CalPERS Cuts Investment Ties with Iran, Sudan

The nation's largest public pension fund is slashing its investment associations with Iran and Sudan, fully complying with state divestment laws passed in 2006 and 2007.

(May 18, 2011) — The $236 billion California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) has asserted that it plans to shed the rest of its Sudan and Iran-linked holdings.

The move is in response to strong sanctions adopted in 2010 by the federal government, the United Nations, and European Union, which started the withdrawal of several large multi-national oil and energy companies from Iran, which has been identified as a state sponsor of terrorism, as well as Sudan, which has been cited for genocidal acts.

In 2006, the Legislature passed laws instructing the state’s pensions — CalPERS and California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) — to withdraw their money from Sudan and Iran a year later. Instead of ordering immediate divestment, however, the laws provided the pensions with additional time to give them greater ability to follow through on their fiduciary duty.

Following the legislation, CalPERS adopted an initial Sudan divestment policy in 2006. While the nation’s largest public fund once had $2 billion invested in 47 companies in the two countries, CalPERS now owns shares valued at approximately $160 million in only eight companies that fall within the parameters of the State’s Iran and Sudan divestment acts, according to a statement on the fund’s website.

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

“The cost of continuing to hold the stock of these eight companies is greater than the value of divesting them,” said Rob Feckner, CalPERS Board President. “Consistent with our fiduciary duty as trustees, we’re taking this step in the best interest of the Fund.”

Investment committee chair George Diehr added: “We plan to mitigate and compensate for the cost of executing trades by implementing sales over time rather than precipitously. We also will use the sales of these company shares to adjust an allocation overweight in our Global Equity portfolio, and avoid the continuing engagement costs.”

Other funds have faced mounting pressure to exit holdings of Iran. In August 2010, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed legislation that will force the state pension fund to divest from companies supporting Iran’s oil industry. According to the legislation, the Massachusetts Pension Reserve Investment Board (MassPRIM) – which manages roughly $42 billion on behalf of public entities in the Bay State – has one year in which to hire an independent research firm to conduct a study of its holdings and divest from any companies that invest in the Iranian oil industry. The MassPRIM board must also update the list of prohibited companies on a quarterly basis, the law stipulates.



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Paula Vasan at <a href='mailto:pvasan@assetinternational.com'>pvasan@assetinternational.com</a>; 646-308-2742

An Outcome of Longer Lifespans: Death Derivatives

Banks are now forming death derivatives to help pension funds better manage longevity issues.

(May 17, 2011) — Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. want to help investors bet on people’s deaths, Bloomberg is reporting.

According to the news service, pensions are purchasing insurance against the risk of their members living for longer than anticipated. Yet, it has become increasingly difficult to find buyers willing to take that risk, packaged in the form of bonds and other securities. JPMorgan and Prudential have set up a trade group to establish a secondary market for longevity risk, while Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank have created insurance companies that promise to pay pensions if retirees live beyond a certain age, Bloomberg reported.

Schemes are increasingly transferring risk to insurance companies, driven by merger and acquisition activity, a growing number of closures and part-closures of defined benefit pension schemes, and concerns over longevity risk. A March report by Hymans Robertson has shown that UK pension buyouts, in which an entire scheme is passed to a specialist insurer, are becoming more and more prevalent.

“An increase in mergers and acquisitions activity is driving this,” James Mullins, head of buy-out solutions at Hymans Robertson, told the Financial Times. “Any potential purchaser will welcome a company that has already done a deal to transfer risk to an insurer. There is less to worry about,” he said, noting that concerns over longevity risk coupled with a greater number of closures and part-closures of defined benefit pension schemes have fueled the trend.

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

A recent example illustrating the growing popularity of risk transfer deals is the Pension Insurance Corporation’s (PIC) decision in February to reinsure $799 million of longevity risk to better manage risk and more effectively compete for new business.

Similarly, in January, Swiss Re, the giant European-based reinsurer, decided to transfer $50 million in longevity risk. The investors in the Swiss Re deal were largely pension funds and other insurers.



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Paula Vasan at <a href='mailto:pvasan@assetinternational.com'>pvasan@assetinternational.com</a>; 646-308-2742

«