Pittsburgh Avoids Pension Takeover | Chief Investment Officer

The Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania municipal pension plan had been threatened with a state takeover; by achieving a funding status over 50%, they have avoided it – for now.

(September 19, 2011) – The Steel City has avoided a state takeover of its beleaguered pension fund.

With a 62% funding status, according to statements by the Pennsylvania’s Public Employee Retirement Commissioner to Reuters, Pittsburgh has avoided the takeover, which would have occurred if the system was below a 50% funded status as of the end of August. Under the state’s laws, management of municipal retirement systems become the responsibility of the state if these plans have less than 50% of the assets needed to meet liabilities.

It has not been an easy journey for the pension plan. Fierce political infighting among city Democrats has caused multiple funding proposals to fail, starting with Democratic Mayor Luke’s Ravenstahl’s proposal to raise funds through a sale of the city’s parking garages. “We need $220 million by the end of the year,” Ravenstahl told aiCIO in late 2010. “If we fail, the state takes the assets. They would manage the fund, and they will send a bill every year, saying our minimal municipal obligation (MMO) is X. We calculate that at being $30 million more than the $45 million we pay right now. That comes from the taxpayers.”

While his plan eventually failed – City Council rejected it in December 2010, replacing it with a last-minute deal that dedicated future parking revenues towards the fund – the city was able to raise its funding levels in time to meet the August cutoff date.

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

The pension has, however, weighed on other parts of the city’s finances. In April, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the city’s debt. “We revised the outlook based on our view of Pittsburgh’s increased financial pressures associated with the city’s pension system,” company credit analyst John Sugden-Castillo said in a release at the time. Mayoral spokeswoman Joanna Doven told aiCIO at the time: “Markets don’t like uncertainty. City Council’s irresponsible actions put Pittsburgh and its residents in a state of great financial uncertainty.”

To contact the aiCIO editor of this story: Kip McDaniel at <a href='mailto:kmcdaniel@assetinternational.com'>kmcdaniel@assetinternational.com</a>

DoL to Hold Off on New Fiduciary Rules for Pension Plans

As part a response to requests from the public, including members of Congress, that the agency allow an opportunity for more input on the rule, the US Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration will re-propose its rule on the definition of a fiduciary.

(September 19, 2011) — The US Department of Labor (DoL) will repropose its controversial rule amending the definition of fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In order to guard those saving for retirement from conflicts of interest, the DoL has aimed to broaden the scope of fiduciary responsibility, and has said it would likely repropose the rule early next year. “Consistent with the president’s January executive order on regulation, the re-proposal is designed to inform judgments, ensure an open exchange of views and protect consumers while avoiding unjustified costs and burdens,” the DoL said in a press release. “When finalized, this important consumer protection initiative will safeguard workers who are saving for retirement as well as the businesses that provide retirement plans to America’s working men and women.”

In a conference call with reporters, DoL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) Assistant Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi said: “We honestly weren’t as clear as we could have been and we’re trying to fix that…We’ve also been working closely with the White House and they’ve approved our decision to move forward in this fashion.” The extra time will permit the department to strengthen and clarify this “important consumer protection,” he said, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The SEC has been working on rules required by the Dodd-Frank Act that may overlap with the new DoL definition of a fiduciary standard for financial advisers and brokers.

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

In October 2010, the US DoL’s EBSA proposed an expansion of whom the agency would consider a fiduciary to include consultants that provide advice to retirement plans on proxy voting and the hiring of investment managers, more broadly defining the term as a person who provides investment advice to plans for a fee or other compensation.

The regulation, which had been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, had not been updated since the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) first went into effect during the Ford administration. The proposed rule stipulated that broker-dealers who make securities recommendations to retirement plans would be subject to fiduciary requirements, thus giving a broader and clearer understanding of when providing such advice is subject to ERISA fiduciary standards.

“The proposal amends a 35-year-old rule that may inappropriately limit the types of investment advice relationships that give rise to fiduciary duties on the part of the investment advisor,” the DoL stated last year.

In other regulatory news, the SEC has moved to limit firms’ bets against clients, addressing issues raised earlier by US Senate investigators in a report earlier this year. The report asserted that Goldman Sachs positioned itself to profit from clients’ losses on complex securities that it packaged and sold. The US financial regulator accused Goldman of failing to disclose that one of its clients — Paulson & Co. — helped create and then bet against subprime mortgage securities that the New York-based firm sold to investors. Paulson & Co., one of the world’s largest hedge funds run by the billionaire John Paulson, paid Goldman about $15 million for structuring the deals in 2007. Paulson has not been charged.

In April, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a 639-page report on the financial crisis, alleging that Goldman executives misled clients in order to reap profits, and then proceeded to lie to Congress when questioned about its actions. The lengthy report was completed after a two-year probe of the mortgage business that led to financial collapse. It concluded that Goldman mismanaged conflicts of interest, putting its interests above all others.

To contact the aiCIO editor of this story: Paula Vasan at <a href='mailto:pvasan@assetinternational.com'>pvasan@assetinternational.com</a>; 646-308-2742