Pension Newsroom | Pension360

Pennsylvania Weighs Risks, Rewards of Pension Obligation Bonds

Pension reform has been the talk of Pennsylvania politics these last few months, and the reasons are equally political and practical: if retirement costs keep rising, the state’s fiscal handcuffs will keep tightening—and they are already uncomfortably snug. That leads eventually to budget-cutting maneuvers, many of which are sure to be politically unpalatable.

But a recent analysis from the actuaries for the state’s Public Employee Retirement Commission presents a policy tool to save the state money. The tool: pension obligation bonds (POBs), the controversial bonds that carry big risks and big rewards for the states that issue them.

The actuarial analysis stated that the state could save $24.5 billion over the next 30 years if they issued just $9 billion in POBs. The state’s PSERS system could reduce costs by $19.8 billion with POBs, according to the analysis.

Top White House Economic Advisor Wants to Reform Tax Incentives for Retirement Income

Pension360 covered yesterday the new study examining the ways income inequality manifests itself in retirement benefits.

Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council, presented his own ideas recently on the topic of inequality and retirement, and described what he labeled the “upside-down” tax incentive system that applies to retirement savings in the United States.

Sperling describes the way the U.S. tax system helps the wealthy but “shuns” low-income earners:

First, the federal government’s use of tax deductibility to encourage savings turns our progressive structure for taxing income into a regressive one: While earners in the highest income bracket get a 39.6 percent deduction for savings, the hardest-pressed workers, those in the lowest tax bracket, get only a 10 percent deduction for every dollar they manage to put away.

Second, while less than 1 percent of lower- and moderate-income Americans can put aside enough to fully “max out” their benefits on I.R.A. contributions, higher-income Americans can maximize their return on savings by sampling from a menu of tax-preferred savings options. A business owner could theoretically benefit from a 401(k), a SEP I.R.A. of up to $52,000 and a state-based 529 program that allows tax-free savings for college education.

Finally, a far larger share of upper-income Americans get matching incentives for savings from their employers. Members of Congress and the White House staff, for example, get an 80 percent match for saving 5 percent of their income. But while half of Americans earning more than $100,000 get an employer match, only 4 percent of those earning under $30,000 and less than 2 percent of those making under $20,000 get any employer match for saving.

The result of those incentives, according to Sperling: low-income workers are “triple losers” and wealthy individuals are “triple winners”.

That’s problematic, says Sperling, because low-income workers are precisely the people who should have incentives to save more for retirement.

Sperling proposes two specific policies towards that end: A flat tax credit on retirement income, and a universal 401(k) available to every worker.

Sperling:

One intermediate step would be to replace our regressive system of relying on tax deductibility with a flat tax credit that would give every American a 28 percent tax credit for savings, regardless of income. But why should we stop there? If we know that 401(k)’s with automatic payroll deductions and matching incentives work beautifully for those with access to them, why would we not institute a 401(k) for everyone?

A government-funded universal 401(k) would give lower- and moderate-income Americans a dollar-for-dollar matching credit for up to $4,000 saved annually per household. Upper-middle-class Americans could get at least a 60 percent match — doubling the incentive they get today. The match would be open to workers even if their employers were already matching, which would encourage employers to keep contributing to savings. The match would also be available through I.R.A. contributions for those who were self-employed or who wanted to keep saving even while they were temporarily not working.

As for the costs, Sperling proposes a reform to the estate tax that would raise the revenue needed to implement the 401(k) program.

CalPERS Rescinds $700 Million Investment With Private Equity Fund Headed By Doctor With No Private Equity Experience

You probably trust your doctor with your life. But with your money? Many people might balk at the notion of their doctor making their investment decisions for them.

But back in 2007, CalPERS made a big bet: a $705 million investment in a private equity fund, Health Evolution Partners Inc., specializing in health care companies.

The CEO of the fund, David Brailer, is a nationally renowned physician who had previously been the “health czar” under George W. Bush. But this was his first foray into the investment space, and he had no experience running an investment fund or making private equity investments.

Still, he reportedly promised the CalPERS board healthy returns in excess of 20 percent.

But through seven years, the fund has never managed to exceed single-digit returns. And portions of CalPERS’ investment have actually experienced negative returns.

That has led CalPERS to cut ties with the fund, according to Pensions & Investments:

CalPERS is ending its unique experiment as the sole limited partner of Health Evolution Partners Inc., a private equity firm that focuses on health-care companies.

…

CalPERS data show the HEP Growth Fund had an internal rate of return of 6.5% from its inception in mid-2009 through Dec. 31, 2013. By contrast, the $5.3 billion growth fund portion of CalPERS’ private equity portfolio returned 12.72% for the five years ended Dec. 31, the closest comparison that could be made with the data the pension fund made available.

The HEP fund of funds has had more serious performance problems. Its IRR from inception in 2007 through Dec. 31, 2013 was -5.2%, show CalPERS statistics. CalPERS also wants out of that investment, but sources say a complicated fund-of-fund structure may make that difficult.

Mr. Desrochers would not comment on HEP, telling a Pensions & Investments reporter the matter was too sensitive to discuss.

CalPERS spokesman Joe DeAnda, in an e-mail, said, “We continue to evaluate all options relating to Health Evolution Partners.”

Mr. Brailer did not return several phone calls.

CalPERS paid the fund over $18 million in fees in the fiscal year 2011-12, according to the System’s financial report.

Meanwhile, CalPERS is gearing up for another large investment partnership, to the tune of $500 million, that will focus on infrastructure investments. FTSE Global Markets reports:

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) today announced a new $500m global infrastructure partnership with UBS Global Asset Management.

CalPERS, the largest public pension fund in the US, will contribute $485m to the newly formed company, while UBS will contribute $15m and act as managing member.

The partnership will operate as Golden State Matterhorn, LLC and is set to pursue infrastructure investment opportunities in the US and global developed markets.

“UBS brings extensive experience and a proven track record in global infrastructure investing that makes them a great fit for this partnership,” says Ted Eliopoulos, CalPERS Interim Chief Investment Officer. “We’re excited to work with them as we identify and acquire core assets that will provide the best risk-adjusted returns for our portfolio.”

The CalPERS Infrastructure Program seeks to provide stable, risk-adjusted returns to the total fund by investing in public and private infrastructure, primarily within the transportation, power, energy, and water sectors.

Infrastructure investments returned 22.8% during the 2013-14 fiscal year and 23.3% over the past five years, outperforming the benchmark by 17.23 and 16.6 percentage points, respectively.

CalPERS holds about $1.8 billion in infrastructure assets.

Photo by hobvias sudoneighm via Flickr CC License

Study: For Low-Income Workers, Retirement Not In The Cards

Defined-benefit pensions are becoming rare in the private sector, and many public-sector new hires are increasingly being enrolled in 401(k)s instead of traditional pensions.

Combine that with the fact that many lower-paid workers don’t have access to retirement plans at all, and these trends paint a grim picture: seventy million baby boomers are nearing retirement, and many of them aren’t financially ready.

In fact, recent data show that although high-income workers are saving for retirement at higher rates than ever, low-income workers are saving less—if they’re saving at all.

From the Associated Press:

Because retirement savings are ever more closely tied to income, the widening gulf between the rich and those with less promises to continue — and perhaps worsen — after workers reach retirement age. That is likely to put pressure on government services and lead even more Americans to work well into what is supposed to be their golden years.

Incomes for the highest-earning 1 percent of Americans soared 31 percent from 2009 through 2012, after adjusting for inflation, according to data compiled by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at University of California, Berkeley. For everyone else, it inched up an average of 0.4 percent.

Researchers at the liberal Economic Policy Institute say households in the top fifth of income saw median retirement savings increase from $45,539 in 1989 to $160,000 in 2010 in inflation-adjusted dollars. For households in the bottom fifth, median retirement savings were down from $8,433 in 1989 to $8,000 in 2010, adjusted for inflation. The calculations did not include households without retirement savings.

Employment Benefit Research Institute research director Jack VanDerhei found that in households where annual income is less than $25,000, nine in 10 saved less than $10,000, up slightly from 2009. For households with six-figure incomes, 42 percent saved at least $250,000, up from 34 percent five years earlier.

Experts say that about half of private-sector workers aren’t enrolled in a retirement plan at their job. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, only 13 percent of private-sector workers are enrolled in defined benefit plans.

In 1985, 33 percent of workers were enrolled in such plans.

These trends haven’t been lost on younger workers. Millennials are now starting to save early in their careers, according to a new report. From Bloomberg:

Concern that the future of the federal safety net for seniors is precarious and the ubiquity of 401(k)s are prompting those born from 1979 to 1996 to get an earlier start on saving than prior generations, according to a report from the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. Millennial workers began building nest eggs at a median age of 22, younger than both Generation X, which started at 27, and the baby boomers, who started at 35.

Though many millennial workers say they’re risk-averse and stock-shy as a result of the most severe recession in the post-World War II era, their deeds are telling a different story. That bodes well in the long run for a generation that may have to bear a greater share of retirement costs on its own, even if it means the economy will get a little less consumer spending in the short term.

Of millennials offered 401(k) or similar plans, 71 percent took part, contributing a median 8 percent of their salaries, the Transamerica report said. The survey polled those employed either full-time or part-time at for-profit companies.

That stands in stark contrast to surveys showing young adults are risk averse. In 2012, 22 percent of heads of households younger than 35 who owned mutual funds said they would only invest in financial instruments with no or below-average risk even if it meant getting a below-average return, based on a survey by ICI, the mutual-fund industry’s trade association.

Aside from seniors (65 years or older), the percent of millennials that own mutual funds is higher than any other age group.

Photo by 401(K) 2012 via Flickr CC License

Could a “Retirement Tax” Help Illinois Climb Out of It’s Fiscal Hole?

Illinois is in a fiscal bind, and Rich Miller—founder of CapitolFax and tab-keeper on all things Illinois politics—explores in his recent column a policy that could raise $2 billion dollars.

The idea: levying a tax on retirement income.

From Miller:

Illinois is facing a $4 billion hole in its 2015 budget when the 2011 income tax increase automatically starts to roll back on Jan. 1. That’s a huge headache for whoever wins the Nov. 4 election, Gov. Pat Quinn or Republican nominee Bruce Rauner.

Illinois is leaving $2 billion on the table by not taxing retirement income, studies have shown. That missed revenue is escalating every year. Total retirement income in Illinois is growing by 6.5 percent a year, compared with just 1.9 percent annual growth for personal income that is taxed, according to a study by the Civic Federation.

Illinois is one of just three states that exempt pension income from taxation, according to the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

Former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson, who passed the law outlawing retirement income taxation, had this to say on the issue:

“There’s a whole lot of people in this state who are trying to exist on just Social Security or a low governmental pension,” he says. Senior citizens already pay federal income taxes, “and once they get through doing that there’s not enough left, especially when the state income tax has jumped up to the place it is.”

To that, Miller proposes an idea that might be more palatable to opponents of the tax:

The Civic Federation found that taxpayers earning less than that accounted for only about a quarter of total retirement income in the state. So taxing retirement income above $50,000 would still bring in $1.5 billion a year, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Not to mention that barely a third of Illinois seniors even know that their income isn’t being taxed in the first place, according to a Capitol Fax/We Ask America survey of 816 Illinoisans age 65 and over that I commissioned.

Both Gov. Quinn and Bruce Rauner have publicly stated they won’t support a tax on retirement income.

A tax on retirement income is overwhelmingly unpopular among seniors, as Rich Miller found out when conducting an informal survey.

When Miller asked seniors whether they would support a policy of taxing retirement income, 88 percent responded “No”.

Photo by Chris Eaves via Flickr CC License

Arizona Fund’s Strong Performance May Lead To Bigger Retiree Benefits—But Not This Year

Tens of thousands of Arizona retirees were hoping to begin receiving larger benefit checks in the coming months. That may happen eventually for the 120,000 retired members of the Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS), but it won’t happen this year.

That’s because benefit increases, such as COLA increases, are tied to the fund’s long-term performance. And despite posting the second-best annual investment return in the last decade—18.6 percent net of fees—the ASRS still has work to do to meet the benchmarks that permit it to increase benefits.

From the Arizona Republic:

For a permanent benefit increase to kick in at ASRS, the trust must produce a rate of return in excess of 8 percent — the assumed rate of investment growth — for 10 years and generate a pool of excess earnings.

Simple averaging shows that benchmark has been met, but there is another caveat: The formula to pay cost-of-living adjustments uses a “geometric and actuarially smoothed average,” which takes into account compounding.

That formula, dragged down by heavy investment losses during the 2007-09 recession, puts the 10-year rate of return at 7.6 percent, [ASRS Chief Executive Paul] Matson said, which is below the trigger.

“We are certainly getting closer to it,” Matson said.

The funded status — a measure of the amount needed to pay current and future pension liabilities at ASRS — is projected to be 76.6 percent. Less money is needed from employees and employers the closer the figure is to 100 percent. A funded ratio of 80 percent is considered “healthy” in public retirement systems.

Arizona’s other major pension fund, the Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System, posted an annual return of about 15 percent gross of fees.

The performance of the ASRS may not warrant benefit increases, but the fund’s investment staff may still be in line for bonuses. From the Arizona Republic:

Matson said it is unclear if his investment staff will receive bonuses, even with the exceptional financial returns. He said there are other benchmarks that must be met, and a determination won’t be made for eight to 10 weeks.

Matson said bonuses are needed to retain quality staff to oversee the portfolio and garner solid rates of return.

“Without good staff, there are detriments to performing well,” he said.

Pension360 has previously covered the controversial bonuses given to the investment staff of the other major fund in Arizona, the APSPR.

Photo by: “Arizona-StateSeal” by U.S. Government. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

Arizona Is State Most Reliant on Pension Income

Arizona pensioners receive higher benefits than the average pensioner in the U.S., and the state itself is more reliant economically on pension benefits than many states in the country, according to a new report.

From the Arizona Republic:

Traditional pensions help more than 140,000 Arizonans make ends meet in retirement by providing an average income of $1,923 a month, according to a study estimating that more than 24 million Americans receive such benefits.

The report by the National Institute on Retirement Security, which used 2012 data, suggests that Arizonans rely a bit more heavily on pensions than Americans generally. The average Arizona pension amounts to roughly $23,074 a year, compared with average yearly benefits of $19,678 across the nation.

In terms of overall pension income, economic output generated by pensions and associated tax revenue, Arizona ranks 20th among the states. It is 17th in another measure: the number of jobs supported from spending by retirees who have pensions.

In general, every $1 in pension benefits generates nearly $2 in economic output, according to the report. Retirees support the most jobs in restaurants/food services, health care and retailing.

Screen shot 2014-08-04 at 10.19.21 AM — Credit: The National Institute on Retirement Security and the Arizona Republic. (Data is from 2012.)

Higher pensions are economically beneficial to the state because retirees spend large portions of their checks on food, medicine, housing or even luxury items such as cars. Higher benefits, according to the report, leads to higher economic output.

Photo: “Entering Arizona on I-10 Westbound” by Wing-Chi Poon – Own work. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution

Federal Government to Hone In On State and Local Pensions

The Treasury Department announced the opening today of a new office, and chief among its responsibilities will be examining state and local pensions. Though the specific mandates of the office are unclear, the State and Local Finance Office will examine the problems facing state and local pension systems and serve as a “resource for retirement planning”, according to its Director.

From Reuters:

State and Local Finance Office Director Kent Hiteshew told a meeting of the Council of State Governments that he had appointed the chief investment officer of Maryland’s pension fund as a special adviser who “will substantially strengthen our office’s understanding of the critical challenges facing a system upon which approximately 23 million Americans depend … for their retirement security.”

Saying that state and local pensions now have enough money to cover only 72 percent of their costs, in comparison to nearly 100 percent in 2000, Hiteshew added that very few pensions are well-funded.

“While the current underfunding started prior to the Great Recession, this was exacerbated by both market forces and trying fiscal times during the last few years,” he added.

Hiteshew’s office will study the state of public pensions and help retirement systems evaluate their financial conditions, and it will look into the growing costs of retiree healthcare.

Public pension systems in the US are, on average, 72 percent funded. In 2000, nearly all systems were 100 percent funded, according to Hiteshew.

Auditors Asking Questions on Record-Setting Bonuses Given to Wisconsin Investment Board

Everyone appreciates a pat on the back for a job well done.

But auditors are raising concerns about whether the Wisconsin State Investment Board, the entity that handles investments for the state’s pension funds, went a little overboard by handing out $13.3 million worth of bonuses in 2013—the most ever handed out by the Board.

The Legislative Audit Bureau, the agency set up by Wisconsin to evaluate and audit other state agencies, is asking the Investment Board to review its compensation policy in light of the bonuses.

Bonuses included, the overall compensation the Board paid employees was 14 percent higher than the median among its peers, according to the Twin Cities Pioneer Press.

Divesting From Gun Manufacturers Is Still On The Minds of Some Large Pension Funds

The politics of guns isn’t a topic too often broached at shareholder meetings.

But that’s exactly the topic that was the center of attention at Alliant Techsystems’ annual shareholder meeting on July 30, which included a shareholder resolution asking the Virginia-based defense and sporting goods company to comply with some of the Sandy Hook Principles—an initiative requesting that firearms manufacturers comply by certain guidelines, for example, developing better safety technology.

The message of the Sandy Hook Principles: comply or be sold.

And who filed that shareholder resolution? The Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds as well as the New York State Common Retirement Fund.

According to a press release, the resolution asked for the following from Alliant Techsystems:

* Promoting restrictions on firearms and ammunition sales, transfers and possession to keep guns out of the hands of children, persons with mental illness or mental health challenges, criminals, domestic or international terrorists and anyone else prohibited from possessing them under federal law;

* Supporting the establishment of a federal universal background check system for every sale or transfer of guns or ammunition conducted by the company;

* Reevaluating policies regarding the sale, production, design or conversion of military style assault weapons for use by civilians, including the distribution of any materials/information that may be used to assist in such conversions;

* Taking steps to promote the conducting of background checks for every sale or transfer of guns or ammunition by business clients, including gun show operators or gun dealers.

* Supporting a federal gun trafficking statute to ensure stronger punishment for individuals engaging in the trade of selling firearms to anyone prohibited from possessing them under federal law; and

* Promoting gun safety education at the point of sale and in the communities in which the company conducts business operations.

It’s only the latest in a string of “social Investment” decisions that imply institutional investors are considering divesting from gun manufacturers.

In February, a professor convinced his institution, Occidental College, to pass a resolution banning firearm investments by the school. It was the first college in the United States to do so.

A Pennsylvania volunteer group called Delco United is attempting to convince various municipalities to divest from guns, and in at least one case it worked: after a visit from Delco, the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs subsequently sold its holdings in Sturm, Ruger & Co.

Last year, CalPERS voted to sell about $5 million worth of securities related to gun manufacturers. CalSTRS, and others, followed suit. From Governing:

The $154-billion California State Teachers’ Retirement System, the country’s second largest government retirement plan, took a similar action.

CalSTRS and CalPERS took up the divestment issue at the request of state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, a member of both boards. Lockyer called the vote “largely symbolic” but stressed that it’s an important way to spur incremental change.

“We’re limited by the constraints of our responsibility and the rules that CalPERS has,” said Lockyer. “There’s only one way that we speak and that’s with money.

Funds in Chicago, New York state, New York City, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts have publicly said they are exploring such divestments.

The Philadelphia Board of Pensions threatened to divest its $15.3 million share in various gun manufacturers if they didn’t sign on to the Sandy Hook Principles.

Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel ordered the city’s funds to divest from firearms manufacturers, but only one fund complied.

But when it comes to social investing, is the probability of making a change worth the chance of “fiscal peril” posed by potentially higher administrative costs and lower returns associated with divesting? One prominent retirement researcher thinks not. From Governing:

Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, is an outspoken critic of social investing. After years of social investment decisions in regard to South Africa, the Sudan and other countries and causes, Munnell sees fiscal peril in forcing portfolio managers to add non-monetary considerations to investment decisions. “Introducing another dimension creates a risk that portfolio managers will take their eyes off the prize of maximum returns and undermine investment performance.”

As she sees it, the people making the social investment decisions are not the people who will bear the burden if anything goes wrong. “If divestiture produces losses either through higher administrative costs or lower returns,” she says, “tomorrow’s taxpayers will have to ante up or future retirees will receive lower benefits.”

Private pension plans, which are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, are prohibited from social investing. Munnell believes public plans should follow suit. Not that there isn’t room for other groups to do social investing. “If rich people want to adjust their own portfolios, that is perfectly reasonable,” she says. “But for public plans to do it is not.”

Social investment advocates argue they have a moral responsibility to society. As Chicago Alderman Will Burns put it earlier this year, “The damage caused by these weapons is far greater than any return on investment.”

It’s a strong argument, and one that Munnell says makes her position “not a pleasant one.” When the genocides in Darfur were occurring and pension plans were talking of disinvesting, Munnell disagreed vocally with that policy. “I sounded pro-genocide. Now I sound anti-gun control. I’m neither. I just don’t think social investing is effective. It can harm the performance of public plans.”

Connecticut Treasurer Denise Nappier has a different view.

“These companies will enhance their long-term shareholder value if they are seen as a reasonable public voice in the debate over the proper response to the Newtown tragedy”, said the Treasurer in a statement to Institutional Investor. “At the same time, they will suffer if the public perceives them as unwilling to consider reasonable voluntary measures, such as the Sandy Hook principles.”

Photo by Mitch Barrie 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