Pensions once engendered feelings of promise and security, something for workers to aspire to. Unfortunately those days have long since passed; pensions are now on the verge of extinction, except when it comes to public-worker pensions, where the word ‘pension’ now seems synonymous with bloated spending or worse, fraud.
In terms of bloated spending, take the case of New York State, where it’s recently been publicized that a number of lobbyists receive public pensions despite the fact that they don’t actually work in the public sector. How could this be possible? Among all the pork-barrel spending lobbyists typically whine fo,r they apparently found the time to slip in a demand for pensions. Instead of laughing off such requests, wouldn’t you know it… they got their wishes granted. “New York Conference of Mayors” (whatever purpose that organization is supposed to serve) Executive Director Peter Baynes, one of the beneficiaries of such pensions, lamely argued that lobbying groups such as his have been at the fore of reducing taxpayer costs, including the costs of the state pension system. I don’t recall that he cited any example though… I was also too busy pondering the ridiculous idea that New York has to hand people pensions to lobby New York to lower spending on pensions.
New York is not alone in handing out pensions to private-sector individuals. At least 20 states have similar policies, making the argument that certain lobbyists represent organizations which “serve the public.” They must be using a very vague definition of “serving the public” then. I picked up a piece of trash off a sidewalk yesterday, maybe I’ve now qualified for a pension too. As with most bloated spending, this is what happens when other people’s money gets spent on other other people. Thankfully some states are re-examining such spending; for example New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie issued an executive order to create a “Pension Fraud and Abuse Unit” in the hopes of re-tooling state pension policy. But knowing how stubborn, greedy and determined lobbyists are, we‘ll see if anything comes of this.
*
Locally, the Irvine City Council, despite its past record of spending like a trophy wife, made a financially smart move by voting to pay off its own unfunded pension liability (currently at $91.1 million) within ten to twelve years, rather than the previously scheduled twenty-plus years. Of course, this wasn’t done simply because it was an intelligent move – it more than that for government bodies to do such things. The root cause of this is that in 2015 the Governmental Accounting Standards Board will begin enforcing a policy requiring cities to include their unfunded pension liability as part of their audited financial report. In short this will force cities to tell the truth about their budgets, so a larger pension liability would result in creating a budget deficit. Rather than have to embarrassingly admit in a couple of years that the budget isn’t looking that good, the City Council took a step to lessen the blow when that hammer falls in a couple of years.
Despite that news, it’s time to temper the good feelings by reviewing the enormous, untamed monster known as the Orange County Public Employees Retirement system, also known as OCERS. OCERS is responsible for funding the pensions of approximately 14,000 county and local government retirees, plus another potential 26,000 who haven’t yet retired. According to the non-profit California Public Policy Center (CPPC), it has $9.5 billion in savings for those current-and-future retirees. This is certainly a giant figure, even in terms of California dollars but here comes the bad news: That figure means that OCERS is $5.7 billion short of its obligations.
How did such a canyon-like gap occur here? Apparently, it’s been a combination of rosy (and I mean parading-through-Pasadena on New Year’s Day rosy) assumptions about investment returns, as well as aggressively lax liability repayment schedules. OCERS has operated on the expectation of gaining 7.25 percent profits on interest annually… hey, I want to know what bank told them that! If one drops that estimate nearer to a more reasonable five percent, that $5.7 billion liability resembles closer to $10 billion. Unless the Bill Gates foundation decides to adopt OCERS, this calls for some quite drastic measures to be taken or else quite a few people will be left holding empty bags.
To fill that gargantuan money hole, the OC and its workers kicked in $218 million last year. However, even if given 20 years to close the gap, that kick-in amount would have to reach $546 million per year, according to the CPPC’s estimates. The CPPC’s Ed Ring called the amount of additional money needed to fix the problem “traumatic”… you know you’ve got a serious budget problem if the word “traumatic” applies. Like any other government program that’s ballooning out of control, there are only two hard solutions to consider: yet higher spending or hope for a quick economic boom.
OCERS is currently toying with the idea of dropping its expected investment return rate below its current 7.25 percent (in fact it had already dropped it from 7.75 percent before)… dropping the rate would also require higher funding to go into the system immediately, so naturally unions are against the idea. Said the OCEA’s (Orange County Employees Association) Jennifer Muir, the last drop was “extraordinarily aggressive” and those in favor of it were “lying to taxpayers”. According to OCERS’ own estimates, they are currently 62.5 percent funded (meaning they can pay 62.5 percent of what they owe at the moment) and Girard Miller, their investment officer, argues that that amount is no sign for alarm, stating that 80 percent funding (which some consider as a preferable range) is unnecessary.
It seems this funding gap (whatever its size actually turns out to be) isn’t going away anytime soon, or even for decades, as the two sides remain at odds. Hopefully in the near future states and cities will come up with more sensible plans when it comes to deciding who qualifies for pensions and how pensions are to be funded. Lobbyists will continue to moan and officials lacking economic wisdom will propose dumb ideas. Even without fraud involved, proper management of pension budgets seem to be even more vital to stave off monetary disasters. Politically-affiliated accountants will alternately weave tales of doom or tales of boom… maybe more disciplined, impartial minds will rule the day, someday… one can only hope.
OCERS’ average annual rate of investment return over the last 20 years has been above 8%. That exceeds the current assumption of 7.25%. The question is then – what is the justification to lower the assumption going forward to something below 7.25%? For comparison purposes, the Newport News, Virginia pension board just lowered its assumption from 7.75% to 7.5%. Perhaps the OCERS 7.25% assumption is actually too low.
Hey – we need some more posts from you, brother, where have you been?
See if you can look at the teachers’ pension scheme and understand what the issue is. From the source itself, you can find this: http://www.calstrs.com/general-information/fiction-vs-fact#
That tells you that the 7.5 percent assumption fails to dampen the effect of a downturn or two in the economy to the extent that fund becomes severely underfunded.
So you need better assumptions than 7.5 percent. Failing to plan is planning to fail, and every plan must be reviewed especially when it is not performing well.
Is there something drastically different in the way these pension funds are managed?
OCERS’ average annual rate of investment return over the last 20 years has been above 8%. That exceeds the current assumption of 7.25%. The question is then – what is the justification to lower the assumption going forward to something below 7.25%? For comparison purposes, the Newport News, Virginia pension board just lowered its assumption from 7.75% to 7.5%. Perhaps OCERS should be looking at increasing its assumption, not decreasing it.
Sorry for the duplication. I thought m first response was lost in cyberspace.
Been busier than a 1 armed you know what, and bogged down in pension politics. Don’t know when I can come up for air. But, I check in reguarly.
Trying (no luck so far)to recall a faded memory of mention of a CALPERS yield under 2% (perhaps quarterly?), I encountered-
Quick read on CALPERS – http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_1_calpers.html
and on general state level pension problems-
http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_3_state-debt.html including this-
“Earlier this year, a commission created by Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel reported that that city’s health-care costs for retirees would rise from $109 million in the 2013 budget to $541 million in a decade. Chicago has since decided to drop its current health-insurance program and shift all retirees onto the health-insurance exchange being set up in Illinois under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. That insurance will be cheaper because the federal government will subsidize the rates of the exchanges, basically getting taxpayers nationwide to pick up some of the cost for Chicago workers.”
So its not just Wal-Mart!
I also ran across mention of a scam by bond-sellers called “capital appreciation bonds”, a sort of “payday loans for school districts” which rudely corrected my thought that only districts ELSEWHERE in CA fell for this, by this list from the LA TIMES:
http://spreadsheets.latimes.com/capital-appreciation-bonds/
29 issues listed in OC, mostly nearby North & Central Cities!
Another view on this issue:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926
Ricardo – that is an excellent article. Here is a link to a 32 page report that paints the same picture http://y.ourfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Plot-Against-Pensions-final.pdf
The $10 billion in the OCERS fund is a lucrative target.