CalSTRS’ board sets science-based emissions goal for 2030 and commits to additional net zero actions

Link: https://www.calstrs.com/calstrs-board-sets-science-based-emissions-goal-for-2030-and-commits-to-additional-net-zero-actions

Excerpt:

The board set four initial measures for integrating the net zero strategy across the portfolio, with a specific focus on emissions reductions:

  1. Interim science-based goal. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the investment portfolio by 50% by 2030, consistent with the latest findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  2. Systematic decision-making process. Adopt processes to incorporate greenhouse gas emissions into investment decisions as part of traditional risk-and-return analyses and their potential impacts on the CalSTRS Funding Plan.
  3. Reduced emissions. Target a 20% allocation of the Public Equity portfolio to a low-carbon index to significantly reduce portfolio emissions while managing active risk.
  4. Integration of climate scenarios. Incorporate future climate-related scenarios into CalSTRS’ asset-liability modeling framework to help guide CalSTRS’ investment allocations.

These actions reflect increasing global momentum toward achieving a net zero economy. CalSTRS will review its net zero goals and strategy annually to adjust for the latest available data, market fluctuations and related scientific advancements.

CalSTRS’ net zero pledge is rooted in its century-long promise to deliver a secure retirement for California’s hard-working educators and their families,” said Board Chair Harry Keiley. “Taking these interim actions to reduce emissions in our portfolio is a profound step forward and underscores our commitment to considering the impacts of climate change fully and systematically as we manage our fund on every level.”

Author(s): Rebecca Forée

Publication Date: 31 August 2022

Publication Site: Calstrs

New York Announces Historic Fossil Fuel Divestment Plan

Link: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/rich-schrader/new-york-announces-historic-fossil-fuel-divestment-plan

Excerpt:

As part of the plan, the Comptroller announced an aggressive schedule of divestment activity over the next four years. This year already, the Common Fund has divested from 22 coal companies. In the next few months, it will divest from companies with tar sands investments. After that, over the next several years, it will divest from these subsectors of the fossil fuel industry:

  • Shale oil and gas firms;
  • Integrated oil/gas majors like Exxon and Chevron as well as smaller integrated companies;
  • All oil/gas exploration and production firms;
  • Fossil fuel service firms, like Schlumberger;
  • And finally, fossil fuel transportation and pipeline companies like Kinder Morgan and Williams.

In addition, the Common Fund is moving forward with two key steps, both supported by the 2018 Decarbonization Panel that was jointly appointed by Governor Cuomo and Comptroller DiNapoli. First, the Fund will hire new staff trained in financial analysis of climate impacts and dangers. And second, the Common Fund will actively vote against board directors of non-fossil fuel companies that do not prioritize climate concerns in alignment with the Fund’s decarbonization goals.

Author(s): Rich Schrader

Publication Date: 9 Dec 2020

Publication Site: NRDC

So Are ESG Investments Lousy, or Not?

Link: https://www.ai-cio.com/in-focus/market-drilldown/so-are-esg-investments-lousy-or-not/?oly_enc_id=2359H8978023B3G

Excerpt:

One criticism of ESG investing is that, when it shows good returns, this might be because of temporary factors that have an outsize impact. Such superior returns are  often driven by climate-news “shocks,” declared Robert Stambaugh, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and two other academics, in a recent paper. The reference is apparently to a spell of severe drought or destructive hurricanes. The professors expressed uncertainty as to whether any future ESG outperformance can be assumed.

Of course, with climate-oriented investing now a partisan issue, a welter of claims and counter-claims has appeared. To pro-ESG folks, science is on their side, hence the opposition is just blowing smoke to confuse people.

Anti-ESG politicians appear to be convincing the public that a “false equivalence” exists between their stance and the sustainability advocates, contended Witold Henisz, director of Wharton’s ESG Initiative, in a recent article in the Knowledge Wharton periodical. He wrote that “ideological opposition [is] cynically seeking a wedge issue for upcoming political campaigns — and, so far, it appears to be working.”

Whatever the outcome of the current debate over ESG-related bans and the like, the climate change question is not going away. Says CalSTRS’s Ailman, “It will be with us for the next 50 years.”

Author(s): Larry Light

Publication Date: 8 Sept 2022

Publication Site: ai-CIO

Social Security Needs Saving Again

Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/social-security-needs-saving-again-retirement-planning-wages-earnings-benefits-eligible-savings-11654631767?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Excerpt:

— Raise the full retirement age further. Starting in 2028, it would go up by one month every half-year until it reaches 68 1/2 in nine years. That means that in 101 years (1935-2036) the full retirement age would have risen 3 1/2 years — far less than the increase in average life span over the same period.

— Raise the early eligibility age. Since the 1960s, all workers have had the option of retiring at 62 with benefits reduced by around 25%. Most retirees now claim Social Security at 62, and the rising full retirement age strengthens the incentive to do so. Once it’s at 67, holding out for higher payments will mean giving up five years’ worth of benefits — a three-year gap will have widened to five.

If my first reform were enacted, the gap would grow further, to an irresistible 6 1/2 years. So Congress should return to the three-year gap by raising the early eligibility age to 65 1/2 as soon as possible.

— Change the way benefits are calculated for new recipients. At a 1983 White House Rose Garden ceremony, I sat next to a Senate member of the Social Security Reform Commission. I told him, “You can fix Social Security by not indexing the bend points for five years.” His response: “What the hell are bend points?”

Bend points determine how much your initial Social Security check will be. First they take the 35 years of your highest income. Thirty-five years ago, you were a junior employee and the dollar didn’t go as far. So each year’s wages are adjusted for inflation to compute an average monthly wage in today’s dollars.

Using the present rules, assume you’re retiring in 2022 and your average inflation-adjusted monthly wage is $6,572. Your first check would be $2,628.96 — 90% of the first $1,024 (or $921.60), plus 32% from $1,024 to $6,172 (or 1,647.36), plus 15% in excess of $6,172 (or $60).

The bend points are $1,024 and $6,172. They were $230 and $1,388 in 1982, when I wrote my constituent newsletter. The growth in benefits could be constrained by indexing the bend points every other year rather than annually for six to 10 years. In addition, the initial benefit should be based on 38 years of wages rather than 35, since Americans not only live longer but work longer, and the inflation-adjusted average wage should be discounted by 5%.

— Slow the growth of benefits for new and existing beneficiaries alike by changing the basis on which they’re indexed for inflation. All indexing of Social Security now uses the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, or CPI-W. Economists agree that the Chained CPI is the most accurate inflation index available. Between 2000 and 2020, the Chained CPI was around 0.3 percentage point lower each year than the CPI-W. The government uses Chained CPI to index income-tax brackets and the higher CPI-W to calculate government outlays, including Social Security cost-of-living adjustments — which leads both taxes and spending to rise more quickly.

— Withhold some Social Security COLAs from higher-income retirees. Those who report income of more than $60,000 (a threshold that itself would rise with inflation) from sources other than Social Security could be denied the COLA every other year for up to six years.

— Give the COLA not annually but every 14 or 15 months using the 12 months of lowest inflation.

— Tax Social Security income for higher-bracket taxpayers, and give them the option to forgo all or part of their monthly payment. The forgone amount could be deducted as a charitable contribution. In high-income-tax states, forgoing Social Security payments would incur little or no cost. Skeptics may be surprised by how many Americans will forgo a part of their monthly checks to assure the system’s solvency for their grandchildren. The election to forgo would be reversible annually.

— Raise the payroll tax by 0.1% of wages every other year — half from withholding, half for the employer’s contribution — for 20 years, a total tax increase of 1%.

Author(s): Rudy Boschwitz

Publication Date: 7 June 2022

Publication Site: WSJ

Examining the Experiences of Public Pension Plans Since the Great Recession

Link: https://www.nirsonline.org/reports/greatrecession/

PDF of report: https://www.nirsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/compressedExamining-the-Experiences-of-Public-Pension-Plans-Since-the-Great-Recession-10.13.pdf

Webinar slides: https://www.nirsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/FINAL-Great-Recession-Retro-Public-Webinar.pdf

Video:

Graphic:

Excerpt:

This report finds that state and local government retirement systems on the whole successfully navigated the 2007 to 2009 Global Financial Crisis. Moreover, public retirement systems across the nation have adapted in the years since the recession by taking actions to ensure continued long-term resiliency.

Examining the Experiences of Public Pension Plans Since the Great Recession is authored by Tyler Bond, NIRS Research Manager, Dan Doonan, NIRS Executive Director, Todd Tauzer, Segal Vice President and Actuary, and Ronald Temple, Lazard Managing Director and Co-Head of Multi-Asset and Head of U.S. Equity.

The report finds:

  • The majority of public pension plans recovered their pre- recession asset levels within six years, while continuing to pay over a trillion dollars in benefits. In recent years, public plans have reported record-high asset levels.
  • Discount rates, or the assumed rate of return on investments, have broadly decreased from eight to seven percent for the median public pension plan, based on actuarial and financial forecasts of future market returns.
  • Generational mortality tables, possible today with more advanced financial modeling software, have been broadly adopted by nearly all large public plans and future longevity improvements are now incorporated into standard financial projections.
  • Many public plans have shortened amortization periods, or the period of time required to pay off an unfunded actuarial accrued liability, to align with evolving actuarial best practices. Tightening amortization periods, akin to paying off a mortgage more quickly, has had the effect of increasing short- term costs. In the long run, plans and stakeholders will benefit.
  • The intense focus on public plan investment programs since the Great Recession misses the more important structural changes that generally have had a larger impact on plan finances and the resources necessary for retirement security.
  • Plans have adjusted strategic asset allocations in response to market conditions. With less exposure to public equities and fixed income, plans increased exposure to real estate, private equity, and hedge funds.
  • Professionally managed public defined benefit plans rebalance investments during volatile times and avoid the behavioral drag observed in retail investment.

Author(s): Dan Doonan, Ron Temple, Todd Tauzer, Tyler Bond

Publication Date: October 2022

Publication Site: NIRS

The triple lock will condemn Britain

Link: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-pensions-triple-lock-will-condemn-britain

Graphic:

Excerpt:

The triple lock says that each year the state pension will increase by inflation, average earnings, or 2.5 per cent, whichever was highest in the year before. It is hugely popular with the Conservative party’s elderly base. It is also a fiscal and economic millstone around the British government’s neck.

The last two years have amply illustrated the basic problems with the design of the scheme. The first is that it was clearly not created with unusual economic circumstances in mind. In 2021, wages dropped in a short but deep recession. The next year, they went back up again. In economic terms, very little had changed. The rule used by the triple lock, however, treated this like a period of strong economic growth. If it had been left untouched, pensions would have increased by 8 per cent. And thanks to the ratcheting effect of the triple lock mechanism, they would have retained that boost against UK GDP into the long term.

In the end, the government ended up suspending the triple lock for a year, only to fall right into another unusual situation: stagflation, where economic activity stagnates but inflation skyrockets. Again, the triple lock recommends a large boost to pensions when government finances are already under strain, and again, this would lift up pensions as a share of GDP long term. And again, the government should suspend the rule to avoid this. But it seems Liz Truss has bottled it. 

You would have thought it tempting for the Conservative party to wave these away as two unusual years; in normal times – when GDP, inflation, and earnings increase together – then everything would be fine, right? Well, no. The way the triple lock is designed means that whenever you have a downturn, pensions will tend to rise as a share of GDP. And whenever you have a boom, they keep pace. The net effect is a constant ratchet where pensions,  in the words of the work and pensions select committee, take up an ‘ever-greater share of national income’.

This is not sustainable. Spending on the state pension is already set to rise significantly as a share of GDP over the coming decades; as the population gets older, there are more people claiming pensions and fewer working to pay for them. Add the triple lock into the mix, and you double the expected increase in demand. Scrapping the arbitrary 2.5 per cent element doesn’t do a lot to help, either; you still have significant growth through the ratcheting effects of the first two elements.

Author(s): Sam Ashworth-Hayes

Publication Date: 19 Oct 2022

Publication Site: The Spectator UK

Transcript: Tom Rampulla

Link: https://ritholtz.com/2022/10/transcript-tom-rampulla/

Excerpt:

BARRY RITHOLTZ, HOST, MASTERS IN BUSINESS: This week on the podcast, I have an extra special guest, Tom Rampulla has been with the Vanguard Group since 1988. He has worked with every CEO, starting with Jack Bogle, all the way up to the current CEO Tim Buckley, and has essentially helped to establish the Financial Advisors Group, essentially the group at Vanguard that works with RIAs and broker dealers and other financial professionals who provide portfolios, advice, financial plans to the investing public.

He has a unique perch from with which to view the financial services industry, both from within Vanguard as well as looking out over the financial landscape and seeing what’s going on with such trends as mutual funds, ETFs, direct indexing, the rise of passive, the rise not just of Vanguard, but the dominance of Vanguard, and the associated Vanguard effect, the pressure on fees that have helped make investing so affordable. We discussed all these things as well as why there has never been a better time to be a retail investor than right now, right here in this era. I found the conversation to be absolutely fascinating, and I think you will also.

So with no further ado, my conversation with the Vanguard Group’s Tom Rampulla.

I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My special guest this week is Tom Rampulla. He is the managing director of Vanguard’s Financial Advisor Services Division, where he began back in 2002. That group provides investment services, education and research to more than a thousand financial advisory firms, representing more than $3 trillion in assets. Tom joined Vanguard back in 1988. Tom Rampulla, welcome to Bloomberg.

THOMAS RAMPULLA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL ADVISOR SERVICES DIVISION, VANGUARD: Thanks, Barry. It’s great to be here.

……

RAMPULLA: You talk to them off the ledge. My clients, the advisors are really earning their fees right now, and providing a tremendous amount of value. So there’s a lot of phone volume, a lot of digital volume, so we’re very, very, very busy. And you know, it’s all about calming people down, we’ll get through this, you look at the long term. Things tend to work out. We — you know, our investing philosophy is, first of all, get an objective, put a plan together, make sure it’s a low cost plan.

And the other thing is be disciplined, right. Stick to your plan, just get rid of the noise. This is big noise. This isn’t just some little blip. This is big noise, but you know, get rid of noise and be disciplined. Most times that’s around rebalancing. This time, stocks and bonds are both going down, so you’re not rebalancing so much. But you know, March of 2020 was a great opportunity to rebalance and add some value. So it’s really sticking to that long-term approach and that discipline is what we really recommend.

Publication Date: 18 Oct 2022

Publication Site: Barry Ritholtz

A Nobel Award for the Wrong Model

Link: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/a-nobel-award-for-the-wrong-model

Graphic:

Excerpt:

A more realistic assumption would be that by investing the good at T=0, it cannot be paid out and consumed at T=1. This is only possible at T=2. With this assumption, the model has two different assets:

– a liquid asset, i.e. the all-purpose asset has not been invested in T=0 and it can be consumed at T=1,

– an illiquid asset, i.e. the all-purpose asset been invested in T=0 and can only be consumed at T=2.

Without banks, risk-averse agents would not be able to participate in the returns of the investment good. As they all are confronted with the risk of being type 1, it would be very risky to invest the commodity. In T=1, Type 1 agents would then not be able to consume.

In such a model, banks can provide an obvious improvement if one assumes again that they know the share of type 1 and type 2 agents. In T=0, all agents deposit their endowment of the commodity with the bank. Assuming that the share of type 1 agents is 25 %, the bank keeps 25 % of the all-purpose asset unchanged and invests 75 % as illiquid long-term investment. It thus performs maturity transformation by transforming liquid assets into illiquid assets (Figure 2).

Author(s): Peter Bofinger and Thomas Haas

Publication Date: 18 Oct 2022

Publication Site: Institute for New Economic Thinking

Say What? Hearing Aids Available Over-the-Counter for as Low as $199, and Without a Prescription

Link: https://khn.org/news/article/hearing-aids-over-the-counter-without-prescription/

Excerpt:

Starting Monday, consumers will be able to buy hearing aids directly off store shelves and at dramatically lower prices as a 2017 federal law finally takes effect.

Where for decades it cost thousands of dollars to get a device that could be purchased only with a prescription from an audiologist or other hearing professional, now a new category of over-the-counter aids are selling for hundreds of dollars. Walmart says it will sell a hearing aid for as little as $199.

The over-the-counter aids are intended for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss — a market of tens of millions of people, many of whom have until now avoided getting help because devices were so expensive.

Author(s): Phil Galewitz

Publication Date: 17 Oct 2022

Publication Site: Kaiser Health News

Insurers Increasingly Withdraw From Fossil Fuel Projects: Climate Activists’ Report

Link: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2022/10/20/691030.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Excerpt:

Insurance companies that have long said they’ll cover anything, at the right price, are increasingly ruling out fossil fuel projects because of climate change – to cheers from environmental campaigners.

More than a dozen groups that track what policies insurers have on high-emissions activities say the industry is turning its back on oil, gas and coal.

The alliance, Insure Our Future, said Wednesday that 62% of reinsurance companies – which help other insurers spread their risks – have plans to stop covering coal projects, while 38% are now excluding some oil and natural gas projects. (The Insure Our Future report on re/insurers’ fossil fuel activities can be viewed here).

In part, investors are demanding it. But insurers have also begun to make the link between fossil fuel infrastructure, such as mines and pipelines, and the impact that greenhouse gas emissions are having on other parts of their business.

Publication Date: 20 Oct 2022

Publication Site: Insurance Journal