Louisiana House Bill HB516

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10

Caption

Makes permanent certain requirements that state retirement systems direct portions of certain types of investments through La. broker-dealers (OR +$485,535 FC SG EX)

Impact

The extension of these investment requirements to be permanent has significant implications for state law regarding how state retirement systems are allowed to invest funds. It mandates that these retirement systems prioritize local businesses, which proponents argue could lead to enhanced financial literacy and strength within Louisiana's economy. By ensuring that a portion of retirement investments is channeled through local broker-dealers, the bill aims to foster long-term growth in the local investment landscape.

Summary

House Bill 516 aims to remove the termination date on existing requirements that state retirement systems in Louisiana, including LASERS, TRSL, LSERS, and LSPRS, direct 10% of commissions from certain types of investments through Louisiana-based broker-dealers. The bill intends to make these requirements permanent, ensuring that a minimum percentage of commissions from domestic equity trades and certain fixed-income trades are conducted through local firms incorporated and domiciled in Louisiana, which supports the local economy and financial services sector.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 516 appears to be largely supportive among lawmakers who prioritize economic development in Louisiana. Supporters argue that by solidifying this investment requirement, the state can ensure jobs and services stay within its borders, thus benefiting Louisiana families. Conversely, opponents may raise concerns about limiting investment options and whether this focus on local broker-dealers could potentially compromise the quality or performance of the retirement portfolios.

Contention

Noteworthy points of contention surrounding the bill may arise from debates about balancing local economic interests with the performance of state retirement funds. Critics might argue that requiring investments to go through local broker-dealers may not always align with achieving optimal financial results for the retirement systems. Additionally, the repealing of the interim cost analysis could raise questions on oversight and accountability regarding how these mandates affect the returns on investments made by the retirement systems over time.