Ted Ballantine | Pension360

Illinois Governor Candidates Talk Pensions in First Debate

One of the hottest issues in the race for Illinois governor is also one where the candidates differ starkly: how to fix the state’s retirement system.

So it’s no surprise that pensions came up during the race’s first debate.

There were no revelations here; Pat Quinn and Bruce Rauner both used the time to double-down on their stances. From the Associated Press:

Quinn signed legislation last year that would fully fund the retirement systems by 2045, in part by cutting benefits. Public-employee unions have sued, saying the overhaul violates a provision of the constitution that says benefits can’t be reduced.

Rauner supports letting retirees keep the benefits they’ve been promised but freezing the systems and moving employees to a 401(k)-style plan in which workers are not guaranteed a certain level of benefits. He said that plan — similar to what most private-sector workers have — wouldn’t save much money to start but would save billions in the long term.

“I don’t believe it’s right to change the payments to a retiree after they are already retired, and that’s what Gov. Quinn did,” Rauner said.

But Quinn called Rauner’s plan “risky” because workers’ retirements would depend largely on market performance. He said he deserves credit for making Illinois’ full pension payment each year he’s been governor — something his predecessors didn’t do. That contributed to Illinois having the worst-funded pension systems of any state in the U.S.

Illinois’ pension reform law has spent the last 6 months being fast-tracked through lower courts. A ruling on the constitutionality of the law could come before the end of the year.

The Only State Where Retirees Have Enough Income

A new study has analyzed Census Bureau data to determine in which states the typical retiree is living a “healthy” retirement – that is, a retirement where one earns at least 70 percent of their pre-retirement income.

The study found there was only one state where the median retiree had enough retirement income: Nevada.

From Time.com:

Financial advisers generally agree you need at least 70% of pre-retirement income to maintain your lifestyle after calling it quits. Many say 80% to 85% is a more appropriate target.

But even using the lower bar, Nevada is the only state where the typical retiree has sufficient income to live comfortably in retirement, according to a study from Interest.com, a division of Bankrate, a financial information provider. The District of Columbia also makes the cut. But every other jurisdiction in the nation falls short, underscoring the scope of the retirement income crisis in America.

Nationally, the median income for those who are 65 and older equals just 60% of the median income for those aged 45 to 64, the study found. In Nevada, median income for those past 65 is 71%. In Washington D.C., the figure is 74%. States that get close to the minimum retirement income level are Hawaii (69%), Arizona (68%) and Mississippi (68%). At the bottom are Massachusetts (49%) and North Dakota (49%).

The national rate represents a jump of 10 percentage points over the past decade. But that is not as encouraging as it may appear, reflecting trends where older Americans stay on the job longer and young workers fail to see significant wage gains. The share of Americans working past 65 has been increasing for 20 years and reached 18.9% this May, one of the highest levels in the last half century.

Just below Nevada were Mississippi and Arizona, state where retirees benefit low costs of living, as well as Hawaii, a state that carries a “strong pension culture”.

Near the bottom of the list was Massachusetts.

Study: Pension Trustees Spend Less Than 5 Hours Per Quarter Evaluating Investment Decisions

Survey results recently released by Aon Hewitt reveal that most pension trustees in the UK only spend about five hours each quarter evaluating investment decisions. The survey did find, however, that trustees were spending more time on investment evaluation in 2014 than they did in 2013.

From Investment and Pensions Europe:

Pension boards and trustees are opting for fiduciary management because they can often only spend five hours each quarter scrutinising investment decisions, according to Aon Hewitt.

The consultancy said the increasing complexity of investment decisions was driving those in charge of pension assets into the arms of fiduciary managers, but that only one-quarter of those using such providers were employing indices to measure successful performance.

Drawing on the results of a UK survey of nearly 360 investors worth £269bn (€344bn), the Aon Hewitt Germany’s head of investment consulting Thorsten Köpke said the questions facing UK investors were also relevant concerns for their German counterparts.

The survey also found that 73% of pension boards and trustees were only spending five hours a quarter on investment decisions, a 10-percentage-point increase over the 2013 survey results – meaning they placed significant trust in managers to monitor investments, according to the consultancy.

However, interest in fiduciary management was largely dependant on the size of a fund’s portfolio, the survey found.

It also found that those managing more than £1bn in assets were more inclined to delegate responsibility for only part of their portfolio, while those with less than £500m in assets delegated the entire portfolio.

Köpke added: “The last few years have seen occupational schemes in Germany as in England – both small and medium-sized ones – work with fiduciary managers.”

The data came from Aon Hewitt’s Fiduciary Management Survey 2014.

Chart: A History of New Jersey’s Pension Payments

Public pension plans are funded in part by state contributions. But, for various reasons, states often fail to make full payments into their pension systems and instead opt to use the money elsewhere in the budget.

The above chart shows the payment history of New Jersey over the last 20 years. The dark blue bars represent the dollar amount the state was required to contribute to the system; the light blue bars show how much the state actually contributed.

The last time New Jersey paid its full pension payment was 1996. Since then, payments have fallen either well short or been non-existent.

New Jersey’s state-run pension systems were collectively 64.5 percent funded and were running a $47.2 billion deficit as of 2013.

Chart credit: New Jersey Pension and Health Benefit Study Commission report

NASRA: Moody’s “Manipulated” Pension Data To Overstate Pension Liabilities

The National Association of State Retirement Administrators (NASRA) issued a strongly-worded letter yesterday accusing rating agency Moody’s of using “manipulated” pension data to paint a bleak picture of public pension systems around the country.

From Reuters:

The letter, dated Oct. 8, follows the publication of a report by Moody’s last month that claimed public pension liabilities had tripled to $2 trillion from 2004 to 2012 and that public pension funds had been taking on greater risk to make up the shortfall.

“With Moody’s latest report, concerns regarding the potential mischaracterization and misuse of these manipulated pension numbers have been more than realized,” the National Association of State Retirement Administrators said in the letter.

The unusually sharp rebuke from NASRA signals its growing impatience with Moody’s, which has taken the strongest stance of all the major ratings agencies over the risks it believes public pension funds could pose to municipal finances.

The letter is also the latest twist in an ongoing debate over the politically charged issue of public defined benefit pensions. The right says the plans are unsustainable and a drag on local tax payers and the left see them as a financial safety net that keep retired municipal workers out of poverty.

Read the full letter below:

[iframe src=”<p style=” margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;”> <a title=”View NASRA letter on Scribd” href=”https://www.scribd.com/doc/242444463/NASRA-letter” style=”text-decoration: underline;” >NASRA letter</a></p><iframe class=”scribd_iframe_embed” src=”https://www.scribd.com/embeds/242444463/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true” data-auto-height=”false” data-aspect-ratio=”undefined” scrolling=”no” id=”doc_32730″ width=”100%” height=”600″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>”]

Photo by Andreas Poike via Flickr CC License

Illinois Pension Case Stays On Fast Track; Arguments Set For November

Illinois’ pension reform law is going to get its day in court soon. A judge on Wednesday scheduled arguments for and against the law for next month. That means a final ruling on the law could be made by the end of the year.

The law’s opponents and defenders have one thing in common: they both want a ruling on the law’s legality sooner than later.

From Reuters:

Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge John Belz, who is overseeing five consolidated lawsuits filed by labor unions and others, set Nov. 20 for arguments for and against the constitutionality of the law passed by the Illinois legislature last December.

Public labor union coalition We Are One Illinois and other parties have been seeking an expedited ruling in the wake of a July 3 Illinois Supreme Court decision in an unrelated case that determined health care for retired state workers is a pension benefit protected by a provision in the state constitution.

The same provision, which prohibits the impairment or diminishment of retirement benefits for public workers, is the focus of the lawsuits against the state’s pension reform law. The new law, which is currently on hold, reduces and suspends cost-of-living increases for pensions, raises retirement ages and limits the salaries on which pensions are based.

In documents filed with the court on Friday, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan argued that the high court’s July 3 ruling only dealt with retiree health care subsidies being part of the contractual relationship Illinois has with members of the state’s public pension systems.

“The court did not address whether such benefits are immune from the state’s exercise of its police powers. That issue was not before the court,” Madigan’s court filing noted.

In its defense of the pension reform law, Illinois is leaning heavily on its so-called police powers trumping the constitutional provision against reducing public employee retirement benefits. Those powers include the state’s ability to properly fund education, healthcare and public safety. Those sectors would experience substantial cuts if the state’s already large pension burden grows, Madigan said in the filings.

We Are Illinois released the following statement on Wednesday:

“As we have always maintained and the recent Kanerva decision confirms, the pension protection clause of the Illinois Constitution is absolute and without exception. There is no merit to the State’s purported justification for the unconstitutional diminishments and impairments that SB1 imposes. We are hopeful for a swift resolution in the plaintiffs’ favor, so that we can work with legislators willing to develop a fair—and legal—solution to our state’s challenges, together.”

San Francisco Pension Backs Off Hedge Funds After Conflicts of Interest Surface

San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System (SFERS) was set to vote yesterday on whether the fund should allocate up to 15 percent of assets, or $3 billion, to hedge funds.

But the vote never happened, in part because of the objections of union members and retirees who showed up to the meeting. Recent reports of conflicts of interest surrounding the hedge fund investments probably didn’t help, either.

From the International Business Times:

San Francisco officials on Wednesday tabled a proposal to move up to 15 percent of the city’s $20 billion pension portfolio into hedge funds. The move came a day after International Business Times reported that the consultants advising the city on whether to invest in hedge funds currently operate a hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands.

The hedge fund proposal, spearheaded by the chief investment officer of the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System, or SFERS, had been scheduled for action this week. If ultimately enacted, it could move up to $3 billion of retiree money from traditional stocks and bonds into hedge funds, potentially costing taxpayers $100 million a year in additional fees.

Pension beneficiaries who oppose the proposal spoke at Wednesday’s meeting of the SFERS board. They cited financial risks and the appearance of possible conflicts of interest in objecting to the hedge fund investments.

Prior to the meeting, the Service Employees International Union, which represents roughly 12,000 members who are eligible for SFERS benefits, asked city officials to have the hedge fund proposal evaluated by a consultant who has worked with boards that have opted against hedge funds.

David Sirota reported on the possible conflicts of interest earlier this week:

[SFERS is] drawing on the counsel of a company called Angeles Investment Advisors, one of a crop of consulting firms that has emerged across the country in recent years to aid municipalities in navigating the murky waters of managing money.

For two decades, Angeles has been employed by the San Francisco pension system to champion the best interests of city taxpayers and employees — the cops, firefighters and other municipal workers who depend on pension payments after their retirement. But the firm is concurrently playing another role that complicates its image as a disinterested guide: An International Business Times review of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission documents has found that since 2010, Angeles has run a hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands that invests in other hedge funds.

In other words, the consultants that are supposed to be providing unbiased advice about whether San Francisco would be wise to entrust its money to the hedge fund industry are themselves hedge fund players.

SFERS says that, although the vote is tabled for now, it could be brought back at a later time.

This isn’t the first time the pension fund has delayed voting on hedge fund investments. In fact, it’s the third time: the board first delayed the vote in June. Then it delayed the vote again in August.

State Pension Funding Improves For First Time in Six Years

State pension plans have improved their collective funding ratios for the first time since 2007, according to 2013 data.

From Bloomberg:

The median state system last year had 69.3 percent of the assets needed to meet promised benefits, up from 68.7 percent in 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. It was the first increase since the start of the 18-month recession that ravaged retirement assets and led some officials to skip payments as tax revenue sank. Illinois and New Jersey, with the weakest state credit ratings, saw funding levels set new lows for the period.

Buoyed as the Standard & Poor’s 500 index set record highs, the nation’s 100 largest public pensions earned about $448 billion in 2013, the most in at least five years, Census data show. At the same time, governments added a record $95 billion to their plans as they socked away rebounding tax revenue toward obligations to retirees.

“States are playing catch-up — you see more discipline and more public acknowledgment that plans have got to make the required payment every year,” said Eileen Norcross, senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center in Arlington, Virginia.

[…]

The Bloomberg data for 2013, the latest available, underscore the findings in a June report from S&P that said funding levels “have likely bottomed out” and are poised to improve along with climbing stocks.

The S&P 500 index (SPX) rose almost 30 percent last year, the most since 1997, propping up the pensions as the Federal Reserve’s policy of keeping its benchmark interest rate close to zero suppresses debt yields.

But not all states got healthier. The funding statuses of pensions in Illinois and New Jersey have deteriorated further.

Illinois’ funding status dropped from 40.4 percent in 2012 to 39.3 percent in 2013.

New Jersey’s ratio fell from 67.5 percent in 2012 to 64.5 percent in 2013, according to Bloomberg data.

Photo by www.SeniorLiving.Org

Fact Check: Has Tom Corbett Been Shorting The Pension System?

Tom Corbett has used the campaign trail to paint himself as a pension reformer – Corbett, the incumbent governor of Pennsylvania, says the pension system needs to be overhauled and supports a plan to shift public workers into a 401(k)-style plan.

His opponent, Tom Wolf, disagrees. Wolf says the problem isn’t the current system—it’s the current governor. He says the system’s current funding problem stems from Corbett’s failure to make required payments into the system.

The issue was brought up during a debate Wednesday night. WESA reports:

Wolf argued that the pension system itself is not flawed, but that the state needs to put more money into fully funding its pension obligations.

“Governors have not adequately paid into that fund,” Wolf said. “We need to figure out a way to do that, pay that debt, because that balance keeps coming up. I plan to do something about that. I will not keep delaying payment, I will do something.”

Corbett took issue with Wolf’s assertion that his and previous administrations have not adequately paid into the system, and instead said it’s the system itself that needs to be overhauled.

“We do have to, though, bite the bullet and start reforming how we’re paying into that system, rather than continuing to say we’re just going to continue to pay at $610 million new dollars each year for the next, I think it’s 25 years,” Corbett said.

Corbett seemed to dodge the issue of failing to pay the state’s actuarially required contributions (ARC). But Wolf has a point.

Since 2008, Pennsylvania has consistently shorted its largest pension funds.

The state has gone above and beyond when it comes to making payments to the Municipal Retirement System (MRS); but that system is also much smaller than the others.

Both candidates have points here. Wolf is right that Corbett has shorted the pension system. But while making full payments would be a step in the right direction, it wouldn’t solve the system’s funding crisis on its own.

Lessons In Infrastructure Investing From Canada’s Pensions

Canada’s pension plans were among the first in the world to invest in infrastructure, and they remain the most prominent investors in the asset class.

Are there any lessons to be learned from Canada when it comes to infrastructure investing? Georg Inderst, Principal of Inderst Advisory, thinks so.

In a recent paper in the Rotman International Journal of Pension Management, Inderst dives deep into Canada’s infrastructure investing and emerges with some lessons to be considered by pension funds around the world.

The paper, titled Pension Fund Investment in Infrastructure: Lessons from Australia and Canada, starts with a short history of Canadian infrastructure investing:

Some Canadian pension plans, notably the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) and the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS), were early investors in infrastructure in the late 1990s and early 2000s, second only to Australian superannuation funds. Other funds followed, and the average allocation has been growing steadily since, reaching C$57B by the end of 2012 (5% of total assets). Here, too, there is a heavy “size effect” across pension funds: bigger pension plans have made substantial inroads into infrastructure assets in recent years (see Table 2), while small and medium-sized pension funds have little or no private infrastructure allocation.

The main driver for infrastructure investing appears to be the wish to diversify pension funds’ assets beyond the traditional asset classes. While Canadian pension funds have been de- risking at the expense of listed equities, regulators have not forced them into bonds, as was the case in some European countries. Real estate and infrastructure assets are also used in liability-driven investing (LDI) to cover long-term liabilities.

Canada frequently makes direct investments in infrastructure, an approach that is now being tested by pension funds around the world. From the paper:

According to Preqin (2011), 51% of Canadian infrastructure investors make direct investments, the highest figure in the world. This approach (known as the “Canadian Model”) has attracted considerable attention around the world, for several reasons:

• lower cost than external infrastructure funds

• agency issues with fund managers

• direct control over assets (including entry and exit decisions)

• long-term investment horizon to optimize value and liability matching

This direct approach to infrastructure investment must be seen in the context of a more general approach to pension plan governance and investment. Notable characteristics of the “Maple Revolutionaries” include

• Governance: Strong governance models, based on independent and professional boards.

• Internal management: Sophisticated internal investment teams built up over years; the top 10 Canadian pension plans outsource only about 20% of their assets (BCG 2013).

• Scale: Sizable funds, particularly important for large-scale infrastructure projects.

Potential challenges for the direct investing approach include insufficient internal resources, reputational and legal issues when things go wrong, and the need to offer staff market-based compensation in high-compensation labor pools.

Despite these challenges, however, the direct internal investment approach of large Canadian pension funds is now being tried in other countries. Other lessons from the Canadian experience include the existence of a well-functioning PPP model, a robust project bond market, and long-term involvement of the insurance sector.

Finally, the paper points to some lessons that can be learned from Canada:

Lessons learned include the following:

• Substantial infrastructure investments are possible in very different pension systems, with different histories and even different motivations.

• Infrastructure investment vehicles can evolve and adjust according to investors’ needs. In Australia, listed infrastructure funds were most popular initially, but that is longer the case.

• Pension plan size matters when investing in less liquid assets. Private infrastructure investing is driven primarily by large- scale funds, while smaller funds mostly invest little to nothing in infrastructure. In Australia, two-thirds of pension funds do not invest in unlisted infrastructure at all.

• Asset owners need adequate resources when investing in new and difficult asset classes. Some Canadian plans admit that their own estimates of time and other inputs were too optimistic at the outset.

• New investor platforms, clubs, syndicates, or alliances are being developed that should also attract smaller pension funds, such as the Pension Infrastructure Platform (PIP) in the United Kingdom or OMERS’ Global Strategic Investment Alliance (GSIA). However, industry experts stress the difficulties of such alliances with larger numbers of players, often with little experience and few resources. Decision time is also a critical factor.

The full paper offers much more insight into Canada’s approach as well as Australia’s. The entire paper can be read here.

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