Israel
Bonds have been sold since 1951 when Israel was searching for a way to finance
the new state. Since then, state and municipal retirement funds have replaced
individual investors as a leading source of revenue generated from sales. Money
from the sale of Israel Bonds is deposited directly into Israel ’s general treasury which is then
dispersed to various government ministries for different purposes, including
advancing and supporting Israel ’s settlement activities. We have
estimated that at least twenty percent of the fungible proceeds from Israel
Bond sales are used by Israel to fund West Bank projects like the Apartheid Wall
and colonial infrastructure, projects which violate international law.
The State
of Minnesota has purchased a $10 million Israel
Bond as part of its $80 billion employee pension fund portfolio managed by the
State Board of Investment (SBI). The SBI is comprised of the four top state
officers (the Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, and State
Auditor). For several years MN BBC has rallied community support to pressure the SBI to
divest. In defiance of this pressure, in March 2015, the Board voted to grant
the Executive Director of the SBI the authority to continue to reinvest in
Israel Bonds in the sole exercise of his discretion, while also recommending
that he exercise that discretion by reinvesting. It came as no surprise that
the Executive Director would follow the Board’s recommendation when he renewed Minnesota ’s investment in the Israel Bond for
another ten-year term.
The renewal
of the Bond was not the Board’s most egregious politically motivated act. We
have been pointing out for several years that the Board’s investment in Israel
Bonds was a breach of the SBI’s own administrative investment guidelines. The
guidelines, adopted by the Board more than 20 years ago, delineated socially
responsible investment criteria in the Board’s purchase of international
securities. These guidelines required the SBI to group countries into three
categories according to their respect for human rights, labor rights and environmental
protection. Group I countries had the best protections. There were no
restrictions placed from investing in them. Group II countries had some issues,
but as long as the fund manager made a written statement that it would be a
breach of the fund manager’s fiduciary responsibility not to make the
investment, the investment could be made. Group III countries were the most problematic
and required the most justification before any investment could be made.
The Board
staff was required to review all countries annually. When several review
periods passed without the required review having been completed, the SBI
simply elected to change the interval between the required reviews to two
years, and then five years. The SBI performed its last review in 2005. By the
time we brought it to the Board’s attention in 2012, no country review had been
conducted for more than seven years.
Additionally,
although the SBI had always categorized Israel as a Group II country, no fund
manager had ever made a statement that it would be a breach of fiduciary duty
not to invest in Israel Bonds. We also repeatedly advised the Board that Israel ’s Group II categorization was a
whitewash of Israel ’s actual human rights record. We
requested that the Board use more recent reports from the US State Department
and human rights organizations. We even submitted a Shadow Report (PDF) to
the Board detailing Israel ’s human rights abuses that supported
a more accurate categorization of Israel as a Group III country.
At the
March 2015 SBI meeting, the SBI’s Executive Director argued that since the
Board had never used those human rights guidelines in its international
investment decisions anyway, the Board should simply do away with the
guidelines altogether. The Board agreed and its quick vote then ended the
charade of caring about human rights. We pointed out to the Board that having
relieved itself of the onerous and pesky human rights guidelines, the SBI was
now free to make investments in the projects of any international human rights
offender, from manufacturing plants in the North Korean gulag to African blood
diamond trade.
The members
of Minnesota ’s State Board of Investment assumed
that they had cleverly outmaneuvered us, freeing themselves of the persistence
of our organization and our continual presence at the Board’s quarterly
meetings. Immediate divestment was now off the table. Because Israel Bonds are
illiquid and cannot be redeemed until maturity, in addition to being high risk
and offering low returns, the Board was stuck with its investment for a full
ten years. Any demand to divest could be ignored for the next decade. And now
that all requirements to consider human rights, labor rights or environmental
protection in making any investment decisions had been discarded, the SBI
calculated that we would no longer spend our time disturbing the Board members’
politically serene conscience.
We then
discovered that the prospectus that advertises Israel Bonds for sale in the US is misleading. Federal securities
law (17 CFR §240.10b-5(b)) requires all
material facts about a security to be included in the prospectus. The law is
violated if material information is omitted. The Israel Bonds prospectus
advertises that the money Israel receives from the sale of its Bonds
is used for “general purposes of the state,” but omits the fact that a sizeable
portion of the money is used for illegal purposes. This is at best an
incomplete characterization of the use of the money, and at worst a
fabrication. A prudent investor would want to know if the invested funds will
be used for illegal purposes. A public pension fund fiduciary has an especially
keen obligation to know as many details about the use of invested monies before
putting beneficiaries’ finances at risk.
We contend
that the DCI , the seller of the securities, has failed to disclose facts which would
cause a prudent investor to make a different investment decision. Over 6,400
people who saw the petition agreed. The petition was delivered Tuesday.
If the SEC enforces this law and the DCI is forced to disclose that it uses
the money it receives from state and municipal retirement funds for projects
that violate international law, it is likely that investment fund fiduciaries
and managers would not want to risk their pensioners’ money this way. The
approximately eighty states and municipalities in the US which have invested billions in Israel
Bonds would be wise to reconsider their investment decisions.
The DCI has already touted its sales of
Israel Bonds as a repudiation of BDS . Minnesota Break the Bonds Campaign
is encouraging and assisting community and human rights groups in other states
to take on Israel Bonds as a BDS target. If the SEC enforces the disclosure laws, it
could give those BDS groups another argument in favor of divestment.
>> The article above is by Sylvia
Swartz.
No comments:
Post a Comment