Gold Stars for CalPERS, CalSTRS from Moody’s

Moody’s Investors Service has upgraded the credit ratings of California’s two giant public pension funds, giving them higher grades than the state itself.

Both the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) moved from an Aa2 issuer rating to Aa3, the agency announced on July 7.

California’s improving balance sheet was the main driver of the upgrade, according to Moody’s rating action report, “because it increases CalPERS’ and CalSTRS’ ability to absorb funding shocks,” such as tardy employer contribution payouts.

Furthermore, recent moves to close the systems’ funding gaps helped persuade Moody’s of their robust credit-worthiness. The state legislature passed a bill last month laying out a long-term plan to bring CalSTRS to full funded status by 2046. The pension’s CEO Jack Ehnes lauded lawmakers at the time, calling it “historic legislation” that “sets the defined benefit program on a sustainable course.”

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

CalPERS has raised employer contribution rates for each of the last three years to achieve a similar aim and account for longevity increases.

“While the funding ratios for both plans remain weak (70% for CalPERS and 66.9% for CalSTRS), the important steps taken by each plan to increase contribution rates are credit positive for the plans' long-term financial health,” Moody’s said.

This ratings change came as better news for the systems and state than Moody’s last action on CalPERS and CalSTRS’ credit grades. Citing “back-to-back market value declines,” in December 2009 the agency downgraded their long-term ratings from Aaa to Aa3, which persists today.

CalSTRS

Divesting from fossil fuel holdings has significant implications for a portfolio’s structure and risk profile so institutions should implement a bespoke strategy to do it, according to Cambridge Associates.

The last 18 months have been crucial to the divestment campaign, the consulting firm said, as endowments and foundations have increasingly committed to dumping fossil fuel holdings. According to the firm’s data, 11 US colleges and universities—with an average $30 million in assets—have agreed to fully divest as of May 2014. Stanford University also recently announced that it would divest its $18.7 billion endowment from publicly traded coal companies.

“Proponents make both ethical and economic arguments for divestments, seeing the act as a means for an institution to express its view on climate change as well as to reduce financial risks in investment portfolios,” the paper said. “But each institution’s approach will inevitably depend on its particular policies, values, and circumstances. Developing a bespoke strategy gives an institution greater authorship and ownership, which is more conducive to effective implementation and oversight.”

The first step to establishing a custom divestment strategy is to establish a firm social investing policy ensuring appropriate governance and engaging in a dialogue with the institution’s stakeholders, the study found.

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

The fiduciaries then should analyze the portfolio’s fossil fuel exposure, “both at the manager and total portfolio levels as a mechanism for determining the potential structural magnitude of divestment,” according to Cambridge Associates. The firm found an average of 5% to 10% exposure to fossil fuels.

Most importantly, investors should carefully address portfolio construction challenges they may face, even if divestment is conducted gradually.

Measuring potential portfolio performance impact is crucial, the report found, especially as global energy equities, which are largely made up of fossil fuel companies, represent 10% of the global equity market today.

“Developing a bespoke strategy gives an institution greater authorship and ownership, which is more conducive to effective implementation and oversight,” the report said.

Institutions should also carefully manage transitions for commingled funds, which may require a large move of assets and managers, and are usually accompanied with high transaction costs. There could be potential write-downs, the paper said, if the shift involves dumping of illiquid investments in secondary markets.

Divesting could have significant implications on a portfolio’s diversification, Cambridge Associates said, as it may “inhibit an institution’s ability to diversify risks and opportunities by constraining investments in strategies with distinct portfolio roles such as global equities, diversified hedge funds, and real assets.”

Notable challenges were found in emerging market equities, where fossil-free strategies are severely limited, and energy commodities with investments primarily in fossil fuel companies.

However, alternatives to merely dropping whole sectors exist, the paper said, for institutions unable to execute any level of divesting.

Institutions could try a more nuanced approach by narrowing the scope of divestment, focusing on “excluding the ‘dirtiest’ companies” engaged in coal production. Investors could also reinvest capital from fossil fuel companies into alternative energy sources. According to the paper, the S&P Global Water Index returned 13.4% annualized over 10 years, “outperforming traditional natural resources as well as the broad global equity index.”