Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The George Ryan dilemma
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Alexi Giannoulias has a new plan…
The Illinois state treasurer says he wants curb corruption in the state’s five pension systems and that he will unveil a plan on Monday that would pool billion of dollars in investments.
State treasurer Alexi Giannoulias told the Chicago Tribune on Sunday in a story on the newspaper’s Web site that Illinois could save between $50 million and $80 million a year if investment duties for the five government employee retirement systems were merged.
The treasurer’s overhaul also would put board members under stricter ethical standards.
* The idea was met with skepticism…
But the treasurer’s plan could face an uphill climb at the Capitol, where lawmakers say they welcome the ethics reforms but put the idea of combining the investments “on very thin ice.”
“There’s an inherent danger whenever one tries to funnel so much activity into a single source because it weakens the checks and balances over these public funds,” said Sen. Jeff Schoenberg (D-Evanston), who has long worked on pension reform issues. […]
Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago), who heads the Senate’s pension committee, said he worries that forming one massive investment group could hinder the ability of smaller investment firms, particularly those headed by women or minorities, to get state business.
* Sen. Schoenberg succinctly sums up his reservations at his new blog…
In short, I’m skeptical that bigger always means better when it comes to governing public finance.
The same goes for private financial institutions, as the developments in recent weeks have clearly shown.
* Schoenberg offers up an interesting alternative…
Mandating that everyone associated with state public pension fund transactions is a licensed securities professional more effectively achieves the goal of taking political influence out of the equation. No longer would insiders be able to pass themselves off as marketing consultants for investment banking firms while pocketing huge fees for minimal work on large deals, and the protective umbrella of securities industry’s higher standards would more likely prevent Illinois taxpayers from getting soaked
That’s a good point.
One area of “reform” I’d like to see is a more direct involvement with reviving Illinois’ economy. I wouldn’t mandate investments that would spur job-creation, but what I’d like to see done is along the same lines as the NFL’s coach interview requirements. The pension funds should be required to at least look at job-creating Illinois investments before making their final investing decisions.
* But this is something to keep in mind…
Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration tried to consolidate state pension boards during his first year in office, but federal prosecutors allege top campaign fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko went to the governor to block the idea.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 10:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The George Ryan dilemma
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Get a license
Its not that hard to get a license. And I wonder how many insiders the MERC would refuse to sponsor for the exams?
Still, it’s better than nothing. But I don’t see that there should be any concern for “smaller” firms being able to get business.
Better still, PUBLISH the yearly returns and fees for all such firms.
Then we can see how much better that they are doing vs. Fidelity or Vanguard. And maybe the “influence” problem can then be easily solved….
Comment by Pat collins Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 10:37 am
We told the unions and their pals that the state would screw the pensions if there wasn’t a con-con… Now the teachers pension gets to be dragged further down by the even worse funded legislators and judges pension systems.
Comment by John Bambenek Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 10:39 am
Requiring that everyone on the board be an investment professional is a terrific, but impractical idea. Here’s why:
1) to sit on this unpaid board you must be an investment professional
2) any board member who is an investment professional and that board member’s firm is ineligible to receive any business from the $70 billion in assets under management.
That leaves a candidate pool of no one.
Comment by Scooby Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 10:39 am
There’s not a real problem with having enormous pension system with consolidated investments. Just look at the CALPERS system in California which, at $247 billion in capital, is many times larger than our bigger system would be. The question is really about using the right tool for the right job.
If corruption is our concern, then let’s deal with that as Jeff suggests.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 10:41 am
The Judges and Legislative Pensions is the best funded pension system of all of them. I think they should pool all of them together. I also think they should have the same requirements.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 10:46 am
Dear John,
Even if this proposal is apporved do you really think the unions will allow their funds to be used to bail out the GA retire system. They would be crucified. The voters in Illinois made a wise decision on Nov 4 Nope (on Con Con) and then Hope (Obama ‘08).
Comment by Obama's Puppy Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 10:48 am
====could save between $50 million and $80 million a year====
That’s a lot of commission that is now going to who? I knew there was a lot of money in that part of government but I didn’t realize it added up to that much. I should have started my own investment firm.
Obviously the game is different today than it was when you took care of your supporters with jobs. For $80 mil a year you could have 1600 jobs that pay $50,000. Now probably 50 to 100 people get the payback. They probably do the work for it and it’s may be the going rate, but its always nice to land an easy sale.
Comment by Been There Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 10:53 am
Where are the Madigan’s? Asleep at the wheel or planning Lisa’s innauguration for Governor or Senator I guess. Stop messing with the symptoms of the problem, and fix the problem. The number one problem in this state is the Governor. Two people can fix that. The AG with an indictment or the Speaker with impeachment. Don’t give me the we are waiting for the feds crap. Lisa had no problem hammering Jim Ryan for waiting on the feds. Do your job or resign. Both of you!
If we combine the pensions, it only puts a band aid on one small symptom of the state. It is fairly simple.
1. Get rid of the Governor. (impeach or indict, Madigans choice).
2. Stop spending more than you bring in.
It ain’t rocket science folks.
Comment by the Patriot Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:13 am
===where lawmakers say they welcome the ethics reforms===
Actually, the “lawmakers” welcomed (and passed) ethics reforms for the Governor and state employees but not for themselves. I guess that they felt that their own ethics were beyond reproach. Efforts to extend ethics reform to lawmakers themselves was regarded as a poison pill, a version of the prevailing NIMBY attitude.
Comment by Bill Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:18 am
I don’t understand how one entity would necessarily have fewer checks and balances or make it harder for smaller firms to get business. I would think it would be easier to track the goings on of one entity.
I think this should be explored for the cost savings.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:21 am
“There’s an inherent danger whenever one tries to funnel so much activity into a single source because it weakens the checks and balances over these public funds,” said Sen. Jeff Schoenberg (D-Evanston)
What checks and balances would be weakened? The three investment boards of the five systems don’t check or balance one another because they don’t interact in any way. They just operate inefficiently. This quote is just the use of a buzzword without a meaning.
Comment by Scooby Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:24 am
Perhaps Sen. Schoenberg can explain to me what action the insurance industry took against Eugene Moore when he was collecting commissions moving the Maywood fire and police pension money from fund to fund within Met Life while collecting commissions when the money moved.
Did the industry take action when Moore removed fire and pension fund money from long-term investments incurring penalties (in violation of Illinois law)?
Did the industry take action against Moore when he was collecting “do nothing” commissions on the insurance business at Proviso Township High Schools?
Did the industry take action when Moore used a fraudulent front company to bill Proviso Township High Schools to conceal his involvement?
So, Sen. Schoenberg, you seem a bit naive to think that the regulation of the financial sector is the answer.
Perhaps, Sen. Schoenberg has heard how regulation by the financial sector worked in the mortgage industry.
I gotta say that Schoenberg’s statements sure sound like someone who wants credit for being a “reformer” but has been basically bought off. It’s hard to believe that someone who has been following the issue could in good faith present something so ineffective to being the key to reform.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 12:02 pm
Many are wondering why Capt Fax did focus attention of Blagoof’s decision beg for federal cash for his budget deficit by flying east with President-elect Obama rather than driving about 30 blocks south?
Pretty fun stuff to start the new month
Could it be that no one in Chicago was returning
Comment by 2ConfusedCrew Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 12:12 pm
This “new” idea from the young gun demonstrates that youth is sometimes a disadvantage, especially when you look at Sen. Schoenberg’s quotes.
This guy is starting to remind me of someone . . . another Chicago statewide office holder with a hard to pronounce name . . . I think that The treasurer needs to take a few public policy classes perhaps.
Comment by carbon deforestation Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 1:06 pm
Carbon, what principles of public policy would be violated by combining the funds? Schoenberg refers to checks and balances, but what does he mean? If you have transparency at one entity, isn’t that better public policy than trying to track the activities of five?
What might happen is that fewer firms would collect fees for investing public dollars. If that did happen, I think it’s a good thing.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 1:16 pm
Pension boards are governance, and should be accountable to the electorate. First ‘oops’ is appointed trustees…we all know a few by name.
The largest current issue with the 5 state funds is their underfunding. Second ‘oops’ is a legislature without the backbone to meet its obligations, for more than a generation now…
No doubt in my mind that Alexi the banker would like the funds comingled, and also that he’d like the trustees all to be his compatriots in the industry, but the trustee task is oversight, not competition, not friends.
And how, on earth, would the Alexi Aggregate distribute the earnings among the contributing funds? Relative to their initial contributions? Judges and GA not gonna like that. Relative to their participant numbers? The systems have considerably different liabilities to a senate president and an adjunct faculty member in a community college.
Maybe Mr. Treasurer just wants to float a nice sounding ‘reform’ and have the MSM note that the last time out, this nice sounding fix was upended from the inside by a Blago buddy currently on the “inside” himself…
Comment by countryboy Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 1:28 pm
Just left the City Club luncheon where the Treasurer talked about his initiative. Paul Green asked an interesting question…whether the actual beneficiaries of the funds, the state pensioneers, got to vote on whether these changes were made to their funds. The answer is no. The Treasurer said it would be too hard to get over 200,000 people in a room to vote.
Comment by N'ville Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 1:59 pm
I read where the Governor supports “increasing efficiency and transparency of state government and the state pension systems . . .” I wonder it that transparency means he will now cough up those subpoenas he’s been opaque about.
Comment by Captain Flume Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 2:38 pm
The Treasurer said it would be too hard to get over 200,000 people in a room to vote.
I wonder how Vanguard gets all their owners to vote on things?
Oh, they use PROXIES. Gosh, what an idea.
Tell me again how with it this guy is again….
Comment by Pat collins Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 2:46 pm
So if Alexi decides to run for higher office (gov, lite gov etc) does Schoenberg resurrect his once-upon-a-time short lived campaign for Treasurer. That’s my guess.
Comment by Niles Township Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 3:13 pm
Alexi’s idea is excellent. you can reduce overhead costs by up to 80% and impose a coherent investment policy more easily (and presumably hedge against risk) on a single fund than 5 separately run funds.
Comment by corvax Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 3:48 pm
Pension boards are governance, and should be accountable to the electorate.
Remember the U of I Trustees? A glazed look in the voting booth, a random check mark, and suddenly they’re all “accountable”.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 5:03 pm
This was a bad idea when Filan floated it five years ago, and it hasn’t gotten any better with age. Actually, the first empty trial balloons date back to 1977 (Thompson transition team) and 1991 (Edgar-but no way no how was anyone gonna let Erhard Chorle get his mitts on more State dough.)
Setting the ethics-related matters aside-and many of those matters have already been addressed as a matter of policy at most of the pension boards-the investment economics of this deal have never added up correctly and they never will.
First, let’s not use the Vanguard, etc. analogies. These funds are already buying Vanguard’s institutional equivalents at the lowest possible price due to their size. (Less than one basis point.) It is highly unlikely that further cost savings can be realized out of indexed investments, which make up 10-15% of the total assets of the funds.
Secondly, all the funds invest in a variety of alternative investment strategies, from real estate to private equity to ISBI’s 10% stakes in hedge funds and “infrastructure.” The fees for many, if not most of, these investments are set by the terms of a limited partnership agreement, and may not be renegotiated for the 10-year life of the partnership. Those assets represent over a third of the aggregate assets of the funds, for which ZERO “savings” can credibly be claimed.
The remaining assets are actively managed domestic and international bonds and equity investments, comprising around 50-55% of the total. Even if one assumes an average fee of 50 basis points, which is unrealistically high given the inclusion of low-fee bonds in here, in order to achieve a $70 million “savings”, fees would have to be negotiated down on the average 40 percent.
Good luck with that, Alexi. Many of these fees are already under a “best deal” or “most favored nation” arrangement wherein the State is already getting the cheapest fee the firm has.
FWIW, the $12 million in admin cost savings is a bogus number too unless one assumes that every staff member is making $230,000 like Atwood.
As a matter of public policy, the overwhelming governance model for public pensions across America is founded on active and retired member participation. Without exception, the “pension scandals” seen here in Illinois and in other states have come from the ranks of the private sector “business experts” Larry Msall likes to tout, not retired teachers or prison guards.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 6:19 pm
Before I could accept this as even a reasonable idea, I would want to know;
How do the funds now perform compared to their peers, compared to benchmarks? I suspect not badly at all, and, if so, it becomes an argument against change.
Where, specifically, would the savings come from? Not WAGS, but real specified numbers from real specified sources.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 7:14 pm
Steve, I can give you an incomplete answer to your very good question.
As of June 30, 2008, based on the three systems’ own reports from their websites (for SURS and TRS-ISBI does not have a Website, but borrows space from SERS) and previous public reports (CAFRs, COGFA, legislative testimony) AA observes:
-SURS and TRS have substantially outperformed ISBI for every reporting period usually listed (1,3,5 and 10 years.) Overall, TRS is the best performer of the three, having best performance seven or eight of the past ten years.
-TRS reports its performance ranked in the top quartile (of a Russell/Mellon peer universe) for all periods except the 1-year, where it fell to around median.
-SURS reports its performance (on the Web) without a peer universe ranking, but based on their outperformance relative to their benchmark, they appear to be well above median to top quartile until FY08, where they are about median.
-ISBI performance, which is hard to find unless one knows where to look, has ranged between mediocre and terrible with one good year, FY04. Based on their CAFRs which report their sizable underperformance relative to benchmark and eyeballing their returns relative to the peers, they appear to be third or bottom quartile in a peer universe excepting FY04. FY04 was the year in which the POB proceeds were received and ISBI held an overweight to indexed equities (bought with bond proceeds) for most of the year, making the good performance more lucky than good.
Hardly a compelling argument to roll ‘em all up, is it?
I don’t think you will see specified savings because I don’t think they exist.
I agree with Schoenberg. Put this turkey in the icebox.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 9:15 pm