So, about this other recent development we were following, the San Diego County Employees’ Retirement Association has issued a statement about its investment and interaction with the hedge fund WG Trading.

You can read the full pdf here. It is surprisingly detailed compared to past similar releases.

Key highlights:

  • Remember, yesterday I wondered why the pension system reported having $150 million of assets invested in the hedge fund in 2007 and only about $76 million in 2008. Turns out, the retirement system had pulled $75 million out of the hedge fund in Oct. 2007. Good move.
  • SDCERA’s consultant on these hedge funds had actually gone to Greenwich, Conn. to meet with WG Trading officials in October of last year. The trip did not go well:

    In addition to a general lack of operational transparency, [WG Trading Principal Paul] Greenwood refused to provide access to key references such as third party brokers. SDCERA also followed up with WG Trading by requesting additional information, but was not provided with a sufficient response.

    So SDCERA officials claim that they decided to drop their relationship with the fund and ask for San Diego County’s money back. Another good move, I guess, except that it took them until December to decide to actually withdraw the money.

  • It’s unclear when or if the remaining $78 million invested with WG Trading will be redeemed by the county pension and you can bet they will probably call — actually probably have called — some lawyers.

So that helps. We’ll keep trying to get them on the phone.

Just a thought: This is just like 2006 when they complained that the hedge fund Amaranth was secretive and misleading about how they deployed the county’s pension investment. Sheesh. Complaining about a hedge fund being secretive is like complaining about an anchovy being salty. Come on! You know that they’re salty when you buy them.

If they leave a bad taste in your mouth (and I’m actually a fan of anchovies) then you shouldn’t have started eating them in the first place.

The fact is they took a risk and this is the downside of that.


Leave a comment

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.