1 / 15

Public Pension Funds and Urban Revitalization

Public Pension Funds and Urban Revitalization. June 5 th 2006 Pittsburgh, PA Regional Investment Roundtable Tessa Hebb, Senior Research Associate Lisa Hagerman, Research Fellow Labor & Worklife Program, Harvard Law School Sponsored by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations .

bernad
Download Presentation

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 June 5th 2006 Pittsburgh, PA Regional Investment Roundtable Tessa Hebb, Senior Research Associate Lisa Hagerman, Research Fellow Labor & Worklife Program, Harvard Law School Sponsored by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations

  2. Presentation Overview • Best practice findings from four pension fund case studies • NY City & State: fixed income focus • CalPERS: private equity and real estate • MassPRIM ETIs • 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. NYCERS ETI Policy • Returns comparable to non-targeted • Guided by strategic asset allocation policy • 2% across assets - majority fixed income • August 2005 ETI policy target allocation: • 6% Fixed Income • 2% Private Equity 2% Real Estate • Geographic target (5 boroughs), capital gap

  5. New York State (CRF)Fixed Income • Affordable Housing Permanent Loan Program (1991) over 6,000 units 3,138 in pipeline • Mortgage Pass-Through Program (1981) Purchased $6.8 b. in NY state mortgages • Home ownership for over 60,000 residents

  6. CRF Private Equity & Real Estate • In-state Private Equity Program • Response to Jobs 2000 Act • $394m. committed • over $250m. target • $25m. mixed-use real estate complex • NYC - 360 rental apartments • 80% market-rate 20% low-income housing • Commercial - Whole Foods, YMCA

  7. Massachusetts PRIM ETIs • 1983 legislative mandate to target in-state • 2003 ETI Policy created • Up to 2% across asset classes • $140m. committed $80.8m. deployed • Canyon Johnson: Charlestown bakery to affordable & market-rate housing

  8. CalPERS’ Targeted Investments • Geographic targeting: underserved capital markets • Real estate – CURE Program ($3.4 b. committed) • Private equity – California Initiative ($500 m. committed)

  9. 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

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

  11. 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.

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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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