The Colorado Mile High Fund

Making the case for one of Colorado’s best investments.

What makes Colorado PERA comfortable with the claim that it is “One of Colorado’s Best Investments?” Is it the secure retirement provided to Colorado’s hard-working public sector employees? Is it the multiplier effect of the retirement benefits on Colorado’s economy? Is it skilled, low-cost internal asset management provided by PERA staff? Or, could it be the investments made by PERA, on behalf of 500,000 current and former public employees, in innovative and growing companies? To both PERA’s members and to the Colorado public, it is all of the above.

In prior postings, PERA has discussed the first three aforementioned benefits provided to the state. This posting will delve into the last one, the actual investments made in Colorado companies. While myriad local economic benefits are achieved from large companies held within PERA’s stock, bond, and real estate portfolios, parsing the impact from these holdings is no small task. Instead, this post will focus on the strategic investment program that not only expects strong relative performance, but also supports economic innovation in Colorado.

Colorado has historically offered a stable private equity market, with 150-200 transactions each year. Most of these have been venture capital deals, wherein an investor provides capital to a promising business/entrepreneur in return for a meaningful equity stake in the company. Venture capital is a high-risk, high-reward endeavor involving relatively smaller investment stakes. In-state venture investments in 2014 totaled approximately $900 million. Although smaller in absolute number than venture capital, leveraged buyouts accounted for a much larger portion of Colorado-based investments in 2014 ($1.9 billion in total transactions). Not unlike venture capital, these control-oriented deals provide companies with patient, transformational capital aimed at enhancing company value. Find more details on Colorado’s venture capital and private equity markets.

In order to participate in the strong potential returns available at home, Colorado PERA created the Colorado Mile High Fund. The fund was initiated in August of 2012 as a $50 million co-investment vehicle for businesses with a nexus in Colorado. In cooperation with financial sponsors, the fund makes mezzanine, buyout, or growth capital investments. Through the end of the first quarter of 2015, approximately $20 million has been drawn from the fund, and mostly invested in growth capital projects. The rate of commitments is slightly slower than the five-year investment period that was envisioned at the outset and here’s why.

The modestly slower rate of capital commitments reflects the exhaustive underwriting process. Each investment must meet the same exacting criteria as the rest of the PERA private equity portfolio. To put some quantitative parameters around this statement, of the hundreds of potential deals screened by Colorado Mile High Fund investment professionals, five ultimately received a capital commitment, so far. The standards require interested companies to have a significant presence in the state of Colorado, the companies must generate positive cash flows (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) is used as a proxy for cash flow), and other financial sponsors must join in the same funding round. Furthermore, the fund targets investments in any one of the following industries: business services, clean technology or renewable resources, biosciences, information technology and communications, aerospace, manufacturing, infrastructure or energy.

The fund will not consider investments outside of the mandate or those that are specifically prohibited. Prohibitions include pre-revenue companies, grants, real estate investments, investments in deals that are not at the market (meaning, economically comparable to others being proposed), and direct investments (or those without a co-investor).

To date, two of the investments have concluded, resulting in strong returns. One of the companies is the largest privately-held spinal health companies in the world, and the other is a wound care and disease management firm. The two exited companies generated a blended multiple of invested capital of 1.7x, with a gross internal rate of return (IRR) of 34.4 percent.

These strong results compare well to almost any private equity investment. Add to that the more than $550 million (excluding the Colorado Mile High Fund) that Colorado PERA has invested with companies or partnerships that have located their corporate headquarters in Colorado. This total offers a bit more support for PERA’s claim that it is it “One of Colorado’s Best Investments.”

Making the case for one of Colorado’s best investments.

What makes Colorado PERA comfortable with the claim that it is “One of Colorado’s Best Investments?” Is it the secure retirement provided to Colorado’s hard-working public sector employees? Is it the multiplier effect of the retirement benefits on Colorado’s economy? Is it skilled, low-cost internal asset management provided by PERA staff? Or, could it be the investments made by PERA, on behalf of 500,000 current and former public employees, in innovative and growing companies? To both PERA’s members and to the Colorado public, it is all of the above.

In prior postings, PERA has discussed the first three aforementioned benefits provided to the state. This posting will delve into the last one, the actual investments made in Colorado companies. While myriad local economic benefits are achieved from large companies held within PERA’s stock, bond, and real estate portfolios, parsing the impact from these holdings is no small task. Instead, this post will focus on the strategic investment program that not only expects strong relative performance, but also supports economic innovation in Colorado.

Colorado has historically offered a stable private equity market, with 150-200 transactions each year. Most of these have been venture capital deals, wherein an investor provides capital to a promising business/entrepreneur in return for a meaningful equity stake in the company. Venture capital is a high-risk, high-reward endeavor involving relatively smaller investment stakes. In-state venture investments in 2014 totaled approximately $900 million. Although smaller in absolute number than venture capital, leveraged buyouts accounted for a much larger portion of Colorado-based investments in 2014 ($1.9 billion in total transactions). Not unlike venture capital, these control-oriented deals provide companies with patient, transformational capital aimed at enhancing company value. Find more details on Colorado’s venture capital and private equity markets.

In order to participate in the strong potential returns available at home, Colorado PERA created the Colorado Mile High Fund. The fund was initiated in August of 2012 as a $50 million co-investment vehicle for businesses with a nexus in Colorado. In cooperation with financial sponsors, the fund makes mezzanine, buyout, or growth capital investments. Through the end of the first quarter of 2015, approximately $20 million has been drawn from the fund, and mostly invested in growth capital projects. The rate of commitments is slightly slower than the five-year investment period that was envisioned at the outset and here’s why.

The modestly slower rate of capital commitments reflects the exhaustive underwriting process. Each investment must meet the same exacting criteria as the rest of the PERA private equity portfolio. To put some quantitative parameters around this statement, of the hundreds of potential deals screened by Colorado Mile High Fund investment professionals, five ultimately received a capital commitment, so far. The standards require interested companies to have a significant presence in the state of Colorado, the companies must generate positive cash flows (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) is used as a proxy for cash flow), and other financial sponsors must join in the same funding round. Furthermore, the fund targets investments in any one of the following industries: business services, clean technology or renewable resources, biosciences, information technology and communications, aerospace, manufacturing, infrastructure or energy.

The fund will not consider investments outside of the mandate or those that are specifically prohibited. Prohibitions include pre-revenue companies, grants, real estate investments, investments in deals that are not at the market (meaning, economically comparable to others being proposed), and direct investments (or those without a co-investor).

To date, two of the investments have concluded, resulting in strong returns. One of the companies is the largest privately-held spinal health companies in the world, and the other is a wound care and disease management firm. The two exited companies generated a blended multiple of invested capital of 1.7x, with a gross internal rate of return (IRR) of 34.4 percent.

These strong results compare well to almost any private equity investment. Add to that the more than $550 million (excluding the Colorado Mile High Fund) that Colorado PERA has invested with companies or partnerships that have located their corporate headquarters in Colorado. This total offers a bit more support for PERA’s claim that it is it “One of Colorado’s Best Investments.”

Retirement Roundup: Is More Money the Key to a Happy Retirement?

A digest of timely information and insight about finance, investing, and retirement.

Is more money the key to a happy retirement? | CBS News

With many people approaching their retirement years with meager savings, aiming to be happy might be more realistic than aiming to fully retire and not work at all. But that means thinking about how much money you really need to be happy.

Student debt repayment takes priority over retirement planning | Employee Benefit News

A recent report found that 68 percent of US millennials, those ages 20 to 37, are saving for retirement, about 48 percent of them in a workplace-sponsored 401(k) plan. Only 29 percent were actively preparing for retirement. Of millennials who were surveyed, 77 percent listed debt reduction as their top retirement strategy. The study also found that 28 percent of millennials believe they won’t be able to retire at the age they want and 28 percent don’t believe they will ever be able to retire. [See what The Dime has to say about student loans vs. saving for retirement.]

Auto-escalation on the rise in retirement plans | Employee Benefit News

The retirement industry is hopeful that Americans are beginning to save enough for a successful life post-employment, and auto-escalation plays a big part in such optimism. Auto escalation automatically increases the percentage of an employee’s salary that is contributed to a retirement plan. In the last 12 to 24 months, the move to have plans auto-escalate has picked up significantly.

Senior savers will wait to reap benefits from fed rate increases | Bloomberg

After years of enduring meager returns on low-risk investments, retirees can look forward to more money in their pockets after the Fed starts raising interest rates, though the benefits won’t flow swiftly. The Fed, which has drawn political ire for policies that critics say penalized savers, says it expects to only raise rates gradually.

Dealing with an investing blind spot | New York Times

We all have blind spots, and it’s hard to be objective about our own behavior. A simple, though maybe not easy, solution is to find and listen to other people who can see our blind spots. [Read more about how bad financial decisions can lead to trouble when it comes to retirement savings.]

When crisis hits, older Americans more likely to raid retirement savings | Bankrate

One in 8 Americans tapped their retirement savings over the past 12 months to pay for a household emergency, according to a September survey that accompanies the Bankrate Financial Security Index. The chances of people using retirement savings go up with age, with 8 percent of those between ages 18 and 29 saying they had done so, compared to 19 percent of people at least 65 years old. [Our ancestors may be to blame for why we spend our retirement savings today instead of saving for when we’ll need it.]

Low Cost, High Service

That’s what CEM Benchmarking, an international firm that analyzes pension fund performance, concluded about Colorado PERA after comparing 73 different pension plans across the globe. Pension plans are analyzed relative to a peer group of similar-sized plans as well as to all 73 different funds.

For another year, Colorado PERA has been recognized for outstanding customer service and low administrative costs by a global company that analyzes pension funds worldwide.

Colorado PERA is included in a peer group of 13 U.S. plans including Ohio PERS, with a membership of 1,045,000 down to TRS Louisiana, with 184,000 members. PERA is in the middle of this group, with 549,000 members as of July 2015.

The range of U.S. pension plans varies from CalSTRS and CalPERS in California to Nevada PERS and Utah RS. Global pension plans studied include Rolls Royce and Scottish Public Pension Agency in the United Kingdom to Ontario Pension Board in Canada, Abu Dhabi RPB and numerous other plans in several countries.

For 2014, PERA’s administrative costs were well below the average of both the 13 funds in its peer group and the 73 pension funds evaluated across the globe. PERA’s annual pension administration costs were $51 per active member per year (or annually), inactive member, and retiree, or $9 below the peer average of $60 per year.

Pension Costs

Source: CEM Benchmarking presentation to the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees, September 2015.

The reasons for PERA’s lower than average costs included higher employee productivity and lower costs for activities like information technology and financial control. PERA had 3.54 Full Time Employees (FTE) per 10,000 members, below the peer average of 4.62.

PERA’s overall service score, measuring the customer service PERA provides its members and retirees, was 87 out of 100. Only five funds out of the 73 measured had higher service scores than PERA.

Service Score

Source: CEM Benchmarking presentation to the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees, September 2015.

It is notable that PERA has such strong customer service scores while maintaining below-average costs, given that strong customer service tends to drive costs higher.

“It’s important that Colorado PERA members, policymakers, and taxpayers know that PERA continues to receive high marks when we are compared to our peers in the United States, as well as around the world,” said Greg Smith, PERA’s executive director. “It is infrequent that one of our members would have the occasion to interact with another pension fund, so the CEM Benchmarking service confirms what many of our members tell us – that PERA is one of the best customer service experiences they have. Every business strives to have satisfied customers and meet their needs at a low cost. This report shows that we continue to do that at PERA,” Smith concluded.

PERA’s call center and customer satisfaction survey scores, in particular, were higher than many of its peer plans. The report also noted that 100 percent of annuity pension inceptions, or monthly retirement distributions, are paid without an interruption of cash flow greater than one month between the final paycheck and the first retirement distribution check.

PERA’s service score increased by three points from 84 to 87 over the last four years, while the average score of the peer group remained relatively flat over that time. The CEM report noted that PERA had one of the highest service ratings in the CEM global pension universe.

Service Trends

Source: CEM Benchmarking presentation to the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees, September 2015.

The results of the CEM Benchmarking study further demonstrate the strong commitment of PERA on a daily basis to deliver exceptional service for PERA members and retirees. PERA provides this level of service at a low cost, protecting the retirement savings of its members and continuing to be one of Colorado’s best investments for members, retirees, and taxpayers across the state.

Part Superhero, Part Fortune-Teller, 100 Percent Actuary

CareerCast.com ranked the actuarial profession first in their annual best jobs report for 2015. Actuaries have topped the list for the last few years with other related professions like statistician and mathematician also in the top five. The ranking is based on factors like income potential, hiring outlook, work environment, and stressfulness of the occupation. But just what does an actuary do?

Actuaries are highly skilled mathematicians who help pension plans, insurance companies, and other financial organizations plan for the future based on historical and anticipated demographic, trend, and financial data. The Society of Actuaries describes an actuary as “a business professional who analyzes the financial consequences of risk.” Actuaries use a plethora of mathematical tools from probability and statistics to financial theory in order to calculate various risks that an organization such as a pension plan could encounter in its business operations.

An actuary usually has a bachelor’s degree in actuarial science, mathematics, statistics, finance, or economics, and is trained in probability, compound interest, business, and finance. Beyond education, the actuary designation requires passage of a series of exams that usually takes six to 10 years to complete, and practicing actuaries are typically affiliated with professional organizations that hold the actuary and the profession to high standards of practice.

Actuaries work in any industry where risk must be analyzed, including insurance, investment management, corporate finance and banking, as well as for colleges and universities, public accounting firms, labor unions, rating bureaus, and pension plans.

What does an actuary do for a retirement system?

A retirement system could not function without actuaries. Actuaries develop the underlying actuarial assumptions that determine everything from funding status and contribution requirements to expectations surrounding membership and benefit payouts. Additionally they assess risk, cost, and the likelihood of various future scenarios based on changes to membership demographics, investments, plan structure, and legislative or policy changes. Actuarial assumptions are the heart of pension administration.

What is an actuarial assumption?

An actuarial assumption is an estimate of the value of a variable in a financial model. Pension plan assumptions fall into two categories: demographic assumptions and economic assumptions. Demographic assumptions attempt to accurately anticipate events that occur over the lifetime of plan participants and influence the amount and timing of benefits. For instance:

  • Life expectancy (how long will plan participants live?)
  • Rates of retirement (when will plan participants retire?)
  • Mortality before retirement/mortality after retirement (how many participants will die before/after receiving a benefit?)
  • Rates of salary increase (how quickly and by how much will salaries change for different groups of employees?)

Economic assumptions attempt to anticipate financial aspects, which may impact the cost of future benefits and the rate at which they are funded, such as:

  • Price inflation (what will be the rate of consumer inflation in the future?)
  • Investment rate of return (how much will a particular fund or asset base return in the financial market place?)
  • Wage inflation (how will wages rise compared to rising prices?)

Mortality assumptions and the investment assumption rate are two critical actuarial assumptions for any pension plan. The first are based on life expectancies for various demographic groups, a necessary tool to predict how long benefits need to be paid out after a person retires. The investment assumption rate is another critical piece for pension planning. This assumption looks at the asset allocation of a plan’s investments (stocks, bonds, real estate, private equity, commodities, cash), and through detailed modelling and historical analysis, predicts the rate of return that the plan’s assets should expect to make over a very long time horizon. View the Funding of Colorado PERA webpage for more information. For Colorado PERA, that horizon is 30 to 60 years. This prediction is important because between 60 and 80 percent of a plan’s assets come from investment returns (versus employer and employee contributions), so in order to calculate the correct contribution rate to fund the plan’s liabilities, actuaries must be able to predict how much money will come from returns on the investments. Over the last 25 years, approximately 64 percent of the total dollars in the PERA trusts came from investment income, with the remaining 36 percent coming from employers and employees (18 percent each).

When discussing actuarial assumptions, it is important to understand who “owns” the responsibility of those assumptions. The actuary typically is a consultant who makes recommendations to the plan’s governing body. Per Colorado statute, all actuarial assumptions recommended by the actuary are subject to approval by the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees. Actuaries make recommendations to the Board, and the Board adopts them or requests further analysis and revised recommendations to be considered later. In addition, on a regular basis, the Board hires outside actuaries to audit the retained actuary’s work. Occasionally the current actuary is replaced in order to bring fresh eyes to the analysis and to maintain financial integrity and an independent outlook.

Annual Actuarial Valuations

Actuaries conduct comprehensive studies known as annual actuarial valuations to evaluate funding progress and the impact of year-to-year changes on a pension plan’s funding progress. A valuation provides a summary of the plan’s funded status, funding period and recommended contribution rates, and often includes accounting information as required under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) statements for public pension plans. In order to perform the valuation and provide this information, the actuary takes into consideration contributions, investment returns, demographic changes, retirements, withdrawals, economic factors, deaths, hires, and other system data.

Any pension plan strives to achieve a long-term equilibrium where the money coming in (contributions and investment returns) equals the money going out (benefits and expenses). It’s a simple formula based on the underlying “actuarial balance” of a plan:

Benefits Paid + Expenses = Contributions + Investment Returns

The annual actuarial valuation is a key factor in monitoring and planning for changes to preserve that equilibrium; in addition it is the backbone of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), a pension plan’s required public report of financial health.

Experience Analysis

The experience study is an investigation of the economic and demographic experience over a certain length of time; its purpose is to assess the reasonability of actuarial assumptions that support the administration of the pension plan. It compares the actual experience of the plan to the predictions made by the plan assumptions, including rates of death, retirement, separation from service, disability and salary increases. The comparison of actual results to predicted results demonstrates to actuaries which assumptions need to be revised to more accurately reflect true demographic and economic conditions. The experience analysis is the foundation for the annual actuarial valuation in that it determines the appropriate assumptions to be applied within the annual actuarial valuation.

Special Studies

In addition to the pension plan’s annual actuarial valuation and periodic experience analyses, an actuary also performs special studies as needed and/or required by law. For instance, if proposed state legislation will be making changes to benefit provisions, an actuarial analysis of the proposed change would be necessary to determine the financial effect of the change. Numerous special studies were conducted during the creation and adoption of Senate Bill 10-001 in 2010, which made changes to many of Colorado PERA’s benefit provisions. These special studies gave trustees and legislators the cost saving predictions for the proposed changes.

According to the Web site BeAnActuary.org, actuaries are “part super-hero, part fortune-teller, part trusted advisor.” Maybe that’s why their profession is consistently ranked so highly.

Retirement Roundup: Don’t Despair About Retirement

A digest of timely information and insight about finance, investing, and retirement.

Don’t despair about retirement – take action | CBS Money Watch

Yet another survey illustrates the anxiety many Americans feel about retirement and many have insufficient savings to maintain their current standard of living into their retirement years. While working longer is one possible response to these challenges, most people reach a point when they’re no longer able to work or their employer no longer wants them to. But action is the antidote to despair.

Read more about America’s retirement crisis.

To raise or not raise rates? That’s not the question to ask | USA Today

“To raise or not to raise?” is the question facing the Federal Reserve. But it’s not the question you ought to be asking. The question you should ask is: Does it really matter whether and when the Fed raises short-term interest rates from 0.25% to 0.50%? And the answer is no. Or at least not yet.

For widows, Social Security can provide rude shocks | The New York Times

Despite the peace of mind its name promises, Social Security can be a source of confusion and stress – and an added burden to those dealing with the loss of a spouse. What a widow or widower claims from Social Security, and when, can make a long-term difference in lifetime benefits.

Here’s one public pension fund that survived the 2008 crisis | Crain’s Chicago Business

The 2008 financial crisis hurt retirement savings, but public defined benefit pensions in red states and blue states survived the market’s free-fall in reasonable shape. What distinguishes financially sound pensions from others? It’s simple: mandated, adequate contributions.

No surprise: Conservative sneers that public employees like their pensions | Los Angeles Times

A recent Gallup poll finding that public employees are happier than private-sector workers with their pension plans and other benefits raises a question: why are public employees are so much happier with their retirement benefits than their private-sector counterparts? Gallup implies that the reason isn’t so much that their benefits are higher, but that they’re more dependable.

3 tips to getting retirement right in your 20s | CNN Money

Hardly a day goes by that one study or another doesn’t purport to offer insights into what Millenials are doing, should be doing or shouldn’t be doing about their finances. But ultimately it’s the actions you take on your own, not what Millennials as a group may or may not do, that will determine whether you achieve the secure financial future you seek. [Check out The Dime for more tips on saving for retirement when you’re young.]

No Social Security COLA Likely in 2016 | BenefitsPro

Thanks to collapsing oil prices, inflation has been flat—and that means it’s looking more and more likely that retirees won’t see a cost-of-living increase in their Social Security checks come January.

Retirement Roundup: Denver Ranks Third Best for Retirees

A digest of timely information and insight about finance, investing, and retirement.

Denver Third-Best City for Retirees in US, Says New Study | Denver Business Journal

Denver is the third-best city in the US for retirees, according to a new study. A total of 60 US cities were ranked by factors that would affect retirees, including health care, the economy, affordability, transportation, crime, the environment and social and wellness activities.

Social Security Explained | Yahoo News

August 14 marked the 80th anniversary of the date that President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. The program has continued to help retired workers for decades, but the future of Social Security is looking a little insecure.

The Real Reasons Americans Aren’t Saving Enough for Retirement | Time

When it comes to adequate savings for retirement, most American workers are not only falling short, they don’t even know how far behind they are. And trends are getting worse, according to a new survey from the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. Lack of wage growth, the disappearance of pensions and the decline in 401(k) coverage amount private sector workers, especially low- and middle-income households, contribute to a lack of retirement savings, especially for younger Americans.

Public Pension Shocker: Shutting a Pension Plan Actually Costs Taxpayers Money | Los Angeles Times

A study looked at three states that closed their traditional defined benefit pension plans and placed new employees in a 401(k)-style defined contribution plan. Results showed that taking these steps sharply increases pension costs to taxpayers while providing employees with markedly poorer retirement benefits.

Advice After Stock Market Drop: Take Some Deep Breaths, and Don’t Do a Thing | The New York Times

Stocks are most useful for long-term goals, so it probably doesn’t make much sense to overhaul an investment strategy based on a blip of market activity.

Worried About the Stock Market? Whatever You Do, Don’t Sell. | FiveThirtyEight

Market crashes happen. Since 1950, the S&P 500 has had one-day declines of 3 percent or more nearly 100 times. Slow-motion crashes, where big declines are spread out over several trading days, are even more common. But every one of those declines has been followed by a rebound. Sometimes it comes right away. Sometimes it takes weeks or months. But when it comes, it comes quickly. If you want until the rebound is clearly visible, you’ve already missed the biggest gains.

Independent Report Finds PERA Efficient and Effective

A recent study of retirement plan design shows Colorado PERA is more efficient and uses dollars more effectively than other types of plans in use today. Three simple charts summarize the findings.

Read the Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company report on PERA’s income replacement in retirement efficiency and cost effectiveness.