retirement | Pension360

Survey: Most Expect to Keep Working During Retirement

For most people, retirement brings to mind images of beaches, hammocks and long days devoted to hobbies instead of work.

In fact, more work is probably last on the list of concepts associated with retirement. Or is it?

A survey by Consumer Reports found that the overwhelming majority of people close to retirement actually expect to keep working in some capacity after they’ve officially “retired”. From Consumer Reports:

Eighty-three percent of pre-retirees in our survey expected to work full- or part-time.

The phenomenon of a gradual retirement isn’t so new. Each year since 2007—before the economic downturn—about a quarter of our fully retired respondents have reported starting their retirement by working less, not stopping entirely. They reduced hours at their main job, worked part-time at a new one, or started a business. They worked for a median of four years. The most satisfied partly retired respondents worked 9 hours or less per week.

Laboring longer provides more income and delays when you begin withdrawing from savings, allowing more time for growth. And for many, it keeps those synapses firing.

It’s interesting to note that although 83 percent of respondents said they expected to keep working, past data from the same survey shows only 25 percent actually do.

Perhaps part of the reason for that disconnect are the implications that working has for other retiree benefits—sometimes, more work means less Social Security and pension benefits:

If you haven’t reached full retirement age but have claimed your benefit, Social Security holds on to $1 for every $2 you earn above $15,480. When you reach full retirement age, it gives that deferred amount back, adding to your monthly benefit.

Working shorter hours at the same employer could affect pension benefits or employer-based group health insurance, so check with human resources before you commit to part-time work.

The survey data is part of a larger piece over at Consumer Reports about how to “Stop Freaking Out About Retirement”. It’s worth a read.

Here’s How Philadelphia’s New Labor Deal Will Affect Pensions

After years of negotiations, Philadelphia and its largest union have come to an agreement on a new labor contract that has implications for the city’s pension system and the workers that pay into it.

The union, AFSCME District Council 33, indicated that its members will overwhelmingly approve the deal.

A major provision of the deal gives employees a choice between several retirement plan options. Employees will also have to pay more into the pension system. From Business Insurance:

[The deal] will increase employee contributions to the pension fund and allow new employees the choice between a hybrid plan and the traditional pension plan, said Mark McDonald, a spokesman for Mayor Michael A. Nutter.

The contract agreement term is retroactive from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2016. Terms of the contract must be ratified by members of DC 33.

Current participants in the $4.8 billion Philadelphia Municipal Retirement System, a defined benefit plan, will have their employee contribution increase by 1% of pay over the next two years — 0.5% effective Jan. 1, 2015, and an additional 0.5% effective Jan. 1, 2016.

All employees hired after the contract is ratified can either enter the defined benefit plan and pay 1% more than current participants or enter a hybrid plan. Current employees have 90 days following ratification to make an irrevocable election to move to the hybrid plan.

The rest of the deal, as reported by ABC:

The newly reached seven year tentative agreement is retroactive from July 2009 and expires in 2016.

The deal will include wage increases of 3.5 percent this year, 2.5 percent next year plus a lump sum of $2,800 for every member. However the wage increases are not retroactive.

Also in the deal – employee contributions to pensions will increase and the city will pay a one-time $20 million lump sum into their healthcare.

In the future, the city will be able to use temporary layoffs, if needed, during an economic crisis.

The deal marks a compromise for both sides. According to WPVI, the deal will prove expensive for the city—estimates put the cost at $127 million over five years—that will require some budgetary finagling.

One major concession for the union was that sick leave will no longer be eligible for overtime pay.

Photo by Peter Miller via Flickr CC License

Would You Sell Your Future Pension For a Lump Sum of Cash? These Businesses Are Banking On It

You’ve heard of payday advances. But pension advances?

Believe it or not, businesses are popping up that allow retirees to do just that: “sell” a portion (or all) of their future retirement income in exchange for a lump sum of cash today.

The owners of these businesses admit that their service isn’t for everyone. But if you need to pay bills now, they say, then why not sell a portion of your pension for cash? More from Today:

Their pitch, aimed at military and government retirees with generous pension benefits and those with bad credit, is mighty appealing: cash now to pay today’s bills.

Of course, to get tomorrow’s money today, you have to sign over your future pension payments for a specified number of years.

Mark Corbett runs the website Buy Your Pension, which helps facilitate pension sales. He told TODAY that a pension advance is not for everyone, but he believes it can be beneficial for some people.

“You should not sell your pension unless it saves you money,” he said. “For example, you are using it to pay off bills.”

Four years ago, Corbett got an advance on his private pension — selling a $237,000 nest egg for $89,000 — to pay off his mounting bills. He called it “a godsend” that reduced his stress and probably added years to his life.

But critics say pension advance services are dangerous and financially unwise. The Federal Trade Commission, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and other consumer protection agencies are already cautioning people to be know the implications of selling your pension. Today writes:

“There are serious financial consequences down the road for taking the money in a lump sum now,” said Gerri Walsh, FINRA’s senior vice president of investor education. “You are getting less money than if you waited and got those monthly pension payments.”

Unlike a traditional loan, you can’t get out of the deal early. If you signed up for a six-year payout, the company gets your pension for a full six years.

“A pension advance is unlike any other type of financing, because you’re required to sign over part of your future income stream,” said Leah Frazier, an attorney for the FTC.

“You could find yourself in a situation down the road where you need money for your basic expenses, but you don’t have it because you took it as an advance.”

And remember: Getting a lump sum pension payment is likely to have some serious tax implications.

“It could push you into a higher tax bracket,” said Lisa Greene-Lewis, lead CPA at TurboTax. “I could see people doing this and getting shocked by the additional taxes they now have to pay.”

The Government Accountability Office (GOA) recently did some secret shopping at nearly 40 pension advance businesses. Based on their experiences, they released a report indicating that they’d found numerous “questionable business practices”.

Last month, Missouri banned pension advances for public employees. They are the only state thus far to do so.

Photo by: www.SeniorLiving.Org

Is the Retirement Savings Crisis Too “Hyped”? These Researchers Think So.

A seemingly routine Capitol Hill hearing got very interesting very fast late last month. The hearing was held by the Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee and focused on the state of retirement savings in the U.S.

Why was it so interesting? Two of the witnesses, Sylvester J. Schieber and Andrew G. Biggs, insisted that the retirement savings “crisis” in the U.S. is over-hyped. (They were referencing, among other things, the recent government statistics claiming that 20 percent of Americans aged 55-64 had zero retirement savings).

An outpouring of criticism followed, led by Christian Weller, who wrote:

Launched by Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX), the hearing announcement made reference to retirement income being underreported, implying that families are better off than the data show. Moreover, the witness list included crisis deniers, such as the American Enterprise Institute’s Andrew Biggs, making claims that the number of households inadequately prepared for retirement is largely overstated. Some testimony turned to calls for Social Security benefit cuts. Because, after all, cutting Social Security would theoretically inflict little harm if families are already well prepared for retirement. In reality, families would suffer tremendously from Social Security cuts. Why? Because as a long-standing body of economic research has repeatedly shown, there is indeed a growing crisis.

Schieber and Biggs (who, by the way, are no slouches–you can read their bios at the bottom of this post) quickly took to the blogosphere to explain their position.

First, they tackled why they disputed the government data, released last week, that suggested one in five Americans nearing retirement had no money at all saved for retirement. From Sheiber and Biggs (S + B):

These [Social Security Administration] publications rely on data from the Current Population Survey, which omits the vast majority of income that seniors receive from IRA and 401(k) accounts and thus makes seniors appear significantly poorer and less prepared for retirement than they actually are.

IRS tax data, which include all forms of pension withdrawals, show that true incomes for middle class retirees receiving Social Security benefits are substantially higher than is believed. The fact that these faulty SSA statistics were cited by the Social Security Subcommittee’s ranking member, apparently without knowledge of the limitations of these data, is evidence that even policymakers’ understanding of retirement security can be improved.

What about National Retirement Research Index’s findings that 6 in 10 Americans are at risk of an insecure retirement? S + B write:

With due respect to the NRRI’s authors, we have already detailed how the NRRI sets a higher bar for retirement income adequacy than most financial advisors and how it ignores the ways that family size and structure play into retirement saving patterns. In addition, the NRRI projects current workers’ future incomes using a one-size-fits-all pattern that ignores the dispersion in earnings that takes place from middle age onward.

This assumption erroneously reduces the “replacement rates” that low earners will receive from Social Security. The NRRI also predicts that traditional defined benefit pension plans will continue to contract, but assumes that future retirees will have no larger IRA or 401(k)s accumulations than those of people who retired prior to 2010. Together, these factors substantially – but erroneously, in our view – increase the share of workers considered to be “at risk” of an insecure retirement.

So who are these people anyway?

Sylvester J. Schieber:

Sylvester J. Schieber is Chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) and a private consultant on retirement and health issues. He retired from Watson Wyatt Worldwide in September 2006 where had served as Vice President/U.S. Director of Benefit Consulting and Director of Research and Information. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Notre Dame in 1974. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Pension Research Council at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania since 1985. Dr. Schieber was a member of the 1994-1996 Social Security Advisory Council. In January 1998 he was appointed to a six-year term on the Social Security Advisory Board.

Andrew Biggs:

Andrew G. Biggs is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he studies Social Security reform, state and local government pensions, and public sector pay and benefits.

Before joining AEI, Biggs was the principal deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA), where he oversaw SSA’s policy research efforts. In 2005, as an associate director of the White House National Economic Council, he worked on Social Security reform. In 2001, he joined the staff of the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security.

You can read their entire blog post here.

You can also read the initial blog post, “Yes, There Is A Retirement Crisis”.

It’s a fascinating discussion, although at this moment, it seems to be two men standing alone against a world of data.

Federal Reserve: One In Five People Nearing Retirement Have No Retirement Savings

The Federal Reserve released its Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households last week, and one statistic stood out starkly from the rest: 19 percent of people between the ages of 55 and 64 have no retirement savings and don’t have a pension lined up.

The Federal Reserve surveyed 4,100 people last year and retirement savings were one of the major topics. The report shed light on the dire state of retirement savings in the United States.

Across all age groups, 31 percent said they had zero retirement savings. When asked how they planned to get by after retirement, 45 percent said they would have to rely on social security. Eighteen percent plan to get a part-time job during “retirement”, and 25 percent of respondents said they “don’t know” how they will pay the bills during retirement.

Screen shot 2014-08-11 at 11.23.21 AM — Source: The Federal Reserve

Pension360 has previously covered how income inequality rears its head when retirement approaches, and this report provided further evidence: 54% of people with incomes under $25,000 reported having zero retirement savings and no pension. Meanwhile, only 90% of those earning $100,000 or more had either retirement savings or a pension, or both.

As 24/7 Wall St. points out, these trends could have a broader affect on the economy. What’s certain, however, is that retirement is no longer a certainty for many people:

This is no simple report to ignore, and this can affect the future of many things in America. It can affect Social Security, it can affect the financial markets via contributions and withdrawals of retirement funds, and it can affect the future workforce demographics in that older workers may simply not be removing themselves from the workforce, making it impossible for younger workers to graduate or move up.

Another retirement scare is a tale you have heard, but this quantifies it. The Fed showed that although the long-term shift from defined-benefit to defined-contribution (from pension to 401(K) and IRA) plans places significant responsibilities on individuals to plan for their own retirement, only about one-fourth appear to be actively doing so.

The researched that conducted the survey noted that the lack of retirement savings is due partially to poor planning. But many of those surveyed said they “simply have few or no financial resources available for retirement”.

Photo by RambergMediaImages via Flickr CC License

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.

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

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

Chris Christie’s New Pension Proposal May Trigger Another Wave of Mass Retirements

Back in 2011, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed into law the state’s first round of pension reforms, a curious thing happened: state workers started heading for the exits. And they weren’t leaving for the weekend—they were leaving for good.

In fact, state workers retired in unprecedented numbers in 2010 and 2011, when the pension proposal was being discussed and passed through the legislature. Under the plan, workers have to contribute more of their paychecks to the pension system.

Now, Gov. Christie has announced he’s planning to propose a new set of pension reforms—and he’s made it clear that the benefits of workers will not come out unscathed.

With that news circulating, New Jersey is reporting that another wave of retirements is already in the making. The Star-Ledger reports:

As Gov. Chris Christie bangs the drum for a second round of pension reform in New Jersey, public officials and union leaders are bracing for another wave of public workers rushing to retire.

Employees in state and local government headed for the door in record numbers at the beginning of Christie’s first term, thanks in part to laws passed by the governor and state lawmakers asking public workers to pay a larger share of their health and pension costs. More than 20,000 retired in 2010, followed by 19,500 the next year.

After slowing the next two years, the pace of public worker retirements is picking up again, according to state Treasury Department figures.

A total of 11,916 employees are scheduled to retire through the end of this month — a nearly 9 percent spike from the same point in 2013. If the pace continues, about 17,000 may file papers by the end of the year. A total of 15,700 public workers retired last year.

The change comes as Christie gets ready to introduce further changes to the pension system, which is facing $40 billion in unfunded liabilities.

The Republican governor, a potential 2016 presidential candidate who rose to popularity partly because of his pension fights with public worker unions, said the previous changes didn’t go far enough. He has put curtailing the costs of public employee benefits at the top of his summer agenda, suggesting the state could go bankrupt without more action.

Union leaders have offered up various explanations for the spike. Some say the retirements are indeed caused by the virtual guarantee that workers will see their benefits decrease if they don’t lock them in by retiring.

But other union officials claim that the surge in retirements can be chalked up to random fluctuations. From NJ.com:

Some union leaders say more public workers may be planning to retire out of fear they could see their pensions and health benefits cut if they don’t get out now.

“There’s a feeling of unease about what’s going to happen,” said Pat Colligan, president of the state Policemen’s Benevolent Association. “People have left the past couple of months because they’re afraid. And there are people who have their finger on the retirement button.”

But Steve Baker, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, the state teachers union, said he’s not convinced this year’s 9 percent increase in retirements was caused by Christie’s warnings, saying numbers fluctuate from year to year.

“They may be on the higher end of the range, but they’re certainly within the range,” he said.

Hetty Rosenstein, director of the state chapter of the Communications Workers of America, said she would be upset if Christie’s talk caused more public workers to retire in the coming months.

“You have people who have dedicated their life to public service,” said Rosenstein, whose union represents more than 40,000 state workers in New Jersey. “It would be really terrible and shameful if people make their retirement decisions based upon fear that after 30 years their retirement isn’t secure.”

Among public workers, retirements for teachers and non-uniformed government workers are both up 12 percent so far this year, while police and firefighter retirements are down 14 percent. Retirements for the State Police dropped from 145 to 83, the figures show.

In the decade before Christie was governor, public workers retired at a rate of 13,656 a year. Since he took office, the clip is at 17,602 — a 29 percent increase.

Bill Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said part of the problem is that Christie has yet to unveil any details of his plan to revise public worker benefits.

“There’s always fear of the unknown,” Dressel said. “There’s not a clear message coming from our state policymakers.”

Christie is currently holding a series of town hall meetings around the state addressing pension issues. He has not announced specific details of his latest pension reform proposal, but he says he will release the proposal to the public by the end of summer.

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