funding status | Pension360

“Everybody’s Not Going To Retire At The Same Time”: Actuary Evaluates Former Illinois Governor Edgar’s Pension Comments

Last month, former Illinois governor Jim Edgar gave his thoughts on the state’s pension situation. He notably said he didn’t support the state’s pension reform law, and said the following:

“I don’t think also you have to have 100 percent funding in the pension plan. Everybody’s not going to retire at the same time. I think you can keep probably 75, 80 percent is sufficient, but I think what you’ve got to demonstrate to a lot of folks out there who rate the state’s credit and a lot of those things is that the plan will work over a period of time and that they are committed and are going to stick with it.”

Actuary Mary Pat Campbell, who runs the STUMP blog, weighed in on Edgar’s comments. As you’ll see, she is not a fan of Edgar’s pension knowledge. The full post is below.

_________________________________

By Mary Pat Campbell, originally published on STUMP

Seems that not all recent Illinois governors end up in prison, (Quinn isn’t out of the woods yet!) but perhaps they should be jailed for this crap:

“I don’t think also you have to have 100 percent funding in the pension plan. Everybody’s not going to retire at the same time. I think you can keep probably 75, 80 percent is sufficient, but I think what you’ve got to demonstrate to a lot of folks out there who rate the state’s credit and a lot of those things is that the plan will work over a period of time and that they are committed and are going to stick with it. We thought when we put in the provision you had to pay into the pension plan first thing before you did anything else that they would keep paying in. I never thought they would have the nerve to change that, but under (former Gov. Rod) Blagojevich they did and so you’re going to have to find some safeguards to put into the plan, but I think it’s going to take 20, 30 years to get to the level we want to get to, but if we start working toward it and don’t go on any spending spree with the pension plan, I think we can do that.”

First off, we do have an appearance of the 80% canard, but there’s a new lie that’s been creeping in that is pissing me off: “Oh, it’s not a problem right now… it would only be a problem if everybody retired at the same time.”

Let me explain, conceptually, what the pension liability is supposed to represent, and what the unfunded portion represents: it is what people have earned for their PAST service, and is using all sorts of assumptions, such as THE AGE THEY WILL PROBABLY RETIRE.

The actuarial value of the pension, under even the craziest approaches, does not assume everybody retires right now.

Let’s consider your pension value for a person still working: each extra year of service, they’ve earned some more. They are also a year closer to retirement. As long as they keep working and are still alive, the value of their pension increases, under most pension benefit design. Sometimes you’ll see a pension value drop at later ages, but that’s getting persnickety (though it has had some repercussions elsewhere).

The pension valuation is supposed to be a snapshot, indicating what has ALREADY BEEN EARNED. There are approaches that try to capture future salary increases, and tries to make accrual less drastic (as one usually does see huge increases in pension value right before retirement under some approaches).

The main time the pension value would be decreasing for a person is when they’re in retirement, as they’re not accruing more benefits, and each year they’re one year closer to death. The time the pension gets paid out is generally getting shorter. If the pension fund cannot cover retiree benefits, it’s in a really bad condition.

And here’s the deal: some pensions are not able to cover just the current retiree portion of the benefits:

Nobody is any more worried now than they were before the New Jersey Pension Study Commission report came out. Yes, “[t]his problem is dire and will only become much worse if meaningful steps are not taken quickly” but what does that really mean to anyone?

…. Scary Conclusions

1. For retirees there may be about $15 billion to cover $40 billion in liabilities and that’s ONLY for retirees leaving absolutely NOTHING for the 151,669 participants who have not yet started receiving monthly benefits except, for now, the refund of their contributions.

2. There is an equally good chance that Conclusion #1 is overly optimistic

I doubt New Jersey is the only state in that situation. As noted earlier, Kentucky is looking really bad.

And in my recent teaser, I showed a set of graphs I am developing for various pension plans. The ones being shown were for Texas Teachers Retirement System. I will explain them in a later post, and start showing you some truly scary information — using the official numbers from the plans themselves.

But shame on Gov. Edgar for mouthing the same bullshit everybody else does in favor of underfunding the pensions. I have looked at over a decades’ worth of Illinois pension valuations, and for all major funds (except one), they deliberately underfunded by substantial amounts, even in “good” years.

If you’re not going to make contributions when times are good, guess what will happen to the pensions when times are bad?

I guess ex-Gov. Edgar wants to cover his own ass for the pensions being underfunded in the go-go 90s, when he was governor (1991 – 1999). Hey! Everybody was doing it! 80% is good enough!

NO, IT’S NOT.

SHAME.

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

Illinois, Kentucky Pension Funds Benefit From $17 Billion Bank of America Settlement

A handful of pension funds will be receiving large chunks of change after Bank of America agreed today to pay $17 billion to end a Justice Department probe into the bank’s sale of toxic mortgage securities.

The Justice Department alleged that Bank of America violated federal law when it marketed and sold investment vehicles tied to shoddy home loans and misled investors about the quality of the investments.

Many pension funds were major investors in such investment vehicles and sustained major losses on those investments during the financial crisis.

But some funds will be getting a chunk of that money back, including numerous Illinois funds and the Kentucky Retirement System. From Red Eye Chicago:

For Illinois, the $16.65 billion national settlement means a cash payment of $200 million for the state’s pension system, making it whole for losses sustained as a result of the risky investments.

…

The Illinois pension entities that will receive the payments under Thursday’s deal are the Illinois Teachers Retirement System, the State Universities Retirement System and the Illinois State Board of Investment, which oversees pension plans for state employees, the General Assembly and judges.

Kentucky’s payout is substantially smaller than that of Illinois, but the KRS will still see some relief. From the Lexington Herald-Leader:

Kentucky Retirement Systems will get $23 million from Bank of America’s $16.65 billion national settlement with the federal government over accusations that the bank improperly dumped “toxic” mortgage-backed securities on the market, helping fuel the economic recession of 2008.

This isn’t the first major settlement stemming from toxic investments that have benefited pension funds. Earlier this year, CalPERS and CalSTRS received over $100 million combined when CitiGroup agreed to a $7 billion settlement.

Illinois was a beneficiary of the CitiGroup settlement as well, as three Illinois funds received a combined $45 million as reparations for their investment losses.

Photo by Mike Mozart via Flickr CC License

Why Did Ontario Lawmakers Wait So Long to Release A Report Critical of Its Pension Systems?

There’s been much concern in Ontario about the sustainability of its public pension systems, particularly in the electricity sector. Ontario Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk warned in 2013 that electricity sector pensions were unsustainable and quite possibly too generous.

Union leaders, taxpayers and other concerned parties agreed that the systems deserved a closer looking-at.

So, last December, Ontario lawmakers appointed Jim Leech—former head of the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan—to examine the pension systems inside and out to produce a report and make recommendations to improve their sustainability and affordability.

On March 18, 2014, the report was delivered to Ontario lawmakers. But not to the public.

For over four months it didn’t see the light of day. But last Friday, August 1, the report was finally released to the public. And it was highly critical of the sustainability and cost of the electricity sector’s public pension plans.

[The entire report can be read at the bottom of this page.]

From the Toronto Star:

As reported by the Star’s Rob Ferguson, the 45-pagestudy by former Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan head Jim Leech finds that Ontario taxpayers contribute $5 for every $1 employees are putting into their pension plans at Hydro One.

Ontario Power Generation isn’t much better, with employees contributing just 24 per cent of contributions compared to 76 per cent by the publicly owned utility.

Meanwhile, compared to other public-sector plans, the ones at Ontario’s four electricity agencies are “generous, expensive and inflexible,” Leech wrote.

What’s more, the study found all four pension plans “are far from sustainable.” Wrote Leech: “Should plans go further into deficit, the sponsors and, ultimately, ratepayers will be required to pay even larger contributions.”

The report has already accomplished part of its purpose: get the government thinking about ways to make these systems more sustainable and less costly.

But new questions are being raised about the transparency issues surrounding the report’s release. Although lawmakers saw the report in March, the public had to wait. Why was it allowed to gather dust for nearly five months?

Other stakeholders are wondering the same thing. Some reactions, as reported by The Star:

“This is awfully suspect,” said Progressive Conservative MPP Vic Fedeli, his party’s finance critic, questioning Wynne’s oft-stated goal of running an “open and transparent” government.

“There was ample opportunity to release this document with good public scrutiny. What are they hiding? What didn’t they want us to know?”

Also:

“Why now, why not before the election so people would have known what’s happening?” said Plamen Petkov, whose lobby group opposes the ORPP as too expensive.

“We’re very worried to see government agencies where employees are paying only 20 cents on the dollar for their pensions when taxpayers pay the other 80 cents. No wonder the government itself expects electricity prices to go up 42 per cent over the next five years,” he told the Star.

“It’s really disappointing. We recommend the government clean its own house first before they ask employers to contribute $3.5 billion a year to the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.”

Government officials said they originally planned to release the report on May 1, when Ontario’s new budget was passed. But the budget wasn’t passed, and that led to new elections being held.

The report was held as elections played out. The results of those elections weren’t confirmed until June 24^th. Still, the report remained in the hands of the government for another 5 weeks afterward.

Here is the report, which can also be found on Ministry of Finance website.

[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 Electricity Sector Report on Scribd” href=”http://www.scribd.com/doc/236071806/Electricity-Sector-Report” style=”text-decoration: underline;” >Electricity Sector Report</a></p><iframe class=”scribd_iframe_embed” src=”//www.scribd.com/embeds/236071806/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true” data-auto-height=”false” data-aspect-ratio=”undefined” scrolling=”no” id=”doc_30093″ width=”100%” height=”600″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>”]

Photo: “Ontario-flag-contour” by Qyd. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

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.