Back to States List

Louisiana

Louisiana has five main public pension funds: the Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana (TRS), the Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System (LASERS), the Firefighters Retirement System of Louisiana (FRS), the Municipal Employees Retirement System of Louisiana (MERS), and the Louisiana State Police Retirement System (LSPRS). LASERS oversees

  • The TRSL board represents public teachers and consists of 17 members: 12 elected by TRSL members or retirees; 4 Ex Officio (State Superintendent of Education, State Treasurer, Chair of the Senate Retirement Committee, and Commissioner of the Division of Administration); 1 appointed by the House Speaker.
  • The LASERS board represents all eligible state and local government employees; the board consists of 13 members: 4 Ex Officio (State Treasurer, Commissioner of Administration, Chair of the Louisiana Senate Retirement Committee, and a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives Retirement Committee appointed by the Speaker of the House); 6 elected by active members; 3 elected by retirees.
  • The FRS board represents firefighters of the state and consists of 11 members.
  • The MERS board represents municipal employees and consists of 11 members: 5 members elected by the MERS’ active membership; 1 retired member of MERS’ elected by the MERS’ retiree membership; 1 member of the House Retirement Committee appointed by the Speaker of the House; 4 Ex Officio (the President of the Louisiana Municipal Association (LMA), the Chairman of the Senate Retirement Committee, the State Treasurer, and the Commissioner of Administration).
  • The LSPRS board consists of 11 members: 3 Ex Officio (State Treasurer, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Commissioner of the DOA); 8 members elected by LSPRS members and retirees to serve five-year, staggered terms.

The “By Asset Manager” and “Asset Manager Voting” tables show the proxy voting records of the state’s asset managers who manage the pensions’ stock market portfolio through index, exchange-traded, or mutual funds. Since these are externally managed funds, the asset managers typically retain and exercise proxy voting privileges. This data is used to calculate the state’s pro-ESG and anti-ESG scores to see how the state leverages its externally managed funds in proxy voting.

The “State Voting” table shows LASERS’ proxy voting records for directly owned securities through pension fund portfolios. This data was obtained by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request since Louisiana does not publicly disclose this information to its pensioners. The 1792 Exchange encourages Louisiana to publish its proxy voting records instead of keeping its pensioners in the dark about how the state votes on ESG issues with their money.

Both tables are important to show a comprehensive picture of the state’s proxy voting record.

By Asset Manager

BlackRock Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

7%

Dimensional Investment Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

5%

Fidelity Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

14%

Fisher Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

67%

GMO Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

60%

Goldman Sachs Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

6%

Invesco Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

34%

Loomis Sayles

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

25%

PGIM Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

42%

Principal Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

46%

Segall Bryant & Hamill Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

32%

State Street Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

18%

T Rowe Price Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

3%

Virtus Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

47%

Voya Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

28%

Artisan Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

17%

Boston Partners Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

28%

Brandes Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

35%

First Eagle Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

25%

Vontobel Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

0%

William Blair Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

72%

Baillie Gifford Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

29%

Eagle Capital Growth Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

0%

Mondrian Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

47%

GQG Partners Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

57%

LSV Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

37%

Cohen & Steers Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

14%

EuroPacific Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

43%

GAMCO Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

0%

Brookfield Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

48%

Hood River Capital Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

0%

Westwood Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

0%

Asset Manager Voting

Pro-ESG

18.2%

Anti-ESG

1.3%

Anti-Fossil Fuels

17%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

25%

Animal Rights

14%

DEI

19%

Weapons/Defense

7%

Human Rights

24%

Income Equality

29%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

23%

Health Care

8%

Race/Gender targets on Boards

32%

Non-Pecuniary

7%

ESG-Focused Governance

11%

Abortion

10%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

1%

Equality not DEI

1%

Controversial Cause Support

2%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

1%

State Voting

Pro-ESG

49%

Anti-ESG

2%

Anti-Fossil Fuels

25%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

43%

Animal Rights

100%

DEI

84%

Weapons/Defense

20%

Human Rights

51%

Income Equality

93%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

82%

Health Care

33%

Race/Gender targets on Board

100%

Non-Pecuniary Corporate Purpose

13%

ESG-Focused Governance

33%

Abortion

56%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

9%

Equality not DEI

0%

Controversial Cause Support

0%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

0%

Generate Reports
Clear
Toast