CalPERS’ effect persists: Wilshire analyses focus list performance

CalPERS will review all elements to the methodology of its successful focus list in the coming months, as the latest study by Wilshire shows companies on CalPERS’ radar over the past 23 years have had a total return turnaround of 32.5 per cent on average.In Wilshire’s annual review it looked at the companies’ performance for the five-year returns before and after CalPER’s attention, and found they retuned 12.7 per cent above their benchmark for the five years after their “initiative date”, or 2.4 per cent on an annualised basis, compared with 83.3 per cent below benchmark for the five years before CalPERS focus, or -30.1 per cent annualised.

Since inception of the focus list 23 years ago, the fund has targeted 142 companies, with the number of companies on the list in any one year ranging from four to 11.

The review of methodology and consideration of new engagement opportunities for shareowner intervention, is triggered by a belief that now is an opportune time to complete a comprehensive review due to recent market developments and regulatory reform.

As part of the review input will be sought from academics, external managers, governance data providers and staff.

According to a paper to be presented to the investment committee next week, the annual Wilshire study on CalPERS corporate governance program has shown the “CalPERS effect” on targeted company share prices persists and that the fund’s “involvement has generally stopped the rapid erosion of performance results”.

Wilshire conducts an annual analysis of CalPERS corporate governance effectiveness by measuring the stock returns of companies placed on the focus list.

Sponsored Content

At the moment the focus list process involves an initial screen which includes 40 per cent stock performance, 30 per cent return on invested capital, and 30 per cent corporate governance criteria; from the lowest-ranked 50 companies, 15 preliminary focus list companies are selected; these are approved by the investment committee; then staff meets with the focus list company representatives and requests specified governance reform; staff then develops focus list and monitoring list company recommendations based upon each company’s response to CalPERS requested governance reform; the investment committee gives the final recommendation; CalPERS publicises the focus list companies; and monitoring continues for up to three years representing extended engagement of prior focus list and monitoring list companies.

The companies on the focus list for 2009 were Eli Lilly, Hill-Rom Holdings, Hospitality Properties Trust, and IMS Health;

For 2008 they were: Cheescake Factory Inc, Hilb Rogal and Hobbs Company, Invacare Corporation, La-Z-Boy, Standard Pacific Corporation.

For 2007 they were: Corinthian Colleges Inc, Dollar Tree Stores, Eli Lilly & Co, EMC Corp, International paper Corp, Kellwood Corp, Marsh & McLennan Co, Sanmina0SCI Corp, Sara Lee Corp, Tenet Healthcare Corp, Tribune Co.

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

What does an effective board look like?

Pension fund boards are complex, evolving, collective bodies and the individuals that serve them face unique challenges. The Rotman-ICPM Board Effectiveness Program is a week-long course designed specifically for pension fund trustees that showcases how an effective board looks and behaves. Pension management beneficiaries are delegating to a body that then delegates to an executive,

ESG rethink can add 40 basis points per month: Hermes

Rigorous Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) management can deliver an extra 40 basis points per month according to Saker Nusseibeh, CEO and head of investment at Hermes Fund Managers. “Where it [ESG] really matters for performance is in consistently avoiding bad governance. You can add 40 basis points per month… Per month!” Nusseibeh told a

International reaction to QSuper’s innovation

Australian fund, QSuper’s creation of eight different investment cohorts for its 440,000 default fund members this month has sparked curiosity and admiration from defined contribution experts in the US, the UK and New Zealand. The investment strategies for each group will be focussed on an estimated retirement outcome for that segment, taking into account the

Investors ignore liability matching at their peril

Two high profile pension funds, ATP of Denmark and HOOPP of Canada, have been very successful in managing their assets in two distinct portfolios. But the practice of fund separation, a portion of the portfolio for liability hedging and another for alpha generation, is not common in pension management. It should be. For these two

Home bias in corporate engagement revealed

Investors should take care in selecting corporate engagement firms to ensure the engagement reflects their portfolio holdings, warn academics at Oxford and Maastricht Universities following a new study which reveals a home bias in such activity. As the investment portfolios of large institutional investors become increasingly global, it is particularly important that they carefully select

The power of benchmarking: GRESB comes of age

Now in its fifth year GRESB, the benchmark that measures the sustainability performance of real estate portfolios, has been influential in changing the sector’s performance and environmental impact. Now Nils Kok, executive director of GRESB and associate professor in finance at Maastricht University, says that infrastructure and private equity assets are ripe for a benchmark

Previous