Moody’s: CalPERS’ De-Risking Plan Is Still Risky

It would take the $300 billion fund nearly 20 years to cut the discount rate to 6.5%, during which asset performance could fall drastically, the ratings agency said.

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s (CalPERS) new de-risking policy to reduce discount rates could result in sharp, short-term falls in performance—and it still falls behind corporate pensions’ programs, according to Moody’s.

The largest American public pension plan announced in November its new risk mitigation policy would gradually reduce the assumed rate of return to 6.5% from the current 7.5% as plan demographics continue to mature.

“This process will take years to fully implement, and a sharp fall in CalPERS’ asset performance could impact participating government fiscal positions.”CalPERS’ goal, it said, is to not only lower risk and volatility, but also to become fully funded and keep employer contribution rates consistent. The $300 billion plan is currently 77% funded, according to its website.

The ratings agency said while the shift from asset volatility risk is a “credit positive” for the state and local governments, it still leaves the fund vulnerable to “sharp asset declines” even before the policy’s implementation.

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

“This process will take years to fully implement, and a sharp fall in CalPERS’ asset performance could impact participating government fiscal positions,” Moody’s said. Its calculations revealed the fund’s discount rate decline to 6.5% would likely occur “very gradually,” over approximately 20 years.

In addition, the ratings agency argued that contributions would remain high as the drop in discount rate would likely “push up liabilities and normal costs.”

A CalPERS spokesperson said in response that the fund is “acutely aware” of municipalities’ concerns about contribution rate increases, but also that the new policy is a “balanced approach” that would reduce contribution rate volatility over time.

The fund previously defended the de-risking program following criticism in local media, saying the plan was a “result of an 18-month analysis that looked at several strategies to mitigate risk. We sought input from leaders representing our members, as well as cities and counties across the state who belong to our system. Industry experts provided guidance and our professional staff provided their best recommendations.”

CEO Anne Stausboll also stated in November the policy “recognizes the fiscal constraints on California’s local agencies and represents a milestone for CalPERS.”

Despite these efforts, Moody’s said CalPERS’—and other public pensions’—de-risking programs lag the private sector.

“Many corporations have either transitioned to defined contribution plans, or have defined benefit pensions with fewer volatile investments and far lower discount rates,” the ratings agency said.

According to the report, the median public plan discount rate for Moody’s-rated funds surpassed 7.6% in the 2014 fiscal year, compared to 4% for a sample of 100 large corporate plans.

Public plans also continue to allocate to more volatile asset classes than their corporate counterparts, Moody’s concluded, leaving them exposed to greater expected return volatility.

Moody's CalPERS

Related: CalPERS Targets 100% Funding with Discount Rate Changes & CalPERS Pushes Ahead in Fight to Cut Costs

Pensions Strike $150M London Whale Settlement

The cash deal ends a three-year legal battle with JP Morgan following the bank’s $6.2 billion loss.

A group of US and European pension funds have reached a $150 million settlement with JP Morgan relating to the so-called “London Whale” trading losses.

“We believe that the settlement represents an excellent recovery after more than three years of litigation.”Sweden’s AP7 alongside public pensions from Ohio, Arkansas, and Oregon made up the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was filed in 2012. The legal action followed the disclosure of losses exceeding $6.2 billion by JP Morgan’s chief investment office. The fraud—which involved former traders covering up losses on derivatives trades—eventually cost the bank almost $1 billion in fines from US and UK regulators.

“We believe that the settlement represents an excellent recovery… after more than three years of litigation,” said Richard Gröttheim, AP7’s CEO. “AP7’s involvement in this matter illustrates its continued commitment to represent the interests of investors.”

The pensions had claimed that JP Morgan and “certain of its officers” had made false and misleading statements regarding the chief investment office’s operations and the risk posed by the derivatives trading that ultimately caused the losses.

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

In addition, the complaint claimed these statements “caused the price of JP Morgan common stock to be artificially inflated,” said law firm Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check—one of three law groups involved for the plaintiffs—in a statement. When the losses were disclosed, the bank’s stock price fell dramatically “causing damage to investors,” it added.

Announcing charges against two former JP Morgan traders in 2013, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout “schemed to deliberately mismark hundreds of positions by maximizing their value instead of marking them at the mid-market prices that would reveal the losses.”

This caused the bank’s pre-tax income to be overstated by $660 million in the first quarter of 2012, according to the SEC.

The legal action against both men is ongoing, and both have denied the charges.

US authorities ceased their pursuit of Bruno Iksil, another “London Whale” trader, in 2013, while the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority dropped its case against him earlier this year.

The settlement adds to an expensive year for JP Morgan: In a separate announcement, on Friday the SEC said two of the bank’s wealth management subsidiaries had agreed to admit wrongdoing and pay $267 million after failing to disclose conflicts of interest to clients. JP Morgan Chase Bank also paid $40 million to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in relation to the case.

Related: London Whale Boss Wins Privacy Case Against Regulator & Former JP Morgan CIO Refuses to Take Responsibility for Whale Losses

«