NYC Teamsters Pension Reapplies for Benefits Cuts

Local 807 Labor-Management Pension Fund participants could see average benefit reduction of 21%.

The Teamsters Local 807 Labor-Management Pension Fund of Long Island City, New York, has reapplied for a reduction in pension benefits with the US Treasury Department after having to withdraw its first application a year ago when the federal government shutdown complicated matters.

The trustees of the fund submitted the first application for relief under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) in June 2018 with a proposed pension preservation plan. However, the trustees said, while they were providing additional information to support the application, the federal government shutdown in late 2018 and early 2019 closed the Treasury Department, and the procedures for providing supplemental information to the Treasury and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) staff were halted.

Because of the snafu, the Treasury Department advised the trustees to withdraw the application with the understanding that it would otherwise be denied.

The trustees submitted a new application on Dec. 30, 2019, with a new pension preservation plan, which the trustees said takes into account the issues raised by the Treasury Department in the first application, though the trustees did not specify what those issues were.

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

“We believe that the new preservation plan is fair and reasonable and that the Treasury Department has good reason to approve it,” the trustees said in a letter to the pension’s participants.

Under the pension preservation plan, the monthly pension benefit payments of any pensioner who is in pay status as of Nov. 1, 2020, would be reduced by up to 49% as of that date, and the monthly pension benefit payments of any participant or beneficiary who enters into pay status after Nov. 1, 2020, would be reduced by up to 49% for benefits earned through Oct. 31, 2020. Additional benefits earned after Nov. 1, 2020, would not be reduced.  

The monthly pension benefit payments of any individual would not be reduced below 110% of the monthly pension benefit, which is guaranteed by the PBGC. And for retirees who are 75 or older as of Nov. 1, the payment reduction may not exceed the “applicable percentage” of the portion of the monthly pension benefit payments that would be reduced. The “applicable percentage” is a percentage of the number of months occurring in the period that begins with the month after Nov. 1, and that ends with the month during which the retiree reaches the age of 80.

The effective date of the proposed suspension plan is Nov. 1, and the trustees estimate that the average benefit suspension will be 21%. There would be no reduction for any participant who is receiving a disability pension, or who is in pay status as of Nov. 1, 2020, and has reached age 80 by Nov. 1, 2020.

The trustees warned that if they don’t act now, the fund will run out of money in 10 years or less, and they would be forced to rely on benefits from the PBGC, which itself is expected to run out of money by 2025. They attributed the financial difficulties to a combination of external factors, such as stock market crashes, misguided government regulations, employers who have left the plan or have gone out of business, and an “unsustainable ratio” of 5.42 retirees to every one active participant.

“Reducing pensions for current retirees and beneficiaries is not something we want to do. But it’s the only way that we can prevent the pension fund from going broke,” the trustees told its participants. “If the pension preservation plan works as we expect it to, the result will be a pension fund you can count on for many years to come.”

Related Stories:

US Treasury Approves Benefits Cuts for Two More Pensions

Four Pension Plans Apply for Benefits Reductions

Musicians’ Pension Fund Applies for Benefits Cut

Tags: , , ,

Women, Minorities Manage Just 13% of Charitable Assets, Study Finds

That share of the pie gets even smaller—to 3%—when more stringent definitions of ‘diversity’ are applied. 

The nation’s top foundations invest just 13.5%, or $8.6 billion, of their US-based assets with women and minority-owned firms, a study says. 

According to a study released last week by the Knight Foundation, women-owned firms accounted for just 11% of assets invested by foundations. Minority-owned firms accounted for even less, roughly 9%, on average. 

“We hope these findings improve our understanding of who manages the financial assets of America’s top charitable endowments,” Juan Martinez, Knight’s chief financial officer and treasurer, said in a statement. “The goal of this study is to provoke discussion.”  

Roughly half the world’s wealthiest 50 institutions were studied in this report either through the endowment’s participation or through publicly available data. About $64 billion in assets under management (AUM), held by 26 institutions, was reviewed, out of the $290 billion in total assets held by all 50 foundations.

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

Falling Short 

Up close, many charitable endowments surveyed fell well short of the average. For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested just over 3% of its analyzed $1.2 billion AUM with women and minorities. 

But in a written comment for the report, the world’s largest charitable endowment said analysts studied just a “sliver” of its $52 billion portfolio, given the fact that it manages the majority of its investments in-house.

“While we are grateful the study calls attention to this very important issue, it does not accurately capture how we manage our portfolio or our commitment to women and minority-owned asset managers,” the foundation said.

Four top charitable endowments—the George Kaiser Family Foundation, the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation, the Wyss Foundation, and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation—had a whopping total of 0% analyzed AUM managed by women and minorities. 

In a rebuttal, Woodruff said the institution favors passive strategies, while Kauffman said it chose not to participate in the study because of its “flawed” methodology. Kaiser and Wyss did not provide the report with comment. 

Broad Definitions 

Authors of the report conceded that they had difficulty measuring diversity. In addition to assessing datasets from Preqin and eVestment research firms, they also took the broadest definition from endowments. 

“Keeping true to the principle of collaboration with the foundations, we accepted the diversity definitions provided by participating foundations,” the report read. 

If the study adopted a stricter 50% ownership rate for female or minority managers, the overall diversity score from the study would fall from 13.5% to 2.9%, the study said. 

Some good news: About half of the 26 surveyed foundations invested more than 10% with diversely owned firms. The Casey Family Programs, which had about half its $2.3 billion in assets analyzed, had about 35% of its funds invested with women. The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which commissioned the report, had roughly 46%. 

Related Stories: 

Asset Managers Weigh How to Boost Women on Company Boards

Women, Minorities Run Tiny Fraction of Global Assets, Knight Foundation Study Finds

Oxfam Highlights ‘Shocking’ Wealth, Gender Disparity Stats

Tags: , , , , , , ,

«