Saturday, December 30, 2023

In Plain Sight - Growing Risk Level in NYCERS Investments and Runaway Fees.

Runaway Investments fees

In FY-2000 NYCERS paid $37.4 million in investment fees for an asset base of $42.8 billion.

In FY-2023 NYCERS paid $489.9 million in investment fees for an asset base of $82.4 billion.

The numbers speak for themselves. There is no benefit to these radically increased fees. Clearly, twice the $37.4 million in fees from FY2000 could cover the $82.4 billion in assets for FY-2023. But the current trustees have no idea what was going on in 2000.

This is a big part of the income inequality in America. This story is not just about NYCERS but every public pension plan in America.

Increasing Investment Risk

In a prior post from January 2020, I outlined a new accounting reporting requirement for government pension plans (GASB 72) mandating that plans report a breakdown of the reliability of the reported value of the plan's investments. The assets are broken down into 3 levels as listed below:

  • Level-1 assets - open market - very liquid
  • Level-2 assets - open market - not as liquid
  • Level- 3 and NAV assets - no open market - not liquid

In addition to these crazy fees noted above, the risky Level-3 assets at NYCERS have grown steadily since 2015. On top of this growth in risky assets, this year there was a law passed in Albany to raise the limit (from 25% to 35%) on the amount of Level 3 and NAV assets in a NYS public pension plan.

In the table below you will see the growth for Level-3 and NAV class assets at NYCERS.

Note: As of FY-2023 NYCERS is relabeling alternative investments as net asset value items rather than Level 3 as a "practical expedient". This is a PR sleight of hand. Nobody wants to be called Level-3. "NAV" is a lot more vague. $19.8 billion (25% of the portfolio) for Level-3 and NAV assets is an obvious red flag for the risk level of the portfolio. You can be sure that $19.8B is the upper bound for this class and that a 50% reduction is a real possibility.

Ranking of NYCERS Assets via GASB 72
Fiscal Year Level-1 Assets (in thousands) Level-2 Assets Level-3 Assets Assets at Net Asset Value Total
FY-2014 $27,028,432 $17,437,139 $10,642,729 $0 $55,108,300
FY-2015 $27,707,076 $17,175,757 $10,796,968 $0 $55,679,801
FY-2016 $27,330,534 $15,924,399 $10,377,791 $1,123,861 $54,756,585
FY-2017 $32,312,375 $17,461,428 $10,914,801 $95,987 $60,784,591
FY-2018 $31,219,885 $23,282,843 $10,880,803 $66,675 $65,450,206
FY-2019 $34,128,310 $22,782,825 $11,534,369 $6,979 $68,452,483
FY-2020 $33,647,567 $24,941,479 $11,856,921 $3,735 $70,449,703
FY-2021 $42,162,979 $30,981,818 $14,845,548 $1,240 $88,091,585
FY-2022 $32,892,068 $26,386,373 $18,726,172 $1,129 $78,005,742
FY-2023 $35,986,966 $25,235,457 $461,156 $19,845,541 $81,529.120

Investment Expenses for the Assets by Quality for FY-2023

In FY-2023 NYCERS paid the following investment management fees for the different levels:

  1. $54.7M for Level 1 assets (FY-2019 fees = $39.7M).
  2. $25.0M for Level 2 assets (FY-2019 fees = $18.4M)
  3. $375.0M for Level 3 and NAV assets (FY-2019 fees = $140.5M)

Again, the numbers speak for themselves. The trustees are being rolled big time - everywhere.

Friday, December 8, 2023

How to Do Investment Fees the Right Way - TRS and Its TDA Fund

TRS is one one the five NYC pension funds, the one that covers NYC teachers. Actually TRS is two funds, a defined benefit fund (DB) and a defined contribution fund (DC). TRS calls its DC fund the TDA Program. The TDA program is funded by payroll deductions (approximately $1.0B/year) from the teachers. This fund is teachers' money, not tax payers' money. Well not really. The DB fund guareantees a 8.25% and 7% rate of return on fixed income assests in the TDA fund. But that is another story for another day.

The following list is the closing balances of the two funds as of June 30th of following years:

  • Year - DB Fund - TDA Fund
  • 2020 -- $59.3B -- $37.0B
  • 2021 -- $78.3B -- $43.0B
  • 2022 -- $64.0B -- $42.2B
  • 2023 -- $67.9B -- $45.4B

You can see from the numbers that the TDA fund runs a tighter ship than the DB fund. The TDA fund grew by 22.7% over the three years while the DB fund only grew by 14.5%. Eeven though the TDA rate of return is is impressive compared to the DC fund, what rally is superhuman is the investment fees that the TDA fund pays versus the DC fund. See the fees for the two funds over the four years listed below:

  • Years - DB Fund - TDA Fund
  • 2020 -- $290.8M -- $0.6M
  • 2021 -- $405.7M -- $13.7M
  • 2022 -- $535.3M -- $24.2M
  • 2023 -- $518.9M -- $11.2M

How does the TDA spend so little on fees and does so much better that the DB fund???