CalPERS: a 112th green, social, corporate policy

How many policies and statements does CalPERS have aimed at guiding its massive investments, valued at $229 billion last week, in ways that look at the environment, social conditions and corporate governance?

A new study found 111 of them.

The impressive list, growing over decades, was compiled by a consultant as CalPERS prepares to integrate what has become known as ESG (environment, social and governance) issues into its investment process to reduce risk and increase profit.

A report prepared by Mercer consulting for a workshop last month said CalPERS has been “a respected leader in the world of ESG,” even before the “ESG moniker” was applied to the issues.

The Mercer report listed “111 policies, commitments, memberships and letters of support and endorsement that CalPERS has developed or publicly supported, which in some way relate to ESG.”

Investment officers for stocks, bonds, private equity and real estate gave the workshop their views about creating an ESG framework for decisions. A board member asked the senior officer for the biggest portfolio, stocks, about handling a 112th policy.

“We desperately, the investment office, need a real prioritization of the issues you want us to engage on,” replied Eric Baggesen. “We cannot engage on 111 discrete statements.

“So we need to find a way to focus that body of work down into something we can actually manage, and deal with, in conjunction with everything else we need to do in our daily activity.”

The potential clout that comes with investing billions has led to a global movement among public pension funds and other big investors to seek ways, broadly speaking, to improve the world without sacrificing investment returns.

Among the groups pushing ESG issues are the United Nations-connected Principles for Responsible Investing and the International Corporate Governance Network.

Academic studies say ESG may boost investment returns. Studies for CalPERS found similar results from adding women to boards of directors to improve diversity and from putting underperforming companies on a “focus list” to improve corporate governance.

ESG also may help investors reduce risk. A consultant told the workshop that a hard look at environmental and safety policies might have avoided investments in BP, hit by the gulf oil spill, and Massey Energy, hit by a mine explosion that killed 29 persons.

CalPERS has been sharply criticized by some for being a leader in the movement away from focusing solely on investment returns, calling it a costly mistake.

“The Next Catastrophe” by Jon Entine in Reason magazine, February 2009, takes particular aim at activist investing led by former state Treasurer Phil Angelides and the failures of “socially responsible investing.”

Board member Priya Mathur said at the workshop that she wanted to “draw a strong distinction” between ESG and socially responsible investing.

“I think socially responsible investing is really triggered by social objectives as opposed to investment and performance objectives and risk-management objectives, which I think is what we are really talking about today,” said Mathur.

Board member George Diehr, the investment committee chairman, said he had asked a consultant for his evaluation of ESG about a week before the workshop.

“He said if all things are equal between a couple of investments, if you consider ESG factors you are probably not likely to do worse by taking them into account,” he said.

Diehr said there is a need to ensure that staff is not spread too thin, that time and energy spent on ESG get returns, that more research is done on ESG results in some asset classes, and that whether ESG skews passive index investing gets a look.

“Let’s be careful about getting on some green bandwagon that isn’t real,” he added.

In one well-publicized ESG issue, CalPERS and others successfully pushed for a provision in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill last year that supports allowing shareholders to put their candidates for the board of directors on company ballots.

The two pension funds announced the creation of a Diverse Director DataSource of potential candidates in April. But a new Securities and Exchange Commission rule allowing “proxy access” was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals in July.

Peter Mixon, the CalPERS general counsel, told the board last month there are two ways the court decision might be reversed: an “en banc” hearing by the full appeals court or an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“So again, disappointing,” Mixon summed up. “Not entirely over. But it would be a long shot, I think, to get either en banc or Supreme Court review.”

In what may be more like socially responsible investing than ESG, depending on how they are defined, CalPERS is under fire from legislators for not complying with legislation in 2007 calling for the sale of stock in companies doing business with Iran.

Consultants estimated that boycotts of corporate stocks to end racial apartheid in South Africa and reform the tobacco industry cost CalPERS and CalSTRS billions of dollars, with no hard evidence of any results.

CalPERS adopted a policy in 2009 of “constructive engagement” with targeted companies, if selling their stock is not in the best interest of retirees. In May CalPERS said it was divesting its remaining Iran-related stock because holding it was more costly.

The Senate approved a bill on a 38-to-0 vote last week, AB 1151, that the author of the Iran divestment bill said would require future pension fund decisions about Iran divestment to be made in public.

“The foot-dragging and stalling by CalPERS and CalSTRS has got to stop,” state Sen. Joel Anderson, R-Alpine, said in a news release. “Sometimes the Legislature just needs to give a gentle push to bureaucrats to get them to do their job.”

At the workshop last month, the CalPERS corporate governance manager, Anne Simpson, proposed that ESG be replaced by “sustainable investing,” a term broad enough to include “diversity” and “emerging managers” that also states the purpose and goal.

“It seems to me we need a conceptual framework which ties this down to the fund’s production objectives,” she said.

Board member Steve Coony, representing state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, said sustainable is a “buzz word that is about to be used up.” He challenged staff, consultants and board members to come up with a synonym that CalPERS could claim as its own.

Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at https://calpensions.com/ Posted 6 Sep 11

7 Responses to “CalPERS: a 112th green, social, corporate policy”

  1. Captain Says:

    “A report prepared by Mercer consulting for a workshop last month said CalPERS has been “a respected leader in the world of ESG,” even before the “ESG moniker” was applied to the issues.”

    – This is a goal that would come under less scrutiny if CalPERS were 90-100% funded. Unfortunately, they are about 60% funded. The goal, or mission, should be focused on returns. Please focus on being “a respected leader in the world of” returns.

    “In one well-publicized ESG issue, CalPERS and others successfully pushed for a provision in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill last year that supports allowing shareholders to put their candidates for the board of directors on company ballots.

    The two pension funds announced the creation of a Diverse Director DataSource of potential candidates in April. But a new Securities and Exchange Commission rule allowing “proxy access” was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals in July.”

    – Thank goodness someone is paying attention. The last thing I’m interested in seeing is union controlled pension funds colluding with other union controlled pension funds to put a majority on the Board Of Directors of corporations, or unduly influencing B.O.D.‘s. My fear: it will end up looking like the symbiotic relationship we now see with public sector unions that help elect the city council members that approve their contracts.

    “CalPERS has been sharply criticized by some for being a leader in the movement away from focusing solely on investment returns, calling it a costly mistake.

    “The Next Catastrophe” by Jon Entine in Reason magazine, February 2009, takes particular aim at activist investing led by former state Treasurer Phil Angelides and the failures of “socially responsible investing.”

    – Count me among that group.

  2. Rex The Wonder Dog! Says:

    This is a goal that would come under less scrutiny if CalPERS were 90-100% funded. Unfortunately, they are about 60% funded.
    =============
    CalTURDS is less than 50% funded usung GASB criteria.

  3. Captain Says:

    Rex,

    I’m curious if you have any other response to the points I made?

    On a separate note, what are your thoughts on the OC Register comments attributed to Steven Malvechio? Here is his comment:

    “Remember, the cost of pensions cannot legitimately be blamed for our budget woes. The state pays less today for pensions on a percentage basis than in 1980.”

    “The state pays less today for pensions on a percentage basis than in 1980.”

    How many things are wrong with this statement? I can name several. If this guy is the Grand-POO-BA of the “Truth Squad” it would certianly help explain some of the comments from the “Truth Squad”, squad (garabage in – garbage out).

  4. Rex The Wonder Dog! Says:

    “Remember, the cost of pensions cannot legitimately be blamed for our budget woes. The state pays less today for pensions on a percentage basis than in 1980.”

    “The state pays less today for pensions on a percentage basis than in 1980.”

    ==
    Ridiculous comment, and 100% false. Gov today is paying anywhere from 15%-25% of total revenue for pension costs – from the local level all the way up to CalTURDS, in BOTH absolute and percentage terms.

    That public union talking mouhtpiece has no proof whatsoever to back that whopper up.

  5. skippingdog Says:

    Please give us some links or valid citations for your claims about the current government revenue costs for state pensions – either Rex or captain.

    In real terms, the amount of current budget charges for pensions is lower now than in the early 80’s, and the UAAL is lower than during the same period.

    If you have valid evidence to the contrary, you should put it up here.

  6. Captain Says:

    Skipping dog, is this what the “truth Squad” is claiming(?):

    “In real terms, the amount of current budget charges for pensions is lower now than in the early 80′s, and the UAAL is lower than during the same period”

    Or is this what the “truth squad is claiming:. “The state pays less today for pensions on a percentage basis than in 1980.”

    I just want to hear/see the truth and I’m curious if, in your opinion, or Steven Maclivio’s opinion, this is considered the truth?

    What do you think the truth is?

  7. Rex The Wonder Dog! Says:

    In real terms, the amount of current budget charges for pensions is lower now than in the early 80′s, and the UAAL is lower than during the same period.

    StOOpid Dog with another bogus whopper.

    Here, let’s fix that whopper;

    In real terms, the amount of current budget charges for pensions is far higher today than in the early 80′s, or any period PERIOD, and the UAAL is far higher than during the same period.

    Take a few more hits off that water pipe StoopidDog, maybe your dead brain cells will rejuvinate themselves🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: