Public Pension
Funds Are Adding Risk to Raise Returns
Published: March 8, 2010, New York Times
States and companies have started investing very differently when it comes to
the billions of dollars they are safeguarding for workersf retirement.
Companies are quietly and gradually moving their pension funds out of stocks.
They want to reduce their investment risk and are buying more long-term bonds.
But states and other bodies of government are seeking higher returns for
their pension funds, to make up for ground lost in the last couple of years and
to pay all the benefits promised to present and future retirees. Higher returns
come with more risk.
gIn effect, theyfre going to Las Vegas,h said Frederick E. Rowe, a Dallas
investor and the former chairman of the Texas Pension Review Board, which
oversees public plans in that state. gDouble up to catch up.h
Though they generally say that their strategies are aimed at diversification
and are not riskier, public pension funds are trying a wide range of
investments: commodity futures, junk bonds, foreign stocks, deeply discounted
mortgage-backed securities and margin investing. And some states that previously
shunned hedge funds are trying them now.
The Texas teachersf pension fund recently paid Chicago to receive a stream of
payments from the money going into the cityfs parking meters in the coming
years. The deal gave Chicago an upfront payment that it could use to help
balance its budget. Alas, Chicago did not have enough money to contribute to its
own pension fund, which has been stung by real estate deals that fizzled when
the city lost out in the bidding for the 2016
Olympics.
A spokeswoman for the Texas teachersf fund said plan administrators believed
that such alternative investments were the likeliest way to earn 8 percent
average annual returns over time.
Pension funds rarely trumpet their intentions, partly to keep other big
investors from trading against them. But some big corporations are unloading the
stocks that have dominated pension portfolios for decades. General
Motors, Hewlett-Packard,
J.
C. Penney, Boeing,
Federal Express and Ashland are among those that have been shifting significant
amounts of pension money out of stocks.
Other companies say they plan to follow suit, though more slowly. A poll of
pension funds conducted by Pyramis Global Advisors last November found that more
than half of corporate funds were reducing the portion they invested in United
States equities.
Laggards tend to be companies with big shortfalls in their pension funds.
Those moving the fastest are often mature companies with large pension funds,
and who fear a big bear market could decimate the funds and the companiesf own
finances.
gThe larger the pension plan, the lower-risk strategy you would like to
employ,h said Andrew T. Ward, the chief investment officer of Boeing, which
shifted a big block of pension money out of stocks in 2007. That helped cushion
Boeingfs pension fund against the big losses of 2008.
Shedding stocks gave Boeing gmaterial protection right when we needed it
most,h Mr. Ward said. By the time the markets had bottomed out last March,
Boeingfs pension fund had lost 14 percent of its value, while those of its
equity-laden peers had lost 25 to 30 percent, he said.
gWe estimated that the strategy saved our company in the short term right
around $4 or $5 billion of funded status,h he said.
Boeing and other companies seeking to reduce their investment risk are moving
into fixed-income instruments, like bonds — but not just any bonds. They are
buying and holding bonds scheduled to pay many years in the future, when their
retirees expect their money.
The value of the bonds may fall in the meantime, just like the value of
stocks. But declining bond prices are not such a worry, because the companies
plan to hold the bonds for the accompanying interest payments that will in turn
go to retirees, not sell them in the interim.
Towers Watson, a big benefits consulting firm, surveyed senior financial
executives last year and found that two-thirds planned to decrease the stock
portion of their companiesf pension funds by the end of 2010. They typically
said their stock allocations would shrink by 10 percentage points.
gThatfs 10 times the shift we might see in any given year,h said Carl Hess,
head of Towers Watsonfs investment consulting business. Economists have
speculated that a truly seismic shift in pension investing away from stocks
could be a drag on the market, but they say it would not be long-lasting.
Corporate Americafs change of heart is notable all on its own, after decades
of resistance to anything other than returns like those of the stock markets.
But itfs even more startling when compared with governmentsf continued loyalty
to stocks. When governments scale back on the domestic stocks in their pension
portfolios these days, it is often just to make way for more foreign stocks or
private equities, which are not publicly traded.
Government pension plans cannot beef up their bonds that mature many, many
years from now without dashing their business models. They use long-range
estimates that presume high investment returns will cover most of the cost of
the benefits they must pay. And that, they say, allows them to make smaller
contributions along the way.
Most have been assuming their investments will pay 8 percent a year on
average, over the long term. This is based on an assumption that stocks will pay
9.5 percent on average, and bonds will pay about 5.75 percent, in roughly a
60-40 mix.
(Corporate plans do their calculations differently, and for them, investment
returns are a less important factor.)
The problem now is that bond rates have been low for years, and stocks have
been prone to such wild swings that a 60-40 mixture of stocks and bonds is not
paying 8 percent. Many public pension funds have been averaging a little more
than 3 percent a year for the last decade, so they have fallen behind where
their planning models say they should be.
A growing number of experts say that governments need to lower the
assumptions they make about rates of return, to reflect todayfs market
conditions.
But plan officials say they cannot.
gNobody wants to adjust the rate, because liabilities would explode,h said
Trent May, chief investment officer of Wyomingfs state pension fund.
The $30 billion Colorado state pension fund is one of a tiny number of
government plans to disclose how much difference even a slight change in its
projected rate of return could make. Colorado has been assuming its investments
will earn 8.5 percent annually, on average, and on that basis it reported a
$17.9 billion shortfall in its most recent annual report.
But the state also disclosed what would happen if it lowered its investment
assumption just half a percentage point, to 8 percent. Though it might be more
likely to achieve that return, Colorado would earn less over time on its
investments. So at 8 percent, the planfs shortfall would actually jump to $21.4
billion. Contributions would need to increase to keep pace.
Colorado cannot afford the contributions it owes, even at the current
estimated rate of return. It has fallen behind by several billion dollars on its
yearly contributions, and after a bruising battle the legislature recently
passed a bill reducing retireesf cost-of-living adjustment, to 2 percent, from
3.5 percent. Public employeesf unions are threatening to sue to have the law
repealed.
If Colorado could somehow get 9 percent annual returns from its investments,
though, its pension shortfall would shrink to a less daunting $15 billion,
according to its annual report.
That explains why plan officials are looking everywhere for high-yielding
investments.
Mr. May, in Wyoming, said many governments were gmoving away from the
perceived safety and liquidity of the investment-grade marketh and investing
money offshore, but he said he was aware of the risks. gTherefs a history of
emerging markets kind of hitting the wall,h he said.
Last year, the North Carolina Legislature enacted a measure to let the state
pension fund invest 5 percent of its assets in gcredit opportunities,h like junk
bonds and asset-backed securities from the Federal Reservefs Term
Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, an emergency program created to thaw
the frozen markets for such securities.
The law also lets North Carolina put 5 percent of its pension portfolio into
commodities, real estate and other assets that the state sees as hedges against
inflation. A summary of the bill issued by the statefs treasurer and sole
pension trustee, Janet Cowell, said it would provide gflexibility and the tools
to increase portfolio return and better manage risk.h
But some think they see new risks.
gIt doesnft pass the smell test,h said Edward Macheski, a retired money
manager living in North Carolina. gNorth Carolinafs assumption is 7.25 percent,
and they havenft matched it in 10 years.h He went to a recent meeting of the
state treasurerfs advisory board, armed with a list of questions about the
investment policy. But the board voted not to permit any public discussion.
Wisconsin, meanwhile, has become one of the first states to adopt an
investment strategy called grisk parity,h which involves borrowing extra money
for the pension portfolio and investing it in a type of Treasury
bond that will pay higher interest if inflation rises.
Officials of the State of Wisconsin Investment Board declined to be
interviewed but provided written descriptions of risk parity. The records show
that Wisconsin wanted to reduce its exposure to the stock market, and shifting
money into the inflation-proof Treasury
bonds would do that. But Wisconsin also wanted to keep its assumed rate of
return at 7.8 percent, and the Treasury bonds would not pay that much.
Wisconsin decided it could lower its equities but preserve its assumption if
it also added a significant amount of leverage to its pension fund, by using a
variety of derivative instruments, like swaps, futures or repurchase agreements.
It decided to start with a small amount of leverage and gradually increase it
over time, but word of even a baby step into derivatives
elicited howls of protest from around the state.
The big California pension fund, known as Calpers, was already under fire for
losing billions of dollars on private equities and real estate in the last few
years. So far it has stayed with those asset classes, while negotiating lower
fees and writing off some of the most troubled real estate investments.
It announced in February that it had started looking into whether it should
lower its expected rate of investment return, now 7.75 percent a year. It has
embarked on a study, but a spokesman said that process would not be done until
December, safely after the coming election.