Pension360 | The Complete View of Public Pensions

How Financially Sophisticated is America’s Older Population?

As people grow older, they start paying more attention to their retirement.

But evidence suggests that much of the United States’ older population is ill equipped to take responsibility for their retirement security – because their financial sophistication falls short of where it needs to be to make the complex financial decisions retirement requires.

A paper, authored by Annamaria Lusardi, Olivia S. Mitchell, and Vilsa Curto and published in the Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, takes a closer look at the financial sophistication of older Americans.

From the paper:

In 2008, we subjected around 1,000 randomly-selected HRS respondents in the United States to a special module of questions assessing knowledge of the stock market and asset prices, investment strategies, risk diversification, the importance of fees, and related topics. Respondents averaged age 67, with about half (55%) female. Some 15% had less than a high school education, 32% had completed high school, 24% had some college, and 28% had college or advanced degrees. Most (81%) of the respondents were White, with 9% African-American, and 8% Hispanic.

[…]

The 10 questions of key interest here are grouped into four categories, according to the topic they cover: knowledge of capital markets, risk diversification, knowledge of fees, and savvy/numeracy.

The results:

Older Americans displayed a deep lack of understanding about key concepts related to risk diversification, bond prices, and portfolio choice. For instance, many respondents expressed a support for holding own employer company stock, despite the fact that it is unlikely to be wise to hold much own employer stock from a risk diversification viewpoint…

A large majority of respondents (60%) also did not know about asset pricing, which we explore by asking whether people knew about the inverse relationship between bond prices and interest rates. This is a particularly good question to assess financial sophistication because it is difficult (if not impossible) to know or infer the correct answer to this question without having some knowledge of finance.

[…]

When presented with the statement ‘If the interest rate falls, bond prices will fall’ (second wording), only about one-third (35.7%) of respondents answered correctly; when the wording was reversed (first wording: ‘If the interest rate falls, bond prices will rise’), more answer correctly (44.7%) and this difference is statistically significant.

[…]

Many respondents were aware that ‘Even if one is smart, it is very difficult to pick individual stocks that will have better than average returns.’ But here, too, responses varied depending on how the question was asked: in one case 73.7% got the correct answer, but only 37.6% got it correct using the reverse ordering. In other words, this question, too, was poorly understood by respondents.

The authors also posed questions about risk diversification and fees:

Almost two-thirds of respondents knew that ‘it is not a good idea to invest in a few stocks rather than in many stocks or in mutual funds,’ which might be thought to imply some sophistication about risk. Yet this question jointly tests knowledge of risk diversification and awareness of mutual funds, as indicated by results when we reversed the question wording: responses proved quite sensitive. The second risk question sought to avoid this by simplifying the question and using less financial terminology; and now we find that most knew that spreading money across 20 stocks rather than two decreased the risk of losing money (and here, word order did not matter).

[…]

Several prior studies have found that investors often overlook fees when deciding how to invest…In our sample of older Americans, around two-thirds seemed to know that mutual fund fees are important when investing for the long run. Nonetheless, responses were again sensitive to question wording, perhaps due to the fact that respondents needed to know both about mutual funds and investing for the long run. Additionally, a large majority of respondents said they would find it difficult to locate mutual funds charging annual fees of less than one percent of assets, suggesting that many respondents may not know about low-cost mutual funds. The fact that again there is some sensitivity to question wording confirms that, here too, respondents have difficulty with financial terminology (fees, mutual funds, etc.).

The paper, titled Financial literacy and financial sophistication in the older population, features much more analysis and discussion of the survey data, and can be read in full here.

CalPERS’ Administrative Expenses Are Twice As High As Peers

CalPERS incurs much higher administration costs than its peers, according to an analysis by CEM Benchmarking.

The firm measured CalPERS’ administrative costs against four other large, complex public pension plans. CalPERS paid almost double the expenses of its peers.

From the Sacramento Business Journal:

CalPERS had a pension administration cost of $215 per member — far above the peer average of $108, according to Cost Effective Measurement Benchmarking, a Canadian firm that compares public pension funds across the nation and globe.

The findings, first reported in Calpensions.com, also found that CalPERS has the highest “complexity” in the firm’s global database of 75 pensions, which can impact cost and service.

The CalPERS total service score, however, was 63, very close to the peer average of 66.

A primary reason for the higher complexity is customization. CalPERS has five cost-of-living adjustment options. Employers also can change contribution rates for new hires, allowing for an infinite number of possible plans.

The complex system requires more administrative staff, CEM representatives found, which can include legal advisers, auditors and accountants.

Those findings from two years ago are already thought to be somewhat outdated, however, because the fund has completed a computer system that was new at the time of the measurement. Pension reforms were also taking extra time and money at the time of the measurement. CalPERS expects its costs have decreased and continue to drop, and service scores to rise.

The other funds CalPERS was measured against:

– The California State Teachers’ Retirement System;

– The Florida Retirement System;

– The New York State and Local Employee Retirement System; and

– The Teachers Retirement System of Texas.

You can view the full CEM presentation here.

New Jersey Blocks Public Release of Pension Pay-to-Play Investigation

In 2011, politician and businessman Charlie Baker made a $10,000 contribution to the New Jersey Republican State Committee. At the time, he was a partner at General Catalyst, a venture capital firm.

Months later, New Jersey’s pension system gave a contract to General Catalyst to manage the state’s pension money.

After the potential conflict of interest was uncovered by journalist David Sirota, New Jersey launched an investigation into the situation.

But the state is now refusing to release the findings of the investigation. From David Sirota:

Christie officials have denied an open records request for the findings of the investigation.

In a reply to International Business Times’ request for the findings of the audit under New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act, Christie’s Treasury Department said the request is being denied on the grounds that the documents in question are “consultative and deliberative material.” Despite officials’ assurances in May that the probe would take only weeks, the New Jersey Treasury said in September that the investigation is still “ongoing” — a designation the department says lets it stop the records from being released.

IBTimes is appealing the open-records denial to the state’s Government Records Council. Neither Baker nor Christie responded to requests for comment on the issue.

General Catalyst and Baker have denied that Baker had anything to do with persuading Christie officials to invest in the firm. To try to verify that assertion, IBTimes filed a separate request for any General Catalyst documents sent to the New Jersey Department of Treasury prior to its investment. Those documents would show whether General Catalyst specifically promoted Baker’s involvement in the firm when pitching its investment to New Jersey.

Christie officials are pushing back the due date to release those documents to Nov. 6 — two days after the election.

New Jersey has fallen into a habit recently of denying public records requests. From the International Business Times:

The denial letters to IBTimes come only weeks after the Associated Press documented a spike in the number of open records requests that have been rejected by Christie officials. Since 2012, Christie’s administration has paid out $441,000 in taxpayer funds to reimburse open-records plaintiffs who were unlawfully denied access to government records.

“Open records requests to the executive branch have become even more highly politicized than usual,” said Walter Leurs, president of the New Jersey Foundation for Open Government. “These documents are subject to the open records laws and they are supposed to be disclosed within seven days, so this is stonewalling. They know that any lawsuit challenging the denials wouldn’t be heard for 60 days — which is well after the election.”

Charlie Baker has denied he worked for General Catalyst when New Jersey decided to give the firm a contract. But the firm’s website listed him as a partner, and Baker himself called himself a partner in documentation related to his $10,000 contribution back in 2011.

Denmark Ramps Up Oversight Of Alternative Investments in Pension Systems

The entity that regulates Denmark’s financial system has announced plans to tighten oversight of alternative investments made by pension funds.

The move comes as regulators in the Financial Supervisory Authority have reported an uptick in risk, illiquidity and opacity in pension investments. From Bloomberg:

The Financial Supervisory Authority in Copenhagen will require pension funds to submit quarterly reports on their alternative investments to track their use of hedge funds, exposure to private equity and infrastructure projects. The decision follows funds’ failures to account adequately for risks in their investment strategies, according to an FSA report.

The regulatory clampdown comes as Denmark deals with risks it says are inherent to a system due to be introduced across the European Union in 2016. The new rules will allow pension funds to invest according to a so-called prudent person model, rather than setting outright limits. In Denmark, the approach has proven problematic for the only EU country to have adopted the model, said Jan Parner, the FSA’s deputy director general for pensions.

“The funds are setting up for their release from the quantitative requirements, but the problem is, it’s not clear what a prudent investment is,” Parner said in an interview. “The challenge for European supervisors is to explain to the industry what prudent investments are before the opposite ends up on the balance sheets.”

Denmark, which has almost two years of experience with the approach after its early adoption in 2012, says a lack of clear guidelines invites misinterpretation as firms try to inflate returns.

[…]

Danish funds and insurers have overestimated the value of alternative investments they made while failing to adequately account for the risks, the FSA said in a February report.

Pension funds held 152 billion kroner ($26 billion) at the end of 2012, or about 7 percent of their balance sheets, in equity stakes and other assets sold on markets the FSA characterized as illiquid, opaque and thin. The agency said they need to account better for those risks and ordered reports from the third quarter. PFA, Denmark’s biggest commercial pension fund, said today it invested in a shopping mall in western Denmark as part of a strategy to increase its presence in retail properties.

Denmark’s pension systems hold $500 billion in assets, collectively.

Photo: “Dannebrog”. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons

Judge: Closed-Door Pension Meeting Violated Florida Sunshine Laws

An appeals court ruled today that pension and union officials violated Florida’s Sunshine Law when they held benefit negotiation sessions behind closed doors.

NY Comptroller DiNapoli: Six Reasons the State Shouldn’t Switch to a 401(k) System

State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli is the sole trustee of New York’s $180 billion Common Retirement Fund (CRF).

His challenger, Robert Antonacci, has said he would shift New York’s pensioners into a 401(k)-type plan if elected.

But during an editorial board meeting Monday, DiNapoli laid out six reasons why he’d keep New York’s defined-benefit system in place. From Syracuse.com:

1. It benefits 1 million New York employees and their families, a significant portion of the state’s population, he said. The average pension paid retirees, other than firefighters and police, is $21,000 a year.

2. The money paid out to retirees stays in New York, benefiting the state’s economy. About 80 percent of the people who receive a pension remain in the state, DiNapoli said.

3. The state’s pension plan is 92 percent funded and that’s a good asset to have when New York goes out to borrow money, he said. The health of the state’s pension plan is one of the things financial agencies look at when they issue bond ratings. Those ratings in turn affect the ability of the state and local municipalities to borrow.

4. New York has responded to current economic conditions by curtailing pension benefits for newly hired state employees. Local governments that have had a turnover in employees saw a savings as a result, DiNapoli said.

5. Twice in the past two years the state has cut the rate local governments pay into the system, he said.

6. Switching to a defined contribution plan won’t change the state’s obligation to provide a pension to the 1 million people already in the system, DiNapoli said. Plus, it would create retirement insecurity for even more New Yorkers. “A 401(k) was never meant to be the substitute for a pension,” DiNapoli said.

DiNapoli is leading Antonacci in the polls by double digits.

[iframe src=”http://video-embed.syracuse.com/services/player/bcpid1949044326001?bctid=3849163701001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAPLpuTok~,Mq6Bf5KTh4CNk04xgb0fhNsE4sqxZ6vz”]

Arizona Pension Commits $150 Million To Real Estate Funds

The Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) has committed a total of $150 million to two real estate funds: Blackstone Property Partners and Related Companies’ Energy Housing Fund.

The first fund will invest in industrial, retail and office buildings. The second fund will focus on residential apartments.

From IPE Real Estate:

The pension fund approved the $100m commitment to Blackstone Property Partners, as well as a $50m commitment to the Related Companies’ Energy Housing Fund.

Arizona is the second major US institutional investor to place capital with Blackstone Property Partners, following a $100m commitment last month by the Texas Permanent School Fund.

Blackstone, which is looking at a $1bn initial capital raise for the fund, will co-invest $75m of its own capital.

The open-ended fund, will invest in larger properties and portfolios. US office, industrial, retail apartments are being targeted by the fund, which is projected to achieve between 9% and 11% returns and be leveraged at 50%.

Arizona said Related’s Energy Housing Fund will invest in residential properties – primarily apartments – in areas of energy development and tight housing conditions. The pension fund will classify the investment as a niche and tactical investment within its real estate portfolio.

The fund will invest in US apartments as well as new developments, focusing on deals in Texas and North Dakota for their links to the energy sector.

[…]

The pension fund said it is also conducting due diligence on two more potential investments: a joint venture with Red Mill Capital to invest in US retail, and a co-investment with the CIM Group on a New York residential and retail project.

ASRS allocated $500 million for real estate investments in 2014.

The pension fund manages $30 billion in assets.

New Jersey Pension Panel Faces “Big Test”

When Chris Christie created the Pension and Benefit Study Commission, the skeptics were quick to point out the politics of the decision.

The panel was formed to recommend reforms for the state’s pension system; but when Christie announced his appointees, some thought its real function was to act as a political shield for the governor, who has said benefit cuts are likely on the horizon for state workers.

The panel is set to release its latest report in November. The editorial board of the New Jersey Star-Ledger says the report will be a “big test” for the panel:

The panel is expected to issue its report within a month. If it offers a lopsided solution that relies entirely on a second round of benefit cuts, its report will be dead on arrival. Democrats would not consider a solution like that, and for good reason.

[…]

Democratic leaders say they will not consider more benefits cuts until Christie restores full payments. That can’t be done without a tax increase, which Christie finds equally repugnant.

The job of this panel is to find the political sweet spot, to come up with a repair plan that both sides might accept. If it fails that test, its report will gather dust and its mission will have failed.

In the end, Democrats will have to accept some new benefit cuts. The state’s fiscal condition is much worse than anyone expected when this deal was signed in 2011, thanks mostly to the sputtering economy. If New Jersey had simply matched the average state since the Great Recession, it would have raised roughly $3 billion more in annual revenues and the 2011 reform would probably have survived.

Democrats can’t expect taxpayers to make up the entire shortfall if there are reasonable cuts to be made. One example: In its preliminary report, this panel noted that the state’s health benefits remain generous, and that some might qualify as “Cadillac plans” under Obama care. The state also treats early retirees more generously than Social Security does. The panel, no doubt, will have a long list of soft spots like this.

Christie needs to face reality, too. He can’t expect public workers to bear the entire burden when the state that has shortchanged these funds for so long, and when Christie himself broke his commitment to do better. And after years of fiscal crisis, there is simply no spare money in the treasury. That means a tax increase is needed.

This is a bipartisan panel, but Christie made all the appointments, a big mistake that undercuts its credibility. If its members want to have impact, they will have to declare their independence by offering a balanced repair plan.

If that leaves both sides unhappy, then the panel will have done its job by telling the hard truth about this unforgiving math.

The panel’s first report can be read here.

New Orleans Creates Pension Reform Task Force

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu announced Tuesday morning the creation of a “task force” to recommend “fundamental” changes to the city’s Fire Fighters Relief & Pension Fund.

From the Times-Picayune:

The mayor created the “working group” through an executive order that will stay in place for 12 months.

The group will be made up of nine members, including city officials, firefighter representatives and local business leaders, according to the announcement.

– New Orleans Chief Administrative Officer Andy Kopplin

– Councilwoman Stacy Head

– Timothy McConnell, superintendent of the New Orleans Fire Department

– Paul Mitchell, Jr., deputy director of the pension board

– Thomas F. Meager, III, secretary and treasurer of the firefighters’ pension board

– Nick Felton, president of New Orleans Fire Fighters Association, Local 632

– Hardy Fowler, an accountant and the former managing partner of KPMG in New Orleans

– Scott Jacobs, an insurance and risk management professional

– Greg Rattler, Sr., a vice president at JPMorgan Chase & Co.

The New Orleans Business Council will pay for outside consultants and any “technical assistance the group may need, according to the announcement. Its chairman, Paul Flower, will also chair the pension advisory group.

The task force doesn’t have authority over the pension fund’s Board of Directors, so it won’t have any way to enforce the changes it prescribes.

The city and Mayor Landrieu are in the midst of a legal battle over unpaid contributions that were supposed to be made annually to the firefighters’ fund.

When Given A Choice, Why Do People Choose DC Plans Over DB Plans?

In many states, newly hired public employees are faced with a choice: enrollment in a traditional defined-benefit plan, or a 401(k)-style defined-contribution plan.

What drives the decision-making of those who choose DC plans? Scott J. Weisbenner and Jeffrey R. Brown examined the topic in a recent paper in the Journal of Public Economics.

They studied employees in the State Universities Retirement System (SURS) of Illinois, a system that gives every employee a one-time, permanent choice between enrolling in a DB or a DC plan. Here’s what they found about why people might choose DC plans:

First, we find sensible patterns with regard to economic and demographic factors: the probability of choosing the DC plan decreases with the relative financial generosity of the DB plans versus the DC plans and rises with education and income. However, while the relative generosity of the plans does have a nontrivial effect on pension plan choice, it certainly is not a “sufficient statistic” in explaining that choice nor is it the most important determinant in terms of its economic magnitude.

Second, we find that the ability to control for beliefs, preferences, financial skills, and plan knowledge – variables that are not available in standard administrative data sets – increases the amount of variation in plan choice that we are able to explain by approximately seven-fold, relative to using standard economic and demographic variables alone. Specifically, as measured by adjusted R-squared, economic and demographic characteristics such as gender, marital status, presence of children, education, income, net worth, occupation, and (self-reported) health can explain only 6.2% of the overall variation in the DB versus DC plan choice (adjusted R-squared = 0.062). When we expand our regression to include information about beliefs, preferences, financial skills, and plan knowledge, the adjusted R-squared rises to 0.471. Among the important factors in the DB/DC plan choice are respondent attitudes about risk/return trade-offs, financial literacy, beliefs about plan parameters, and attitudes about the importance of various plan attributes.

Third, we note that beliefs about plan parameters are important even when these beliefs are incorrect. In general, people seem to make sensible choices based on what they believe to be true about the plans, but they do not always have accurate beliefs (and thus may not be making optimal decisions). Finally, we provide evidence that preferences over the attributes of the retirement system (e.g., the degree of control provided) are also significant determinants of the DB/DC plan decision.

The paper is titled “Why do individuals choose defined contribution plans? Evidence from participants in a large public plan” and can be read in full here.

Photo by TaxCredits.net

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