets (including single-employer public and corporate pensions, endowments, foundations and Taft-Hartley plans). About 90 percent of surveyed institutional investors state that they expect no change in allocation to this asset class. Given the size of monies being deployed to real estate and the various mechanisms used (including but not limited to commingled funds, direct investments, real estate investment trusts, joint ventures), a detailed discussion about manager due diligence is timely and helpful.

Use online registration code SP10 if you plan to attend this conference in the Big Apple on March 30.

Rethinking Work

I caught the last half hour of "Castaway" the other day on television. I've seen this 2000 morality tale several times. Directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Tom Hanks, the plot is straightforward. A Federal Express executive survives a plane crash, only to find himself alone for four years except for the company of a sports ball he names Wilson. When he is finally saved, a reunion with his beloved girlfriend is bittersweet. Having reconciled herself to having lost the "love of her life," she has since married and become the mother of a baby girl. The film ends with the protagonist standing at the crossroads where four paths converge, deciding on his next move and feeling sad but hopeful about what tomorrow will bring.

As I read "Boomers Find 401(k) Plans Fall Short" by E.S. Browning (Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2011), I kept thinking how more and more people are finding themselves cast away on remote islands of life, having to figure out how to survive and overcome tough times. With the typical balance of "less than one-quarter of what is needed in that account to maintain" a "standard of living in retirement," it is no doubt a shock to countless individuals to discover that a trip down easy street won't come any time soon. Whether starting too late or saving too little or both, the net effect is the same. With rare exceptions, current monies are insufficient to support early retirement. To the contrary, working longer may soon become the new norm.

Like Tom Hanks whose rescued film persona looks to the future, learning from the past, attitude is everything. According to "'I'll work till I die': Older workers say no to retirement" by Jessica Dickler (CNNMoney.com, September 28, 2010), some individuals refuse to exit the labor force, even if they can afford to do so. Citing a study by Barclays Wealth, "nevertirees" choose to earn a living for as long as they can.

Tom Hanks is a fine actor but he too must be sensing a sea change in how people live their lives. Later this year, he plays Larry Crowne, a middle-aged man who "reinvents himself by going back to college" after losing his job. I've read that he also bought the movie rights to "How Starbucks Saved My Life: A Son of Privilege Learns to Live Like Everyone Else" by Michael Gates Gill. This former executive and now best-selling author says that "losing my job turned out to be a gift in disguise." See "Fired exec: 'Starbucks saved my life'" by Lola Ogunnaike, February 5, 2009.

As French entertainment legend Maurice Chevalier said, "Old age isn't so bad when you consider the alternative."

PBGC and Risk-Based Premiums

In his just proposed federal budget, President Barack Obama opens the door for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") to determine insurance premiums as a function of the riskiness of the plan sponsor. Having been an advocate for this approach for numerous years, my response is "yippee yahoo." There is empirical evidence aplenty about the costly consequences of forcing good risks to subsidize bad risks. The common sense notion of charging plan sponsors higher insurance premiums if they are deemed "higher risk" is logical and is a long overdue move in the right direction.

The excerpted text from "Low Risk Premium Makes PBGC Bargain Insurer" (In the Money, Dow Jones Newswires, July 18, 2005) by Steven D. Jones addresses the concept of risk-based premiums as follows:

 A separate bill that emerged from a House committee in June changes a number of rules governing funding levels and grace periods to meet them. It also ties premiums for PBGC coverage to hikes in the national wage index. But the formula wouldn't impose higher premiums on higher risk plans. "That's a mistake, says consultant Susan Mangiero, author of Risk Management for Pensions, Endowments and Foundations." To be effective, a premium structure needs to reflect the risk of the insured. Without a risk mechanism, "you invite adverse selection" in the insurance plan, she says. For example, a driver with several tickets and an accident record pays more for auto insurance. If there's no cost to the behavior, the carefree driver has no incentive to change, losses mount and premiums go up for every participant. Discouraged by the cost, clients with good risk profiles leave the plan. Companies can't seek pension insurance elsewhere, but they can end defined-benefit plans and shift to defined-contribution plans, such as a 401(k), in which employees share the risk. Such plans are not covered by the PBGC. "The net effect of flat-based insurance, not taking into account different risk levels, is that you have a riskier system, which is counter to the purpose of having an insurance plan," she says.

Think about the issue this way. Would you buy stocks or bonds issued by a public insurance company that charged the same premium for all insured parties, irregardless of their risk behavior? Hopefully your answer is "of course not."

If plan sponsors do the right thing in terms of careful risk-taking and good procedural prudence, they should not be penalized by having to pay for the sins of others who are less careful or, worse yet, sloppy, indifferent and/or take excessive risks unnecessarily and to the detriment of their plan participants.

Note to Readers: Check out "Obama's 2012 Budget: What It Means for Pension Plans and the PBGC" by John Sullivan, Advisor One, February 16, 2011,  "Let PBGC set employer premiums based on risk: Obama" by Jerry Geisel, Business Insurance, February 14, 2011 and "Budget Would Raise Pension-Insurance Costs" by David Wessell (Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2011).

Risk Management and Valuation Blog Launches

Recognizing the continued need for actionable information about institutional investment best practices, Dr. Susan Mangiero offers analysis of critical issues affecting the $30+ trillion global buy side industry. This unique investment risk management and valuation blog at www.goodriskgovernancepays.com serves as a resource for trustees, board members, attorneys, money managers and financial advisors with asset allocation, governance, risk management and fiduciary oversight responsibilities.

According to Dr. Mangiero, “Investment risk governance is more important than ever before. As billion dollar losses continue to make headlines, fiduciaries and their counsel continue to be challenged with volatile markets, a slew of new mandates and investment complexity that requires rigorous due diligence. Litigation is increasing at a fast clip and investment professionals must absolutely embrace and demonstrate an understanding of risk management and valuation issues. Post-Madoff and the credit crisis, there is no room for complacency.”

Click here to read the February 10, 2011 press release about GoodRiskGovernancePays.com.

Note to Readers: PensionRiskMatters.com, soon to celebrate its fifth year anniversary, focuses on the many challenges confronting retirement plan decision-makers. GoodRiskGovernancePays.com takes a broader view of the industry and includes commentary, insights and analysis about important issues for pension funds and other types of institutional investment industry participants such as endowments, hedge funds, mutual funds, private equity funds and sovereign wealth funds. The coverage is slightly different and the access is complimentary. Readers are encouraged to get email updates for each of these two unique websites. Visit GoodRiskGovernancePays.com and type your email into the box by the green GO button or click here to add GoodRiskGovernancePays.com to your RSS feeder.

Congress Wants Public Plan Transparency

According to a press release dated February 9, 2011, U.S. Congressman Devin Nunes and U.S. Senator Richard Burr are about to force their peers to focus on public pension fund finances. While the House gets the Public Employees Pension Transparency Act this week, a version for the United States Senate is expected in a few days. The goals of this proposed legislation are several:

  • Provide one set of financial statements (and underlying assumptions) for state and municipal plans to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury that are based on prevailing accounting methods, even if flawed.
  • Report a second set of financial statements that reflect the level of liabilities for each reporting entity as determined according to a uniform set of rules. "These guidelines will include more realistic discount rates, as well as controls to assure assets are counted using a reasonable estimate of fair market value."
  • Penalize non-compliant government units by withholding federal subsidies of state and local debt and nixing federal tax-exempt status for their bonds.

According to "US House Republicans Rule Out Federal Bailouts For States" by Andrew Ackerman (Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011), today's Congressional discussion about the state of public employee benefit plans made it clear that states and/or municipalities seeking refuge from their funding problems will not get a federal bailout.

Unless struggling government plan sponsors rescind benefits and/or increase local tax revenue and/or take on a lot more investment risk, they are going to feel immense pain in the coming years. The bad news is not spread out equally. A table that describes the "Public Pension Crisis" and is based on "Public Pension Promises: How Big Are They and What Are They Worth" by Professors Robert Novy-Marx and Joshua D. Rauh projects that Oklahoma, Louisiana, Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Hawaii and Indiana will exhaust their funding first.

The vicious cycle begins. If municipal bond investors view these issuers as higher risk, their respective cost of money will go up. More expensive debt service will exacerbate the overall problems, irregardless of which accounting rules are used for reporting. Taxpayers will get more upset and possibly vote with their feet, moving to what they perceive as fiscally sound cities, towns and states. Yet another falling domino, a shrinking tax base will mean fewer available dollars to pay bills, widening the money gap.

According to "Bond Rating Drop Ignites Pension Fight" by Lisa Fleisher and Jeannette Neumann (Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011), the Garden State is now on the receiving end of a ratings downgrade and "is one of the seven lowest-rated states in the country." They report that New Jersey missed a $3.1 billion pension payment and could well have been a factor in the drop from AA to AA-.

I hate to say "I told you so" AGAIN but I wrote about the political impact of pension funding in the mid 2000's since it was obvious even then that there were large problems afoot. If you missed it, read "Tea Party Redux" State Pensions in Turmoil" by Susan Mangiero (July 27, 2006) and note that the term "tea party" has nothing to do with the party or movement of late.

Watch carefully as to how these plans change their asset allocations. Already there is a significant move towards investing in funds and instruments with an expectation of higher returns. That's not a problem as long as a robust risk management process in put in place or improved upon if it exists already. My forthcoming book on this topic will elaborate on the potential dangers of taking on too much risk.

Remembering Nell Hennessy

According to the website for Fiduciary Counselors, Attorney Nell Hennessy passed away on February 4, 2011. I did not know Nell too well but found her to be amazingly generous with her knowledge of the employee benefits industry. She took time from what I'm sure was always a busy schedule to share her passion for best practices. An industry leader, she worked tirelessly throughout her distinguished career on behalf of plan participants. Interested persons can read the statement posted by her colleagues by visiting In Remembrance, Nell Hennessy.

Unemployment at the Movies

If you haven't yet seen "The Company Men" with Ben Affleck, Tommy Lee Jones, Chris Cooper and Kevin Costner and don't need a lot of laughs, it's a worthwhile flick about the U.S. economic problems of late. The plot centers on a successful sales executive who gets the boot from a Massachusetts conglomerate that started out as a manufacturer of ships. A wholesale layoff of otherwise talented professionals still leaves the company exposed to a hostile takeover so another round or two ensues, with Affleck's boss ultimately getting the pink slip from his lover, played by a glamourous Maria Bello. (Hey, it's the Hollywood version of Corporate America.)

Similar to "Up In The Air" with George Clooney, this film's message seems to be that management is bad, labor is good and that family is what really counts. While I wholeheartedly endorse the message about counting one's blessings in the form of loved ones, friends and colleagues, I'm agnostic about the general "we versus them" theme and prefer to consider one company at a time.

If we've learned anything from the past decade, it's that production is increasingly mobile across borders. Beyond that, C-level leaders in the United States have a legal duty to their shareholders to create wealth (which is not necessarily the same thing as boosting the bottom line but that's a topic for another day). While I am not alone in opining that well-run companies recognize the importance of human capital (employees, clients, vendors) and that is why they can generate healthy returns for their investors, it is also important that individuals retool as often as is necessary to remain competitive.

In 2002, Daniel H. Pink extolled the virtues of independence in his best selling book entitled Free Agent Nation: The Future of Working for Yourself. The numbers speak for themselves with a continued increase in freelancers, temps, affiliated parties and smaller consulting networks that work from home or close by, create their own revenue path and are happy campers. However, for those who desire more stability and structure by working for larger employers, the concept of free agent is still worth pondering. Specifically, if your industry is changing around you, maybe it's time to take stock of how you stack up against others. My dad, now a retired engineer, went through this process about fifteen years ago when he took it upon himself to study computer assisted design at night since younger hires were facile with the newer technology tools and he was not.

As a young banker, I had a boss who urged me to think of myself as a box of raisin bran. Every year, he told me to figure out how to be "new and improved." I would complete a skills inventory checklist and then commit to improve as needed.

"The Company Men" was an enjoyable cinematic outing and a great reminder that dues paying never stops. Learning and career development is a lifetime endeavor, especially now. With longer lifespans and, for millions of people, the need and/or desire to work beyond 65 years of age, it is critical to stay current with requisite skills and experience.

ERISA Litigation Conference

The American Conference Institute has generously offered a discount to readers of www.pensionriskmatters.com who want to attend the 3rd National Advanced Forum on Defending & Managing ERISA Litigation event in San Francisco on April 14 and 15, 2011. Click to download the agenda for this ERISA litigation conference that includes 3 circuit judges and 17 district judges as part of a terrific speaker roster. 

Interested persons who want to reserve at a discounted rate should email the American Conference Institute by February 11, 2011.

Model Risk Costs One Asset Manager $242 Million

According to a February 3, 2011 document released by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), AXA Rosenberg Group ("AXA") and various related entities have settled a matter relating to model risk for $242 million in economic damages and penalties. In a company letter dated April 15, 2010, several AXA executives describe an error with an investment model as having been "discovered in late June 2009" and "corrected between September and mid-November." While there are issues about the disclosure of said problems, the official message to investors at that time was a continued commitment to risk management.

Investor fallout has occurred nevertheless with various press accounts reporting the withdrawal of monies from AXA by pension plans such as the School Employees' Retirement System of Ohio, Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions, the City of Fresno Retirement System, Florida State Board of Administration, the Marin County Employees' Retirement Association and the Montana Board of Investments. 

As I've written before, valuation (and by extension, model risk assessment) is a key element of the due diligence of asset managers. For a list of some of the "must ask" questions about model reviews, click to read "Asset Valuation: Not a Trivial Pursuit" by Susan Mangiero, PhD, CFA, FRM (FSA Times, The Institute of Internal Auditors, Q1-2004).

Email contact@fiduciaryleadership.com if you want to further discuss model review best practices.

Public Pensions, Politics and Risk Management

According to "Florida governor wants cheaper state pensions" by Michael Connor (Reuters, February 1, 2011), Governor Rick Scott wants to put public employees into 401(k) plans and migrate away from traditional defined benefit plans. Though the state's system is "relatively strong financially," the article goes on to say that local town halls "pay between 9 and 20 percent of each worker's salary for pensions" and that "Florida's 572,000 state and local-government workers now see no paycheck deductions for a fixed-benefit pension program, which supports 319,000 retirees."

Expect more to come after Governor Scott puts his budget to the Florida taxpayers on Monday, February 7, 2011.

Notably, risk management is not any less important for defined contribution plans. To the contrary, a quick survey of some of the litigation underway is focused on 401(k) issues relating to fees, portfolio selection choices, investor education and much more. Moreover, greater pressures for reform are going to force enhanced transparency and allow little time and latitude for decision-makers to focus on prudently realizing risk-adjusted returns. The last thing a board member, lawmaker, regulator or politician wants to address is a worsening retirement IOU situation when taxpayers, shareholders, employees and other stakeholders are grumpy and impatient.

If you did not get to read it when originally published, click to download "Pension Risk Management: Necessary and Desirable" by Susan Mangiero, PhD, CFA, FRM, Journal of Compensation and Benefits, March/April 2006.

Editor's Note: Fiduciary Leadership, LLC is the new name for BVA, LLC.

Taxpayers and Public Pensions - Comments

Regarding today's post entitled "Taxpayers and Public Pensions," several people asked for air time. I've included their comments below. If you are interested in rebutting or adding a similar opinion, email contact@fiduciaryleadership.com.

"All public sector retirement plans should be the same. We need to cure the actuarial issues caused by retirees thinking they can contribute relatively minuscule amounts for 20 or 25 or 30 years and retire for 30 or 40 or even 50 years thereafter. It can't be done and we are seeing that now. Retirement before age 65 years should be discouraged. It is important to increase the number of years of participants' contributions and reduce the number of years associated with paying out benefits. I further recommend a maximum payout of $5,000 per month, regardless of sick days, overtime, unused vacation or any other nonsense included in the benefit calculation. Remember that the maximum payout for Social Security recipients  is about $3,000 per month."

"Civil Servant pensions are extraordinarily generous (with rich formulas, early retirement ages, and post-retirement COLA increases) and therefor extraordinarily EXPENSIVE. The total cost (as a level annual percentage of cash pay) of civil servant pensions is typically 25+% for non-safety workers and 35+% for Safety workers (due to an even richer benefits). This compares to a private sector pension that generally costs the employer about 7.5% of an employee's pay. With cash pay in the public sector now equal to or greater than cash pay in comparable Private Sector jobs, there is ZERO justification for ANY (yes, ANY) larger public sector pension benefits. Therefore, the cost of public sector pension in excess of the 7.5% offered in the private sector should be paid-for by the EMPLOYEES .... NOT the taxpayers. Hence, non-safety workers should contribute 25% less 7.5% or 17.5% of each person's pay. Safety workers should contribute 35% less 7.5% or 27.5% of each person's pay. Now, do I really believe this will even happen? No, of course not. My point is to demonstrate how ridiculously EXCESSIVE the pensions are for public workers and to state that the best (and very NECESSARY) solution is an immediate reduction in the BENEFIT LEVEL of at least 50+% for FUTURE years of service for CURRENT (yes CURRENT) workers. The taxpayers have been hoodwinked long enough."

Taxpayers and Public Pensions

As I've long maintained, THE pension dilemma of an aging population, low savings and greater liabilities is not simply a matter of economics. No politician wants to rescind benefits and/or raise taxes yet the reality in the United States and around the world is obvious. Taxpayers will increasingly force change by voting for candidates who promise reform.

A few days ago, I was sent a press release by the California Foundation For Fiscal Responsibility and was given permission to reprint it here. If you want to provide a countervailing opinion, send an email to contact@fiduciaryleadership.com with a few paragraphs stating your position. Let this important debate continue!

Release: January 28, 2011

Contact: Marcia Fritz
916-966-9366
MarciaFritz@CaliforniaPensionReform.com

Should Public Employees Pay Half

the Cost of their Retirement Benefits?

 

SACRAMENTO – Continuing its online conversation about pension reform, CaliforniaPensionReform.com today asked the public to share their views on a second issue central to the debate over public pension reform:

Should public employees pay half the cost of their retirement benefits?

“Earlier this month, we announced that CaliforniaPensionReform.com will host an online conversation about pension reform,” said Marcia Fritz, president of California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility (CFFR). “Our first Question of the Week asked if public and private employees should have similar retirement plans. A related question is whether government employees should contribute half the cost of their retirement plans. I’ll be thrilled if the responses are as thoughtful and instructive.”

 

CaliforniaPensionReform.com will circulate the Question of the Week and periodic updates to those who sign up on its Web site. Future questions include:

  • Should public safety employees have different retirement plans than other government employees?
  • Should taxpayers pay healthcare costs for the lifetime of an employee who retires from government service?
  • Should an employee’s unused vacation and sick pay be considered when his/her annual pension is calculated?  

On January 6, CFFR posted two alternative pension reform approaches on its Web site and invited the public to comment. Proposals from others will be posted for public comment as they become available. CFFR is reaching out to economists, legal scholars, financial analysts and pension managers to analyze pension reform proposals and contribute to the CaliforniaPensionReform.com online library. “California can’t solve its fiscal problems until it solves its public pension crisis. Whether lawmakers or voters do the job, we need a plan that has been thoroughly analyzed and debated by voters, stakeholders and experts,” Fritz said.

###

Healthcare Reform - Doctors Head For the Doors

My client conversations are mainly with financial professionals and attorneys. However, as someone who wants to stay informed about the economy, I likewise enjoy getting different perspectives from market participants, especially those who are directly impacted by changing rules and regulations. So it was with interest that I read the following note on my doctor's pay window:

"Dear patients -

As of October 1, 2010, I no longer accept Medicare insurance due to the harassment and cuts in payments by the federal government. My fees are very reasonable. Please feel free to discuss them with me personally. I would love to continue to care for my Medicare patients, just without the federal government telling me how to do my job or how much to get paid. This is just the beginning of the healthcare reform. Please thank your politicians. Remember, elections have consequences."

Whether you agree with him or not, the reality is that, like any regulation, there are unintended consequences. When you deny someone the opportunity to earn a risk-adjusted return, don't be surprised that some individuals exit the market and seek gainful work elsewhere. If true that large numbers of physicians are no longer "supplied" at the same time that health care mandates force demand upward, it's obvious that prices are going to spiral. To the extent that regulations keep prices in check, even more doctors will get discouraged, leave the industry and put more pressure on the demand-supply gap.

According to "The Coming Doctor Shortage" by Herbert Pardes (Wall Street Journal, January 19, 2011), "Health-care reform will add an estimated 32 million people to the ranks of the insured, driving them to seek medical attention that in the past they may have avoided due to expense." In addition, an aging populace adds to demand even as nearly a third of doctors in the United States are older than 55 years with plans for retirement at some point.

The math is straightforward.

  • 250,000 doctors will retire within the next decade.
  • Increased needs require "an additional 130,000 doctors, both general-practice physicians and specialists, 15 years from now."
  • About 16,000 doctors are trained each year.

Besides those doctors who are throwing in the towel, I've talked to quite a few who are discouraging their relatives, friends and family members from studying medicine.

If things don't correct soon, fewer rational individuals will be willing to incur large personal debts and study long hours to become doctors. If that happens, "do no harm" may be the reality of too much legislative interference.