Loading...
10-25-2000 Regular Meeting1. MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE POLICE and GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Miami Shores Village Police and General Employee Pension Boards was held on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 in the Chamber of the Village Hall. The meeting was called to order at 9:10 A.M. 2. ROLL CALL The following members were present: POLICE Mayor Mark Ulmer Vice Mayor Robert Blum Detective Timothy Dearden Officer Robert Frame William Heffernan Also Present: GENERAL EMPLOYEE'S Mary Ross Agosta Thomas J. Benton Joseph Charles Les Forney Richard Trumble Mark A. Malatak, Plan Administrator Lisa Keeley, Recording Secretary 3. PRESENTATION BY MERRILL LYNCH - Mr. Jeff Swanson Mr. Swanson first addressed those issues to be considered by both Boards. The first issue concerns the retention of STI as the investment manager. For some time, in light of the upcoming division of the Boards, STI has been retained as the investment manager of the Village Pension funds. Due to recent merger at STI, there has been a weak transition with the departure of top talent and poor performance. The poor performance can be contributed to a value bias in the portfolio with the large cap growth fund underperforming especially in the technology group. Mr. Swanson recommended that the Board consider obtaining a new management firm(s). Mr. Heffernan inquired as to the STI's performance. Mr. Swanson indicated that the STI return for the twelve months ending June 30, 2000 was a -3% well under the target index of 6.4%. Although Trusco Capital Management is the new firm name, the outstanding performance ofthe Atlanta branch will not carry over to the merged company. The decision to stay in the co -mingled fund came from the investment manager who failed to meet the guidelines as outlined in the investment policy. Mr. Swanson provided information on possible investment managers, which included the new Trusco firm, that would be tailored to the Miami Shores Village Pension Plan. Mr. Swanson recommended a few firms for the Board's consideration. There are several significant investment issues. The first being how many managers to hire. If the two Boards considered coordinating decisions, the Boards may hire two managers, a growth and value manager to receive more diversification. However, as the management fees are so significant, it would only be recommended if the Boards coordinate strategies. There are some core managers also presented should the Board decide to chose only one manager. • • Joint Pension Board October 25, 2000 Page 2 Mr. Ulmer inquired as to the evaluating criteria used in selecting the managers as presented. Mr. Swanson presented managers who operate in a fashion similar to those firms specializing in government funds. There were several other qualifying criteria including track record, consistency of performance, and reference checks on returns. Mr. Swanson suggested that the firms presented would craft an investment program to the Miami Shores Village policy. Mr. Uhner asked if any of the proposed firms act in the capacity oftrustee. Mr. Swanson replied that none of them do and recommended that the management firm and the custodian are not the same. Having an outside custodian allows extra fiduciary protection for security pricing. He indicated that Merrill Lynch would provide a list of possible custodians. In total, the Board would be paying approximately 70 basis points for all expenses included in running the investments for the Pension Plan. Mr. Swanson suggested that as the Boards are not opposed to hiring the same managers, interviewing both a growth and value manager would be best to allow for better diversification. He recommended Davis, Hamilton, Jackson as the growth manager and Sanford Bernstein or the Boston Company as the value fund manager. He also indicated that Trusco could be allowed to make a presentation as well. He referred to those managers with one management style (no major style bet), Fayez, National or Rorer as a second option. Detective Dearden expressed interest having two or more managers regardless of the cost associated with having separately managed accounts (rather, not joining with the General Employee Pension Plan). Questions regarding the list of potential managers including performance with other municipal clients were asked. Mr. Swanson indicated that of the other municipal clients under Merrill Lynch advisement, many use Davis, Hamilton, Jackson & Associates as well as Sanford Bernstein. Further inquiries were posed regarding the consulting fees charges by Merrill Lynch should additional money managers be considered. Mr. Swanson indicated that the dollars could be recaptured to offset other fees. Mr. Heffernan suggested that the economies of scale are important to both pension plans in relation to the management fees. He implied that the goals of both Boards are comparable, so the Boards should consider combining funds for investment purposes. Discussion regarding international investments ensued. Mr. Swanson indicated that the managers presented are not strictly international managers. He suggested that if the Board chose two investment managers, allow the firms to purchase American Depository Receipt (shares of a foreign company that are traded on an American exchange) up to ten percent. Mr. Forney noted that, although the Board's objectives are the same, there could be a future conflict should they proceed investing together. Mr. Heffernan suggested that this is just a starting point for both Boards. Mr. Swanson replied that both Boards would be choosing their own investment advisors. However, each Board will establish its own investment programs and policies specific to their own plan. • • Joint Pension Board October 25, 2000 Page 3 Mrs. Ross Agosta said that as both Boards are in an early stage, it may be beneficial to initially combine the funds for fee purposes. Mr. Ulmer agreed in so much as the goal is for all of the assets to perform as well as possible. Diversification is the key to investing. Mr. Heffernan suggested that the Boards create the atmosphere where the dollars can be saved. He asked that the Boards vote on how many managers they would like to have, then propose presentations from the managers as recommended by Mr. Swanson. Mr. Blum moved that the Police Pension Board move towards two money managers. After discussion regarding the position of the Board in selecting a new manager, Mr. Blum amended his motion to interview the group consisting of Davis, Hamilton, Jackson & Associates, The Boston Company, Sanford Bernstein, Mr. Heffernan seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. Forney moved that the General Employee Pension Board interview the group consisting ofDavis, Hamilton, Jackson & Associates, The Boston Company, Sanford Bernstein and Trusco (as a courtesy.) Mr. Trumble seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Police Board adjourned at this time. Mr. Malatak indicated that the General Employee Pension Plan must decide whether or not it will retain Merrill Lynch as the money manager consultant. Mr. Swanson gave a brief presentation on the contract and services provided by Merrill Lynch. Mr. Forney moved that the Board retain Merrill Lynch as the consultant with a second from Mr. Trumble. Mr. Malatak added that the contract should be contingent upon approval by the Pension Attorney. Mr. Benton noted that he has not been pleased with the performance by Merrill Lynch over the past year and suggested that Merrill Lynch become more aggressive in ascertaining the progress of the money manager. The vote was called and was unanimous in favor. 4. ADJOURNMENT The October 25, 2000 meeting of the Police and General Employee Pension Board was adjourned at 9:40 A.M. Mary ss Agosta, C . rson General Employee Pension Board Thomas J. Benton, Secretary General Employee Pension Board Mark S. Ulmer, Chairperson Police Pension Board Timothy Police earden, Secretary ension Board Lisa Keeley, Recording Secretary