CIO Profile: Switching Up the Status Quo in Chicago

Carmen Heredia-Lopez, CIO of Chicago Teachers’, has an unusual set of risks to manage—and an unusual investment team to help her do it.

CHL-1(September 27, 2013) – If Chicago’s public teacher pension plan were a hedge fund, it would be in the vein of Third Point or Perishing Square.

Where Dan Loeb and Bill Ackman strong-arm corporations as activist investors, Chicago Teachers’ leans on school systems as an activist creditor. For some public retirement funds, employer contributions roll in as promised, in full, and on time. For other pension plans, inflows require a bit of shaking loose.  

Carmen Heredia-Lopez, CIO of Chicago Teachers’, is happy to leave the pursuit of payments to her boss and focus instead on the pursuit of returns. (Unfortunately, the fund isn’t rewarded for credit risk on contributions—many of its debtors would be distinctly high-yield.)

“My focus as a fiduciary is to seek the highest returns on a risk adjusted basis—and I try to not get involved with the political part,” she tells aiCIO. “I focus on investments—that’s where my passion is.”

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

But in creating an investment program and undertaking an asset liability study, the contributions factor is impossible to ignore. How can a CIO set a risk budget without knowing their actual budget?

When Heredia-Lopez and the fund’s consultants look at the entire plan, she says, “the most pressing question is, ‘Are we going to get the contributions?' We see that as the biggest risk. It’s the biggest risk to the long-term stability of our plan. If we don’t get the contributions as detailed, it limits our ability to invest in illiquid assets."

Heredia-Lopez is closing in on a year at the helm of Chicago Teachers’ $9.7 billion portfolio. Prior to taking over the CIO office in January, she spent two-and-a-half years as the fund’s director of investments. Her tenure as an asset owner began in 2006 at the Illinois Retirement Fund, although she arrived with more than a decade of private-sector finance experience and an MBA.

That background in asset management serves her well as CIO; she credits years spent batting for the other team with giving her insight into the service side playbook. “For example, every consultant now will tell you they have an open door policy, that they take every call and every manager meeting they’re offered,” Heredia-Lopez says. “I know for a fact that’s not true—because I was a manager.” 

Diversify.

The institutional asset owner community has plenty of strengths. It is by and large a grounded set, one generous with ideas and equipped with a sense of purpose and a long-term perspective. 

Yet for all these lovely qualities, the group has its shortcomings. Specifically, it’s short on women. And minorities. Imagine aiCIO’s 2012 Power 100 list of influential CIOs as a portfolio. It’s 89% allocated to male assets, with only 11% exposure to women. If those weightings were asset classes or risk factors, every CIO on the list would implore the same thing: Diversify!

For years, Heredia-Lopez has been helping to make that easier for other CIOs. Through mentoring, speaking at events, and involvement with the Robert Toigo Foundation, she’s spreading the world about institutional investment to communities that aren’t currently well represented in its ranks.

Not only does this provide solid job opportunities to groups which may not have previously accessed them, it also hugely expands asset owners’ talent pool.

Heredia-Lopez is an alumnus of the Toigo Foundation, which supported her pursuit of an MBA in finance and accounting at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.

"As women, we always question our quantitative ability,” she says. “'Should I be here? What am I doing here?' But I'm not afraid of math: I can do it. And foundations like Toigo give you that confidence."

And Heredia-Lopez’s team might be another organization in the same mold.

The Chicago Teachers’ Pension Fund may be the only public fund in the US with an all-female investment staff—or if there’s another, it’s news to the CIO.  

Testing Public Pensions’ Sensitivity to Investment Returns

Public pension funds might never be fully funded in the next 30 years, according to research.

(September 27, 2013) — The inability to make investment returns above inflation has had the greatest impact on public pension funds’ serious underfunding.

“How Sensitive Is Public Pension Funding to Investment Returns?”, written by Alicia Munnell, Jean-Pierre Aubry, and Josh Hurwitz of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (CRR), projected dismal future returns for the next 30 years.

The study showed that real return, made over and above the rate of inflation, should be used for long-term targets because benefits are generally indexed for inflation before and after retirement. This was particularly critical for mature plans with large funding, negative cash flows, and lower contributions from pensioners.

This is because while the higher nominal returns would produce stronger revenues for pension funds, the returns were likely to be driven by higher inflation, which would also push the cost of living post-retirement and original benefits higher.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

The difference was clearly visible. State and local pension plans’ 2012 average nominal return was 7.75% while real return was 4.45%, according to the data.

When the assumed real return of 4.45% compared to historical returns, the researchers found that the average rolling 10- and 30-year real return for a hypothetical portfolio exceeded the assumption by at least 100 basis points.

This data raised the question of whether future returns will stay at similar levels using assumed real returns, especially considering the recent financial crisis.

Calculations revealed that even if the real return reaches the pensions’ expectations, the volatility in year-to-year returns could generate fluctuations that could adversely affect funding.

This means that returns must be higher than expected if pensions are to be fully funded in the next 30 years. 

The brief named two reasons for such negative outcomes: employers are paying less than the full annual required contribution, and payments to amortize unfunded liability and an open 30-year amortization period yields to lower contributions.

With an average of 7% real returns, plans will be fully funded in 10 years. Plans will be fully funded in 20 years with an average of 5.79% real returns.

However, the likelihood of public pension funds reaching those yields looked uncertain: The CRR found that in the

50th percentile of generated returns over the 30-year projection, assets only accounted for 87% of liabilities.

Using this trajectory, the study concluded that the only way for public pensions to achieve a fully funded status is to gain higher returns.

Access the full paper here

Related content: The Pension World’s Biggest Risk-Takers? US Public Funds, Says Study & CIO Profile: In-Sourced, Fully Funded, Public, and American

«