PennPSERS reports carried interest

Text written in red color on blackboard. Text is blurred.

The $56.7 billion Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System (PennPSERS) has revealed it paid its private equity general partners 19.41 per cent of investment profits as carry between the program’s inception in 1985 and 2017. The revelation, which came after a laborious process involving 500 staff hours, comes as the fund ends its longstanding practice of reporting only the base management fees it pays GPs and begins also disclosing the split of the investment profits – or the so-called carried interest.
In our report, General Partner Ownership Interest, we look at our record so far and define carried interest and other fees the fund pays.
PennPSERS is one of the most transparent pension funds in the US regarding disclosure of management fees. For example, certain pension funds report little to nothing in management fees for alternative investments because they are considered part of the cost of the investment and are netted against performance rather than shown separately. In contrast, PennPSERS gathers management fee information from each of its limited partnerships and collective trust fund investments, even if it is not specifically disclosed in the fund’s standard reports or specifically identified in capital call requests.
Such management fee information includes both base and performance fees obtained from the fund’s administrator statement, capital account statement or financial statements. This data is then used to report all relevant management fees in the fund’s financial statements.
While the debate in the US over what constitutes a fee continues, PennPSERS will endeavour to remain transparent and report fees in accordance with current Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) guidelines and prevailing public pension industry practice, to keep PennPSERS’ financial statements both meaningful and easier to compare with its peers. In addition, PennPSERS reports all other investment expenses, including staff compensation and overhead, plus consultant, legal and bank costs.
Additionally, at the October board meeting, the fund created an ad hoc agency committee on fee transparency. It is made up of five board members and appropriate staff. They will be looking into ways to further improve fee transparency, including how to collect and report carried interest.

Carried interest
Carried interest is the amount a GP retains as an ownership or capital interest in the investment profits of a partnership. Generally, GPs retain 20 per cent of the investment profits in a limited liability partnership, while the limited partners receive the other 80 per cent. Carried interest is earned by the GP only after the limited partners receive 100 per cent of the capital they have contributed to the partnership – including the cost of investments, fees and partnership expenses –plus a preferred return, usually 8 per cent, on the contributed capital. This GP ownership interest may be based on each individual investment as it is realised or the partnership as a whole.
There are two views on the definition of carried interest. Either a GP’s profit share on the sale of a capital asset (capital gain) or a performance fee for the manager. No consensus exists.
Under the GASB, pension plans are not required to include in the reported amount of investment expense those investment-related costs that are not readily separable from investment income (where the income is reported net of related expenses). Common practice is not to disclose certain investment-related costs and offsets. One reason for this is that financial statements become less comparable with other plans. It is also costlier to break these fees out than just to report a net number.
The new transparency has no impact on the total investment income net of fee earnings but listing carry and operating expenses will show that a better performance incurs higher investment expenses and that could cause public confusion around this model.

Michael Benson is senior investment professional, James Grossman is chief investment officer and Evelyn Williams is press spokeswoman at PennPSERS.

Sponsored Content

Leave a Comment

Future Fund looks to slash external tech spend in cost-cutting drive

Future Fund looks to slash external tech spend in cost-cutting drive

Australia's Future Fund is hoping to find tens of millions in cost savings by consolidating arrangements with external data and tech providers and putting a number of roles under review as it reconsiders resourcing in a volatile investment environment that it “expects to endure”.

Sort content by

Cost disclosure distorts reality

The Global Pension Transparency Benchmark (GPTB) measured four factors in its assessment of transparency of pension fund disclosures, here Amanda White looks specifically at the level of cost transparency across pension funds globally.

GPTB highlights transparency gaps

The Global Pension Transparency Benchmark has revealed the need for serious improvement in pension transparency across the globe.

Benchmark will help build trust

Transparency is an important link in improving pension delivery, and the Global Pension Transparency Benchmark will help lift transparency standards and ultimately trust in pension institutions, according to its advisory board.

Pension transparency needs a benchmark

A new Global Pension Transparency Benchmark – the first formal collaboration between Top1000funds.com and CEM Benchmarking - will launch in February 2021 ranking countries, via their underlying pension funds, on four factors: governance and organization; performance; costs; and responsible investing.

Asset owners report half of all costs

Asset owners are reporting only half of their true total costs according to analysis by CEM Benchmarking exclusively for Top1000funds.com. This means tens of billions of dollars across the industry is not being reported. The authors look at case studies and make suggestions for industry best practice.

Are managers rewarded for fee alignment?

Albourne Partners, an advocate for fee transparency and flexibility, shows that managers are being rewarded for fee innovation. In a podcast conversation with Amanda White, CEO John Claisse describes the 1 or 30 structure he worked on with Texas Teachers that has revolutionised the conversation around fees.

Previous