The Mississippi Prepaid College Tuition Savings program issued its annual actuarial report several weeks ago. The report states the program's funding level fell to 76.8% in 2012 from 83.3% in 2011. The MPACT Board of Directors voted unanimously in August to suspend new registrations pending the outcome of a financial audit. Post reporting suspension It must be pointed out when reading the report the projections assume no further participants are enrolled in the program and thus does not include their future payments.
MPACT's investments yielded a rate of return of only 0.6% for the twelve-month period ending on June 30, 2012. The S&P 500 fell 0.45% in the same period while the Russell 2000 decreased 0.05%. The Dow remained virtually unchanged. The stock markets plunged in August 2011 and spent the rest of the 52-week period recovering. Treasurer Lynn Fitch told the Joint Legislative Budget Committee two weeks ago MPACT's investments averaged a rate of return of only 4.8% since its inception, a far cry from the assumed rate of return of 7.8%.
Then-Treasurer Tate Reeves told JJ in 2010 the asset allocations for MPACT were equities (62.1%), bonds (27.7%), cash equivalents which include short-term treasuries (7.4%), and real estate (2.8%). It is not known what the current asset allocations are. 2010 post on MPACT.
The problem facing MPACT is the current rate of return is below the 8.6% tuition inflation rate for state universities. There were 22,293 participants in the program in 2012. The funding level was at or above 100% funded from 1997 to 2000. The funding level dipped to 76.1% in 2002 after the recession but recovered to a funding level of 95.2% in 2007 only to fall again to a low of 72.9% in 2009 after the meltdown of 2008.
Actuary Mike Brister calculated the costs of closing down the program and refunding the money in a September 7, 2012 letter to program director Claire Whittington:
"As requested we have prepared a valuation of the MPACT Program under MS. Code Sec. 37-155-25. We assumed all contracts with a “Projected Maturity Date” before 2018 would have tuition payments made by MPACT as due. All other contracts would receive a refund of amounts paid in with interest. This amount, $107,782,980, was determined by Intuition. The following compares the results for the Program without change (Current Program) and the Program under Sec. 37-155-25 (Closed Program)."
Mr. Brister estimated it will cost $107,782,980 to refund contributions to participants. The deficit from paying tuition and refunds against current assets would fall to $63,765,887.
Facts from the June 30, 2012 Actuarial Valuation and Report:
Deficit: $94.4 million (p.2)
2012 Funding level: 76.8% (p.1)
2011 Funding level: 83.3% (p.1)
Return on Assets: 0.6% (p.1)
Increase in average tuition for 4-yr colleges: 8.6% (p.1)
Assumed rate of return: 7.8% (p.1)
Assumed annual tuition increase: 6.5% for 4-yr colleges (p.1)
Participants in 2012: 22,293 (p.1)
Participants in 2011: 21,218 (p.1)
Market Value of Assets: $265,125,878 (p.2)
Present Value of Contract Liabilities: $407,454,351 (p.2)
Contributions: $47.9 million (p.3)
Rate of return required to satisfy all future benefits/expenses: 12.22% (p.7)
Projected year for assets to be fully depleted: 2025
Percentage of 4-yr contracts by Big 3: 83%
Percentage of 4-yr contracts by JSU: 11%
Percentage of 4-yr contracts by the rest: 16%
Note: One observation I've made for years. The MPACT board of directors meets several times a year. There is no mention anywhere on the MPACT or Treasurer's website of the meetings or when they are held. Nothing like secret playbooks. Looks like I'll have to harass them every two weeks.
Post covering 2010 hearing including more charts and reports.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Latest facts on MPACT. Treasurer asked actuary to determine cost of closing program.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Thanks Kingfish! The mainstream press hasn't had time to look at this. Too busy telling us which fast food joint to eat at. This could be a disaster for Tater and a huge problem for our legislators. And what will Phil do? Get ready for the lawsuits. I hold two contracts and am not a happy camper discovering Fitch and company playing this secret game.
Probably a good idea to determine all costs, including how much it might cost to continue OR close down the program. If not, the first thing she'd be countered with would be "Does this idiot realize how much it would cost to terminate the program?" This goes in the 'can't win for losing' column.
Are you saying Lynn Fitch lied to the Board when she told them shutting down the program wouldn't affect the 23,000 families already enrolled?
The letter assumes those currently in school have their tuition paid.
It was 76% funded when Reeves ran for Treasurer.
Even with the Great Recession, It was 84% funded when Reeves ran for Lt. Governor.
And some of you hate Reeves so much you want to attack him for improving the situation under his watch?
Prelude to PERS?
This is a ridiculous grab for the spotlight by someone in a job that we should probably eliminate. Why not go after PERS? She is getting bad advice (or encouragement) from somebody.
She doesn't have the authority to dick around with PERS.
This reminds me of the old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times." A Republican actually exercises some fiscal responsibility, and other Republicans go ballistic. I thought fiscal responsibility was the Republican war cry. As I look at the Republican leadership in Mississippi, it's clear to me that Lynn Fitch is the only leader with balls. Hahahahaha.
Let me get this straight - Lynn Fitch requested the valuation of the MPACT program with the intent to close down the program. The letter Fitch received was dated Sept. 7, 2012 - 11 DAYS BEFORE HER BUDGET HEARING! Why couldn't she or a member of her staff have the courtesy to let the Speaker & Lt. Gov. know what she had done. STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!!!!
Go get PERS! Shallowfax is incorrect. She can discuss anything she wants to discuss and PERS should be one of them.
Sounds as if Tate was whistling past the graveyard at the expense of the taxpayers so as to insure he'd have no problem getting elected Lt. Gov.
This concept was always farked from the beginning.
What investments have a rate of return which exceeds the tuition inflation rate over a relevant period? A relevant period might be something like 15 or 20 years.
Why does no one address the real issue: tuition increases at a rate of over 8% per year.
Ludicrous.
10:03; Au Contraire. I wasn't wrong. My comment that she hasn't got the authority played off the notion that this is a prelude to her attempting to shut down PERS. Sure, anybody can discuss anything they'd like to discuss. But she has very limited authority, if any, regarding PERS. She's a De Facto member of the board by default, but that's it.
9:22; Kingfish or the article implies that she 'intends to shut Mpact down', only that she made a request as to cost, which is prudent in any discussion.
Tuition is inversely proportional to the Legislature's appropriations for higher education. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of legislators and the leadership.
Two words: Luxury dorms
10:03: No, I'm not wrong. I didn't imply that she can't discuss PERS. She cannot *dismantle* PERS, which was the suggestion offered at 8:14.
9:22; There has been no suggestion that she 'intends' to shut down the program. Please pay attention.
KF; if this is a repeat, please omit one of them.
She has every right and "authority: to highlight the shortcomings and soon to arrive insolvency of PERS in the next 20 years.
She aslo has the "authority" to illustrate the reality of the entire MS tax base paying for public sector employees retirement through bigger and bigger taxpayer contributions.
What an amazingly ironic situation that the taxpayers will be taking care of those public servants who gave up the ambition of pursuing private sector jobs.
Let the taxpayers eat beans while the Republic relishes in in the Publics riches, eh Shadowfax?
Emperor Reeves has no clothes.
Re: Billy Dees @9:10...
Indeed she has balls. Shame she can't serve in more than one office at once, or donate a testicle to our Auditor.
Fwiw, I didn't vote for Fitch, though I would have had I known she had a spine.
How ignorant of you 7:30. Are we to believe you are suggesting that by 'giving up private sector ambitions', one who works for the State for 30-50 years has not worked but has only languished at the feed trough?
Of the public employment retirees I know, all of them contributed to their retirement for all of those 30-50 years (at low wages), pulled the wagon and made government operate. Sure, there are some in the system who are dolts; but, there are also many in private industry who are dolts, as we all know, having tried to get rid of them.
Fitch has the authority to initiate and participate in discussions. And she SHOULD do those things. But, to suggest she has the authority or ability to dismantle programs established by law is to admit ignorance of reality.
Shadow what are you arguing about? I see where you have read into the persons comments a suggestion, your words. I don't see where they have ever suggested to dismantle the program until after you suggested it.
Also, no, you are incorrect about your belief. First it is not "we" it is "you. Stop trying to speak for the majority you do not represent.
It is not a suggestion that someone working in public service should not have a retirement, nor are they dollts (as you suggest),; the current PERS program is a failing experiment that is being dismantled across not only the private sector, but government as well.
Get your head out of the sand and try to participate in a somewhat educated manner and avoid the assumptions, suggested conspiracy, and thread jacking in an effort to lambast commenters here on the board.
Politics aside, I personally believe MPACT is a test case for what to do with PERS, the legislature will certainly be watching.
Kangaroo; a retirement system that has existed and operated well for 50 years can by no means be considered 'an experiment'. You really ought to stick to pumping gas on the fuel island.Please stop attempting to convince the participants here that you have a point to make. You don't.
This post wasn't picked up by Mississippi Pep, Magnolia, and Y'all.
Interesting.
Wouldn't lose any sleep about it since all three are moribund franchises.
I bet this is going to get buried in the next legislative session. Or, heads in the sand.
Post a Comment