Legislature(2011 - 2012)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/25/2011 08:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Capital Markets and Permanent Fund Performance Review. | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 25, 2011
8:07 a.m.
8:07:08 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lesil McGuire, Vice-Chair
Senator Dennis Egan
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Joe Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Johnny Ellis
ALSO PRESENT
Bill Moran, Chair, Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation Board;
Mike Burns, Executive Director, Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation, Department of Revenue; Michael O'Leary,
Executive Vice President, Callan Associates.
SUMMARY
^Overview: Capital Markets and Permanent Fund Performance
Review.
8:07:21 AM
Co-Chair Stedman introduced the chair of the Alaska
Permanent Corporation Board.
BILL MORAN, CHAIR, ALASKA PERMANENT FUND CORPORATION BOARD
introduced his cohorts. He discussed the agenda for the
day.
8:11:09 AM
MIKE BURNS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PERMANENT FUND
CORPORATION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE provided a presentation
titled: "Alaska Permanent Fund Designed for Sustainability
(copy on file)."
Mr. Burns began with Slide 2: "FY2010 performance." He
explained the various markets.
Total return 11.7%
Benchmark return 10.2%
Ending balance $33.3 billion
Change from FY10 $ 3.4 billion
Dividend $858 million
Mr. Burns discussed Slide 3: "FY 11 performance as of
December 31."
Total return 14.5%
Benchmark return 16.6%
Ending value $38.4 billion
Change from FY10 $ 5.1 billion
8:14:34 AM
Mr. Burns discussed the sources of the fund as listed on
Slide 4: "Renewable Resources." He explained that Alaskans
have deposited $14.7 billion into the fund to date. He
added that $18.4 billion have been paid out in dividends.
The current value of the fund is $39 billion as of 2/24/11.
He concluded that the fund has provided a successful
socioeconomic experiment.
Slide 5: "Fund Deposits." He noted that the constitutional
royalty deposits equal $11.8 billion. Legislative transfers
from the general fund (FY81 through FY 85) totaled $2.7
billion. Another $2 million were classified as settlement
deposits.
He explained the difference between the investment income
and outflow on Slide 6: "Inflow and outflow." He informed
that 1983 was the first year of operation for the fund. The
royalty deposit in 1983 was $421 million, the accounting
net income was $471 million and the dividend was
approximately $64 million. He explained that in 1991
dramatic changes occurred. The pipeline saw 665 million
barrels of oil in 1991 and the price was $25 per barrel
with a royalty deposit of $435 million. He mentioned that
the accounting net income was $1 billion and the dividend
was $490 million. He continued with the year 2000 when the
royalty deposit was $311 million, the accounting net income
was $2 billion and the dividend was $1 billion. In 2008,
the permanent fund received the greatest royalty deposit to
date and coincidentally paid the highest dividend. The
Trans-Alaska pipeline saw 258 million barrels of oil;
however, prices peaked at $133 per barrel. The royalty
deposit in 2008 was $844 million and the accounting net
income was at a $1.4 billion loss. The dividend was the
largest ever at $1.3 billion. He concluded that in 2010 the
royalty deposit was $680 million, the accounting net income
was $3.5 billion and the dividend was $858 million. The
source of the committee questions included the relative
inflow. He informed that investment income drove the fund.
8:19:13 AM
Mr. Burns discussed Slide 7: "Risk Based Asset Allocation."
He explained that interest rates comprised 6 percent and
existed for times of crisis, deflation, and disinflation.
The interest rates provided a safe haven asset from United
States (US) treasury bonds and non-US sovereign debt.
Company exposure was shown as the largest slice in the pie
chart at 53 percent. Investing in public and private
companies provided the state the opportunity to benefit
from growth and prosperity. The company exposure group
included all public and private equities, corporate
investment grade and high yield bonds. Real assets
comprised another piece of the pie at 18 percent. The asset
group was viewed as protection from inflation risk. The
group included real estate tips which were treasury
inflation protected securities and infrastructure. He added
another category termed "special opportunities" at 21
percent. The purpose of the allocation was to allow the
permanent fund to invest in special opportunities and take
advantage of dislocations in the market. The special
opportunities category was viewed as a limiter. The final
category was cash at 2 percent. The cash allocation was
designed to allow the fund to build up reserves over the
course of the year to meet the expected liabilities.
Mr. Burns discussed Slide 8: "Dollar Allocation Limits by
Risk Class (1/31/2011)." The slide provided a visual image
of the fund's performance. The slide illustrated the actual
dollar allocation to the risk grouping. With the exception
of real assets, all were in the green zone. Values were
required to be in the green zone. When a measure moved into
a yellow zone, the Chief Investment Officer and Mr. Burns
reviewed the situation to take action within 90 days. If a
value fell into the red zone, the board must be notified
immediately to rectify the situation within 30 days unless
the board grants an exemption. The bands were designed
specifically to encourage communication. When bands move
out of the green zone, the goal was to return to green as
quickly as is prudent.
8:25:08 AM
Mr. Burns discussed Slide 9: "Tail Risk: Scenarios
(1/32/2011)." The graph illustrated the performance of the
portfolio under specific conditions, including the 2007
through 2009 subprime mortgage meltdown. He mentioned the
various scenarios presented.
Mr. Burns continued with Slide 10: "Tail Risk: Stress Tests
(1/31/2011)." The test included dividing the portfolio and
devising various tests. One example was a test of the
fund's performance if the US dollar dropped 20 percent
overnight. He mentioned the various situations presented in
the test. The test allowed the corporation to gauge certain
risks.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the stress test. He wondered
if the various proposed risks were individually triggered,
particularly the component of global equities. Mr. Burns
replied that the test illustrated the measure of risk shown
in the equity portfolio. He stressed that one of the
proposed events would not occur singularly in reality.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the global equity exposure was
tested regardless of the other holdings. Mr. Burns stated
that everything would remain the same. He added that the
reaction to other asset classes in this type of simulation
was complicated.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the individual components of
risk as shown in the graph. Mr. Burns explained that the
benchmark portfolio provided a comparison.
8:29:37 AM
Mr. Burns discussed Slide 11: "Peer Recognition."
· aiCIO Industry Innovation Award
· Public and private fund managers
o Singapore Government Investment Corp
o Norway Government Pension Fund
o Mitsubishi UFJ Trust & Banking
o Massachusetts PRIM
o California STRS
o University of California
8:31:28 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered about the board's opinion
regarding oversight in the legislative review. Mr. Burns
responded that the legislative or administrative oversight
was vital to the continued confidence of the citizens of
Alaska. He expressed the challenge of the state's resources
and the wisdom of the decisions regarding the spending of
state money. He stressed that the permanent fund was a
profit center for the state. He commented that general fund
money was not used. The oversight of the legislature was
critical, although separation from the general fund money
among the opinion of the public was also essential.
8:33:45 AM
Senator Thomas asked about Slide 5 and the realization that
the settlement deposits were so small. He understood that
the receipts are based on royalty deposits. He was informed
that where lawsuits were concerned, for every dollar spent,
10 were collected. He assumed the information was based on
production tax, but expected a similar discrepancy on the
royalties. Mr. Burns responded that the fund does not
benefit from a tax settlement. An increase in taxes lowers
the royalty value.
Senator Thomas asked about the timeframe for interest rates
depicted on Slide 8. Mr. Burns responded that the duration
of the portfolio was approximately five years.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for a definition of duration. Mr.
Burns responded that duration was the amount that the
portfolio changes with a one percent difference in interest
rates.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the adjustment of the
benchmark for the asset allocation. Mr. Burns responded
that the corporation measures itself against its peer
group. The mandates for benchmarks had changed.
8:37:55 AM
MICHAEL O'LEARY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CALLAN
ASSOCIATES, presented "2011 Economic Environment and
Capital Markets Review (copy on file)." He explained Callan
Associates involvement in the permanent fund since 1989.
Mr. O'Leary provided a brief review of the capital market
outlook. He provided a description of Slide 1: "Callan's
Capital Market Projection Process."
· Evaluate the current environment and economic outlook
for the U.S. and other major industrial countries:
o Business cycles, relative growth, inflation.
· Examine the relationships between the economy and
asset class performance patterns.
· Examine recent and long-run trends in asset class
performance.
· Apply market insight:
o Consultant experience-Plan Sponsor, Manager
Search, Specialty
o Industry consensus
o Client Policy Review Committee
· Test the projections for reasonable results.
8:41:17 AM
Mr. O'Leary described Slide 2: "Stock Market Returns by
Calendar Year." The histogram illustrated the calendar year
performance for the U.S. stock market over 200 years. He
used the histogram to demonstrate the extreme 2008 market
as well as the recovery in 2009 and 2010.
Mr. O'Leary detailed Slide 3: "The Current Economic
Environment."
· Growth returned in the second half of 2009, but job
market struggles to revive well into 2011.
o Unemployment remains above 9%.
o Wealth has been hit, consumers de-levering,
savings are rebuilding.
o QE II the "last" round of monetary stimulus.
o Tax compromise provides new fiscal stimulus in
2011-12.
· Steep recoveries usually follow steep recessions.
· However, recoveries after financial crises are slow.
o Financial stress has been greatly reduced…
o …but private credit is still contracting-banks
reluctant to lend, households and businesses
reluctant to borrow.
· Everyone expected growth to subside in 2010…
o Stimulus fades and the inventory cycle is
complete.
o Europe struggles with slow growth and sovereign
debt crisis.
o Emerging markets wait on our recovery.
· But the capital markets freaked out as projections
come true.
o Equity hammered through Q3 2010, retail investors
fled risk, and bond inflows remained substantial.
o Interest rates headed even lower.
· Q4 saw signs of economic stability, return of investor
confidence.
· Tax compromises will likely push 2011 GDP growth to 3
percent, a year ahead of expectations.
· Federal government faces harsh budget realities.
Defense, social security, Medicare/Medicaid and
Interest dominate spending.
8:45:39 AM
Mr. O'Leary described Slide 4: "Is Rising Inflation an
Emerging Threat?" He spoke about governments across the
country coping with budgetary lows. The economy began
recovering in 2009 and continued through 2010, but the job
market remained sluggish. He mentioned unprecedented steps
taken to alter the direction of the economy in terms of
monetary and fiscal policy. The tax compromise reached in
the fourth quarter was another indication of the perceived
need for continued support of the economy.
8:47:30 AM
Mr. O'Leary addressed Slide 5: "The Economy and the Capital
Markets."
The economy was fully expected to meander through a
weak recovery, as the combination of recession,
financial crisis and deleveraging required time to
work through the system.GDP growth was expected to
slacken in 2011, but tax compromise may boost growth
to the long-term trend (3%).
Inflation is in the headlines, but deflation remains
the real concern to the Fed. Inflationary pressures
stemming from Fed and Treasury actions are less of a
concern in the short to medium term.
Double-dip is possible, but not the expected outcome.
Callan's outlook: Inflation will likely drift higher,
but not immediately. Painfully low interest rates may
persist through 2011, but are expected to rise after
that, as the Fed eventually removes accommodation.
Historic nominal return averages will be hard to
achieve over the short, medium and even the longer
run.
Stocks rallied in the fourth quarter of 2010 and
turned in a good year. However, prospects for above-
trend growth are weak; companies are strong enough to
attain trend profit growth, but not a lot more.
The housing market has yet to truly hit bottom,
despite mortgage rates at an all-time low. The
"shadow inventory" of homes yet to foreclose hangs
heavy over the market.
The chance that we could see another leg down on
housing is the greatest risk to the economy, and to a
deflationary spiral.
The dollar should face substantial downward pressure
as a result of U.S. policy. The problem, of course,
is what other currency can take the dollar's place?
The path to a rational set of long-term capital market
outcomes is likely through an ugly shorter term
period of rising interest rates, capital losses in
fixed income, and volatile equity markets.
8:48:47 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about Slide 5 and the statement that
historic nominal return averages would be difficult to
achieve over the short, medium and even the longer run. Mr.
O'Leary responded that he wanted to communicate that the
legislature must be conservative with expectations. He
added that the issue was driven by the outlook for interest
rates.
Mr. O'Leary detailed Slide 6: "Starting asset valuations
dominant return expectations."
Equity valuations, both domestic & international,
appear reasonable (not cheap but not expensive)
Analyst expectations already envision decent 2011 eps
growth
Corporate balance sheets provide good flexibility
Developing countries are expected to enjoy strong
absolute growth which should offset soft demand in
much of the developed world
Interest rates are a different story.
Even with low inflation real short-term interest rates
remain negative
Inflationary pressures could build (e.g. commodity
inflation, excess demand in emerging world)
Rates are so low across the curve that the "income
cushion" to rising rates is minimal (see Q4 2010 bond
returns for perspective)
Equity earnings yield versus Treasury or Corporate
bond yields look attractive but spread could be
narrowed quickly with a rise in rates.
Our conclusion is that rates will rise and limit P/E
expansion opportunities
Major theme is nominal returns for both stocks and
bonds will be positive but limited for the short-
intermediate term.
Mr. O'Leary described the graph on Slide 7: "Equity Is More
Reasonably Priced." He explained that the red line
represented the long-run average. The blue line suggested
that the price earnings ratio was at an average.
8:50:22 AM
Mr. O'Leary described the statistics on Slide 8: "Absolute
valuation measures indicated that stocks were "reasonably"
valued." He noted that the price earnings ratio based on
the most recent fiscal year earnings illustrated mid teen
levels, which historically were not considered excessive.
8:52:09 AM
Mr. O'Leary discussed Slide 9: "Dividend yields are in line
with recent experience by not high." He explained that the
blue lines represented the S&P 500 earnings yield which was
the reciprocal of price earnings ratio. With a price
earnings ratio of 20, a dividend yield of 5 was seen. He
added that the red line represented the 10 year treasury
yield which is compared to the blue line. The graph showed
that stocks were attractively priced when compared to ten
year treasuries. He stated that the difference was narrowed
in various ways.
8:53:19 AM
Mr. O'Leary jumped to Slide 12: "Despite Q4 Increase
Current Yield is Exceptionally Low." The investment for the
bond market allows for a current yield on the investment
grade bond market or the Barclays aggregate. At the end of
2010, the "yield to worst" on that index was less than 3
percent.
Mr. O'Leary skipped to Slide 16: "Decomposition of
Aggregate Bond Returns Note Shrinking Income Component." He
called attention to the low income component. He pointed
out that the panel in the upper right illustrated the
interest component, while the panel in the lower left
detailed the price change component. Prices of bonds
increased when interest rates decreased and prices of bonds
decreased when interest rates increased. He pointed out the
low income component in the upper right panel, which was
relative to recent history. He opined that low interest
rates present the source of greatest concern with regard to
the outlook.
8:55:20 AM
Mr. O'Leary detailed Slide 13: "History of Recent Interest
Rate Hikes 1982-2010." He pointed out that the blue line
represented the federal funds rate. The shaded areas on the
page captured periods where the fed funds rate increased.
He mentioned six periods of federal tightening over the
past 28 years; each was unique and bond returns were
positive in many ways.
Co-Chair Stedman supposed that the graph depicted
substantial interest rate decreases that might slaughter
the bond market. Mr. O'Leary countered that the positive
returns were seen in the bond market, but for less than the
interest earned. The challenge was the lack of cushion
against a rate hike. He did not anticipate a "slaughter."
8:58:36 AM
Mr. O'Leary described Slide 14: "Rate Hike Summary." He
explained that the graph endeavored to illustrate through
symbols the shape of the yield curve. The yield curve was
positively sloped and short term interest rates were much
lower than long term interest rates. In other environments,
the yield curve was flat.
9:00:30 AM
Mr. O'Leary continued with Slide 17: "2011 Capital Market
Expectations-Traditional Asset Categories." He explained
that the table represented different return numbers
including the projected arithmetic return and the five and
ten year geometric mean returns. The standard deviation was
a measure of volatility of return. The greater the standard
deviation, the greater the difference between the average
return and the compound return. He quoted the adage that
"if you go down 50 percent you must come back 100 percent
to be even."
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the return expectations were
similar to those seen by the Alaska Retirement Management
Board (ARMB). Mr. O'Leary answered yes. He stated that the
return expectations were updated annually and the ARMB had
seen the expectations and would evaluate their asset
allocation considering various combinations of asset
classes. The same projections were used for the permanent
fund. The building blocks were identical.
Mr. O'Leary described Slide 18: "2011 Capital Market
Expectations-Traditional Asset Categories." The slide
provided an illustration of a segment of the efficient
frontier including six different mixes. He called attention
to the projected arithmetic return line showing limited
bond exposure.
Mr. O'Leary continued with Slide 19: "APFC Policy Index
Projections."
Mr. O'Leary backed up to Slide 18: "Illustrative Efficient
Mixes- Traditional Characterization." He noted that the
volatility of the mix was high. A mix was not suggested to
most institutional investors.
Mr. O'Leary returned to Slide 19 and explained the focus on
global corporate securities and domestic equity. The
permanent fund grouped international and domestic equities
into global equities. The global government bonds were
hedged to measure the interest rate sensitivity.
9:04:49 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the ARMB and permanent fund
comparisons as seen on Slide 20: "Current Policy versus
Efficient Frontier." He struggled with the targeted return
of 8.25 percent, which he deemed too high. He recalled that
the ARMB planned to lower the target to 8 percent. He also
struggled with the perceived risk exposure. He wondered
about the appearance of a more risky and aggressive
portfolio in the retirement system. He believed that the
permanent fund should be able to take more risk than the
retirement funds. He added that the permanent fund was not
required to meet the liability obligation that the
retirement fund must. Mr. O'Leary responded that many
complex elements were involved. The 8.25 percent was an
actuarial earnings assumption. The actuary developed
consistent sets of expectations. A key driver of the
liability was an expectation about future inflation, which
was the actuarial expectation with respect to salary
growth.
9:09:18 AM
Mr. O'Leary stated that a pension system was investing for
forty plus years and the contributions affected by the
actuary's expectation of future salary increases were 20-40
years.
Co-Chair Stedman commented that the committee had a low
comfort level with the targets of 8.25 percent in the
retirement system. Mr. O'Leary added that both the
permanent dividend fund and the retirement funds both
pursued a 5 percent long term real return target. He noted
that the target might be achievable in the future.
Co-Chair Stedman agreed, but added that the short term
might bankrupt the state. Mr. O'Leary concurred.
Mr. O'Leary pointed out that the ARMB projected standard
deviation was higher than the permanent fund in the 13
percent range. He noted that ARMB had a greater commitment
to private markets.
9:12:29 AM
Mr. O'Leary explained that projections must be developed
for private equity and direct real estate. He noted that
Callan Associates always used high risk levels for both
categories because they were equity investments.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about a chart with asset allocations
for ARMB and the permanent fund to allow for comparison. He
wondered how similar the standard deviation might be.
9:14:34 AM
Mr. O'Leary suggested viewing Mix 4 and Mix 5 on Slide 18.
He stated that ARMB would exist between the two.
Co-Chair Stedman proposed discussion about the targeted
return of the allocation.
Mr. O'Leary responded that the discount rates used in the
public pension arena have declined and existed at 7.75
percent and 8 percent.
9:16:24 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about the actual rate of return over
the last ten years.
Mr. O'Leary replied that the cumulative return for the
permanent fund over ten years was 526 and the benchmark was
519. The ten year period included the dot com meltdown and
the more recent recession. The ten year return for the
pension systems using preliminary real estate numbers for
calendar year 2010, were 445.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked the monetary values of the differing
numbers.
Mr. O'Leary did not know. He offered to calculate the
numbers later for the committee. He stated that the Public
Employees Retirement System (PERS) had a return of 12.44
percent and Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) a return of
12.54 percent. The two year annualized returns were 12.87
and 12.97 percent respectively.
9:19:34 AM
Co-Chair Stedman commented the permanent fund would have a
higher risk exposure and higher rate of return than the
retirement portfolio with its liability stream and finite
life.
Mr. O'Leary responded with Slide 22: "Expected Range of
Returns 1, 5, and 10 years." He pointed out the challenge
for the board and the state, given the nature of the closed
pension system. The policy would change toward one of more
conservative investment. The change might occur at a higher
level of interest rates.
9:22:44 AM
Co-Chair Stedman commented that upcoming liability stream
payments would be $3 billion per year. He noted that the
legislature struggled to devise a plan to meet the
payments. The issue required resolution, since the
liability was spreading.
Mr. O'Leary agreed. He stated that the "dirty little
secret" about private pension funds was that an investment
in government bonds would yield an investment earning rate
of less than 5 percent.
Co-Chair Stedman stressed the importance of balanced
investment.
9:25:02 AM
Senator Egan requested definitions for the terms real and
long term rates of return.
Mr. O'Leary responded that real rate of return was
communicated in constant dollars without inflation. The
presumption was that a real rate of return was earned while
maintaining the value in nominal terms. He noted that
publicly traded equities ranged between 5.5 and 8 percent.
9:26:48 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about the the real rate of return
for the permanent fund's portfolio for the last ten years.
Mr. O'Leary responded that the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
plus five, over ten years was 735. He pointed out that 735
was the rate of return required to achieve a 5 percent real
rate of return. The actual nominal return was 526.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for the real rate of return and
nominal rate of return.
Mr. O'Leary responded that the nominal return was 526 for
ten years.
Co-Chair Hoffman added that the real rate of return was a
little over two percent.
Co-Chair Stedman invited Mr. O'Leary to testify for future
ARMB and PFD presentations.
9:29:47 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about the 18 months ending April
2009 when the fund lost in excess of $13 billion. He
wondered about actions taken by the board to address the
loss.
Mr. Burns responded that the board rebalanced into the weak
equity market. He added the adoption of a robust focus on
risk management and assessment. He focused on the risk
management and learned many lessons.
Mr. O'Leary informed the committee about changes in the
industry to build investment programs with ample liquidity.
He agreed that an explicit liquidity plan was necessary to
meet the annual dividend. He noted that the interest rate
was restricted to highly liquid government obligations that
were not subject to the types of spread-widening seen in
the broader investment grade bond market. He advocated for
greater attention to potential liquidity needs. He pointed
out that all funds considered altering their strategies in
pursuit of less volatility within the equity component of
their programs.
9:34:19 AM
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned the Constitutional Budget
Reserve (CBR) and Statutory Budget Reserve (SBR). He noted
the substantial savings in the accounts and the discussions
regarding the management of the assets. He advocated for
building a separate savings portfolio to protect the
permanent fund. He mentioned concerns regarding the
management style of the Department of Revenue (DOR).
9:37:46 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the relationship with Callan
Associates Inc. and the DOR regarding the CBR and SBR.
Mr. O'Leary responded that he had no relationship
pertaining to the CBR or the SBR. He understood that staff
could utilize the Callan Associates' capital market
projections. Callan Associates had no participation in
discussions regarding the investment policy for the CBR or
SBR.
Co-Chair Stedman added that the questions asked of Mr.
O'Leary were no surprise. He requested a letter clarifying
the relationship between Callan Associates and DOR. He
mentioned discussions between the finance co-chairs and the
governor's office regarding the management of the funds. He
hoped for a concise plan. He stressed Alaska's strong
fiscal position during rough times in other parts of the
country.
9:41:25 AM
Senator McGuire asked about funds within funds managed for
other jurisdictions or companies regarding energy.
Mr. O'Leary recalled deliberation about energy issues in
the legislature. He stated that many major funds had an
explicit allocation to energy related strategy as part of
their investment program.
Co-Chair Stedman clarified the question. He asked about a
spin-off of revenue or a percent of market value.
Mr. Burns replied that he managed the mental health trust
fund money within the permanent fund. He added that the
sub-fund concept was utilized. The asset allocation and
investment goals remained similar.
9:43:50 AM
Co-Chair Stedman commented that the issue required
resolution by April 2012.
9:44:30 AM
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2011 02 25 Callan Associates 2011 Economic Environment and Capital Markets Review.pdf |
SFIN 2/25/2011 8:00:00 AM |
Permanent Fund Performance Review |
| 2011 02 25 _ APFC Designed for Sustainability.pdf |
SFIN 2/25/2011 8:00:00 AM |
Permanent Fund Performance Review |