Private engagement dominates results for CalPERS

Private engagement has more influence on company behaviour and performance a new study of CalPERS’ corporate governance reveals.

Analysis by Wilshire Associates has found that because privately engaged companies are more receptive to reform and move more quickly to better governance standards, the turnaround in their stock performance is quicker.

It found that the turnaround in stock performance for publicly-engaged companies is not apparent until close to two years from engagement.

Wilshire measures the performance results of all companies publically and privately engaged from 1999 to 2009.

The study found that in the past 11 years, privately-engaged companies significantly outperformed the companies named on the public focus list for one, three and five years after CalPERS made the initial contact.

The performance of all companies engaged through the focus list program produced a cumulative return of 11.59 per cent above their benchmark after three years, and 4.77 per cent after five years.

Sponsored Content

Until 2009, the $223 billion Californian fund employed a combination of public and private engagement that included 59 companies on a public focus list and 110 which were engaged privately.

In 2009 there were 14 new companies privately engaged and none were named to the public focus list. In late 2010 the fund decided to abolish the focus list and exclusively engage companies privately.

The investment committee meeting in November was the first time it had received a corporate governance program report incorporating the focus list program analysis, proxy voting quarterly report results, and updates on principles for responsible investing, financial market reform and policy.

Meanwhile CalPERS has indicated that improving its ranking for Principle 1 of the UNPRI –  which states: “We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes” – will be a measureable outcome of the total fund ESG integration initiative of 2012.

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

Maverick Series video: Gonski part I

In the first of a new series of video interviews featuring thought leaders in global institutional investment, chair of the $80 billion Australian Future Fund, David Gonski, outlines his views on governance. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

ATP reunites alpha and beta after 6 years

Alpha and beta rely to a large extent on exposures to systematic risk factors, so goes the “2013 thinking” of ATP in reversing the decision to separate alpha and beta in its investment portfolio six years ago. ATP has separate hedging and investment portfolios, with the hedging portfolio significantly larger at around DKK 670 billion

State Street’s Probyn into 2013

The current equity rally is not predicated on a shift in economic performance, according to chief economist at State Street, Chris Probyn, who says it would be reasonable to say the market may “pause for thought”. Probyn says the move from fixed income to equities has been fostered by some of the “economic areas for

CalPERS’ sustainability initiative drives investment beliefs

Launched this week, CalPERS’ Sustainable Investment Research Initiative (SIRI) will drive the development the $250-billion fund’s first set of investment beliefs. While difficult to believe a fund of its size, reach and history could invest without a set of investment beliefs, it is encouraging to see that sustainability will be a core part of that

Finnish pension reform a lesson for all

The findings from the first review of the Finnish pension system, commissioned by the Finnish Centre for Pensions, were handed down by Nicholas Barr from the London School of Economics and Keith Ambachtsheer from the Rotman International Centre for Pension Management last month. Although Helsinki in January is far from a party Ambachtsheer and Barr

European investors stay on the offensive

2012 was a year of battles for European pension funds. An ongoing war was waged against a severe regulatory challenge from the European Commission in the shape of Solvency II-style legislation. Aside from the uncertain struggle of that campaign, major European investors gained plenty of credit from standing up to corporate boards in the “shareholder

Previous