Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 06F_09/16/2004 � ��� TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING JUNE 22, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta General Employees' Pension Trust Fund Board of Trustees held a meeting in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) of the Tequesta Public Safety Facility, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on June 22, 2004. The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Boardmembers in attendance at the meeting were: Chair Jeff Newell, Vice Chair Carl Hansen, Boardmember Thomas Paterno, and Boardmember Bob Garlo. Boardmember Greg Corbitt was absent from the meeting. Also in attendance were Dan Gallagher and Attorney Bonni Jensen. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Vice Chair Hansen made a motion to approve the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Paterno seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chair Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of May 11, 2004 as submitted. Boardmember Paterno seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. IV. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION Boadmember Paterno made a motion to approve the consent agenda as BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAI. EMPLOYEES= PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2004 PAGE 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- submitted. Vice Chair Hansen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. The following items were approved on the consent agenda: Payments to be reviewed and approved 1) Business Services Connection - $203.22 2) Hanson, Perry & Jensen, P.A. —$970.05 Ratification of withdrawals made since the last meeting on two signature basis (under $100) Federal Express - $5.08 V. PRESENTATION BY BOGDAHN CONSULTING, LLC Joe Bogdahn announced an outline of his presentation for today: to review the investment policy statement, discuss the current manager, look at the current portfolio, and look at alternatives. Mr. Bogdahn distributed copies of an investment policy statement which contained a few changes from the current statement. Chair Newell requested in the future the format of underline and strikeouts be used. Mr. Bogdahn commented the first section covered general matters, and the second to last paragraph stated that within the parameters allowed in the investment policy statement, the asset allocation of the fund was solely at the investment manager's discretion. Section II told how total fund performance would be measured. 60% equities using S&P 500 broad market benchmark index were designated, as in the previous investment policy statement. Cash was a part of fixed income. Fixed income and cash was to be in the top 40% of the Mobius Universe over three to five year periods. Mr. Bogdahn confirmed that if his firm felt an asset adjustment were needed they would discuss that with the board, and if the manager did not reduce downside risk when appropriate, they would adjust to guide them. Fixed income performance would be expected to perform at a rate at least equal to the Lehman Brothers GovernmendCredit Intermediate Bond Index and in the top 40% of the Mobius Universe over three to five years. Mr. Bogdahn explained that Mobius was the prominent data collection service predominant in the industry. 40% gave the manager some leeway. Mr. Bogdahn explained that the BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES= PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2004 PAGE 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- earnings assumption of 8% was realistic over a longer period of time. Mr. Bogdahn explained that the investment guidelines basically followed the State statutes except the ranking criteria listed under 3(a). The current policy had contained a provision that not more than 25% at purchase could be at the lowest investment grade, which he had not included. In 2003 owning the lowest quality would have meant highest returns, but that normally was not true. Lower quality bonds did best first in a strengthening economy. Mr. Bogdahn noted there were only approximately ten triple A-rated bonds now because the rating agencies were pushing the ratings down, and he had taken the 25% out and just left investment grade. Equities contained a new restriction of value line ranking for safety 1, 2, or 3, except that 20% of the fund's assets may be invested in securities not meeting this requirement. Mr. Bogdahn explained this would limit the manager from investing all in dot.com stocks or all in small cap stocks—things that could increase volatility. Chair Newell asked about Israeli bonds, to which Attorney Jensen responded that the Village Council had removed that language from the ordinance, but they were not prohibited. Mr. Bogdahn advised that these guidelines did not prohibit buying Israeli bonds. Mr. Bogdahn explained that in item 1 under limitations he needed to add in 60% at cost to state that investments in corporate common stock and convertible bonds shall not exceed 60% at cost or 70% of the fund assets at market value. Under restrictions, Mr. Bogdahn explained there was some information regarding repurchase agreements in the current policy and then it listed them as prohibited, so he had left out the initial repurchase agreement information and just listed them as prohibited in this policy. One item he did not list as prohibited was real estate. The current policy had a restriction on real estate but buying a real estate investment trust was fine. There was a prohibition against private placement, because liquidity was not daily—it might be two weeks before you could get your money. REITs could be very volatile. Vice Chair Hansen questioned what percentage of the market these restrictions restricted the fund from, to which Mr. Bogdahn responded short sales, margin purchases, or borrowing—short sales was considered more risky but part of that was one was buying something they did not actually own, which violated this policy. Private placement could be a viable option, but he did not think this was limiting opportunities and if the manager chose to buy a commodities fund it would be allowed. Puts, calls or hedging were not investments made for pension plans. Other restrictions were from the State statutes. Trading parameters and the Communications sections were taken from the State statutes. Chair Newell questioned the last sentence in section A of Communications which required the investment manager to immediately notify trustees of any deviation from the standards in Section III, and asked why there would be a deviation. Mr. Bogdahn explained that after an extraordinary event such as 9/11 BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAI� EMPLOYEES= PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2004 PAGE 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- managers might call to say why they were keeping certain investments or felt they should sell. Mr. Bogdahn noted meetings would be held quarterly to review the monitoring service's performance report, and at least annually the Trustees would provide the investment manager with projected disbursement needs. Mr. Paterno asked who would come up with those numbers if someone became disabled. Mr. Bogdahn explained the actuary would calculate the disability payments and give that to the board, and the board would forward that to the custodian and also forward it to the investment manager. Mr. Bogdahn noted all the Compliance sections had been taken from State statutes. Chair Newell questioned item C, stating he did not think the State required continuing education for Trustees, but he believed it was a recommended action. Mr. Bogdahn indicated it was not defined but just said "shall participate". Mr. Bogdahn commented there was no enforcement policy, and education could be from within, with Attorney Jensen and Mr. Bogdahn providing presentations. Chair Newell and Mr. Paterno supported continuing education. Mr. Paterno commented although it was fine to educate from within, he felt the board had a responsibility to push to get more and would like to see everyone get outside education within a certain time frame. Mr. Bogdahn noted FPTTA had great networking opportunities and a great advantage to the schools in addition to the classes was networking with other General Employee boards and hearing the questions they asked. There was a conference coming up this Sunday through Wednesday in Naples, and the next Trustees' school was in October in St. Pete, and in February in Destin. The next conference would be next June in Boca Raton. Mr. Bogdahn recommended Destin over St. Pete. Mr. Paterno asked if "shall participate" should be changed. Attorney Jensen advised this was the board's policy so they could say whatever they wanted and if they wanted to make continuing education mandatory, leave "shall" in. Chair Newell commented he really wanted new members to go so they could get the basics of what this was about, and one exposure would provide the basics. Mr. Paterno asked how the board could help employees to attend when their work did not allow time or their boss would not let them go. Chair Newell commented that was where he was trying to take this so that it could not be over ruled, and elected board members had to go. Mr. Paterno commented what Chair Newell was saying was the board should vote to change this to say that new trustees within a certain time frame must attend an FPTTA educational seminar. Mr. Bogdahn recommended not doing it here, but to have Attorney Jensen create a set of operating rules and procedures for the board and put it there that it is a requirement, and compliance with the operating rules and procedures would be verified by independent certified public accountants. Chair Newell questioned Attorney Jensen as to whether this board had authority to absolutely require attendance. Attorney Jensen advised that BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES= PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2004 PAGE 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- what the board was doing was saying trustees shall participate in continuing education and that was the board's policy; and it is highly suggested that the education process begin during a trustee's first term. Boardmember Garlo commented that was a typical policy statement and was not boxed in. Chair Newell commented what bothered him was there was a new trustee with no background; the schools came at certain times of the year, and all of a sudden there was a Department Head or whomever who said no, you're not going. Boardmember Garlo commented that had happened to him; there was a policy statement here, that you must do this, and what Chair Newell was saying was to make it a requirement, so what happened, would you be expelled from the board? Because there was no other recourse. Attorney Jensen stated the trustees could not be expelled. Chair Newell commented he was trying to get some strength, to which Attorney Jensen responded she thought the board had strength but all they could do was make it available and make it as easy as possible for people to follow through with the policy. Mr. Gallagher commented a couple of years ago, the application for becoming a trustee which included a statement that "you will attend" and every trustee had signed that form. Mr. Garlo commented that "shall" and "will" in the policy meant the same thing. Mr. Paterno expressed concern that if people did not go they would not be providing backup for him as a member of the board, and there would be turnover on the board in the future and new trustees would need education. Chair Newell commented there was a level of knowledge he was trying to get and his primary concern was for this board to attain that level and maintain that level, and to fast track any new member to that level, and it bothered him to have it constantly put off because of work schedules. That hurt the board. Attorney Jensen commented the board had a policy that covered the work-related issues. Attorney Jensen recommended adding to agendas an item to discuss upcoming conferences and suggest places to go. Boardmember Garlo commented the board was not going to trump the Village Manager. Boardmember Paterno commented that might be Mr. Garlo's opinion, but that was not his opinion because he was here to do this job and did not care who in this City thought differently. Boardmember Garlo commented the reality was no one was going to go over the Village Manager. Mr. Paterno commented he understood, but the board had a responsibility that goes beyond the rest of the ciry; it is a separate entity. Mr. Bogdahn commented it was the only board other than the other pension board that the city put together where your personal assets could be attached, so it was very important that trustees be educated. Mr. Bogdahn commented it was scary because on a particular issue you could vote no and if the rest of the board voted yes and it turned out to be the wrong decision, you were just as liable as them even though you voted no. Mr. Bogdahn advised that sometimes the powers that be needed to understand if they want employees to serve on the board that they must give BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES= PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2004 PAGE 6 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- them the tools to be able to do an adequate job to protect the fund and also to protect themselves. Chair Newell indicated his surprise to learn about the legal liability when he attended the conference because no one had told him about that. Vice Chair Hansen recommended that at every meeting it be the responsibility of the Village to provide information of coming conferences and their locations, and indicated he was retired and could go, but did not know when and where they were to be held. Mr. Bogdahn commented one was coming up Sunday in Naples and a neat place to stay there was the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Resort. Mr. Bogdahn commented the last page, the criteria for investment review, had no changes. In case of any conflicts with this document and the Village's ordinances or State statutes, the ordinances and statutes would prevail. The investment manager could notify the board in writing of anything they wanted changed and the board could change it or not. Mr. Bogdahn indicated he would make the changes to the policy statement and if approved, he would forward it to Northstar. From discussion as the document was reviewed, there was only one item that needed to be changed, which was in the limitations (b) (1) adding the 60% at cost back in. Mr. Paterno commented going back to the first paragraph from the bottom, mentioning about investment parameters. Mr. Bogdahn explained that had been covered in two places, one was that they could have no more than 20% that were not top quality grade and the standard deviation for the fund could not be in excess of 120% of the policy. Mr. Bogdahn distributed a handout of a snapshot of the portfolio which showed actual stocks owned as of the end of May. A chart showed how these particular stocks had performed over l, 3, 5, and 10-year periods. Mr. Bogdahn explained that the chart of current investment style showed the majority of stocks held were large cap; the portfolio was benchmarked against the S&P 500 which consisted of a broad range, and the portfolio had not done that well against the benchmark—showing that the current manager and current style was not necessarily conducive to the fund's particular portfolio. This was not as much Northstar's fault as it was the board's fault for hiring them; for example Northstar's equity perfortnance when compared to a balanced growth and value portfolio for the past three years had been about the 87th percentile—with 100 being best and 0 being worst. When compared to a large growth portfolio they might do better. The handout showed growth over the past three years had not done that well, and investments classified as medium over the past three years had lost 4.3%--our fund had actually lost 7%. Further comparisons were made, making the point that the fund did not want to hire someone just to manage one particular sector and not be anywhere else. Northstar's style was large growth, so they could not be expected to suddenly become a value manager, and he did not think they would do BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES= PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2004 PAGE � --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- that. The fund was not large enough to support having two managers—one for growth and one for value. Mr. Bogdahn had not compared Northstar to other managers to see how well they did against their peers because that really was not pertinent. The final handout covered performance, showing returns for calendar year periods for the current manager and other managers who handled our fund's type and size portfolio. Years 1999 through 2003 were covered. Chair Newell asked if Mr. Bogdahn was recommending a change in managers. Mr. Bogdahn responded, yes. The second page of the handout showed the risk each of the listed managers took to get those returns. The next page compared each by alpha (indication of positive stock selection); beta (management of risk); r-squared (correlation to the benchmark); treynor ratio (incremental rate for the amount of risk taken, so the higher this number the better); batting average (average of the accounts that outperformed the index on a quarterly basis); and information ratio (this should be a high number). The next page showed risk analysis of performance for five years trailing for each of the managers. The most important information on this page was the worst quarter and worst four quarters. The most important information in the handout was on the next page—the up and down capture ratio. Northstar had captured 72% of the up-market and 70% of the downside. Looking across the board the highest was Dana Investment Advisors with 132% for up-market and downside 59%. All of the managers compared had done better in the up and down market ratios than Northstar. The last page of the handout showed a 10-year track record, and everyone had done better than the S&P. Mr. Bogdahn explained there were a couple of considerations because of this being a small fund—the fund would still need to have custody and trading services. Custody was not as important because there were currently no retirees—there were custody alternatives—so there was no reason to pay $55 per ticket as charged by Wachovia, when the same services could be found other places for $8 to $12. Savings could be realized in both equity and fixed income accounts. Investing for positive returns for a small portfolio was discussed. MOTION Vice Chair Hansen made a motion to adjourn for ten minutes. Boardmember Garlo seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. The meeting reconvened at 10:08 a.m. Mr. Bogdahn recommended that the board interview one or more of the managers used in the comparisons plus any others the board might want, and suggested the current BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENER.AL EMPLOYEES= PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2004 PAGE 8 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- manager be included to explain their process again. Mr. Gallagher asked if these were all local firms, to which the answer was no, that Mr. Bogdahn's firm looked at managers across the country who fit their clients, and they did not have to be members of FPTTA. Contravisory Research & Management Corp was from Boston and was owned by Rockwell in St. Louis, but did business in Florida; Dana Investment Advisors was from Milwaukee but their Chairman now lived year-round in Melbourne; and the rest were Florida companies. These were the best options Mr. Bogdahn's firm had found for smaller plans. Chair Newell asked about Oppenheimer, which Mr. Bogdahn advised leaned to the value side, that they had re-adjusted and their offshoot OFI was making a big push on the alternative side and also had some growth products. Mr. Bogdahn advised that Oppenheimer would not handle an account this size. Attorney Jensen advised that the board needed to decide if they wanted to short list from the managers provided or if they wanted to add more names. Discussion ensued. Consensus of the board was to create a short list of Contravisory Research, Dana Investment, and Northstar. Mr. Bogdahn indicated that a company not based in Florida was not a problem. MOTION Boardmember Paterno made a motion to set up interviews with Contravisory Research & Management Corp, Dana Investment Advisors, Inc., and Northstar Capital Management, all on the same day. Vice Chair Hansen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Discussion ensued regarding the date to hold the meeting to conduct the interviews. Mr. Bogdahn advised if both pension boards turned out to have the same short list it could be a joint meeting. Chair Newell commented it might be better to meet separately because the managers would be addressing two very different funds. Mr. Bogdahn advised that was not necessarily so since they handled small and larger funds the same way. Mr. Hansen advised he would be returning from Europe on August 8. Mr. Paterno questioned what time this board would meet for their quarterly meeting on August 10. Mr. Gallagher responded the Public Safety Board was going to meet early because they requested to meet early to accommodate two members on that board who worked in the West Palm Beach area who had been going to work then coming to the meetings, then going back to work. They wanted to meet at 8 a.m. Board member Paterno stated he understood what Mr. Gallagher was saying, but advised he also preferred to meet early because he did not like his day split up. Discussion ensued BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES= PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2004 PAGE 9 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- regarding the date to hold the interviews. Mr. Paterno suggested August 9, with a decision to be made at the August 10 quarterly meeting. Attorney Jensen advised she could not be present August 9, but that she did not need to be present to hear the interviews. The time needed was estimated at three hours. Mr. Paterno advised he would prefer meeting early. After further discussion, consensus was to meet Monday, July 12, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. at the EOC to hear interviews. Mr. Bogdahn commented a questionnaire would be given to each company to be followed in their presentations. Mr. Bogdahn left reports for the boardmembers, and advised they could call him if they had any questions. Also, on the investment policy statement one thing not listed was a discussion about proxies, which he had added and placed on a disk, and when a manager was selected their name and address would be added. VIII. ANY OTHER MATTERS Boardmember Paterno requested that the board discuss the date of the next actuarial report and costs at the next meeting. Also on the next agenda Mr. Paterno requested internal controls and rules as discussed today, which Attorney Jensen advised she would copy from another fund and the board could decide if they were interested. Upcoming trustee schools would be listed on the next agenda, and if Mr. Garlo or Mr. Corbitt could not attend, Chair Newell indicated he would go in October. IX. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS There were no communications from citizens. X. ADJOURNMENT Boardmember Garlo made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Vice Chair Hansen, and unanimously approved. Therefore, the meeting was adjourned at 10:48 a.m. BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAI. EMPLOYEES= PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2004 PAGE 10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respectfully submitted, - `�' �. r �r. Betty Laur Recording Secretary