unfunded liabilities | Pension360

New Hampshire Supreme Court Rules State Can Increase Employee Pension Contributions

The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled this week that the state can increase public employees’ pension contributions – even for vested workers.

Since the increased contribution rate wouldn’t lead to higher benefits for employees, unions had argued the state had violated its contract with workers.

A lower court agreed with the labor groups last year – but the Supreme Court this week overturned the lower court’s decision.

More details from Governing:

The state Supreme Court has sided with lawmakers who revamped the state retirement system in 2011, requiring public employees to increase their retirement contributions.

A Merrimack County Superior Court decision last year said lawmakers could not increase contributions for those vested in the system, contending it would essentially violate a contract between the employers and the retirement system.

The ruling said the new law would increase contributions but not change benefits, so it would violate the contract for vested employees, who are those having 10 years or more contributing to the system.

However, the Supreme Court said the law cited by the lower court in making its decision does not retroactively affect employee contribution rates.

“The narrow question before us is whether, by enacting RSA 100-A:16, I(a), the Legislature unmistakably intended to establish NHRS member contribution rates as a contractual right that cannot be modified. We hold that it did not,” wrote Chief Justice Linda Dalianis for all five justices.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling and sent the case back to superior court.

NH Retirement Security Coalition – an association of labor groups – weighed in on the ruling:

“The NH Retirement Security Coalition has long contended that promises made to our member employees should be enforced because our members uphold their promises each and every day that they go to work. The court’s decision today unfortunately allows public employers to renege on their promise of security in retirement. While this decision is disappointing, our members will continue to provide high quality service to the state and its cities, towns, and school districts,” the coalition said in a statement. “We are deeply concerned about the long term impact of this decision on the people of New Hampshire. We are carefully reviewing this decision in detail with our attorneys and members of the Coalition and we will offer further in-depth comment as soon as we are able to do so.”

Sen. Jeb Bradley, the architect of the 2011 law around which the case was centered, said he was “encouraged” by the court’s decision:

“I’m encouraged that the Supreme Court has upheld the right and duty of the Legislature to amend and improve the New Hampshire Retirement System. Unless we can address the $5 billion unfunded liability in our state pension system, both taxpayers and workers would be left with a huge financial burden,” Bradley said in a statement. “This decision affirms the Legislature’s ability to make the changes we’ll need to preserve the New Hampshire Retirement System, protect taxpayers, and maintain employee jobs.”

Senate Bill 3 increased employee contribution rates, required non-vested employees to work longer and changed the way their benefits are calculated.

Photo by Joe Gratz via Flickr CC License

Kentucky Chamber of Commerce Calls For Audit of State Pension System

The Kentucky Chamber of Commerce is pushing for an audit of the Kentucky Retirement Systems – specifically, a review of its investment performance and policies.

Reported by the Courier-Journal:

Chamber President and CEO Dave Adkisson announced Thursday that the group wants a review of the investment performance and use of outside investment managers — among other issues — at Kentucky Retirement Systems, which has amassed more than $17 billion in unfunded liabilities.

While the state has made progress in addressing pensions, “serious problems persist that pose a significant threat to the state’s financial future,” Adkisson said. “The business community is concerned about the overall financial condition of our state.”

[State Auditor Adam] Edelen said in a statement Thursday that he shares the chamber’s concerns, but he also noted that at least three major reviews of KRS have occurred over the past few years.

[…]

KRS Executive Director Bill Thielen said officials will fully cooperate if Edelen decides to perform an audit. But also he pointed out that the system has been subject to continuous examinations, including audits, legislative reviews and a two-year investigation of investment managers by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission.

“None of those have turned up anything that is out-of-sorts,” he said. “A lot of the questions or concerns that the chamber seemingly raised have been answered numerous times.”

Thielen added that KRS doesn’t disclose the individual fees it pays managers because confidentiality helps officials negotiate lower rates.

State Auditor Adam Edelen said Thursday he hadn’t made a decision on whether to begin an audit of KRS. He said in a press release:

“For this proposed exam to add value and bring about real fixes to the system, it will require broad, bipartisan support and additional resources for our office to conduct the highly technical work…We have begun discussing the matter with stakeholders. No final decision has been made at this time.”

The founder of one retiree advocate group laid blame for the system’s underfunding on the state’s contributions, not investment policy, and was skeptical that the audit would yield fruitful results. Quoted in the Courier-Journal:

Jim Carroll, co-founder Kentucky Government Retirees, a pension watchdog group organized on Facebook, called the proposed audit a “red-herring” and argued that the financial problems in KERS non-hazardous are the result of year of employer underfunding.

He said KRS investments don’t yield the returns of some other systems because the low funding levels force them to invest defensively.

“I’m skeptical that anything useful would come out of another audit,” he said. “Not to say that there shouldn’t be more transparency, but that’s a separate issue.”

KRS’ largest sub-plan – KERS non-hazardous – is 21 percent funded.

Kentucky Retirement System Lowers Return Assumption; More State Money On Way

CREDIT: The Center For Retirement Research

The Kentucky Retirement System has lowered its assumed rate of return on investments from 7.75 percent to 7.5 percent.

The reduced assumption means the system will experience an uptick in unfunded liabilities, but it also ensures a higher annual payment from the state.

The action took place at a Board of Trustees meeting on Thursday. More details from CN 2:

The changes, presented to trustees earlier this year by actuaries with Cavanaugh Macdonald Consulting based on a five-year experience study, lower assumed returns on investments, price inflation, wage growth and wage inflation.

The new assumptions, KRS Executive Director Bill Thielen said, will cost the state roughly $95 million more per year in contributions for the Kentucky Employees Retirement System for state employees in non-hazardous positions during the next biennial budget, based on current plan valuations and payroll figures. They will not take effect until next year’s year-end plan valuations, he said.

[…]

The updated assumptions would push KRS’s unfunded liabilities to $19.5 billion, up from $17.8 billion currently, according to figures presented by Cavanaugh Macdonald Consulting.

At least one of the KRS trustees voiced concerns about approving the new guidelines at Thursday’s meeting. Personnel Cabinet Secretary Tim Longmeyer suggested delaying a vote until January so the board could meet with the governor’s office, legislators and others affected by the change.

“My concern is we don’t live in a bubble, so $95 million a year is a significant uptick,” said Longmeyer, who abstained from voting on the updated assumptions.

KRS Trustee Randy Overstreet, though, urged the board to move forward with the proposal. Nothing would change between now and January, he said.

“I’m thinking that we almost have the responsibility to follow the experts’ recommendations, and you’re right, it’s not a science, but it’s the best information we have to act on and move forward on since we have for the 20 years I’ve been on this board,” Overstreet said.

More context on KRS’ new assumed rate of return, from the Courier-Journal:

KRS has forecast a 7.75 investment return since 2007. But earnings in KERS non-hazardous averaged only 6.52 percent over the past decade, leading some critics — including lawmakers — to argue for a more cautious outlook.

The National Association of State Retirement Administrators reported that of 126 public retirement plans surveyed in October, 48 assumed a return of 7.5 percent or lower, while 78 assumed a higher rate.

The median rate was 7.75 percent, but more than half have cut their assumption since 2008, the group said.

KRS administers nearly a dozen defined-benefit plans for state workers, including the 21 percent funded KERS non-hazardous plan.

Biggs: Public Pensions Take On Too Much Risk

Andrew Biggs, former deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration and current Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, penned a column for the Wall Street Journal this week in which he posed the thesis that public pension funds invest in too many risky assets.

To start, he compares the asset allocations of an individual versus that of CalPERS. From the column:

Many individuals follow a rough “100 minus your age” rule to determine how much risk to take with their retirement savings. A 25-year-old might put 75% of his savings in stocks or other risky assets, the remaining 25% in bonds and other safer investments. A 45-year-old would hold 55% in stocks, and a 65-year-old 35%. Individuals take this risk knowing that the end balance of their IRA or 401(k) account will vary with market returns.

Now consider the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Calpers), the largest U.S. public plan and a trendsetter for others. The typical participant is around age 62, so a “100 minus age” rule would recommend that Calpers hold about 38% risky assets. In reality, Calpers holds about 75% of its portfolio in stocks and other risky assets, such as real estate, private equity and, until recently, hedge funds, despite offering benefits that, unlike IRAs or 401(k)s, it guarantees against market risk. Most other states are little different: Illinois holds 75% in risky assets; the Texas teachers’ plan holds 81%; the New York state and local plan 72%; Pennsylvania 82%; New Mexico 85%.

The column goes on:

Managers of government pension plans counter that they have longer investment horizons and can take greater risks. But most financial economists believe that the risks of stock investments grow, not shrink, with time. Moreover, while governments may exist forever, pensions cannot take forever to pay off their losses: New accounting rules promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and taking effect this year will push plans to amortize unfunded liabilities over roughly 15 years. Even without these rules, volatile pension investments translate into volatile contribution requirements that can and have destabilized government budgets.

Yet public-plan managers may see little option other than to double down on risk. In 2013 nearly half of state and local plan sponsors failed to make their full pension contribution. Moving from the 7.5% return currently assumed by Calpers to the roughly 5% yield on a 38%-62% stock-bond portfolio would increase annual contributions by around 50%—an additional $4 billion—making funding even more challenging.

But the fundamental misunderstanding afflicting practically the entire public-pension community is that taking more investment risk does not make a plan less expensive. It merely makes it less expensive today, by reducing contributions on the assumption that high investment returns will make up the difference. Risky investments shift the costs onto future generations who must make up for shortfalls if investments don’t pay off as assumed.

Read the entire column here.

Photo by dktrpepr via Flickr CC License

Kentucky Teachers’ Pension Asks Lawmakers For Funding Help; Will Present Bond Proposal

The Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System is seeking help from the state legislature in easing its pension obligations. The plan involves the state issuing bonds.

Details on the proposal are sparse, but KTRS officials will present their plan to lawmakers on Wednesday.

From the Courier Journal:

The Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System is proposing that the state issue a new bond to help shore up underfunded teacher pensions.

Officials from KTRS will present the proposal to lawmakers on the Interim Joint Committee on State Government on Wednesday afternoon. An official said last week that the plan will center on using existing revenue streams that will soon become available once the state retires debt service on older bonds.

According to the 2013 valuation, KTRS faces more than $13.8 billion in unfunded liabilities and has only 52 percent of the money it needs to pay out pension benefits in coming decades.

The system has asked the state to provide around $400 million in additional funding each year to keep the system solvent.

The plan could well be for the state to issue “pension obligation bonds”. Governing magazine explains the concept of POB’s:

Pension Obligation Bonds (commonly referred to as POBs), allow governments to issue taxable bonds for the purposes of putting money toward or fully paying off the unfunded portion of a pension liability. The proceeds from the bond issue go in the pension fund. The theory is that the rate of return on the investment will be greater than the interest rate the government pays to bond investors so that the transaction is favorable to the government; it makes money off the deal.

KTRS manages $17.5 billion in assets. The system is about 51 percent funded.

Pension Insurer Deficit Hits Record High of $61 Billion

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) said Monday its deficit had ballooned to $61.7 billion for fiscal year 2014.

The PBGC is a government agency that guarantees pension benefits to members of private defined-benefit pension plans.

In Kansas, Pension System Prepares To Be Target of Spending Cuts

Kansas lawmakers will need to cut almost $300 million in spending to balance the 2014 budget, and even steeper cuts are being predicted for 2015.

History shows that states consistently look to one place for “easy” cuts: annual payments to pension systems.

Kansas pension officials are now being asked by lawmakers how decreased state payments would alter the system’s liabilities.

From the Lawrence Journal-World:

New concerns were raised Monday that those gains could come undone if Kansas lawmakers decide to cut back on the state’s contributions to the pension system to address a looming $715 million revenue shortfall.

Sen. Laura Kelly, D-Topeka, asked KPERS officials Monday to come up with projections about what that would do to the system’s unfunded liability.

“Those of us who have been around here long enough know that when tough times come, we have either reduced or eliminated our KPERS contributions,” Kelly said during a meeting of the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Pensions and Investments.

Last week, state budget officials released new revenue projections showing lawmakers will need to cut $279 million in spending to balance this year’s budget. And for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1, they will need to carry those cuts forward and make another $435.7 million in spending cuts.

Some lawmakers vocally opposed cutting payments to the pension system:

Republican leaders on the panel said there is little chance of cutting back on KPERS contributions to make up for the revenue shortfalls, although they left open the possibility that the funding may have to come from money other than the state general fund.

“We need to keep those commitments,” said Sen. Jeff King, R-Independence, who chairs the panel. “I am always open to suggestions — what we’ve seen from other states; new proposals to more efficiently make those commitments we’ve made — but keeping the commitment to paying down the unfunded liability is vital.”

The Kansas Public Employees Retirement System manages $14.4 billion in assets.

Photo by TaxRebate.org.uk

Teacher Sues Kentucky Pension System Over Funding Status, Transparency Issues

A Kentucky teacher has filed a lawsuit against the Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System (KTRS), claiming KTRS has “failed in their fiduciary duty” by letting the system become one of the worst funded teachers’ plans in the country.

From WFPL:

A Jefferson County Public Schools teacher filed a lawsuit Monday against the Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System, which has been called one of the worst-funded pension systems for educators in the U.S.

The plaintiff, duPont Manual High School teacher Randolph “Randy” Wieck, told WFPL that the system supporting over 140,000 teachers in Kentucky is billions of dollars in debt; also that teachers pay about 12 percent of their paychecks into the retirement system.

“We have raced to the bottom and we’re neck and neck with the worst funded teachers plan in the country,” he said.

As WFPL reported, the General Assembly during this year’s legislative session funded KTRS at around 50 percent of what the retirement system requested.

The federal Government Accounting Office and Standard & Poor say Kentucky’s pension system is being funded at an unhealthy rate.

KTRS has “failed in their fiduciary duty by not aggressively and publicly demanding the full funding they need to stay solvent,” Wieck argues in a copy of the complaint he provided to WFPL. The complaint further alleges that KTRS has not been transparent enough in the “system’s dire funding status,” and that the investments made by KTRS are not responsible.

The teacher, Randy Wieck, is giving KTRS one year to become fully funded. After that, he says he will bring the lawsuit to the steps of Kentucky’s General Assembly; for many years, lawmakers have failed to pay the state’s actuarially-required contribution to the pension system – although they did make the full payment to the teachers’ system in 2011.

TRS’ attorney commented on the suit:

“I am very optimistic that we are going to find a solution for this,” said Beau Barnes, general counsel for KTRS.

There are positive signs among members of the General Assembly to come up with a plan, he said, adding that next week, KTRS will appear before the state’s Interim Joint Committee on State Government to discuss a financing plan for the pension fund. Wieck, who was joined by “Kentucky Fried Pensions” author Chris Tobe, seemed skeptical of previous conversations that seemed to excite Barnes.

The state legislature is not poised to discuss budget issues during the 2015 legislative session, but Wieck said Kentucky is violating its duty to keep the pension system solvent.

“You don’t actually have to wait for the bus to hit you to experience danger. And that is what is happening to Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System. It is being damaged every year,” he said.

KTRS manages $17.5 billion in assets. The system is about 51 percent funded.

Audit Coming for Pittsburgh Pensions

Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale and Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto announced on Wednesday plans to audit the city’s municipal pension funds.

DePasquale said the audit was routine and not triggered any suspicions in particular.

Part of the audit’s purpose will be to see whether the pension systems implemented recommendations made during the city’s previous audit in 2011.

From WESA News:

In an effort to ensure the pension plans for police, firefighters and municipal employees do not become a financial liability, Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale has launched an audit of those plans. Peduto joined the auditor general for the announcement, saying it’s time to dig deep into Pittsburgh’s numbers.

“Get a true and accurate accounting of where we are, make it available so the public can see it, then do what we do in Pittsburgh — solve the problem,” Peduto said.

The overall goal of the audit is to determine if the pension fund is administered in compliance with applicable state laws, regulations, contracts and local ordinances and policies and to determine if municipal officials took appropriate corrective action to address the findings contained in a prior audit report. The prior audit report, covering 2010 and 2011 made several recommendations to address the underfunding of municipal pension plans.

Pittsburgh’s pension systems are among the least-funded of any city in the state. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

With assets of about $675 million and liabilities of about $1.2 billion, Pittsburgh’s funds for retired police, firefighters and other municipal employees is considered “moderately distressed” by the state Public Employee Retirement Commission.

Pittsburgh’s pension went from nearly 62 percent funded in 2013 to 58 percent in 2014, Mr. DePasquale said, partly due to market conditions and partly because of a reduced expected rate of return pushed through by outgoing Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s administration late last year. Though lowering the rate of return may have been prudent, not budgeting money to account for the gap was not, Mr. Peduto said.

“We basically shorted our pension fund under the guise of good government,” he said.

In Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh’s unfunded liability of $485 million is second only to Philadelphia’s, which is $5.3 billion.

The audit is expected to take one to two months.

Photo by Sakeeb Sabakka via Flickr CC License

Illinois Prepares To Contribute More To Teachers’ Retirement System

Illinois is gearing up to make a higher payment this year to its largest public pension system.

The Teachers’ Retirement System of Illinois will be receiving a $3.72 billion contribution from the state in FY 2015-16. That payment is over $300 million higher than last year’s.

From the Pekin Daily Times:

The Teachers’ Retirement System board of trustees has given preliminary approval to a state contribution to the system of $3.72 billion for the budget year that starts July 1, 2015. That’s a $307 million increase from the state’s contribution for downstate teacher pensions in the current budget.

About $200 million of the increase is the result of TRS lowering the estimated rate of return it expects to get on its investments, said TRS spokesman Dave Urbanek.

Earlier this year, TRS reduced the estimated rate of return from 8 percent annually to 7.5 percent, which brought TRS into line with anticipated returns used by other major pension systems.

“There are other factors that play into the increase, but that is a big one,” Urbanek said. “We’ve always said that you lower the rate of return the (state) contribution goes up.”

The calculations were made using current state pension laws, not the pension reforms that were passed by the General Assembly a year ago. The pension reforms are on hold while the constitutionality of the law is challenged in court. Another hearing on the case is scheduled in Sangamon County Nov. 21.

TRS said about 70 percent of the annual contribution is devoted to paying off the system’s unfunded liability. TRS is the largest of the five state-funded pension systems. The total state bill for the pension systems in the current budget is $6.2 billion.

The change in TRS’ state contributions has fluctuated in the last couple of years. It actually dropped slightly in the current budget after increasing by $736 million the previous year, according to TRS figures.

TRS manages $45.3 billion in assets and is 44.2 percent funded.

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