1 / 18

Public Pension Funds and Urban Revitalization

Public Pension Funds and Urban Revitalization. October 25, 2005 Hartford, Connecticut Tessa Hebb, Senior Research Associate Lisa Hagerman, Research Fellow Labor & Worklife Program, Harvard Law School Oxford University Centre for the Environment

nia
Télécharger la présentation

Public Pension Funds and Urban Revitalization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Public Pension Funds and Urban Revitalization October 25, 2005 Hartford, Connecticut Tessa Hebb, Senior Research Associate Lisa Hagerman, Research Fellow Labor & Worklife Program, Harvard Law School Oxford University Centre for the Environment Sponsored by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations

  2. Presentation Overview • Best practice findings from three pension fund case studies • NY City & State: fixed income focus • CalPERS: private equity and real estate • Implications drawn from this research

  3. Urban Investment Strategies • Types of targeted investment • Private equity • Real estate • Fixed income • Infrastructure • Credit enhancement • Success if measured in risk adjusted rates of return • Pension funds are not market makers

  4. New York City - NYCERSEconomically Targeted Investment (ETI) Policy • Returns must be comparable to non-targeted investment • Guided by strategic asset allocation policy • 2% across assets to date majority in fixed income • August 2005 ETI policy target allocation: • 6% of fixed Income portfolio (30% of total) • 2% of private equity portfolio (5% of total) • 2% of real estate portfolio (6% of total) • Geographic target (5 boroughs) and to fill capital gap

  5. Public Private Partnership $42.7b NYCERS 2% ETIs Capital deployed 11,000 housing units NYCERS commits to buy loan at lock-in interest rate CPC/JPMorgan Chase makes construction loan as permanent financing in place 100% SONYMA Guarantee - P&I since 1978 total claims only $1.7 m. NYCERS no losses Partners have track record know neighborhood & developers City - tax abatements agencies - low rate second mortgages

  6. NYCERS Fixed Income • PPAR Program (CPC/J.P. Morgan Chase CDC): • 11,000 apartments 3,000 in works • $208 m. invested $123.m committed • 10 year net return forward-rate commitments: 9.33% Benchmark: Lehman Aggregate: 7.72% • Investments in national funds leverage fund (i.e. HIT $500m. in NYC ) to make direct investments • Investments programmatic - deflect political interference

  7. New York State - NYSLRSCommon Retirement Fund Fixed Income • Affordable Housing Permanent Loans (1991) Over 6,000 units 3,148 in works Invested $205m. Committed $400m. to CPC Program • Mortgage Pass-Through Program (1981) Purchased $6.8 b. in NY state mortgages Homes to over 60,000 residents • Backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac • Total fixed income portfolio 5 year return 9.28%

  8. Common Retirement Fund Private Equity & Real Estate • In-state Private Equity Program • Response to Jobs 2000 Act • $364m. committed / over $250m. legislated target • 12 private equity managers • Real Estate: $25m. mixed use complex • NYC - 360 rental apartments - first phase • 80% market-rate 20% low-income housing • Commercial - community center, supermarket

  9. CalPERS’ Targeted Investments • Geographic targeting: underserved capital markets • Real estate – CURE Program ($1.6 b.) • Private equity – California Initiative ($500 m.)

  10. CalPERS’ Real Estate • Thirteen vehicles in targeted real estate • Broad geographic focus • ‘Location, location, location’ • CURE program initiated in 1997 • IRR 22.2% since inception

  11. Targeted Investment in Urban Revitalization – Hollywood CA Woolworth Building: Hollywood CA CIM Group

  12. CalPERS’ Urban Real EstateTime Warner Center New York NY Time Warner Center CUIP

  13. CalPERS Private Equity • California Initiative started in 2000 • Ten vehicles of varying types across all stages • Large and small investments - $200 m. to $10 m.

  14. Impacts • Too early for financial results • $230m invested in 56 companies • 37 in California • All investments met one or more social objective: • underserved capital markets 63% of total investment • women and/or minority owned businesses 57% • employed low/moderate income workforce 36%

  15. CalPERS’: California InitiativePacific Community Ventures: Planet Organics – San Francisco

  16. Steps in Targeting Investment • Board level champion • Board direction “let’s look at..” • Staff get outside expert study • Boards set broad targets • Select appropriate asset class and amount • Issue RFP • Hire top-quartile manager

  17. Best Practice in Pension Fund Urban Investment • Success is measured first in risk-adjusted rates of return • Geographic rather than social targeting • Set broad targets • Allow top-quartile vehicles to do their job

  18. Conclusion • Targeted investment can generate risk-adjusted rates of return and healthy vibrant communities • Pension funds are not excessive risk-takers or market makers • Best practice in targeted investing is important for success • While these cases look at some of the nation’s largest cities, what are the market-rate opportunities in urban revitalization in the smaller US cities? • For more information visit: http://urban.ouce.ox.ac.uk

More Related