NYC Pension Funds Sue BP to Recover Losses

(April 30, 2013) — New York City’s five pension funds have filed a lawsuit against oil giant BP and several of its branches and executives in an attempt to recover investment losses related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Representatives of the funds claim that BP was not forthcoming with shareholders as to the accurate risks involved in its offshore oil extraction processes. Furthermore, the complaint asserts that BP inaccurately presented the extent of the leak, and the estimated cost of the cleanup.

The city comptroller’s office estimated the funds’ ensuing investment at upwards of $39 million.

“BP failed to disclose to shareowners the serious risks involved in its offshore drilling operation,” Comptroller John Liu said. “After the spill began, it misleadingly attempted to minimize the extent of the damage and the cost to shareowners.”

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter. 

A BP spokesperson declined to comment on the charges.

However, the firm and others in the industry have repeatedly characterized the spill as an extreme tail-risk event-the prospect of which was not diminished to shareholders. In a speech this last May, Executive Vice President Dev Sanyal likened the oil spill to a Black Swan experience.

Similarly, during a conference presentation in October, BP’s Vice President of Global Deepwater Response Richard Morrison said, “risk management in this high-hazard industry has always been at the forefront of BP’s agenda…On that tragic night aboard the Deepwater Horizon, multiple barriers — both human and physical — failed to prevent the accident from occurring.”

New York City’s de-centralized city pension system filed the lawsuit earlier this month in the Southern District Court of Manhattan. However, court documents related to the case have been sealed up until now. The presiding judge agreed with BP’s attorney’s that the initial complaint “contains confidential and highly confidential information as defined by confidentiality orders” which have been applied to several similar, ongoing cases in the District Court of Southern Texas.

Inga Van Eysden, chief of the New York City law department’s pensions division, said that due to a 2010 court decision (Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd), “the city pension funds are barred from seeking recovery from BP under federal securities laws for the vast majority of its losses.” This ruling disallowed any US federal securities fraud suits for assets traded on foreign stock exchanges. Given this decision, Vam Eysden said, “We strongly believe the funds deserve to be compensated for BP’s fraudulent actions and are therefore pursuing this case.”

As of April 13, the five New York City pension funds owned a combined 2,822,840 shares in BP valued at $19.3 million.

The case is New York City Employees Retirement System v. BP Plc, 13-2551, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Related feature – Looking Elsewhere: BP and LDI

(April 30, 2013)–Here’s something to blow your mind: Diversified equity portfolios have been found to underperform highly concentrated ones.

This quirky piece of knowledge hails from Inalytics, the London-based consultancy asked to look into the area by Nick Greenwood, pension fund manager at the Royal Berkshire Pension Fund.

After studying Inalytics’ database of 599 equity portfolios, the consultant found that–contrary to popular opinion–highly concentrated equity portfolios performed almost 400 basis points better than the most diversified ones.

“One possible rationale is that only the most skilful managers are given the punchier portfolios to run,” Inalytics CEO Rick Di Mascio wrote in his note on the findings.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter. 

“A good analogy is that only the very best racing drivers get to drive Formula One cars.”

A second reasoning could be that the results are biased towards successful managers who were given the opportunity to be punchy with their allocations, and survived.

Finally, Di Mascio opines that it could be due to basic tenants of behavioral finance: The fewer stocks you have to look at, the more time and care you can spend on them.

“The data is clear; the more concentrated the portfolio, the more likely the performance is going to be good, but be ever mindful that ‘Only the Strong Survive’,” he concluded (liberally taking the opportunity to quote from Jerry Butler and Elvis).

In addition, aiCIO asked Royal Berkshire’s Greenwood what prompted the query. “Just a long-held view that there are good companies, bad companies and average companies (which make up the majority), and that investors should focus on good companies,” he said.

Inalytics would be well advised to pass this knowledge on to the UK’s public sector. At Aon Hewitt’s annual fund manager conference, held earlier this month, the consensus for public funds was still racing towards greater diversification.

Emily McGuire, head of public sector investment consulting at Aon Hewitt, said in a statement after the event: “We are already hearing (about) an increased appetite to learn about Liability Driven Investment and a continuing trend towards diversification.

“We also expect to see more interest in infrastructure, hedge funds and diversified growth funds this year, as public sector schemes–like those of the private sector–seek greater value at a time when it can be elusive.”

Few would argue against the fact that diversification, in general, is still a noble quest. However, Inalytics research has shown that we don’t necessarily have to be diversified within each asset class. Once again, we learn that one size doesn’t always fit all.

Related News: Risk Factors 0.0 and The New Alternatives