Despite Liquidity Fears, an Institution Creeps Into PPIP

PPIP, the government program to take ‘toxic assets’ off the books of banks, has received a lukewarm response in America; the Chinese Investment Corporation, however, is reportedly putting up $2 billion to invest in this mortgage-backed securities program.

(August 20, 2009) – In the face of fears surrounding illiquidity, the Beijing-based China Investment Corporation (CIC) is reportedly moving into the American government’s plan to take ‘toxic assets’ off the books of banks.


The CIC, a $200 billion fund supported by foreign exchange reserves, is in talks with many of the firms chosen in July to be involved with the Public-Private Investment Plan (PPIP), Reuters is reporting. According to sources, the fund is ready to put up $2 billion in capital by the end of August.

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


Because it is by definition investing in illiquid securities – more specifically, the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) issued before 2009 that many finger as the main driver of the current recession – few American institutions have been keen to mirror China’s move.


Any investment in PPIP will be predicated upon the belief that the American property market, because it represents the underlying assets of the MBS system, will rebound going forward. This is far from certain, and this, combined with fears over mismatching liabilities with assets – as was seen at many American endowment investors such as Harvard and Stanford, among others — may be keeping many institutions away from the Treasury program. While the pre-2009 MBS market is valued at over $2 trillion, and while managers will be forced to diversify away from any one type of property or mortgage underwriter, little movement has been seen towards the program.


China’s move may say more about its internal financial situation than about the expected quality of the PPIP program. With one of the largest capital pools on earth, the CIC will ultimately be forced to ‘put money to work’ (See Dominic Hobson’s column on this topic in the first edition of ai5000). Additionally, the $2 billion investment, while dwarfing the total assets of many of the globe’s institutional investors, is but 1% of the Chinese sovereign wealth fund’s assets.



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Kristopher McDaniel at <a href='mailto:kmcdaniel@assetinternational.com'>kmcdaniel@assetinternational.com</a>

At America’s Public Pension Plans, Different Certainties Abound

On a macro scale, it’s confusion. But on an individual level, America’s pension plans are sure of what they need to do regarding investment risk-levels; they just aren’t all sure in the same way.

 

(August 12) – Despite similar travails, America’s public pension plans are by no means in agreement on how to work their way out of often massive funding deficits. While some are turning to alternatives investments – often cited as loss-leaders in the recent financial collapse – with aims of boosting returns going forward, others are taking the opposite tack, largely abandoning such investment vehicles.

 



Recent news emerging from the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board (MassPRIM) – two of the nation’s largest pension plans – illustrates this divide. CalPERS, the $189 billion behemoth of American pension investing, has chosen to rebound from a $60 billion loss in 2008 by doubling down on its alternative investments, according to the New York Times. Headed by Joe Dear, formerly of the Washington State Investment Board (WSIB), CalPERS – which is currently only 66% funded – is looking to funnel more money into private equity, hedge funds, junk bonds – and even into the infamously volatile California real estate market. It has raised its alternative allocation to 14%, and Dear – who had a history of large allocations to private equity while at WSIB – is betting that over a longer horizon the risk and illiquidity premiums of such investments will produce a return above the fund’s goal of 7.75% per annum. To cover any calls by private equity firms, CalPERS has correspondingly raised its cash-on-hand to 2% of total assets.

MassPRIM, however, is taking the opposite tack. Holding 5% of its portfolio in hedge funds and 6% in portable alpha the fund has historically been an industry leader with alternatives. The performance of this asset class in fiscal 2008, however, has caused a sea change in the way the fund is now viewing such investments. “We are scrapping portable alpha,” the fund’s Executive Director Michael Travaglini told Reuters in early August. “It is no longer a long-term piece of our investment strategy because of the poor performance.” According to Travaglini, the value of the portable alpha allocation fell by 46% in the year ending June 30. As a result, the Board of Trustees for the $39 billion fund has voted to reduce the absolute return allocation of the portfolio to 8%, a 3% decline from current levels.

The story of these two behemoths is representative of the uncertainty in the industry. While these funds — and the many who follow them will disagree on the best way to limit the difference between assets and liabilities going forward, what’s clear to all is that returns need to rebound in order for shortfalls to be made up. According to a recent study by the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, there was over $443 billion in collective unfunded liabilities – and that was only for the 125 state, local government, and teacher’s pension funds queried.
 
Whether CalPERS or MassPRIM ends up on the winning side of the alternatives argument will only be known years from now. While they both seem sure of their decisions, uncertainty – the bugbear of institutional investors everywhere – still abounds.

To read more on the need for liquidity at large pension funds, click here .

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



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Kristopher McDaniel at <a href='mailto:kmcdaniel@assetinternational.com'>kmcdaniel@assetinternational.com</a>

«