California Senate Passes Bill Mandating Coal Divestment for CalPERS, CalSTRS

3128975331_4853432915_z

The California Senate this week passed a sweeping climate change-oriented bill, which includes a provision requiring CalPERS and CalSTRS to divest from coal holdings.

The two pension funds hold around $300 million in coal-related assets.

More from the East Bay Express:

The California State Senate voted today to urge the California Public Employees Retirement System and California State Teachers Retirement System to divest from coal companies due to their massive greenhouse gas emissions that are fueling climate change.

[…]

The state Senate’s vote is at odds with the pension funds. Both CalPERS and CalSTRS have adopted so-called engagement policies instead of divestment. Last July, Anne Simpson, the senior portfolio manager and director of global governance for CalPERS, wrote in an op-ed for the Sacramento Bee that CalPERS has been “at the forefront of tackling climate change issues through policy advocacy, engagement with companies and investments in climate change solutions,” and that “divestment means losing a seat at the table” to press for these kinds of changes. CalSTRS spokesperson Ricardo Duran told the Express that CalSTRS is studying the climate threat of coal, but that the fund has made no commitment to divest.

The bill now goes to the General Assembly.

Photo by  Paul Falardeau via Flickr CC License

America’s Retirement Nightmare?

640px-Blank_US_Map.svg

Leo Kolivakis is a blogger, trader and independent senior pension and investment analyst. This post was originally published at Pension Pulse.

Tom Anderson of CNBC reports, Most older Americans fall short on retirement savings:

How bad is America doing when it comes to retirement savings? The Government Accountability Office looked into the question, and its answer is sobering.

A new GAO analysis finds that among households with members aged 55 or older, nearly 29 percent have neither retirement savings nor a traditional pension plan.

“There hasn’t been a significant increase in wages, people have student loans and other debt, and many are continuing to struggle financially,” said Charles Jeszeck, the GAO’s director of education, workforce and income security, which analyzed the Federal Reserve’s 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances to come up with its estimates. “We aren’t surprised that people have not saved a lot for retirement”(click on image below).

Even among those who do have retirement savings, their nest eggs are small. The agency found the median amount of those savings is about $104,000 for households with members between 55 and 64 years old and $148,000 for households with members 65 to 74 years old. That’s equivalent to an inflation-protected annuity of $310 and $649 per month, respectively, according to the GAO.

“I don’t care what anyone says. That’s not enough income for retirement,” said Anthony Webb, senior research economist at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, who reviewed the GAO report.

Social Security remains a fundamental part of most Americans’ retirement plans, with benefits providing most of the income for about half of households age 65 and older, according to the GAO.

The agency studied the level of Americans’ retirement savings at the request of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who is seeking the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential election and is also the ranking Democratic member on the Senate’s subcommittee on primary health and retirement security.

Estimates about the size and scope of the retirement savings problem vary widely, the GAO found. In addition to examining the Survey of Consumer Finances, it reviewed nine studies conducted between 2006 and 2015 by a variety of organizations, including academics, benefits consultant Aon Hewitt, the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and the Investment Company Institute. Based on these reports, it concluded that one-third to two-thirds of workers are at risk of falling short of their retirement savings targets, in part because of the range of assumptions about how much income is required in retirement.

The research that the GAO examined consistently showed that people aged 55 to 64 are less confident about their retirement and plan to work longer to afford retirement. However, a 2012 study by the EBRI found that about half of retirees said they retired earlier than planned because of health problems, changes at their workplace or having to care for a spouse or another family member. This suggests “that many workers may be overestimating their future retirement income and savings,” wrote GAO researchers.

“EBRI’s model does show that a significant percentage of households will run short of money in retirement,” said Jack VanDerhei, EBRI’s research director. “This is because we model all the major risks in retirement.”

Reports like those and the GAO analysis should serve as a wake-up call about the lack of Americans’ retirement savings, said Catherine Collinson, president of the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies.

Transamerica’s retirement research, which wasn’t included in the GAO’s review, doesn’t give board projections about America’s retirement readiness because retirement is “a very personal question,” she said. But Collinson stressed the need for more people to calculate their projected retirement needs and to plan ahead accordingly. “As a society, we cannot do enough to raise awareness about the magnitude of this problem.”

I’ve covered the pension crisis looming in the United States of Pension Poverty in great depth on my blog. It’s not just a savings crisis. America’s great 401(k) experiment has failed. As discussed in the article above, even people who are able to save aren’t saving enough and even if they manage some savings, they remain vulnerable to a downturn in the market and don’t know how to properly invest so that they don’t outlive those savings. And even if they did, they will likely outlive those savings.

But fret not, just like millions of Canadians will not have the luxury of living a retirement dream, millions of Americans are increasingly realizing that retirement is pure fantasy and they will have to work well past 65 to achieve any sort of retirement.

In fact, Eric Rosenbaum of CNBC reports, New retirement age is not 65, not 80, not 95: It’s higher:

Human life has reached an inflection point—one that matters a great deal for those planning for retirement.

One hundred years ago, the average lifespan was about 42. That’s now doubled. People are living longer and trying to stretch their income to make ends meet and stay ahead of inflation, but that’s not the inflection point financial advisors are really concerned about—that’s just the everyday blocking and tackling on behalf of client portfolios. The emerging challenge goes way beyond that.

Scientists have found the mechanisms that govern aging and are already doing experiments in rats on how to reverse it. They’ve found species that do not die of old age, such as the jellyfish Turritopsis.

“We’re adding three months to life per calendar year,” said Salim Ismail, former innovation director at Yahoo and founding executive chairman of Singularity University. “It’s not an if, it’s a when, and the point in time is in the 15- to 20-year range,” said Ismail, speaking at the Exponential Finance conference in New York City on Wednesday.

“In a decade or two, or three, there will be a class of people taking treatments who can live for a long time, and that affects employment planning, retirement planning … Society will never have seen that before,” Ismail said.

When it comes to the rise of technology, financial advisors have been challenged by the robo-advisors, and the financial media has latched on to the trend of online investment management as an existential crisis for the advisory business. Advisors contend that the robo-advisors haven’t been tested in a down market—they all launched after the financial crisis. And they can’t do the hand-holding that an advisor—part therapist, part life counselor—can.

But for advisors such as Ric Edelman, chairman and CEO of Edelman Financial Services—which has 27,000 clients and 41 offices in the U.S. and launched its own robo-advisor two years ago—the really critical technology challenge for financial advisors and their clients is exponential health care.

“The first person to reach age 150 has already been born,” Edelman said during an Exponential Finance panel discussion on the future of the advisory business. “How do I talk to a client preparing to retire at 65 using the traditional model and with planning software that only goes to age 95? The financial model is broken.”

Crazy talk

Edelman said the shift from a linear to a cyclical lifeline is already starting to be seen: The average American at age 35 has already had eight jobs. “It’s not going to be birth, school, job, retirement, death,” he said. Soon individuals will cycle between work, school, sabbaticals, more schooling and more work in a cycle that has never before existed.

“It’s going to be less about money in the future and more about the future,” said Bill Bachrach, chairman and CEO of financial advisory consultant Bachrach & Associates. “How do you sit down with someone in their 30s or 40s and tell them that they are going to live to 110 or 120 and haven’t prepared financially for that?”

Bachrach said that at first the challenge won’t be that the information is overwhelming; it’s that the client won’t even believe what the advisor is saying, making it the most difficult and potentially costly conversation an advisor needs to initiate. “They will look at you like you are smoking crack,” he said. “It’s the singularity conversation, and if they think an advisor is crazy, then the advisor will lose the client.”

A 401(k) for a 1,000-year-old baby

The push and pull between financial advisors and financial technology, meanwhile, is nothing new for those who have been in the business for a long time.

“We’ve been dealing with it for decades with financial-planning software,” Bachrach said. “You don’t see us using a slide rule and yellow pad anymore.”

Edelman said the day when his firm delivers a tablet preloaded with financial-planning tools to a client by FedEx ahead of a video conference—rather than rely on its expensive and time-consuming network of 41 nationwide offices—is coming. Avatars will also be used to deliver financial counseling.

“It’s all those things we have to move more toward,” he said.

Ultimately, Bachrach said, consumers will start going to advisors and saying, “I’ve heard about the ‘singularity,’ and I may have another 40 years when I thought I would have a lot of money and then transfer that wealth to my kids. But if I live another 40 to 50 years, how do I do that?”

Advisors may be able to help baby boomers massage the immediate issue, which Bachrach summed up as “boomers screwing Gen X and Gen Y again. … ‘We first destroyed the planet, and now we’re stealing your inheritance.'”

But no advisor or software today has the solution for the question of immortality. “It’s back to human skills,” he said. “I’m not sure how robo-advisors do that, but maybe they get better and better.”

Time is on the side of financial advisors in practicing their approach to this question.

“Forget the person who lives to 150; it’s the baby living to 1,000,” said Ismail of Singularity University.

I doubt you will see many people living till 150 years old but there will be more centennials in the future and this will place more pressure on the “traditional financial model” (whatever that is) as well as on pensions already struggling with longevity risk.

Is there a better solution to America’s retirement crisis? Yes but it will be one that takes great political courage to implement, especially in the politically charged atmosphere of Washington where they’re still debating “big government” vs “smaller government.”

I touched upon it in my comment on whether Social Security is on the fritz:

[…] politics aside, I’m definitely not for privatizing Social Security to offer individuals savings accounts. The United States of pension poverty has to face up to the brutal reality of defined-contribution plans, they simply don’t work. Instead, U.S. policymakers need to understand the benefits of defined-benefit plans and get on to enhancing Social Security for all Americans.

One model Social Security can follow is that of the Canada Pension Plan whose assets are managed by the CPPIB. Of course, to do this properly, you need to get the governance right and have the assets managed at arms-length from the federal (and state) government. And the big problem with U.S. public pensions is they’re incapable of getting the governance right.

So let the academics and actuaries debate on whether the assumptions underlying Social Security are right or wrong. I think a much bigger debate is how are they going to revamp Social Security to bolster the retirement security of millions of Americans. That’s the real challenge that lies ahead.

The time has come for enhanced Social Security just like the time has come for enhanced CPP. Canadians are lucky they have the CPPIB which is managing hundreds of billions and doing an outstanding, albeit not perfect, job.

In the U.S., there is no comparable public pension fund at the federal level which operates at arms-length from the government. There are many delusional state pension funds clinging to the pension rate-of-return fantasy, but there is no movement to transform and enhance Social Security to address America’s new pension poverty.

More importantly, U.S. and Canadian policymakers have to confront the brutal truth on defined-contribution plans and realize that they will never address the needs of millions of hard working people desperately looking to retire in dignity and security.

And what happens to old people when they’re confronted with pension poverty? Well, they live in isolation and shame, are malnourished, are more prone to get sick placing more pressure on the healthcare system which is already stretched, and they don’t spend money, which is bad for consumption and government revenues.

Importantly, the pension crisis will add to social welfare costs and debt, and it’s very deflationary, which is something the billionaires touting the “bigger short” haven’t even thought of.

A more worrying trend is the rise in crime among elderly people. Carol Matlack of Bloomberg recently reported, Instead of Playing Golf, the World’s Elderly Are Staging Heists and Robbing Banks:

British tabloids were abuzz after a dramatic recent heist in London’s Hatton Garden diamond district, as thieves made off with more than £10 million ($15.5 million) in cash and gems from a heavily secured vault. According to one theory, the gang used a contortionist who slithered into the vault. Others held that a thirtysomething criminal genius known as the “King of Diamonds” had masterminded the caper.

But when police arrested nine suspects, the most striking thing about the crew wasn’t physical dexterity or villainous brilliance. It was age. The youngest suspect in the case is 42, and most are much older, including two men in their mid-seventies. At a preliminary hearing on May 21, a 74-year-old suspect said he couldn’t understand a clerk’s questions because he was hard of hearing. A second suspect, 59, walked with a pronounced limp.

Young men still commit a disproportionate share of crimes in most countries. But crime rates among the elderly are rising in Britain and other European and Asian nations, adding a worrisome new dimension to the problem of aging populations.

South Korea reported this month that crimes committed by people 65 and over rose 12.2 percent from 2011 to 2013—including an eye-popping 40 percent increase in violent crime—outstripping a 9.6 percent rise in the country’s elderly population during the period. In Japan, crime by people over 65 more than doubled from 2003 to 2013, with elderly people accounting for more shoplifting than teenagers. In the Netherlands, a 2010 study found a sharp rise in arrests and incarceration of elderly people. And in London, police say that arrests of people 65 and over rose 10 percent from March 2009 to March 2014, even as arrests of under-65s fell 24 percent. The number of elderly British prison inmates has been rising at a rate more than three times that of the overall prison population for most of the past decade.

The U.S seems to have escaped the trend: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of elderly crime among people aged 55 to 65 has decreased since the 1980s. While the population of elderly prison inmates has grown, that mainly reflects longer sentences, especially for drug-related crimes.

Elderly people in developed countries tend to be “more assertive, less submissive, and more focused on individual social and economic needs” than earlier generations were, says Bas van Alphen, a psychology professor at the Free University of Brussels who has studied criminal behavior among the elderly. “When they see in their peer group that someone has much more money than they do, they are eager to get that,” he says. Older people may also commit crimes because they feel isolated. “I had one patient who stole candies to handle the hours of loneliness every day,” says van Alphen, who describes such behavior as “novelty-seeking.”

Rising poverty rates among the elderly are being blamed in some countries. That’s the case in South Korea, where 45 percent of people over 65 live below the poverty line, the highest rate among the 30 developed countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. “The government should make an all-out effort to expand the social safety net and provide jobs and dwellings for the elderly,” the Korea Times newspaper editorialized this month, warning that by 2026 more than 20 percent of the country’s population will be over 65.

The “Opa Bande” (“Grandpa Gang”), three German men in their sixties and seventies who were convicted in 2005 of robbing more than €1 million ($1.09 million) from 12 banks, testified at their trial that they were trying to top up their pension benefits. One defendant, Wilfried Ackermann, said he used his share to buy a farm where he could live because he was afraid of being put in a retirement home.

The perpetrators of the London jewel heist, though, were neither isolated nor impoverished. Prosecutors say the thieves disabled an elevator and climbed down the shaft, then used a high-powered drill to cut into the vault. Once inside, they removed valuables from 72 safe deposit boxes, hauling them away in bags and bins and loading them into a waiting van. Although their faces were obscured by hardhats and other headgear, the tabloids gave each thief a nickname based on distinctive characteristics seen on camera. Two of them, dubbed Tall Man and Old Man, “struggle to move a bin before they drag it outside,” the Mirror newspaper reported in its analysis of the security footage. “The Old Man leans on the bin, struggling for breath.”

Most of the nine men charged in the case appeared to be ordinary blokes. The hard-of-hearing 74-year-old was described by his London neighbors as an affable retiree who loves dogs; the 59-year-old with a limp was said to be a former truck driver. Another defendant runs a plumbing business in the London suburbs. All nine are being held in custody on charges of conspiracy to commit burglary; they haven’t yet entered pleas.

Richard Hobbs, a sociologist at the University of Essex who studies crime in Britain, says the country’s criminal underworld has changed dramatically in recent years. Rather than congregating in pubs or on street corners, many criminals now live seemingly ordinary lives, raising families and running legitimate businesses. They still participate in crime, but only with trusted associates. “They don’t see themselves as criminals, they see themselves as businessmen,” Hobbs says.

That makes it easier for elderly criminals to stay in the game. Older criminals often have extensive networks to draw on for needed expertise, Hobbs says. And some essential skills, such as money laundering, don’t require physical vigor.

Still, geriatric crime poses special challenges. During the trial of Germany’s “Grandpa Gang,” the gang members described how their 74-year-old co-defendant, Rudolf Richter, almost botched a 2003 bank heist by slipping on a patch of ice, forcing them to take extra time to help him into the getaway car. And the 74-year-old had another problem, co-defendant Ackermann told the court: “We had to stop constantly so he could pee.”

Geriatric crime is no laughing matter and neither is the global pension crisis. When people ask me why I’m so convinced global deflation will eventually hit America, I simply state the obvious, namely, the world is incapable of dealing with underinvestment and that chronic and high long-term unemployment, rising inequality, aging demographics and the global pension crisis are all structural issues which will ensure decades of global deflation. This will place enormous pressure on public finances but nobody is paying attention. The reflationistas and economists explaining the inflation puzzle should smoke that in their pipe!!

Oregon Pension Tweaks Portfolio, Moves $2 Billion Into Lower-Risk Investments After Supreme Court Decision

5857709536_81151f8166_z

Following a state Supreme Court decision last month that restored COLAs for many Oregon retirees, the state’s investment council has shifted some pension assets from private equity into lower-risk securities.

In all, the pension’s allocation to private equity is expected to drop from 20 percent to 17.5 percent.

More details from the Capitol Bureau:

The Oregon Investment Council moved Wednesday toward shifting a small share of Oregon’s public-pension investments from higher-yielding private equities into public securities.

The move is projected to generate up to $3 billion less over 20 years for the Public Employees Retirement Fund, whose earnings account for 73 cents of every dollar paid out in pension benefits.

But by moving into securities, it also will allow for a better cash flow for the system to meet increased payments resulting from an April 30 decision of the Oregon Supreme Court. The court ruled that cost-of-living increases for public retirees cannot be reduced retroactively on benefits earned before May 2013.

[…]

The shift by the council, which oversees around $90 billion in total state investments, will reduce the state’s share of private equity as a total of the PERS Fund from 20 to 17.5 percent – and increase the share of “diversifying assets” from 2.5 to 5 percent. The return rate on the first category is projected at 10.25 percent; on “diversifying assets,” the projected rate is 6.4 percent.

The actual amount of money involved in the shift is just under $2 billion.

The Supreme Court decision eroded the pension’s funding ratio, from 98 percent to 92 percent.

 

Photo by TaxRebate.org.uk via Flickr CC License

CalPERS Looks at Long-Term Rate Hike to Cut Risk

Calpers

Ed Mendel is a reporter who covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. Find more of his stories at Calpensions.com

CalPERS is considering small increases in employer and employee rates over decades to reduce the risk of big investment losses, a policy that also would lower an earnings forecast critics say is too optimistic.

The proposal is a response to the “maturing” of a CalPERS system that soon will have more retirees than active workers. From two active workers for each retiree in 2002, the ratio fell to 1.45 to one by 2012 and is expected to be 0.8 to 0.6 to one in the next decades.

As a result, investment losses will trigger bigger California Public Employees Retirement System employer rate increases. It’s a kind of “leveraging” effect as the investment fund becomes increasingly larger than the payroll on which rates are based.

The risk of big investment losses is a threat for other reasons. Funding could drop below 50 percent of the projected assets needed to pay future pensions — a fuzzy red line said to make returning to full funding nearly impossible, requiring onerous rates and unlikely investment returns.

“The concern that I have is that the volatility we have built into the funding system is such that it may cause such severe strain on the employers that they may not be able to make the contributions,” Alan Milligan, CalPERS chief actuary, told a board workshop on risk last month.

The new risk reduction policy is advocated by top staff who took office after CalPERS had huge investment losses in 2008: Milligan, CEO Anne Stausboll, Chief Investment Officer Ted Eliopoulos, and Chief Financial Officer Cheryl Eason.

It’s a sea change from the late 1990s when CalPERS cut employer rates to near zero for two years and sponsored a large retroactive pension increase for state workers, setting a benchmark for local police and firefighter pensions critics say is unsustainable.

Awash in earnings from a booming stock market and a funding level that briefly reached about 135 percent, CalPERS told the Legislature that, due to “superior” investment returns, SB 400 in 1999 would not increase state rates for “at least a decade.”

A 17-page CalPERS brochure on SB400 distributed to the Legislature quoted former CalPERS President William Crist: “This is a special opportunity to restore equity among CalPERS members without it costing a dime of additional taxpayer money.”

But after a market plunge, soaring CalPERS state rates were cited by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 as he briefly backed a proposal to switch new state and local government hires from pensions to 401(k)-style individual investment plans.

In 2007 CalPERS was 100 percent funded with investments valued at $260 billion. Then a deep recession and stock market crash in 2008 dropped investments to $160 billion with a funding level of about 60 percent.

Now after an historic bull market, and a rate increase of roughly 50 percent that is still being phased in, the CalPERS investment fund was valued at $303 billion last week with a funding level last June estimated at 77 percent.

In each of the last three years, CalPERS made changes that raised employer rates: the earnings forecast dropped from 7.75 percent to 7.5 percent in March 2012, new actuarial methods in April 2013, and new longevity projections in February last year.

A staff report on risk last November said employer contribution rates for many CalPERS plans are at record highs, exceeding 30 percent of payroll for more than 100 miscellaneous plans and more than 40 percent of pay for 150 police and firefighter plans.

“Employers are reporting that these contribution levels are putting significant strain on their budgets and limiting their ability to provide services to the people in their jurisdictions,” said the report.

Retirees
The proposal to reduce the risk of investment losses would gradually shift CalPERS to a less “volatile” mix of investments, narrowing up-and-down market swings but also lowering expected earnings.

A gradual increase in employer and employee contribution rates will be needed to offset the lower yield expected from a more conservative investment mix that reduces the risk of a big loss.

CalPERS can only raise employer rates. Employee rates would go up because Gov. Brown’s pension reform requires an equal employer-employee split of the pension normal cost, which excludes debt from previous years.

The risk reduction proposal is a broad concept lacking details that would be added by the CalPERS board. But some samples based on 5,000 simulations of 50-year projections (see below) show small rate increases over decades.

A key step would be slowly lowering the forecast of investment earnings expected to be available to pay or “discount” future pension debt. The current CalPERS earnings forecast or discount rate is 7.5 percent a year.

Critics say the earnings forecast is too optimistic and conceals massive pension debt. Corporate pensions had a discount rate of 4 percent last year. Unlike government employers, corporations can go out of business, so their pensions operate under tighter rules.

The CalPERS proposal has samples of reduced risk and investment volatility that would lower the discount rate to 7 percent or 6.5 percent. In one of the samples, getting to an investment volatility with a discount rate of 6.5 percent takes more than 20 years.

An issue before the CalPERS board last month was whether small cuts in the discount rate would be “flexible,” occurring only in good investment years, or “blended” with a small scheduled cut perhaps every four years.

Two board members said they were concerned about the negative “optics” of a lower discount rate that would increase the pension debt or “unfunded liability.” Theresa Taylor said pension opponents would have more to “latch on to.”

Stausboll said the positive message would be that CalPERS is addressing the discount rate, “the thing I think we get most of the criticism for,” and has a clear plan for “ensuring sustainability” of the pension system.

Several board members said they preferred the blended plan. Its certainty also was favorably mentioned by representatives of the largest state worker union, SEIU, and a statewide firefighter association, who said their groups had not taken a position on the issue.

A decision on the method of lowering the discount rate was delayed to hear from employers and employees. A stakeholder panel has been scheduled Aug. 19, and two employer webinars are scheduled this week.

As part of its risk reduction, CalPERS is developing a “message and communication” plan to show employers that, if they have the means, making additional pension contributions to reduce their unfunded liability makes good business sense.

CalPERS also is getting a legal analysis of offering employers, who currently have no choice of investment mix, the “ability to choose from one or two additional asset allocations” to select their own level of risk.

Employer
Safety

Photo by  rocor via Flickr CC License

The Canadian Retirement Dream?

496px-Canada_blank_map.svg

Leo Kolivakis is a blogger, trader and independent senior pension and investment analyst. This post was originally published at Pension Pulse.

Michael Babad of the Globe and Mail reports, Millions of Canadians risk losing ‘retirement of their dreams,’ study warns:

The deputy chief economist at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is making an impassioned plea to reform the country’s retirement system as quickly as possible.

“Add it all up, and there are some 5.8 million working-age Canadians who will see more than a 20-per-cent drop in their living standards upon retirement,” Benjamin Tal said in a report.

“That’s why the time to act is now.”

Canada’s Conservative government is studying the possibility of a voluntary expansion of the Canada Pension Plan, the idea being that working people could pay higher premiums for stronger benefits down the road.

It’s not just CPP, Mr. Tal added in an interview, but also the fact that Canadians simply aren’t saving enough. So “we have to be more creative” to encourage savings, whether via CPP, RRSPs or other ways.

“Without getting into the politics of it, it is important to remember why a change to the system is essential,” said Mr. Tal.

“While many Canadians, particularly those now close to 65, are on a path to the retirement of their dreams, the data show that millions of others are headed for a steep decline in living standards in the decades ahead, particularly those who are currently younger and who are in middle income brackets,” he added.

You’re okay if you were born during the Second World War because you’d maintain your standard of living when you take lower expenses into account.

The “leading edge” of the baby boomers are set up almost as well.

“But their children are much less well positioned, given the current trend towards lower savings rates and reduced private pension coverage,” said Mr. Tal, who arrived at the 5.8-million figure by studying age and income groups.

“On average, the replacement rate of those born in the 1980s, who will retire towards the middle of this century, will be only 0.7, implying a 30-per-cent drop in their standard of living.”

You can read an older report from Benjamin Tal and Avery Shenfeld, Canadians’ Retirement Future: Mind the Gap, to get a better understanding of the arguments they use to support their case.

Kudos to CIBC for being at the forefront, highlighting the ongoing retirement crisis this country is experiencing and will experience in the future. Tal is right, people aren’t saving enough, which is why I’m against the latest proposal of a voluntary CPP expansion as it’s doomed to fail (even though some argue for it, I think it should be mandatory).

The Tories are backtracking on enhanced CPP but they’re putting forth ridiculous policies which will primarily benefit the richest Canadians and the financial services industry catering to them. These aren’t the people that need help to retire in dignity and security.

But some Canadians are living a retirement dream. One of them is federal Justice Minister Peter Mackay who just announced he’s retiring from politics. By leaving politics now, he will be collecting his full pension of $128, 832 at the age of 55:

The National Post’s Kelly McParland points out in a column today this bit of information about former defence minister Peter MacKay. MacKay, 49 years old, announced last week he would be leaving federal politics:

“By quitting now, Peter MacKay will be able to collect his full Parliamentary pension at age 55 rather than 65. That amounts to $128,832 a year, or $1.3 million over the decade,” writes McParland. “That makes me feel so much better. You can spend a lot of quality time with your family for $128, 831 a year. If he’d stuck around longer, he’d have had to contribute more and wait longer. Atta boy Peter, soak that public!”

Jennifer Henderson of the CBC News also reports, Peter MacKay exit allows him to collect full pension at 55:

By choosing not to reoffer in this year’s federal election, Justice Minister Peter MacKay joins a growing list of Conservative MPs who will avoid the impact of pension changes that will triple the amount they must contribute and lock in some of the money for an extra 10 years.

Under new pension rules for MPs passed in 2013, all politicians elected for the first time in the next election must wait until age 65 before they can draw a pension.

It’s more complicated for MPs who have been in the House of Commons prior to January 2016. Their years of pensionable service prior to that date can be collected at age 55. Any pension they earn after January 2016 can’t be drawn until they turn 65, according to the Treasury Board of Canada.

MacKay’s decision not to reoffer was announced last week. He’ll be able to collect his full yearly pension of $128,832 at age 55.

Growing family

MacKay’s current salary as an MP — $167,400 — combined with his $80,100 top-up as a cabinet minister totals $247,500 annually.

MacKay was first elected to Ottawa in 1997 as MP for Pictou County and has been a cabinet minister since 2006. He told reporters in Stellarton last week that he’s not reoffering in the next election so he can spend more time with his wife Nazanin Afshin-Jam, their son Kian and their second child, due in the fall.

MacKay is the latest in a list of more than 30 Conservative MPs who have said they are not planning to reoffer. That includes a handful of sitting or former cabinet ministers under age 50, including John Baird, Shelley Glover and Christian Paradis.

A spokeswoman from MacKay’s office refused to comment Monday on whether the upcoming change in pension rules played a role in the timing of his departure.

“He is not reoffering so he can spend more time with his family,” she said.

Contributions will triple

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation fought for the new rules for MP pensions, which it criticized for being “too generous.” The federation has said the new rules should bring them more in line with other plans.

MPs elected in 2015 will be expected to triple their annual pension contributions — from $11,000 a year currently to $39,000 by 2017. It’s a change that will bring federal politicians closer to a split with taxpayers, who have been paying most of the shot.

Taxpayers contributed almost $30 million to the federal plan in 2011-2012.

“For every $1 paid in by members of Parliament, almost $24 was being put in by the taxpayer,” said Aaron Wudrick, the federal director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

“We think that is really out of whack with what most Canadians can expect from their pensions. The new rules will see that ratio brought down to about $1.62 per dollar — so not quite one-for-one, but certainly a lot more reasonable in terms of what taxpayers are expected to contribute.”

Now, to be fair to Peter Mackay, he spent the last 18 years in federal politics and these are thankless and brutal jobs, especially when you have ministerial duties. But if you think he’s quitting politics at the age of 49 to “spend more time with his family,” you’re crazy. There’s no doubt in my mind he and other Tories not planning to reoffer are quitting now to collect that big fat federal pension as early as possible — a pension they can count on for the rest of their life. They will truly be living the Canadian retirement dream.

Who else is living the Canadian retirement dream? All those Canadian public pension plutocrats collecting millions in compensation. They will be taken care of for the rest of their lives too.

Unfortunately, for millions of others, this won’t be the case. Their retirement dreams will be shattered as they confront a retirement nightmare, living in pension poverty. This is why I keep harping on a mandatory enhancement of the CPP. Canada is on the verge of a major economic crisis and the last thing we need is a retirement crisis to add fuel to the fire.

I’ll tell you about another person who isn’t living a retirement dream, yours truly. If there was any justice in this world, I’d be receiving the Order of Canada or the pension lifetime award for the personal sacrifices I’ve taken with this blog. I don’t want awards, couldn’t care less. I just want people to respect the laws of this country and stop discriminating against me and other persons with disabilities when it comes to employment. In the meantime, please contribute to this blog via PayPal at the top right-hand side. I thank those of you who are regular subscribers and hope more will join.

Finally, the death of Jacques Parizeau touched many Quebecers. Parizeau, a giant of the Quiet Revolution who nearly led Quebec separatists to victory, was instrumental in the creation and development of the Caisse and many other public and para-public organizations. Premier Philippe Couillard said the former Quebec premier will have a state funeral and the province will rename the Caisse de depot’s headquarters after him.

Parizeau leaves behind a complicated economic legacy and unfortunately is remembered for his comments blaming “money and ethnic votes” when the Parti Québécois (PQ) lost the 1995 referendum. I say unfortunately because far from being a racist, Parizeau actually did a lot for Quebec’s cultural communities.

Let me share a little story here. In 1976, after the PQ victory, the separatist government was threatening to close down Greek schools in Montreal because they weren’t teaching enough French. The leaders of the Hellenic Community of Montreal approached my friend’s father, Dr. Nicholas Mandalenakis, a pathologist at Sacré Coeur Hospital, for help.

Some of the doctors at Sacré Coeur had contacts at the PQ government and a meeting was arranged with the then Minister of Education, Jacques-Yvan Morin. My friend’s father spoke perfect French and convinced the minister to get funding. In exchange, Montreal’s Greek schools would teach primarily French in their curriculum along with English and Greek.

It is because of Jacques-Yvan Morin and Jacques Parizeau, the then Minister of Finance who quickly liberated the funds in days, that Montreal’s Greek schools got subsidized and went on to be truly successful trilingual schools. At the time, some dumb, closed-minded Greeks in the media called my friend’s father a “traitor” but he was instrumental in brokering this deal and still speaks highly of Morin and Parizeau for what they did back then.

It’s amazing how Quebec has changed since 1976. In some ways, I find it a much better Quebec but in others, it’s gotten much worse. In particular, there are fewer and fewer opportunities for all Quebecers, including ethnic minorities and anglos, especially in finance. I worry a lot about the future of this province and the future of our country. Sadly, the leaders of yesterday aren’t there today.

 

Photo credit: “Canada blank map” by Lokal_Profil image cut to remove USA by Paul Robinson – Vector map BlankMap-USA-states-Canada-provinces.svg.Modified by Lokal_Profil. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons 

Emanuel Mum on Whether School System Will Pay Upcoming Pension Payment

Rahm_Emanuel_Oval_Office_Barack_Obama

The Chicago Public School system has a big bill coming due at the end of the month: that’s when CPS owes a $634 million contribution to the Chicago Teachers’ Pension Fund.

But will CPS be able to make the payment? Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has remained quiet on this point.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Asked if the school district can come up with the money, the mayor did not directly answer, instead turning to his recent refrain that he hopes to work closely with the state to address CPS’ financial woes.

The district’s ability to make its looming teacher pension payment has become an issue in Springfield, with Republicans viewing it as a leverage point on Democrats who control the General Assembly.

[…]

CPS owes $634 million to the Chicago Teachers’ Pension Fund by month’s end. It’s unclear what would happen if the cash-strapped school district did not make that deadline, however, because state law does not specify.

“If they don’t follow the letter of the law, we have the option to sue,” said Charles Burbridge, executive director of the teachers’ pension fund, who noted the district had included the payment in its annual budget. “We are expecting to get that payment. We have not had any sign from anyone that that payment is not coming.”

Meanwhile, the city is waiting for Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner to approve a bill that would slash Chicago’s payment to its public safety pensions by $220 million.

 

Photo by Pete Souza via Flickr CC License

New Jersey Lawmakers To Evaluate Performance of Pension System’s Alternatives Portfolio

640px-New_Jersey_State_House

A committee of New Jersey Senators is meeting today to evaluate the performance of the alternative investments in the state pension system’s portfolio.

It’s unclear what action the lawmakers might take if they disapprove of the alternative investments.

From NJ Spotlight:

It’s been roughly a decade since New Jersey decided to let private money managers play a bigger role in state pension-system investments, and now lawmakers want to take a close look at whether the policy shift has paid off for beneficiaries.

The Senate Legislative Oversight Committee will hold a hearing in Trenton tomorrow morning to both evaluate the performance of so-called alternative investments and to see whether those stakes in hedge funds and other nontraditional investments are worth the millions in fees and performance bonuses that fund managers have collected from the state in recent years.

State pension officials, meanwhile, have staunchly defended the alternative-investment strategy as a sound way to mitigate risk while maximizing returns. They also say the criticism has been based on several misconceptions.

[…]

But the hearing set for 10:30 a.m. tomorrow has been billed as more of a fact-finding mission. It was under former Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine — who had a long career on Wall Street before taking office in Trenton in 2006 — that the state shifted its investment strategy to focus more on alternative investments and the use of outside money managers.

“Today, $3 out of every $10 in our pension system is invested in hedge funds, private equity, real estate or other alternatives,” said Sen. Robert Gordon, who chairs the Senate Legislative Oversight Committee.

“It is time that we engage in an honest assessment of where New Jersey stands relative to other large pension systems and determine if these investments are truly worth the fees,” said Gordon (D-Bergen).

New Jersey’s pension system invests roughly 30 percent of its assets with private managers. Those managers have access to investments that aren’t available on normal stock markets, but they charge fees for their services.

 

Photo credit: “New Jersey State House” by Marion Touvel – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:New_Jersey_State_House.jpg. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

Consultants to Kentucky Pension: You Can’t Invest Your Way Out of Funding Hole

kentucky

An investment firm hired in a consultancy role by the Kentucky Retirement Systems said this week that there is no way the state could invest its way out of its funding crisis.

 
KRS’ funding situation has become so untenable, according to a report produced by the consultants, that the only funding solution is higher contributions from the state and employees.

From the State-Journal:

The investment firm said after conducting the study it found the plan would undergo financial hurdles in the next 20 years based on the current contribution rate.

Those hurdles included “persistent funding shortfalls, elevated contribution levels, unsustainable payout ratios and in the worst-case scenario, the potential for complete depletion of the asset base.”

In its key conclusions, the study candidly summed up the information based on the last actuarial valuation (June 30, 2014) that no “reasonable investment strategy available to KERS non-hazardous plan would allow the plan to invest its way to significantly improved financial status,” and would not improve without also “courting substantial risk to the already diminished asset base.”

[…]

Overall, the rate of return on investments would have to consistently yield a 11.3 percent return for the next 10 years to bring the plan to full funding and that isn’t realistic for the state’s pension system.

The KERS non-hazardous fund is the worst-funded public pension system in the country; the system was funded at 21 percent as of December.

 

Photo credit: “Ky With HP Background” by Original uploader was HiB2Bornot2B at en.wikipedia – Transferred from en.wikipedia; transfer was stated to be made by User:Vini 175.. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons

Rhode Island Senators Take Up Pension Settlement

2434691031_dc47fc162a_z

Rhode Island’s pension settlement, stemming from a legal challenge to the state’s 2011 reform law, is entering the next phase of its approval this week as lawmakers examine the agreement.

Lawmakers and Superior Court Judge Sarah Taft-Carter must approve the settlement before it becomes official.

From the Providence Journal:

With few exceptions, everyone who sat in front of the microphone at Monday’s Senate Finance Committee hearing spoke in favor of the proposed pension settlement, including lawyers on both sides of the court fight, one of the union leaders who once vigorously challenged the legality of the state’s 2011 pension overhaul and the town administrator for Middletown.

In the words of state Treasurer Seth Magaziner: “A good deal is one where nobody walks away feeling like they got everything they want, but everyone feels that they got something. By that measure, this is a good deal.”

“Most of the members in the retirement system will see larger cost-of-living adjustments, more frequent cost-of-living adjustments and lower retirement ages than they would have received under the original reform,” he said.

[…]

The proposed settlement doubles to 2 percent of pay the pension value of each year of work for those with 20 or more years of government service. It also frees them from required membership-and-contribution to the 401(k)-style plan that lawmakers created to supplement the retirement income of Rhode Island’s public employees, after dramatic defined-benefit cuts.

Judge Sarah Taft-Carter is expected to rule on the “fairness” of the settlement soon. But with the state’s legislative session ending, lawmakers wanted to get a jump start on examinations of the agreement.

 

Photo by Juli via Flickr CC License

In UK, Alternatives Rapidly Becoming Part of 401(k)s

6451642447_4356164259_z

A new report reveals that alterative investments have rapidly become a bigger part of the 401(k)s of UK workers over the last two years.

From Investments and Pensions Europe:

In its latest six-monthly FTSE DC report, asset manager Schroders said the pension schemes of companies in the FTSE 100 index had lifted their exposure to alternatives to 12% by March this year, up from 8% in March 2013.

Meanwhile FTSE 250 schemes had raised their allocation to the asset type to 9% from 5% over the same period, the study showed.

Exposure to developed equities, on the other hand, had fallen over the past 24 months, with FTSE 350 schemes’ exposure to these assets falling to 71% in March 2015 from 79% in March 2013.

Among FTSE 350 schemes, fixed income allocations had doubled to 14% from 7% over the period, with the bulk of this growth having taken place over the last six months.

Almost a third of schemes in the survey now had a fixed income allocation of at least 20%, whereas a year ago, this had only been true for 3% of schemes, Schroders said.

Read a Schroders news release on the report here.

 

Photo by  @Doug88888 via Flickr CC License


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home/mhuddelson/public_html/pension360.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 3712