CalPERS ignores Legislature on Iran

Feb. 25, 2010


Nearly three years ago, California legislators passed AB221 requiring the sale of investments in Iran. In a hearing yesterday at the Capitol, California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) representatives made clear to legislators that they had not done so yet, nor did they believe it was required of them to do so according to their constitutional fiduciary responsibility to members.

After the United States identified Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, legislators created AB221, authored by Assemblyman Joel Anderson, R-La Mesa, to tighten economic sanctions against Iran and other terrorist-supporting countries.

While CalPERS representatives insisted they are fully committed to enact requirements of AB221 and have approached the Iran act in good faith, Joe Dear, the CalPERS Chief Investment Officer, and Ann Simpson, portfolio global funds manager Ann Simpson, in testimony before the committee hearing of Senate and Assembly Public Employees and Public Retirement committees concluded that their constitutional fiduciary duty required that they follow the law and that the costs of getting rid of all investments outweighed total removal of Iranian investments.

Mark Carrel of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, testified that CalPERS and CalSTRS (California State Teachers’ Retirement System) not only opposed AB221 which passed 75-0 in 2007, but have ignored implementation by diversifying and removing funds from Iran. Simpson replied shortly after, “CalPERS does not invest in Iran but invests in the entire region, specifically in Israel.”

Testimony from Carrel at the hearing included the issue of Iran now having the capabilities of developing nuclear weapons, “most likely to be used against Israel” according to Carrel. Carrel offered Florida as an example of a state that pulled $1.15 billion out of Iran.

Carrel said that he is frustrated by CalPERS and CalSTRS and questioned why they feel it is acceptable to ignore AB221. According to Carrel’s testimony, CalSTRS has 23 investments and CalPERS has 24 in Iran. They were supposed to have begun removal of investments with 90 days of bill passage and have not, according to Carrel. By allowing the retirement funds to remain in Iran, “they continue to support terrorism,” stated Carrel.

Simpson explained that CalPERS transaction costs were $6 million to $23 million, and every five years could expect $127 million in losses if they completely divested from oil companies in region. When asked why they are not going to divest the rest of companies from Iran, Simpson stated that CalPERS had sent letters and faxes to individual companies, but had not heard back. “We took no action,” said Simpson.

Visibly frustrated, Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, asked his colleagues, “What do we need to do to make these companies understand that we mean business?” after Simpson told committee that they haven’t received responses from many companies in region and haven’t done anything about it.

At one point, Dear said the investment strategy of the CalPERS is to own stock in all of the publicly traded companies in the world, in order to reduce risk, despite the restrictions in AB221.

Dear and Simpson told legislators that they’d go along with AB 221 if the state made up losses in the pension fund.

Conversely, CalSTRS has sold $21 million worth of stock in three South Korean companies for a $7 million loss, has restricted additional purchases of stock in other companies, and is still reviewing the status of more companies in the region.

With CalPERS insisting that its fiduciary responsibility to members trumps the AB221 requirements prohibiting the pension fund investments in Iran unless California financially makes up the difference, Anderson, the bill’s author said to Dear, “I’m deeply concerned that you have completely thumbed your nose at the Legislature.”


Write a comment
  1. EastBayLarry
    EastBayLarry 26 February, 2010, 09:42

    Where will the ‘value’ of these Iranian invetments be after Isreal attacks to remove the nuclear threat?
    How hard can it be to do the patriotic thing and invest in honorable American companies, (i.e. those that do not support terrorism)?

    Reply this comment
  2. Kale
    Kale 26 February, 2010, 11:18

    This myopic, easily-sold idea of a closed-door policy on a member of the “axis-of-evil” will remove one more avenue of potential information flow.

    How will we know what goes on behind closed-doors?

    We should be trying to increase our contacts with Iran i.e. politically, economically, financially, socially, culturally, educationally, charitably, personally, etc. anyone???

    Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
    – Sun-Tzu

    …unless of course we’re really curious about what an actual nuclear winter would feel like…

    Reply this comment
  3. EastBayLarry
    EastBayLarry 28 February, 2010, 08:48

    Nonsense Kale.
    Profiting while a country like Iran moves toward owning its’ own nuke will eventually cause those investors to be called traitors. Remember the ‘war profiteers’ who were helping Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s?

    And what sort of “information” would we be getting from investing in Iran? You think they will send the ‘stockholders’ their nuclear plans?

    Reply this comment
  4. Jim
    Jim 11 March, 2010, 12:05

    Kale, are you serious? Since when did CalPERS “investments” become part of our national security plan for monitoring hostile nations? You seem to have taken a very odd and faulty line of reasoning to justify CalPERS ignoring the law as determined by our elected representatives.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

CA Lost in Clean Energy Labyrinth

California’s entangled clean energy policy just added another program to an already convoluted, growing bureaucracy. The new program, signed into

Legislature returns for last month

“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session,” Mark Twain supposedly said. That certainly

Dan Lungren's Anti-Freedom Career

U.S. Rep. Dan Lungren’s big-government policies may make him the rare Republican to lose in November. OCT. 15, 2010 By