Ted Ballantine | Pension360

The Dutch Pension System’s “Hidden Risk”

The Dutch pension system has been getting lots of press in recent days – a recent New York Times report and a PBS documentary from last year have espoused the virtues of the system, which covers 90 percent of workers while remaining well-funded.

But the system carries a “hidden risk” for participants. Allison Schrager explains in BusinessWeek:

Compared with defined-benefit plans in the U.S.—rare, underfunded, and governed by accounting standards derided by almost every economist—the Dutch pension system looks even better. It does have a weakness, though, one that’s often overlooked, even though it may be the only aspect of the Dutch system that’s likely to be adopted here: In the Netherlands, annual cost-of-living increases depend on the health of the pension’s balance sheet. If returns fall, benefits don’t increase. If the fund performs badly enough, pensioners may even suffer benefit cuts.

[…]

But to call it risk-sharing makes it sound more benign than it really is, particularly because retirees can’t tolerate as much risk as working people can. Post-retirement, most people live on a fixed income. In general, it’s too late to save more or get another job. Many state employees don’t have other sources of inflation-linked income like Social Security. If “fairness” means everyone has to bear risk equally, then the Dutch system makes sense. But if it’s more “fair” to treat people differently according to their means, then it would be better to share the risk with current workers instead.

Inflation risk may not seem like a big deal now. But the future is uncertain, which is why the guarantees are so valuable. Until the financial crisis, Dutch pensioners took it for granted they’d get their cost-of-living adjustment each year. Gambling on future inflation may be preferable to an underfunded pension—or no pension at all—but it’s no free lunch.

As Schrager points out, variations of the “risk-sharing” model have made their way to the United States:

This kind of risk-sharing has been catching on in America. Public pension benefits are often secured by state constitutions, but it’s not clear whether those guarantees extend to inflation-linked adjustments. Eager to contain costs, some states have eliminated cost-of-living increases entirely. The state of Wisconsin adopted a variant of the Dutch model in which retirees in the Wisconsin Retirement System get a cost-of-living adjustment only when pension assets return at least 5 percent. Previous inflation adjustments can be clawed back; monthly checks were 10 percent smaller in 2013 as a result of the financial crisis. Although, unlike in the Dutch plans, retirement income can never fall below its nominal level at retirement.

Stanford’s Josh Rauh and University of Rochester’s Robert Novy-Marx have projected that unfunded liabilities in the U.S. would fall by 25 percent if every state adopted Wisconsin’s pension model.

New York Comptroller DiNapoli Touts Pension Reforms in Letter

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli is likely to win re-election to his post without much trouble, according to recent polls.

But amidst questions about conflicts of interest in the New Jersey pension system, DiNapoli seized an opportunity to tout his own pension reform measures in a letter to the editor of the Times-Union:

A recent commentary rightfully condemned the culture of “pay to play” in which politically connected financial executives gain access to public pension money in exchange for political campaign contributions (“Public pensions, politics don’t mix,” Oct. 3).

After I was appointed state comptroller, my top priority was to restore the office’s reputation after it was badly tarnished by a scandal based on this corrupt practice. We took immediate steps to set new standards and controls to codify ethics, transparency and accountability.

In time, we have returned the office’s focus to where it should be – on the investments and performance of the New York State Common Retirement Fund. This was accomplished by: Banning the involvement of placement agents, paid intermediaries and registered lobbyists in investments; issuing an executive order and pressing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to prohibit “pay-to-play” practices; and expanding vetting and approval of all investment decisions.

I’m proud to say the latest independent review of the pension fund by Funston Advisory Services found it operates with an industry-leading level of transparency and that our investment team acts within ethical and professional standards.

This review is a validation that we are on the right path and should reassure the people of New York that the pension fund is being managed properly and ethically.

DiNapoli (D) is running against political newcomer Robert Antonacci (R).

Photo by Awhill34 via Wikimedia Commons

Virginia Pension Funding Improves For First Time in 5 Years

The five major pension plans that fall under the umbrella of the Virginia Retirement Systems (VRS) all improved their funding statuses in fiscal year 2013-14, according to the state’s actuary.

It was the first funding improvement for VRS since 2008. More from the Times-Dispatch:

The state employee plan was 67.9 percent funded on June 30, up from 65.1 percent the previous year, and the teachers plan rose to 65.4 percent from 62.1 percent, based on an actuarial calculation that smooths gains and losses over five years.

Based on current market value, both plans were funded at more than 74 and 71 percent, respectively, at the end of the last fiscal year.

The improved funded status reflects a 15.7 percent increase in investment income in the last fiscal year for the $65 billion retirement system and potentially reduces pressure on contributions that state and local governments and school systems must make to pension plans for more than 600,000 active, retired and inactive employees.

“For us, what’s important is the trend is in the right direction,” said Jose I. Fernandez, principal and consulting actuary for Cavanaugh Macdonald Consulting, LLC, which advises the VRS on the rates necessary to fund current retirement costs and long-term liabilities for public employees.

Part of the reason for the funding improvement: the state began paying back $1.1 billion dollars in missed pension payments. From the Times-Dispatch:

The analysis also reflects the required payback of $1.1 billion in deferred state and local pension contributions in the 2010-12 budget. The state has repaid about $250 million of the deferred obligations with interest, but will owe about $851 million over the next seven years.

The net result was a reduction in the system’s unfunded liabilities from almost $24 billion a year ago to about $22.6 billion now. The liability falls by almost $858 million for the teachers plan, the largest retirement plan with about 147,000 active employees and more than 81,000 retirees. But the plan still had an unfunded liability of about $14.3 billion on June 30.

VRS manages $65 billion of assets.

Photo Credit: “ChancellorsvilleBattlefieldModern” by MamaGeek. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The Ten Pension Funds Getting Best Private Equity Returns

A new report from Bison and the Private Equity Growth Capital Council (PEGCC) ranked the ten pension funds seeing the best private equity returns over the last decade.

[List can be seen above.]

Video: Christie, Caller Trade Jabs Over Pensions During Radio Segment

A retired police officer called in to Chris Christie’s monthly radio segment Wednesday night and accused Christie of “hurting the working man” with his pension cuts.

Christie shot back at the caller, accusing him of “spewing union talking points.”

Christie said of the caller: “You have a union-based political agenda…you guys crack me up.”

Watch the video of the exchange above.

CalPERS Reprimands Two Board Members for Campaign Finance Violation, Bashing CIO

Two CalPERS board members were punished yesterday; one for failing to disclose campaign finance documents and the other for publicly criticizing the fund’s chief investment officer.

One board member, J.J. Jelincic, was instructed to stop speaking to the press after he publicly criticized CalPERS’ new chief investment officer, Ted Eliopoulos. Writes the Sacramento Bee:

“He doesn’t have the temperament or the management skills,” Jelincic said in a Sept. 29 Pensions & Investments story about the hiring [of the fund’s new CIO].

And he didn’t stop there. Eliopolous played favorites with staff, Jelincic said, listened too much to outside consultants and made poor investment decisions.

CalPERS board President Rob Feckner called the comments “unfortunate and a breach of board governance policy of civility and courtesy as well as a breach of the CalPERS core values.” Jelincic was then instructed to stop talking to the media.

After the board meeting, Jelincic told the media:

“I’m not sure what the hell it meant other than they didn’t want me talking to the press.” As for the statements he made about Eliopoulos, he added: “It was a comment on a public action.”

The other reprimanded board member, Priya Mathur, was stripped of several leadership positions on Wednesday after repeatedly failing to disclose campaign finance disclosures. From the Sacramento Bee:

Priya Mathur, a board member since 2003, was removed as board vice president and chair of the CalPERS Pension and Health Benefits Committee. She also is out as vice chair of two committees: Board Governance and Performance, Compensation & Talent Management.

Mathur, who is facing a $4,000 fine from the state Fair Political Practices Commission, sat stoically as CalPERS board President Rob Feckner announced the punishment at a board meeting. She didn’t speak and wasn’t available for comment afterward.

[…]

The FPPC is fining Mathur for failing to file four campaign finance statements in connection with her recent successful bid for re-election to the CalPERS board.

She had no campaign funds to report, and Mathur has previously described the issue as a paperwork snafu. Nonetheless, “we still believe that rules are rules,” Feckner said.

Mathur has been fined $13,000 by the FPPC during her tenure as a board member. She failed to make necessary disclosures in 2002, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2013.

Fact Check: Would Phoenix’s Pension Proposal Really Cost $350 Million?

In just two weeks, Phoenix residents will head to the ballot boxes to vote on Proposition 487, the controversial pension reform measure that would shift new hires into a 401(k)-type system.

Recently, a group opposing the law made a bold claim:

“Prop. 487 will cost Phoenix taxpayers more than $350 million over the next 20 years.”

But is it true?

The Arizona Republic did some fact checking. They found that the switch to a 401(k)-type system wouldn’t save the city any money initially. In fact, one report claims that the switch would indeed cost the city $350 million:

That [401(k)] provision would not save money, according to the city’s actuary. A report from the financial analysis firm Cheiron states that closing the pension system and replacing it with a 401(k)-style plan would cost the city an estimated $358 million over the first 20 years, assuming the city contributes 5 percent of employees’ pay to the defined-contribution plan.

An analyst for Cheiron and city officials said the move to a 401(k)-style plan itself would cost more initially because Phoenix must pay down its massive unfunded pension liability while funding a new retirement plan.

The city’s pension system for general employees, the City of Phoenix Employees’ Retirement System, is only 64.2 percent funded, meaning it doesn’t have the assets to pay about $1.09 billion in existing liabilities. In other words, the city only has about 64 cents on the dollar to cover all of its long-term payments for current and future retirees.

Phoenix must pay off that pension debt regardless of what voters decide. Prop. 487 wouldn’t decrease the existing unfunded liability, but it would stop the city’s liability from growing, opponents and supporters agree.

But there’s a twist: other aspects of Prop. 487 could offset the previously-mentioned costs. From the Arizona Republic:

Other changes outlined in Prop. 487 could offset that up-front cost of switching to a 401(k)-style plan. If fully implemented, the initiative would save the city a net of at least $325 million over the first 20 years, according to Cheiron’s report.

Two key provisions of Prop. 487 could save money in the first 20 years:

–Make permanent and expand reforms the city has made to combat the practice of “pension spiking,” generally seen as the artificial inflation of a city employee’s income to boost retirement benefits. It would exclude from the pension calculation any compensation beyond base pay and expand the number of years used to determine an employee’s final average salary, a key part of the benefit formula. Those changes could save an estimated $475 million over the first 20 years, Cheiron’s report states.

–Prohibit the city from contributing to more than one retirement account for each city worker, including current employees. Currently, the city contributes to a second retirement plan, known as deferred compensation, on top of most employees’ pensions. Cheiron projects eliminating deferred compensation would save an estimated $208 million.

Consultants for the city have said Prop. 487 could save additional money if those changes are applied to public-safety employees, who are in a separate, state-run pension system. Although the initiative contains intent language saying it doesn’t impact police officers and firefighters, supporters and opponents disagree whether it will be interpreted that way.

Interestingly, city officials have tended to agree that the reform measure would cost the city $350 million over the next 20 years. Officials are also worried about the litigation the proposal could invite if passed by voters.

New York Comptroller Candidates Square Off on Pensions

The New York State Comptroller serves as the sole trustee of New York’s $176.8 billion retirement system. So it’s not surprising that pensions were among the first issues broached during Wednesday night’s televised debate between the two candidates for Comptroller, incumbent Thomas DiNapoli (D) and newcomer Robert Antonacci (R).

Antonacci voiced several of his gripes with the state’s pension system; he claimed the assumed rate of return was too high and that the system should take on more characteristics of a 401(k)-style plan. From the Democrat and Chronicle:

Antonacci, who since 2007 has served as Onondaga County comptroller, took several opportunities to criticize DiNapoli’s oversight of the system. The pension fund’s assumed rate of return of 7.5 percent, Antonacci said, was too high.

A certified public accountant, Antonacci also said he believes the state should move toward offering defined-contribution retirement plans — what many would think of as a 401k-style plan. State and local-government employees currently receive defined-benefit plans, in which the payout at the time of retirement is determined by a formula and not subject to the whims of the stock market.

“We have to make some fundamental changes to the pension fund, including talking about a defined-contribution plan,” Antonacci said.

DiNapoli disagreed, saying a move to a 401k-style system would hurt working New Yorkers. He touted the performance of the pension fund — which is consistently ranked as one of the best-funded public plans in the country — while acknowledging his office may decide to lower the assumed rate of return in the future.

“Moving to defined contribution would put more and more New Yorkers at risk of not having adequate income in their golden years,” DiNapoli said. “That would be a bad choice for New Yorkers.”

DiNapoli is leading in the polls by 28 percent.

Photo by Awhill34 via Wikimedia Commons

Do Pensions Help Bring Talent To The Public Sector?

An oft-cited argument in favor of generous public pensions is that it helps the public sector recruit and retain high-quality workers.

But is that the case? That question is the subject of the latest report from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

The findings of the report, as summarized by the CRR:

– Research shows that pensions help recruit and retain high-quality workers; thus, cutbacks in public pensions could hurt worker quality.

– One indicator of quality is the wage that a worker can earn in the private sector.

– Using this measure, states and localities consistently have a “quality gap” – the workers they lose have a higher private sector wage than those they gain.

– The analysis shows that jurisdictions with relatively generous pensions have smaller quality gaps, meaning they can better maintain a high-quality workforce.

– The bottom line is that states and localities should be cautious about scaling pensions back too far.

The report talks further about the correlation between cutting pensions and a widening “quality gap” between the public and private sector workforce:

As states grapple with challenges facing their pensions, many have taken steps that reduce benefit generosity for their new employees. The analysis suggests that states and localities with relatively generous pensions should be cautious, because reductions in benefits may result in a reduction in their ability to maintain a high-quality workforce. To the extent the quality gap already exists for many of these employers, reducing pension generosity may widen the gap.

A couple of caveats are important. First, some variables that may be correlated with both the quality gap and generosity of pensions – e.g., health insurance benefits – were not included in this analysis due to data limitations. If these factors (rather than pension normal costs) drove the result, then changes in pension benefits may have more muted effects than estimated here. Second, the non-linearity in the result is intriguing, but its source unclear. Why do plans at the bottom of the generosity distribution have smaller quality gaps than plans in the middle? Will reductions in these plans have any effect on the quality gap? Future research will seek to shed light on both the causality of the main result and on its apparent non-linearity.

Read the full report here.

Photo by Kate Hiscock via Flickr CC License

Oklahoma Teacher’s Fund Hires Six Real Estate Managers

The Oklahoma Teacher’s Retirement System has chosen six real estate managers to handle a combined $300 million worth of non-core investments.

Reported by I&P Real Estate:

The US pension fund will invest in the American Realty Strategic Value Realty Fund, Antheus Realty Partners IV, Dune Real Estate Fund III, GreenOak Real Estate Partners US Fund II, Landmark Real Estate Fund VII and Starwood Opportunity Fund X Global.

The funds were selected on the recommendation of the fund’s consultant, Gregory W Group.

Oklahoma initially planned to invest $50m with each of the six managers.

Landmark, however, could not take the full amount by the time of the board’s approval and was allocated $35m.

The pension fund planned to spread the remaining $15m across the remaining five managers.

However, GreenOak closed its capital raise.

The other four managers will receive $53.7m each.

Antheus Realty Partners IV will focus solely on apartments, while Starwood will invest equally in Europe and the US.

Landmark will buy current limited partnership positions in existing funds on the secondary market.

American Realty will be buying value-add US office, industrial, retail and apartment properties and has raised $240m of capital for the open-ended fund.

GreenOak raised $756m for its US-focused fund, which will invest in several property classes.

Dune Capital is targeting an $850m total equity raise for its opportunity fund.

Investing in multiple property types, the fund has targeted IRRs of 15-17% net.

The pension fund is targeting net returns of 11-12 percent.

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