Mass. Bill Calls for Firearms Divestment

Proposed legislation would require state pension to dump firms that sell firearms and ammunition.

Two Massachusetts legislators have proposed a bill that would require the state pension fund to sell its shares in companies that derive 15% or more of their revenue from firearms and ammunition.

The bill, which is sponsored by State Rep. Lori Ehrlich and State Sen. Cynthia Creem, calls for the state’s Pension Reserves Investment Management (PRIM) board not to invest in any ammunition, firearm, or firearm accessory manufacturing or retailing companies.

Should the bill become law, PRIM will have 30 days after the bill’s enactment to identify all ammunition, firearm, or firearm accessory manufacturing or retailing companies in which the fund owns direct or indirect holdings. It would be required to file a list of any such holdings with the state’s attorney general, and with the clerks of the Massachusetts Senate and House of Representatives. The fund would then have 12 months after enactment to sell, redeem, divest, or withdraw all publicly-traded securities of each company identified on the list.

“This bill asks our Massachusetts public pension fund managers to no longer invest in companies that manufacture guns and ammunition,” said Creem in a release. “By enacting this bill, Massachusetts will stand with thousands of individuals and entities exercising their right as consumers to send the message that we must do more to stop gun violence.” 

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

The divestment requirements would not apply to indirect holdings in actively managed investment funds, as long as the fund submits letters to the managers of funds that contain companies singled out by the bill to request that they remove the investments from the fund, or create a similar actively managed fund without the prohibited holdings.

However, the bill has a provision that would allow the state’s pension fund to end the divestment, and return to investing in firearms and ammunition manufacturers and retailers if the divestment hurts the fund’s returns. There would have to be “clear and convincing evidence” that the value for all assets under management become equal to or less than 99.5% (50 basis points) of the hypothetical value of all assets under management by the public fund had no divestment occurred.

In this case, the fund would have to provide a written report, updated annually, to the attorney general, the senate and house committees on ways and means, and the joint committee on public service that provides evidence backing the decision.

“Congress is unable to act even in the face of overwhelming support,” said Ehrlich in a release. “It is time for state stewards to ensure our retirement savings and pension funds are not profiting from that violence.”

Tags: , , , ,

Federal Judge ‘DROPs’ Police and Firefighter Pension System Lawsuit

Board froze DROP program due to insolvency woes.

A lawsuit concerning the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System’s (DPFP) pension option has been thrown out by a federal judge.

The Deferred Retirement Option Plan, otherwise known as DROP, allowed Dallas police officers and firefighters to retire on paper, receiving their pension checks while still working within their respective sectors. KERA News reports that the checks would go to an individual account with little withdrawal restrictions. The accounts also saw interest rate growths of at least 8% for years.

Following issues with insolvency due to DROP-related withdrawals and concerns, the DPFP board froze all DROP distributions in December 2016, leading to a lawsuit filed by six retired Dallas police officers last January. According to the DPFP’s 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the plan’s net position decreased by more than $500 million as a result of payments from the DROP plan.

Although the filing officers claimed what the board did was unconstitutional, federal judge David Godbey felt otherwise Friday. KERA reports Godbey ruled in favor of the board because the fund would have faced swift insolvency without board and legislative intervention.

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

Judge Godbey dismissed the case with prejudice, negating the officers from refiling. However, the publication reports that the plaintiff’s attorney seeks to appeal this ruling.

Tags: , , , ,

«