Pension360 | The Complete View of Public Pensions

Kentucky Retirement System Lowers Return Assumption; More State Money On Way

CREDIT: The Center For Retirement Research

The Kentucky Retirement System has lowered its assumed rate of return on investments from 7.75 percent to 7.5 percent.

The reduced assumption means the system will experience an uptick in unfunded liabilities, but it also ensures a higher annual payment from the state.

The action took place at a Board of Trustees meeting on Thursday. More details from CN 2:

The changes, presented to trustees earlier this year by actuaries with Cavanaugh Macdonald Consulting based on a five-year experience study, lower assumed returns on investments, price inflation, wage growth and wage inflation.

The new assumptions, KRS Executive Director Bill Thielen said, will cost the state roughly $95 million more per year in contributions for the Kentucky Employees Retirement System for state employees in non-hazardous positions during the next biennial budget, based on current plan valuations and payroll figures. They will not take effect until next year’s year-end plan valuations, he said.

[…]

The updated assumptions would push KRS’s unfunded liabilities to $19.5 billion, up from $17.8 billion currently, according to figures presented by Cavanaugh Macdonald Consulting.

At least one of the KRS trustees voiced concerns about approving the new guidelines at Thursday’s meeting. Personnel Cabinet Secretary Tim Longmeyer suggested delaying a vote until January so the board could meet with the governor’s office, legislators and others affected by the change.

“My concern is we don’t live in a bubble, so $95 million a year is a significant uptick,” said Longmeyer, who abstained from voting on the updated assumptions.

KRS Trustee Randy Overstreet, though, urged the board to move forward with the proposal. Nothing would change between now and January, he said.

“I’m thinking that we almost have the responsibility to follow the experts’ recommendations, and you’re right, it’s not a science, but it’s the best information we have to act on and move forward on since we have for the 20 years I’ve been on this board,” Overstreet said.

More context on KRS’ new assumed rate of return, from the Courier-Journal:

KRS has forecast a 7.75 investment return since 2007. But earnings in KERS non-hazardous averaged only 6.52 percent over the past decade, leading some critics — including lawmakers — to argue for a more cautious outlook.

The National Association of State Retirement Administrators reported that of 126 public retirement plans surveyed in October, 48 assumed a return of 7.5 percent or lower, while 78 assumed a higher rate.

The median rate was 7.75 percent, but more than half have cut their assumption since 2008, the group said.

KRS administers nearly a dozen defined-benefit plans for state workers, including the 21 percent funded KERS non-hazardous plan.

Illinois Asks Supreme Court to Fast-Track Pension Reform Hearing

Illinois’ Attorney General on Thursday requested that the state supreme court hold hearings on the state’s pension reform law as soon as January and no later than March.

From Reuters:

Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a motion to accelerate the state’s appeal of a Nov. 21 Sangamon County Circuit Court judge’s ruling that the law aimed at easing Illinois’ huge pension burden violated protections in the state constitution for public worker retirement benefits.

“A prompt resolution of those issues is critical because the state must either implement the act, or in the alternative, significantly reduce spending and/or raise taxes,” the motion stated.

At stake is an approximately $1 billion cut in Illinois’ contribution to four of its pension systems in fiscal 2016 under the law. Republican Governor-elect Bruce Rauner, who takes office next month, has a Feb. 18 deadline to present a budget to the Democrat-controlled legislature, which has until May 31 to pass the spending plan with simple majority votes. A three-fifths majority vote on bills would be needed after that date to have a budget in place by July 1, the start of fiscal 2016.

[…]

The reform law was enacted in December 2013 to help save Illinois’ sinking finances. It reduces and suspends cost-of-living increases for pensions, raises retirement ages and limits salaries on which pensions are based. Employees contribute 1 percent less of their salaries toward pensions, while contributions from the state, which has skipped or skimped on its pension payments over the years, are enforceable through the Illinois Supreme Court.

Illinois had $104 billion of unfunded pension liabilities at the end of fiscal year 2014.

Proposed New Jersey Bill Would Halt State Aid to Municipalities Not Complying With 2011 Pension Reforms

A New Jersey assemblyman proposed on Thursday a piece of legislation that would block state money to cities that aren’t complying with the state’s 2011 pension reform law.

From NJ.com:

[Assemblyman Declan] O’Scalon said he is proposing the legislation after reports surfaced that Newark had not been collecting payments that employees are legally required to pay toward their health care premiums.

Under the revised pension reforms Gov. Chris Christie signed in 2011, all public workers were required to contribute more toward its healthcare premiums, but state officials said earlier this year that Newark has not been compliant.

The city said in October that it took several months to update its payroll system in the wake of the law and that they did not know why the payments weren’t collected last year.

“It was long overdue, but it has come to light that the City of Newark has been ignoring the law since it was put into place,” O’Scalon said in a statement.

“The result is that the Mayor, Council members, and all employees in Newark pay less than the law requires – and worse, what common sense and fairness demand.”

The legislation would also dock the pay of elected officials and top finance department heads in municipalities that are not compliant, according to O’Scalon.

The proposed legislation would also establish noncompliance as grounds for impeachment or removal of the mayor of city officials, O’Scalon said.

O’scalon’s remarks arrive months after the state agreed to give Newark $10 million in transitional aid to address its budget crisis.

“Newark is a city that is facing tough issues and is legitimately going to need continued help from the state, but the local elected officials must lead by example,” O’scalon said.

The legislation will be officially introduced by the end of the year.

Photo credit: “New Jersey State House” by Marion Touvel. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

How Can Troubled California Cities Address Rising Pension Costs?

Matthew Covington penned a column for the Sacramento Bee on Thursday that dives into California’s recent spree of municipal bankruptcies — and postulates that, with pension costs rising, bankrupt cities of the future may not opt to preserve pensions the way Vallejo, Stockton and San Bernardino did.

Covington is a managing director at Conway MacKenzie, a financial firm that advises distressed governments. He proposes two possible solutions that could help troubled municipalities deal with pension costs. His ideas:

– Establish a protocol for restructuring municipal pensions out of court.

For troubled municipalities, pensions are typically the single largest expense, the most intractable and the most uncontrollable (because CalPERS determines what the municipality will pay each year). If CalPERS decides to change its investment return or mortality assumptions, or its investment performance suffers, the municipality will have to pay more, regardless of its own activities. If a municipality is in dire straits and cannot meet its obligations, an orderly restructuring would likely be superior to a bankruptcy filing.

This could save tens of millions of dollars for the city in fees on lawyers and other advisers. Additionally, plans could be tailored to minimize the impact on vulnerable groups such as the elderly and long-retired pensioners whose pensions were set in the premillennial sane era, something which might not be possible in a bankruptcy case.

– Provide uniform budgeting rules and guidance.

Too many municipalities have made promises that jeopardize their long-term fiscal health. While no one wants another bureaucracy meddling in local affairs, the task force could establish certain basic rules such as requiring municipalities to have long-term budget forecasts that clearly show pension expenses and require additional disclosure when a threshold is crossed.

For example, municipalities whose pension expenses exceed 20 percent of total expenditures (the levels at which voters in the non-CalPERS cities of San Jose and San Diego ratified pension amendments) could be forced to explain why the expenditure levels do not threaten the city’s financial stability.

The costs of municipal bankruptcies are borne not just by the creditors who invested in these cities, but also by residents hit with plummeting property values and deteriorating services. California can do more to protect its citizens from these failures. Let’s put systems in place to ensure this dangerous game isn’t played again.

Read the full column here.

Photo by Pete Zarria via Flickr CC License

South Carolina Workers Lose Appeal of Provision of Pension Reform Law

Public workers in South Carolina have lost their appeal of a provision of the state’s 2005 pension reform law, a federal appeals court said Friday.

The employees were challenging a provision of the law that dealt with the pension contributions of workers who retire but later return to work for the state.

An explanation of the provision that was being challenged and what it means for workers, from Reuters:

A provision of the revised law requires retirees who later return to work to pay into the retirement system, making the same contributions as other employees but without accruing extra service credit for pension benefits, according to court documents.

Before the [pension] overhaul went into effect, retired public employees could return to work and earn up to $50,000 without giving up the right to receive retirement benefits and without having to make more contributions to the pension funds.

Outcry From Pensions Over Delaware Court Ruling On Legal Fees

A recent ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court lets corporations shift their legal tab to investors.

Now, public pension and trade groups are speaking out against the ruling. Two trade groups representing public pension funds have contacted Delaware lawmakers over the last two weeks to lambast the ruling.

From Pensions & Investments:

A letter sent Wednesday to Delaware Gov. Jack Markell by the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems and eight unions representing public- and private-sector workers warns that the decision “eviscerates investor rights” beyond the state’s borders.

The letter joins an earlier call Nov. 24 by the Council of Institutional Investors for Delaware lawmakers to restore investors’ legal rights that are now threatened by the decision in ATP Tour Inc. et al. vs. Deutscher Tennis Bund. While the court allowed a private corporation to amend its bylaws to make litigants personally liable for legal expenses, public company boards of directors have embraced the May 8 ruling. More than three dozen companies have unilaterally adopted similar or even more restrictive fee-shifting provisions, said CII, whose members represent $2 trillion in assets, including the $187.1 billion California State Teachers’ Retirement System, West Sacramento; New York City Police Pension Fund, New York City Fire Department Pension Fund and other funds in the $160 billion New York City Retirement Systems; and North Carolina Department of State Treasurer’s Office, which oversees the $88.4 billion North Carolina Retirement Systems, Raleigh.

Both groups are calling for the governor to take immediate action, including legislation to restrict or overturn the court’s decision and curb the adoption of fee-shifting bylaws by companies, many of which are incorporated in Delaware. Calls to the governor’s office were not returned by press time.

“Pension plans are among the largest and most active institutional investors. Approximately 70% of the typical public pension plan’s funding comes from investment returns. As shareholders, pension plans must ensure the integrity of their investments. But as fiduciaries, pension plans cannot expose their capital — and their beneficiaries — to unreasonable financial risk,” said the letter from NCPERS, which represents $3 trillion in pension assets. “No reasonable investor … would be willing to risk facing this type of uncontrollable financial exposure.”

More on the case – ATP Tour Inc. et al. vs. Deutscher Tennis Bund – can be read here.

Photo by Joe Gratz via Flickr CC License

Pension Funds Look to Place Bets on Shipping Recovery

Some pension funds are thinking of buying a boat.

More specifically, they are weighing investments in the shipping industry, which some observers say is due for a recovery. If the industry does rebound, pension funds want to be among the beneficiaries.

But they are treading these waters carefully.

Reported by Reuters:

Pension funds, squeezed by low interest rates, are exploring investments in shipping in their hunt for higher returns, hoping to benefit once this industry starts to recover from one of its worst ever downturns.

There are signs of a gradual pick-up in world trade and ship values for the first time since the financial crisis. Ship financier NordLB has said the market could see a broad recovery but not before 2016.

The industry’s revival could deliver double-digit returns for pension funds that decide to add shipping to their so-called alternative assets such as infrastructure, which can make up about 15 percent of a fund.

But they need to do their homework.

Some hedge funds and private equity firms have been burned by diving into shipping too early and have found the recovery they were betting on has taken longer to materialise.

So far only a few pension funds have taken the plunge, also partly because of the need for specialised knowledge on shipping, such as how to price vessels accurately.

One pension fund leading the way is Ilmarinen in Finland, which had 34 billion euros ($41.8 billion) in assets at end-September. Earlier this year, Ilmarinen acquired five oil tankers and three supply ships from Finland’s state owned refiner, Neste Oil.

Esko Torsti, head of non-listed investments at Ilmarinen, said the investment was for tens of millions of euros through a new joint-venture firm owned by the pension fund and Finland.

“Investing in ships is not the easiest area, it requires extreme carefulness and special expertise,” Torsti said.

Another potential driver for investment is the shipping industry’s growing funding gap that has opened up as banks scale back lending due to capital constraints.

The combined value of ships on the water is estimated at $1.25 trillion with a further $380 billion in ships on order.

Among the pension funds that have taken the dive: Canada’s OMERS, Britain’s Merseyside Pension Fund and Finland’s Ilmarinen.

Photo by Louis Vest via Flickr CC License

Canada Pension Eyes Corporate India

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) – the entity that manages assets for Canada’s biggest pension plan – has made a flurry of investments in India-based corporations over the past few years. And the flow of pension money to India isn’t likely to slow down – the country is a “key” part of CPPIB’s long-term plan, according to a CPPIB official. More details from Bloomberg:

Toronto-based Canada Pension Plan Investment Board […] is planning to add to the $1.5 billion it has already poured into the South Asian country since 2010, said Mark Machin who oversees its international investments division. “India is a key long-term growth market for CPPIB,” Machin said in an e-mail. “We will continue to seek investment opportunities which may include direct investments,” and will seek “smart” local partners, he said, without elaborating. […] “I can see many pension and sovereign funds coming to India,” said Khushru Jijina, managing director of Mumbai-based Piramal Fund Management Pvt., which has a $500 million realty joint venture with CPPIB. “Basically, the big boys with patient money who want to play the 8-10 year game are coming.” The Canadian pension fund, which made its first India investment in 2010, followed that up with three more in the past year. It invested $200 million in an alliance with construction conglomerate Shapoorji Pallonji Group in November last year followed by $250 million in a venture with billionaire Ajay Piramal-owned Piramal Enterprises Ltd. (PIEL) for debt financing of residential projects in February. The third was $332 million in L&T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd. in June.

CPPIB manages $206 billion in assets for the Canada Pension Plan. Photo by sandeepachetan.com travel photography via Flickr CC License

Newspaper: Kentucky Pension System is Public Business

Pension360 covered the push last week by several Kentucky lawmakers to make the state’s pension system more transparent.

But at least one lawmaker wasn’t on board with those plans. House State Government Committee Chairman Brent Yonts had this to say about his colleagues’ proposals, which included public disclosure of pension benefits, management fees, and other data:

“Frankly, I don’t think that’s the public’s business,” Yonts said. “They have access to the public payroll and salary information. They can theorize about what we’re going to collect in pensions. But the public is not entitled to know every last little thing about us.”

The Lexington-Herald Leader editorial board weighed in on the issue on Wednesday. The newspaper’s stance: public pensions should be public business. From the editorial:

Rep. Brent Yonts, D-Greenville, is certainly right that the public “is not entitled to know every little thing about us.”

We don’t need to know Yonts’ blood pressure or where he gets his hair done, or which, if any, bourbon he likes to sip of an evening.

But taxpayers are entitled to know how much he and every other state employee will receive from our public pension systems.

Yonts, chairman of the House State Government Committee, made his “every little thing” remark while explaining his opposition to two bills — prefiled for the upcoming session — that would increase transparency in the beleaguered public retirement systems.

Specifically, Yonts thinks the public just doesn’t have the right to know how much retirees are drawing in public pension benefits.

“Frankly, I don’t think that’s the public’s business,” he told reporter John Cheves.

It is all the public’s business: How much people draw and how much the retirement systems pay hedge fund managers and other investment advisers.

Right now the largest of these funds, the Kentucky Employees Retirement System, which covers workers in non-hazardous jobs, is at a perilous 21-percent funding level. That means it has only about one in five of the dollars it is obligated to pay out.

This has happened for several reasons, undoubtedly the most important being that governors and the General Assembly have balanced too many budgets by forgoing the state’s annual match to the money paid in by employees. That’s a breach of promise and an unconscionable slap at state workers.

[…]

And, then there’s the $55 million that the retirement systems paid to investment managers with very little disclosure about what we got for that money.

It’s impossible to fix Kentucky’s public pension mess without laying all the cards on the table. How much do the spikers, double-dippers and well-retired lawmakers cost the system? No one knows, or if they do they’re not telling. How are the investment advisers’ fees set and what do we get for them?

Yonts and public employees who say retirement benefits are none of our business should get over it.

Employees are absolutely right that they took jobs and paid into the retirement system on the belief the money would be there.

But taxpayers funded those salaries and will pay the lion’s share of the bill to solve the pension mess. They have the right to know every little thing.

The full editorial can be read here.

San Francisco Pension Postpones Hedge Fund Vote

The San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System is delaying a vote on a new proposal to begin investing in hedge funds.

The scaled-down proposal calls for investing a maximum of 5 percent of assets in hedge funds. Originally, the pension fund was considering a 15 percent allocation.

The vote will be held in February.