Tag: CalPERS

California’s New Placement Agent Law

California has become the latest state to regulate the use of placement agents who help investment managers secure government pension fund money. (Or is that placement agents who help government pension fund money find suitable investment managers?)

California Assembly Bill 1743 was backed by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the state treasurer and the state controller. Placement agents must register as lobbyists before they can pitch investment proposals to California government investors.

As Keith Paul Bishop notes in the California Corporate & Securities Law Blog

“the proposed rule does not appear to require disclosure of gifts and campaign contributions to losing candidates for positions that have the authority to appoint persons to the CalPERS Board.  This is not consistent with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recently adopted “time out” Rule 206(4)-5 for investment advisers which appears to cover contributions to both successful and unsuccessful candidates.  Nor is this approach consistent with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s interpretation of Rule G-37 (See FAQ II.22)”

Meanwhile CalPERS is has its own rules which area bit stricter. Placement agents must report gifts and campaign contributions made to all Board members as well as to persons who have the authority to appoint persons to the CalPERS Board: the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the members of the Senate Rules Committee.

One point to focus is the definition of “Placement Agent.” An investment manager’s employees, officers, directors, and equityholders who solicit California public retirement systems for compensation may be placement agents under the definition, unless they spend more than one-third  of their time during the calendar year managing securities or assets of the manager. With respect to solicitation of CalPERS and CalSTRS only, if the manager is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an investment adviser or broker-dealer, is selected through a competitive bidding process, and has agreed to a fiduciary standard of care applicable to the retirement board, then the employees, officers, and directors of a manager will not be a placement agent.

Sources:

California Proposes Having Placement Agents Register

Placement agents would have to register as lobbyists under legislation proposed by Assemblyman Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina). The legislation would define placement agents as lobbyists in accordance with the state’s Political Reform Act. Placement agents would have to register as lobbyists before pitching investment ideas to public pension plans in California.

It seems like the big California pension funds want access for pitches from small investment firms without their own marketing staff. So they are not following the lead of New York with its outright ban on placement agents.

The bill is sponsored by State Controller John Chiang, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), and Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

The bill is straightforward, defining a placement agent as:

“any person or entity hired, engaged, or retained by, or acting on behalf of, an external manager, or on behalf of another placement agent, as a finder, solicitor, marketer, consultant, broker, or other intermediary to raise money or investment from, or to obtain access to, a public retirement system in California, directly or indirectly, including, without limitation, through an investment vehicle.”

There is an exemption for employees of external managers who spends at least one-third of their time managing the assets of their employer.

As a “placement agent” you are required to report quarterly on fees, compensation and gifts under the Political Reform Act (Government Code §81000-81016).

Sources:

California Regulates Use of Placement Agents

California

California has followed the lead of New York and started regulating the use of placement agents. California’s law requires placement agents to disclose contributions and gifts made to state and local pension and retirement board members, as well as information about the placement agent’s compensation, the services provided, and any lobbying or regulatory registrations.

The California law is based on disclosure. It does not ban the use of placement agents like New York and as proposed by the SEC

The new California law (Assembly Bill No. 1584) went  into effect on October 11, 2009 when Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law. The law establishes a disclosure-based regime that requires:

  • Potential placement agents, prior to acting to solicit a potential state or local public pension or retirement system investment, must disclose campaign contributions and gifts to public pension board members during the prior 24 months.
  • Placement agents must disclose any subsequent gifts and campaign contributions to pension or retirement board members for as long as they are being paid to solicit investments.
  • Each state and local public pension system must develop and implement policies requiring disclosure of payments to placement agents by external asset managers by June 30, 2010. The new disclosures must include, at a minimum, the following information:
    • the existence of the relationship;
    • a résumé for each officer, partner or principal of the placement agent;
    • a description of compensation paid to the placement agent;
    • a description of services to be performed by the placement agent;
    • a statement of whether the placement agent, or its affiliates, is registered with the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority  or other regulatory body; and
    • a statement of whether the placement agent, or its affiliates, is registered as a lobbyist with any state or the federal government.
  • A state or local public pension or retirement system may not enter into an agreement with any asset manager that does not agree in writing to comply with any such policy.
  • Any placement agent or external manager that violates any such policy is barred from soliciting new investments from that state or local retirement system for five years from the time of the violation.

References:

Is CalPERS a Sovereign Wealth Fund?

Ashby H. B. Monk wrote Is CalPERS a Sovereign Wealth Fund? (He ends up saying no.)

Sovereign Wealth Funds have come under increased scrutiny with countries concerned that an investment by a SWF could be used as a political tool and not a mere investment. The underlying concern is that many of the SWFs come from countries that at times are hostile to the United States and often lack a substantive rule of law. Ashby notes that there is some confusion as to what constitutes a sovereign wealth fund.

While all seem to agree that the China Investment Corporation and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority are SWFs, there is a lively debate as to whether public pension funds, such as the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), are also SWFs. While CalPERS itself is adamant that it is not, others disagree. The stakes are high for a fund like CalPERS, as the SWF label could come with a high cost.

Ashby starts with several of the SWF definitions and creates this definition:

SWFs are government-owned and controlled (directly or indirectly) investment funds that have no outside liabilities or beneficiaries (beyond the government or the citizenry in abstract) and that invest their assets, either in the short or long term, according to the interests and objectives of the sponsoring government.

Based on this definition, Ashby concludes that CalPERS is not a SWF.

Ashby H. B. Monk is a Research Fellow at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (CRR) and the University of Oxford.