benefit cuts | Pension360

Texas Pension Official: Liabilities Could Hurt State Credit Rating Sooner Than Later

Texas budget analysts and pension officials are attempting to draw lawmakers’ attention to the unfunded liabilities of the Employee Retirement System of Texas. The analysts and the director of the pension system say the liabilities, if left unaddressed, could lead to a credit downgrade for the state.

From the Austin American-Statesman:

At a legislative hearing this month, outgoing Employee Retirement System Executive Director Ann Bishop piqued lawmakers’ interest when she said the plan’s current unfunded balance of $7.5 billion could at some point affect the state’s good credit rating if the Legislature doesn’t devise a plan to pay it off. The 2016 onset of new accounting rules will double that risk, she noted. The state only has 77 cents for every dollar needed to pay future benefits, according to the retirement system. If not addressed during next year’s legislative session, it is projected to grow to nearly $10 billion by 2018.

The agency again has asked the state for additional funding to make the plan actuarially sound – so that contributions and investment returns cover expenses and payouts – which it has not been since 2003. That would require an additional $350 million every two years.

Absent that, Bishop told members of the Senate State Affairs Committee that the solution is some combination of more benefit cuts or increased contributions from both the state and employees. Lawmakers in 2009 and 2013 increased state and employee contributions and cut benefits for newly hired workers.

While that “has done a lot to help close the gap,” Bishop said “it isn’t enough.”

“It will have to be fixed. And it’s just going to get worse before it gets better,” she told the committee, noting the plan will run out of money to pay for promised pension benefits by the 2050s if nothing changes.

That “sounds like a long time from now,” she continued, but “when you’re talking about attracting people into the workforce and you’re telling them they’re going to pay into a fund for 30 years and not have it in their retirement, that’s not much of a benefit.”

She also warned that further diminishing the plan could inspire a lawsuit or – even worse – spark a mass retirement exodus as more than a third of the state’s workforce is either already eligible to retire or will become so in the next five years. In 2013, retirees received an average annuity of $18,946 from the plan.

ERS Texas manages $25.6 billion in assets.

Detroit’s Pension Problems Not Over Yet – As Costs Remain High, City’s Payments Remain Small

Judge Steven Rhodes approved Detroit’s bankruptcy plan last week. But he used the moment to re-iterate that Detroit isn’t out of the water yet.

One thing in particular worries Judge Rhodes, who said his “greatest concern…arises from the risks that the city retains relating to pension funding.”

Retirees have accepted benefit cuts, but pension problems still linger. Among them: Detroit’s unwillingness to make full payments to its pension systems. From the New York Times:

Documents filed with his court show that Detroit plans to continue its past practice of making undersize pension contributions in the near term while promising to ramp them up in the future. This approach is by no means unusual; many other cities and states do it, on the advice of their actuaries. Detroit’s pension fund for general city workers, now said to be 74 percent funded, is scheduled to go into a controlled decline to just 65 percent by 2043; the police and firefighters’ fund will slide to 78 percent from 87 percent. After that, the city’s contributions are scheduled to come roaring back, bringing the plan up to 100 percent funding by 2053.

This will work, of course, as long as the city has recovered sufficiently by then. The state’s contribution to the grand bargain lasts until 2023, with the foundations and the art museum continuing to kick in until 2033. Eventually the payouts will begin to shrink some as current retirees fall off the rolls. Active workers have already shifted to a hybrid pension plan, and they will start to bear most of the new plan’s investment risk. But the city faces decades of payments for retirees under the old plan.

“The city has the potential to be saddled with an underfunded pension plan,” warned Martha E.M. Kopacz, the independent fiscal expert Judge Rhodes hired to help him determine whether Detroit’s exit strategy was feasible.

Ms. Kopacz, a senior managing director with Phoenix Management Services, did find it feasible, but expressed many reservations, especially about pensions.

“The city must be continually mindful that a root cause of the financial troubles it now experiences is the failure to properly address future pension obligations,” she said in her report. Judge Rhodes said on Friday that he agreed.

Despite benefit cuts, the city’s pension costs are still high. Since the city isn’t paying full contributions, even more pressure will be put on investment returns to cover costs. From the Times:

Even after the benefit cuts, the city’s 32,000 current and future retirees are entitled to pensions worth more than $500 million a year — more than twice the city’s annual municipal income-tax receipts in recent years. Contributions to the system will not be nearly enough to cover these payouts, so success depends on strong, consistent investment returns, averaging at least 6.75 percent a year for the next 10 years. Any shortfall will have to ultimately be covered by the taxpayers.

Judge Rhodes’ full opinion can be read here.

Judge Approves Stockton Bankruptcy Plan; Pensions To Be Protected

A bankruptcy judge on Thursday afternoon approved the bankruptcy plan of Stockton, California. As part of the plan, the pensions of city workers will remain intact.

Creditors, on the other hand, will not be so lucky. From the LA Times:

A federal bankruptcy judge approved the city of Stockton’s bankruptcy recovery plan, allowing the city to continue with planned pension payments to retired workers.

The case was being closely watched after the judge ruled this month that the city’s payments to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System could be cut in bankruptcy just like any other obligation.

If Judge Christopher M. Klein had rejected Stockton’s plan and forced the city to slash its payments to CalPERS, it could have opened the door for other cities struggling with escalating pension costs to follow suit.

Stockton officials had argued that they couldn’t afford to cut pensions or to create another retirement plan for city employees. They said employees would leave Stockton for other cities offering retirement benefits through CalPERS.

CalPERS had said that if Stockton left the state retirement system, the city would immediately owe it $1.6 billion — far more than the city’s current bill to the pension plan.

On Thursday, Klein said that workers had already taken hits in the bankruptcy. He said Stockton’s salaries and benefits for workers had been higher than those at other cities, but that workers had agreed after the bankruptcy filing to take big cuts, including eliminating the free medical care they received in retirement.

“It would be no simple task to go back and redo the pensions,” Klein said Thursday.

He added, “This plan, I’m persuaded, is the best that can be done.”

Klein said that rejecting the plan after two years in court and tens of millions of dollars in legal and other fees would have put the case back to “square one.”

The city’s plan slashes payments to other creditors, including Franklin Templeton, an investment firm that holds more than $36 million in bonds the city used to borrow money. Franklin had asked Klein to reject the city’s plan so that it could get more of its money back.

CalPERS Chief Executive Anne Stausboll said of the decision:

“The City has made a smart decision to protect pensions and find a reasonable path forward to a more fiscally sustainable future…We will continue to champion the integrity and soundness of public pensions – to protect the benefits that were promised to the active and retired public employees who participate in the CalPERS pension plan.”

Video: The Differences Between Tom Corbett And Tom Wolf On Pensions

News 8 recently interviewed both Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidates. Here’s the resulting segment — Corbett and Wolf talk about pension reform, benefit cuts and how they plan to address pension funding if elected.

A quick summary of where the candidates stand on pensions, from the Associated Press:

-Corbett says the burgeoning cost of Pennsylvania’s public pensions is a crisis that requires prompt, decisive action. Wolf argues that it’s a problem that can be resolved in the years ahead.

-Corbett wants to scale back pensions for future school and state employees as a meaningful step toward savings. He says the taxpayers’ share of the pension costs for current employees — $2.1 billion this year — is crowding out funding for other programs and helping drive up local property taxes.

-Wolf contends that the pension problems are partly the result of the state contributing less than its fair share of the costs for nearly a decade and that a 2010 law reducing pension promises to future employees and refinancing existing obligations needs more time to work.

Detroit Pensioners Sue Actuarial Consulting Firm Over Allegedly Faulty Assumptions

Lawsuits are rolling in against Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company, an actuarial consulting firm enlisted by pension funds across the country for advice on return assumptions and other calculations.

The firm has worked with Detroit’s pension funds for decades. Now, pensioners from several of Detroit’s public pension systems are suing the firm for playing a part in bringing the systems to “financial ruin.”

From the New York Times:

Detroit has been a client of Gabriel Roeder since 1938, when the city first started offering pensions. Now the city is bankrupt, the pension fund is short, benefits are being cut and one of the system’s roughly 35,000 members, Coletta Estes, is suing the firm, contending it used faulty methods and assumptions that “doomed the plan to financial ruin.”

Gabriel Roeder’s job was to help Detroit’s pension trustees run a sound plan, she says, but instead the firm covered up a growing shortfall and encouraged the trustees to spend money they did not really have. Her complaint contends that the actuaries did this knowingly, “in concert with the plan trustees to further their self-interest.” The lawsuit seeks to have the pension plan made whole, in an amount to be determined at trial, and to have Gabriel Roeder enjoined “from perpetrating similar wrongs on others.”

Lawsuits like the one Ms. Estes filed have also been brought against Gabriel Roeder by members of Detroit’s pension fund for police and firefighters, and the fund for the employees of surrounding Wayne County.

[…]

Gabriel Roeder said the three lawsuits “are factually, legally and procedurally infirm and reflect a gross misunderstanding of the nature of actuarial services.”

In a written statement, the firm also said that it was still providing services to all three pension funds and would vigorously defend itself against the lawsuits “without further public comment.”

More details on the lawsuits, from the Times:

The three lawsuits are separate from Detroit’s bankruptcy case. They were filed in Wayne County Circuit Court by Gerard V. Mantese and John J. Conway, Michigan lawyers who have tangled with Detroit’s pension system before. The lawsuits focus on the calculations and analysis that Gabriel Roeder provided to the trustees. Like many city and state pension systems, those of Detroit and Wayne County are mature, complex institutions, governed by trustees who do not necessarily have sophisticated financial backgrounds and rely heavily on the meaningful advice and accurate calculations of their consultants.

Detroit’s trustees did not get that, Mr. Mantese and Mr. Conway contend. Even as the city slid faster and faster toward bankruptcy, its workers kept building up larger, costlier pensions, and the actuaries “assured the trustees that the plan was in good condition.”

“Gabriel Roeder recommended that the plan could maintain and increase benefits,” Ms. Estes contends in her complaint, which was filed in September. That might sound odd, coming from a plan member who stood to enjoy any increases. But Detroit was making promises it could not afford, and Ms. Estes is also a Detroit homeowner and taxpayer who argues she was harmed as the city kept piling more and more obligations onto its shrinking tax base.

As the residents of other struggling cities have discovered, public pension promises, once made, are extremely hard to break, even if the city goes bankrupt. Now Ms. Estes has lost not only part of her pension but much of the savings tied up in her house, while she and her neighbors overpay for paltry city services. She says she might have been spared some of the misery had Gabriel Roeder warned the trustees years ago that the pension system was unsustainable and recommended changes.

“We just got blindsided,” she said.

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.

Benefit Tweak Could Be Catalyst Behind Wave of Retirements in Indiana

The Indiana Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF) says it’s seeing a 35 percent increase in retirements this year, and the Teacher’s Retirement Fund (TRF) is projecting a 10 percent increase, as well.

The exact reason behind the surge is unknown, but the retirements have coincidentally timed with a benefit cut that took effect October 1.

From the Indiana Business Journal:

In a recent estimate provided to IBJ, the Indiana Public Retirement System said it expects 11,140 retirements in 2014 from state and local government, including school districts.

INPRS would not break down the number of departing workers that are covered by the Public Employees Retirement Fund, or PERF, for state and local government civilian employees, and how many are teachers. Spokeswoman Jennifer Dunlap did say, however, that PERF retirements will rise 35 percent, and that the Teachers Retirement Fund, or TRF, will see a 10-percent increase.

INPRS declined to attribute the wave to its recent decision to lower its annuity savings rate from 7.5 percent to 5.75 percent, effective Oct. 1. “It would be difficult to identify any one factor as being the reason for INPRS members to retire,” Dunlap said.

INPRS reported that 83.5 percent of the retirements were effective Sept. 1, which was the deadline for members to receive the 7.5-percent annuity rate. The most high-profile retirement in that time frame was state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who resigned Aug. 29 with four months left in his term.

An Annuity Savings Account is one leg of the INPRS system, and members have the option when they retire to annuitize their savings, which means they receive set monthly payments at a particular rate of return; roll the money into a privately managed account; or take a lump-sum payment.

The Indiana Public Retirement System, the entity that administers the PERF and TRF, manages $30.2 billion in assets.

Photo by www.nicolas-risch-photography.fr

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.

United Nations: Increased Pension Coverage Key To Future Global Development

The International Labour Organization (ILO), a UN agency, released a report yesterday warning that 48 percent of the world’s population didn’t have access to a retirement benefit of any kind in 2013.

The report, titled Social Protection for older persons: Key policy trends and statistics, said that retirement benefits make “good economic sense” and aid global economic development—but many countries are cutting back on benefits due to austerity measures. From the United Nations:

According to ILO, although more than 45 countries have reached 90 per cent pension coverage and more than 20 developing countries have achieved or nearly achieved universal pension coverage, the trend of fiscal consolidation spurred by austerity has led to a contraction in social protection for older persons with consequent adjustments.

These include cuts in health and other social services, the reduction of benefits and increase in contribution rates and the raising of the retirement age.

“These adjustments are undermining the adequacy of pension and welfare systems and reducing their ability to prevent poverty in old age,” Ms. Ortiz noted.

“The long-term liabilities of austerity take time to show up. Depressed household income levels are leading to lower domestic consumption and slowing down economic recovery. It is alarming that future pensioners will receive lower pensions in at least 14 European countries by 2050,” she added.

Meanwhile, a handful of countries have expanded pension coverage dramatically in recent years. From the UN:

At the same time, a number of countries have registered positive trends in their social protection systems. China, Lesotho, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Tunisia, for instance, have experienced what the ILO described as “remarkable successes” in the reach of their coverage with gains ranging from 25 to more than 70 per cent of the population.

Pointing to China, in particular, Ms. Ortiz observed that the country had achieved nearly universal coverage of pensions and increased wages while other countries, such as Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Hungary, Kazakhstan, and Poland, were reversing the earlier privatization of their pension systems as they were too expensive and had not expanded coverage.

“Public social security systems with strong social protection floors are essential for economic recovery, inclusive development and social justice, and therefore must be an integral part of the post-2015 development agenda,” concluded Ms. Ortiz, referring to the new development agenda that will succeed the landmark Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), set to expire in 2015.

Read the full report here.

Moody’s: Illinois Pension Debt Is Worst In Country

Moody’s released a report last weekend measuring the pension liabilities of all states relative to state revenue. By that measure, Illinois has the worst pension debt in the country, according to the report. From the Sun-Times:

Illinois’ pension liability as a percentage of state revenue is far and away the nation’s highest, according to a new report from a major credit-rating agency.

The state’s three-year average liability over revenue is 258 percent, Moody’s Investors Service says.

The next closest? Connecticut, at about 200 percent.

The Moody’s report averaged the Illinois percentage from 2010 through 2012. In 2012 alone, the state’s rate was 318 percent.

The state has a $100 billion deficit in the amount of money that should be invested in the portfolios of five state-employee pension accounts.

[…]

In the latest report, Moody’s sets [the median] level at 51 percent.

Several larger states, similar to Illinois, are well below the median and rank in the 10 lowest percentages of adjusted net pension liability, including Ohio, Florida and New York. The group also includes Illinois neighbors Iowa and Wisconsin — the latter having the lowest level next to Nebraska.

Only three others states — New Jersey, Hawaii and Louisiana — have rates higher than 120 percent.

The report acknowledged the state’s pending pension reform, which currently sits in court. From the Sun-Times:

Lawmakers adopted an overhaul plan last fall that cuts benefits and increases worker contributions to significantly cut that debt.

But the law has been challenged in court. A Sangamon County judge indicated last week he wants the case moved swiftly to appellate courts, suggesting the Illinois Supreme Court’s rejection in July of a law affecting retiree health insurance could prove a model for the pension challenge.

Moody’s points out that even if the pension overhaul gets constitutional approval from the state’s high court, it still will take decades for Illinois government to dig out of its financial hole.

Photo by Chris Eaves 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