Give pension members a clear public record of investment decisions. The Pension Investment Integrity Act is a proposal for Arkansas’s 2027 legislative session. We are seeking legislative support and sponsorship.
Download the one-page handout (PDF) · Read the web brief · Request a briefing.
The proposed decision record
For covered pension investments in non-tradable sovereign debt, the proposal would require:
- Explain repayment risk. Prepare a written credit analysis before agreeing to the investment.
- Compare the options. Show how reasonable alternatives compare on risk, expected return and access to the money.
- Explain the exit. Describe restrictions on selling or transferring the investment before maturity.
- Make the financial case. Explain why this investment serves members’ interests and fits the pension portfolio.
- Publish the record. Post the analysis and decision within 30 calendar days of the binding commitment, showing whether the transaction has settled.
Why the records make the case
APERS reported $25 million in two positions on September 7. ATRS’s $50 million manager funding completed January 2, and the account bought a $9.9 million Israel Bond on February 17. Members should be able to see the financial reasoning behind these decisions. APERS custody, p. 1 · ATRS funding, p. 3 · ATRS trade, row 2.
Aon supplied substantive advice about selecting a manager and carrying out the investment. The reform asks for a clear, purchase-specific explanation of credit risk, alternatives and liquidity alongside that advice. Aon memo, pp. 149–150.
Who the Act would cover
The proposal would apply to future covered investments by Arkansas pension systems, including ATRS, APERS, ASHERS, ASPRS, AJRS and LOPFI. It focuses on government debt without an ordinary market exit. The same financial standards would apply regardless of the issuer. State Treasury investments are outside this pension proposal.
Trustees would set investment policy and oversee managers working within approved limits. The pension system would make the financial record public.
Outside managers and shared funds
| How the money is invested | What members should be able to see |
|---|---|
| The board buys directly | The analysis and the authorized decision-maker’s financial approval. |
| A manager buys for the pension system | A record for each covered purchase, showing it fits the board’s approved limits. |
| Pension systems share an account they control | One shared analysis, with each system’s share, financial finding and responsible official identified. |
| The system joins an outside fund it does not control | Why joining the fund serves members, what reporting it can obtain, and regular updates on known covered investments. |
Funds created mainly to hold covered debt and accounts the system controls within a fund would still need records for the underlying investments. See the examples.
Responsibility and timing
Investment staff, an adviser or the manager could prepare the work. The record would name its author and approving authority and disclose relevant conflicts. Initial manager instructions, new issuers and significant changes would receive review independent of the issuer and seller.
The analysis must come before the binding commitment: the order or agreement committing the system to the investment. Publication would follow within 30 calendar days of that commitment, with settlement and any cancellation clearly identified. Transferring money to a manager would not count as the underlying bond purchase.
The public record would explain the amount, date, risks, alternatives, access to the money and financial judgment. Any legally required redactions would be narrow and explained.
New purchases and renewals would need current terms and an updated assessment of risks, alternatives and the system’s overall exposure. Existing research could be reused. Shared pools would identify each plan’s allocation and financial finding.
Accountability and costs
Each system would name an official responsible for publication, list missing or late records and respond to complaints. A late posting could be corrected. Missing pre-purchase analysis would require a truthful report and corrective action; a later memo cannot recreate earlier review.
Manager contracts would require timely records and cooperation with oversight. Audits would check whether the required work occurred, with stronger responses to repeated or serious failures. A paperwork delay would not automatically force the sale of an investment.
Standard forms, shared research and existing advisers would limit duplicate work. Staff time, manager information, publication and oversight still have costs. Legal and fiscal review will shape the final bill, including remedies and transition for existing agreements.
Legislative calendar
The official calendar lists November 16, 2026 for prefiling, January 11, 2027 for convening and January 25, 2027 as the ordinary retirement-legislation filing deadline. The calendar notes possible deadline extension if both chambers recess more than four days and a three-fourths vote of each chamber’s full membership for later introduction. Bureau of Legislative Research calendar, pp. 1–3, verified September 16, 2026.
Legislative ask
Help bring this proposal to the 2027 session. Request a briefing, review the evidence and consider sponsorship.
Request a briefing · Print the one-page brief · Explore the evidence.