It seems as if it were just yesterday when the legislature gave over $100 million to bail out PERS but here we are again. PERS consultants recommended hiking the employer contribution rate to 19.6% from the current 17.4% for the 2023 fiscal year.* They told the PERS Board of Trustees at its December meeting that the system would be only 68% funded in 2047 if employer contributions do not iincrease. The Board hiked the rate form 15.9 to 17.4 waaaay back in 2018.
A rate of return of 3% in 2020 for the PERS portfolio triggered the recommendation. The PERS assumed rate of rate is 7.75%. The low rate of return generated $1.7 billion in investment income - quite a bit of pocket change but $283 million short of the income needed to fund the system. The funding level fell from 60.9% to 60.5% as PERS caught a break from a lower than expected number of new retirees. However, the unfunded accrued actuarial liability increased nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars to $18.75 billion.
PERS has been turning to employer contributions more and more over the last decade. The employer contribution rate increased only three points from 2001 to 2011. However, it increased 4.47 points from 2011 to 2021. A graph of the contribution rates shows the quickening of the increases. The increases are also getting larger.
To determine whether the employer contribution should be increased, PERS uses three metrics that are graded on a green, yellow, and red alert system. Green means everything is ok, yellow means the Board needs to be aware of some problems, and red means the Board needs to make some changes. Board policy is to increase the contribution rate if any (not all) metric reaches red alert status.
The funding level is at yellow alert status. The 83% projection in 2019 allowed it to remain at green. The projected funding level of 67% is only two points above the minimum for a red alert - 65%. Cash flow as a percentage of assets decreased to -6.2%, justifying a yellow alert.
The last metric (and the one causing all the trouble) is the Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC)/Fixed Rate Contribution (FCR). What the heck does that mean? It means there is a ratio between what the contributions should be and what they actually are. In other words, hopes/reality = a number that if it goes over 110%, then PERS should increase the employer contribution rate.
Cavanaugh MacDonald Consulting told the Board that PERS will be only 67% funded in 2047 if no changes are made to the program - far short of the 83% it projected last year. Cavanaugh's strongest recommendation was to lower the assumed rate of return to 7.5% and increase the contribution not two but three points to 20.5%.
The last increase required the legislature to appropriate $75 million and stuck local governments with the remaining $25 million. Legislators were none too happy over the bailout. The Associated Press reported in October 2018:
The retirement system already voted in June to start requiring employers to pay 17.4 percent of a worker’s salary to the system beginning July 1, 2019, up from 15.75 percent now.
The pension plan had $28.2 billion in assets as of June 30. That sounds like a lot. (KF: "A lot"? Come on, Jeff, you know better.) But last year, actuaries projected that the system had about $17 billion less than would be needed. With only enough money on hand to pay about 61 percent of liabilities, directors decided they had to ask for more.
The increased contributions equal about $100 million a year, with about $75 million due from state agencies, community colleges, universities and public schools. Lawmakers traditionally budget money to pay for those pension contributions for all those agencies. The remainder would come from local governments and other entities, such as public hospitals. Cities and counties have already been setting aside money for higher contributions in their budgets, which begin Oct. 1.
Though they’ve had months to absorb the news, lawmakers were clearly cranky about the increase.
“When we talk about employer contributions, I don’t think it needs to be forgotten that at the end of the day, the employer is the taxpayer,” said House Speaker Philip Gunn, a Clinton Republican. “So when you’re asking for an increase, you’re asking for the taxpayers to step up and pay more.”
Lawmakers also said they felt like former Executive Director Pat Robertson had promised them as late as last year that all was well with the retirement plan, and that they had been promised that no additional contribution increases would be needed after the employer rate went to 15.75 percent in 2013. Article
The PERS Board of Trustees did not discuss the Consultant's recommendation. More than a few people will be watching future Board meetings to see if the trustees vote to increase employer contributions.
Start listening at 10:55.
Kingfish note: An increase of three points? Oh boy. THAT will go ever really well with the Legislature but lowering the assumed rate of return probably makes the most sense. How many times did Pat Robertson tell the Legislature that just this one increase would fix the problem? In fact, let's do an early version of Flashback Friday and take a look at a 2016 Bill Crawford column:
In October 2012 PERS increased public employer contributions to 15.75% of wages to start making those faithful mortgage payments on its then $14.5 billion deficit. Robertson assured all that this high rate would improve the funded liabilities ratio from 58% to 80% by 2042.
Four years later, the unfunded amount has risen from $14.5 billion to $16.8 billion and the time to reach the 80% funding level target has moved out to 2053.In other words, four years’ worth of payments didn’t lower the “mortgage” balance any. Instead it increased by $2.3 billion and the mortgage’s term had to be extended, making it 40.6 years from its start in 2012...To get in compliance without legislative action, PERS would have to increase employer contributions from 15.75% to 17.2% for 30 more years.
That quote was published four years ago. The PERS picture is even worse today as the unfunded amount is 18.75% while the funding level has only improved by 1.5.
Oh, and one last note. I missed the consultant's remark on retiree growth but caught it on listening to the session again. Retiree growth was only 2,000 in 2020, far below the annual average of 2,700. He blamed the lower number of new retirees on the pandemic and predicted there would be more new retirees than normal next year. Over 3,000 new retirees next year would cause serious problems for PERS unless it enjoys outstanding returns in the markets.
* FY 2023 begins on July 1, 2022.
61 comments:
I am sure glad that I don't pay any state income tax.
Isn't it strange that PERS is earning such piss poor ROI when the stock market is at the highest ever?
What is that smell?
I don’t understand how PERS can be bringing 3% when just putting the funds in an S&P 500 indexed fund would yield 15% over the same period.
I get they have to diversify against market downturns... but we’re missing out on one of the best markets of our lifetime.
Instead of shit-talking those in the system and retired from the system, why isn't more of your (all of you and others) attention directed toward whoever the clowns are that are contracted to invest the money. If the legislature is as all-powerful as some of you suggest, why don't they pass a bill demanding investment changes instead of you people clamoring for reductions and the ever-famous 'hair cut'?
As usual, though, every December, this blog, Bigger Poot Forum and Y'all Politics are slamming PERS in the face of the legislature. It's become as predictable as the Clarion Ledger's race based opinion pieces.
All I'm doing is telling you the state of PERS when their annual reports come out. Apparently, ostriches such as yourself don't want to know anything and want to crucify anyone who does report anything about PERS.
Notice how this clown doesn't cite any facts. He just does like he does every year. Comes here and throws trash because he can't handle a decent discussion on the largest thing in Mississippi: a $28 billion portfolio.
The PERS year ended on 6/30/20. The S&P is up 22% since then. The 3% returns for the one year is not the big story. It's all one big year for investment returns. The key metric is the average over many years, which unfortunately is also not great. Given current bond yields, a realistic assumed investment return would be sub 7%.
Kingfish has been writing about PERS structural problem for what, a decade? I wrote about it for a long time. I considered it the most important topic I covered, but it was not a popular topic. Most people don't care. They don't see the relationship between underfunded PERS, taxes and government services they count on like roads and rural hospitals.
The fixes are always too little too late. The wound just keeps getting bigger. No one is trying to solve the problem. It's about kicking the can down the road long enough that it's someone else's problem when it implodes. Hopefully this blog is still online when that happens because some government officials will claim no one could see the implosion coming.
I am, as a matter of fact, interested and always have been. But, rather than a discussion (and you know this) your efforts and those of a majority of responders is driven by nothing more than a desire to lambast, criticize and ridicule. I've made suggestions in the past and made one above. Of course you always, just as now, ignore them and are quick to ridicule and call names.
Additionally, every governor and state treasurer, present or retired in recent history was/is a member of this system and they have all appointed members. Where's the expertise. When was the last time a member was snatched out for inaction or a lazy attitude toward investments? When was the last time Phil Bryant, Tate Reeves or any state treasurer past or present commented publicly and in depth about investment production? Ever or never?
When was the last time Kingfish and his midnight information sources contributed solid suggestions as to possible investment changes instead of republishing tons of graphs and charts that are already publicly available and available to the legislature.
And while defined contribution, as opposed to defined benefit retirement programs, are now more present and more popular, there are still many corporations offering both. Company pension plans (for both hourly and salaried management) are still around, and I retired from one. So, stop with the nonsense that they don't exist. Perhaps the difference here is in the investment strategy.
I've answered your usual insults with what I believe to be a discussion or at least the presentation of honest opinion. Continue with your insults as expected, but it's non-productive.
State leaders too busy fighting cancer patients seeking affordable pain relief. Ain't got no time to fix PERS.
Will the last person to leave the room turn out the lights-
A Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒnzi/, Italian: [ˈpontsi]; also a Ponzi game)[1] is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.[2] The scheme leads victims to believe that profits are coming from product sales or other means, and they remain unaware that other investors are the source of funds. A Ponzi scheme can maintain the illusion of a sustainable business as long as new investors contribute new funds, and as long as most of the investors do not demand full repayment and still believe in the non-existent assets they are purported to own.
God forbid KF highlight systemic, intractable and seemingly ignored symptoms of potential, looming disaster for thousands of retirees and their families. I guess it serves the interest of a few, connected people to keep the warning signs hidden from view.
@Kingfish,
State Employees and Retirees are the largest voting bloc in the state. That bloc transcends party affiliation, race, and religion. Because State Employees and Retirees are of every creed and color.
So buckle up buttercup. Because you and every other tax payer in the state will pay up.
The $100 million last time would've literally doubled the teacher pay raise that year.
Of course, the teachers are too short-sighted to see that and you won't see David Blount admitting that either.
Taking a look at PERS columns (here) over the years and we see the headlines are typically like this one: PERS Needs Mo Money. The intention of that type of journalism is to gin up discord and rile the people into thinking their taxes are going up and their last tax deduction went to prop up PERS. And it works! The intention is not to open fair debate, suggestions and seriously held discussion. If it were, the emphasis would be on investment.
When you rile up the low information and uninformed crowd, you get riled up ignorance. And you get 'haircut' screamers and people coming out of the woodwork who know zilch about the system; they only see the buzzwords and the suggestion that 'YOUR taxes are going up', which they are not.
Investment? Really?
You can't invest your way out of this problem. Period.
For years you and your friends said let the market come back. the market DID come back. Look at all the years PERS enjoyed double digit market returns. Some were around 20% yet the funding level still fell. Yeah, it's the investments.
What's 'hidden from view', 9:16? Every participant, every retiree, every legislator, every elected official, every media outlet and anybody else on the mailing list of a hundred thousand receives these reports and most of them have an opportunity to vote on board members or either appoint board members.
I suggest a special session if the legislature continues to refuse to address this issue. And what the legislature should do is appoint a committee (oh hell) of EXPERTS to hash through the mess (primarily investment returns) and recommend changes to the PERS board. But, as we know, every board every formed is full of special interest people who are looking for personal gain.
Hey King, while I do agree that there are a lot of ostriches sticking their head in the sand on this one, the dude makes a valid point about investment changes and that point has been valid for a number of years. Even my fairly conservative portfolio has made above 10% this year so it ain't hard to do. 3% is ludicrous. How much are we paying these investment managers and PERS CIO again? Full disclosure, I am a state retiree.
It would be funded 90%~100% easily if not for the automatic COLA every year. That one unfunded change broke the system.
Um, yeah. How many of them understand balance sheets and income statements? How many of them are keeping up with the numbers over the years and can show in which direction they are going? How many of them actually read the several hundred pages of reports. Very disingenuous.
As for investments, the investment term is from July 1 to June 30. The 3.3% (Its 3 after admin expense) is not too far off the 5% or so the S&P 500 had for the same period (Correct me if I'm wrong on that one.). Investment-wise, PERS should have a good year if stocks just break even from now until June 30. However, if the consultant's predictions are true and PERS gets over 3,000 new retirees, then a great year in the markets won't help. See 2011 and 2012 when PERS had 4,000 new retirees each year while in 2011 it had 25% and in 2010 it had 14%. Funding level still went down a good bit. Was only 0.6% in 2012 and got pummeled.
Bernie spent the rest of his life in prison because “he should have known”. Would love to see a prosecutor go after our legislature under the same theory.
KF: If you read the questions asked above by knowledgeable people, it does seem that the investment and return strategy is being questioned. But, I tend to forget you're not only a lawyer, but an investment strategist. So we criticize the returns which are based on investments yet you think it's nuts to question investment strategy? Hmmm.
And for the 'ponzi scheme expert': Not all ponzis are fraudulent schemes. A ponzi scheme is an illegal investment scam, intended to defraud. If you dig deep enough you'll see that everything from grocery store end-cap strategy to social security is a ponzi, in effect, depending on continued contributions to meet future obligations. Those are not illegal and are not schemes.
The state retirement system is not a scheme, not illegal, not fraudulent. Ponzi schemes are all three. Have unproductive decisions been made? Yes. Do we need to look at investment and contribution stragegies? Yes. Do we need to abolish SLRP? Yes. Do we need to look at benefit formulas for future retirees? Probably. But, the latter should not be the first.
When the hospital is overcrowed and its resources are strained, kicking people out of beds is not the first thing that makes sense.
Time for a ballot initiative
All PERS needs is some extra funding from Cannabis, Liquor, and Lotto.
I don’t smoke poison, drink poisonous spirits, or play games of chance. So it won’t be a tax on me.
Did they raise the contribution rate? When I left in 2018 the contribution rate for a state employee was 9%.
They could legalize weed, tax it and use it to fund pers. Make the tax whatever it is needed to adequately fund it.
Thank you KF for continuing to report on the PERS dilemma. I did not realize how outlandish this situation was until I served on our local municipal utilities board. As others have mentioned, our board had no choice but to pass excessive PERS rates on to our customers (ie: taxpayers). A typical private employer contributes 6.2% Social Security and 3-6% for an employee’s 401K. Pretty easy math to see how ridiculous the employers (taxpayers) portion of the PERS plan has become as compared to the real world most of us live in.
The only ostriches with their heads in the sand are the elected officials that have continued to ignore this issue for many years, except when they opted to increase benefits several times without finding a source to pay for the increase (very similar to how our Congress operates). In our case, the elected officials have their heads up their assess (or up the asses of lobbyists) rather than in the ground.
9:58, using social security as the blue print for PERS is not advisable. And by the way, it’s 6.2% times two.
9:58 - Also, in 'the real world most of us live in', an employee pays ZERO into the private-sector employer's pension program, ZERO into the employer's quarterly RONA program (if it has one) and, typically, not a whole lot into the 401(k) plan. Guess where the rest comes from...Sound investment strategy and sales converted to profit.
And, since the state doesn't sell a product for profit, what's left other than sound investment strategy, which Kingfish says is nonsense?
And you can bet your ass and the slowest mule on the track that private sector corporations don't have unconcerned appointees serving on boards.
I love it.
Dumbasses commenting on topics they zero about.
Lead by a troll stroker who makes money every time another dumbass chimes in.
Click check click check
It is literally a click bait system spiraling to the depths of ignorance.
I cannot wait for the anonymous “expert in economics and hair care” to send an epistle to king guppie who will let it fly....so more people will click and send more money to...you guessed it....the troll!
What a life! Get paid to promote stupidity and flame ignorance and then feign being “just a forum.”
It’ll end but not soon enough
The fact that the messenger shooters are cross-firing on your position KF says it all. Their sole objective is to shut you up. Keep up the great work because those pollyannas know deep down that the situation is dire.
I was a fire fighter in Mississippi for about 10 years. When I left the fire service I bit the bullet and took out my retirement and reinvestment it in a private account. It’s the best thing I ever did other than open a Roth IRA and max out my current 491k.
The state retirement system in Mississippi is garbage. Work 25 years (much less if you are a DPS employee) and get 50% with no benefits? Total garbage. Other states in the south do much better and are able to attract better employees with more attractive benefits.
10:30 it must really suck to be you. Kingfish, they always told us to expect flack when over the target. It sure looks like you are over the target.
Gorgeous new PERS building!! Simply gorgeous!! Looks like Fort and directly across from the Capitol and all those “do nothing” elites in the politburo ...
New building. I'd guess it's at least sixty years old. Maybe more.
Kingfish has successfully stirred up the low or no-information proletariat but is battling Bigger Pie and Y'all for the hits-lead. Ballot initiative, indeed. But, that was the goal.
The S&P500 rose 2.68% from 7/1/2019 to 6/30/2020.
It's risen 17.55% since 6/30/2020.
12:04 The building went through a total rebuild (inside and out) from the ground up with huge additions and parking garage within last 15 years. You are blowing even more bullshit smoke than you accuse KF of blowing.
10:53 You should stick to fire fighting, cause you show don't know shit about financial planning or other states' retirement plans.
Has it ever occurred to you, that as the state/local governments downsize that PERS is going to continue to have problems? That’s been the problem with every pension ever created.
Change the defined benefit plan to a hybrid system with elements of a defined contribution plan, similar to Wisconsin in 2011 by Scott Walker. Libtards rioted in the streets like Kavanaugh's nomination hearings cause they had to plan for their lives a little more rather than mooching off the system. Greece had the same thing in 2012. Lazy gubmint employees riot cause they have to work more.
9:37 is exactly right. No defined benefit plan can stay solvent when it has a generous COLA like PERS. Everyone wants to criticize investment returns. This always happens when markets have surged. When there is a bust the criticism is that you are too aggressive. The problem is with disbursements, not income. The generosity of PERS used to be that state positions did not pay like the private sector. The private sector has been transitioning to defined contribution plans for years. Couple that with other state benefits and much better job security and the private sector advantages have disappeared.
PERS should just close up, refund all state employees, and let the employees open their on 401k accounts.
1:27. Only an idiot would think the state retirement plan is good. It’s really bad. 50% pay after 25 years? No thanks.
I bet a Piggly Wiggly shelf stocker like yourself would LOVE it though!
Kingfish has successfully stirred up the low or no-information proletariat but is battling Bigger Pie and Y'all for the hits-lead.
Clueless, totally clueless.
State Employees and Retirees are the largest voting bloc in the state.
Complete bullshit.
Maybe the 13th checks (COLA) should have been suspended this year. Or, put a limit on COLA.
Kingfish has once again presented a thoroughly researched post on the state of PERS. Not surprisingly, he is being attacked for it. It’s not surprising because when anyone questions something that so many people have a vested interest in, it’s easier for those who may be affected to attack rather than to engage on the serious policy questions.
PERS is the number one long term financial issue facing the state. Improved investment returns might help, but with that comes increased risk. Chasing a few hundred more basis points of return isn’t going to fix the problem anyway.
Benefits were expanded during the end of the Fordice years and during the Musgrove years and they weren’t paid for. Barbour was able to put a bandaid on the problem to stop the bleeding which is why the funded ratio has hovered around 60% for a few years and it isn’t much worse. He tried to do more - when it would have been much easier than it is now or will be five years from now - but Billy McCoy and others would have nothing of it. Then a few legislators got beat over being for PERS reforms.
Now is the time for some political courage. Make the COLA based on actual inflation, not a flat 3%. Perhaps freeze the COLA for a year. It would make a big difference.
There are many things that could be done, but most importantly, people need to acknowledge there is a problem so that solutions can actually be considered.
Thank you, Kingfish, for continuing to highlight this issue.
5:07, I can't say who might be the biggest voting bloc in Mississippi, but PERS participants are significant. Every state employee, county employee, municipal employee and public school employee in Mississippi participates. Tally that number, add those already retired, throw in their spouses, and also throw in their adult children who don't want the burden of broke parents, and you are probably looking at 600,000 +/- voters who will vote as a bloc. I think we have 2 million, maybe 2.3 million voting age adults in the state?
Significant whether or not its the biggest or not.
There was a time in our history when the unions controlled our economy. Then the manufacturing sector felt the blunt of how much it was costing employ union members. Then they all realized they could move their plants out of the country. Unemployment rose but the former Union members still got their retirement and benefits. I’d you all take notice. It didn’t turn out well. We as the employer, and many of which you say are a smaller segment of the voting system than the state employees shows us that we are way too top heavy to sustain this. Privatize certain parts of the state departments, cut out the fat and let’s see how this will work. We, in the private sector have no guarantee of employment tomorrow or the next and many of us don’t have any retirement left. Many state employees are 2 and 3 generations deep and both sides of the family. There is no damn way this can keep going! WAKE UP!
Kingfish...I worked for UMC over 15 years...my wife worked in a private industry (still does). She makes 1/3 what I made...I managed her 401 and she has triple what I pulled out in June when I lost my job. The 401 is hitting 26% for the year...I yanked my PERS and put it in 401...I am doing much better than 7.75 (spread over 10 different funds)...PERS is great until the numbers force reality on it...I wish I could have had control over my PERS...but then it would not support the retirees huh?
" Barbour was able to put a bandaid on the problem to stop the bleeding "
Damned impressive move on his part.
But he was serious about the long term health of PERS, he would have "hitched up his britches" . . .
as he used to say.
King is the only journalist in Mississippi who will tackle this issue. Do you think the number one reporter at the C-L, Keisha Rowe, even knows what a pension is?
Philip Thomas @ 9:08am
"They don't see the relationship between underfunded PERS, taxes and government services they count on like roads and rural hospitals."
Care to explain that inexplicable statement? WHAT roads and rural hospitals?!?
"Couple that with other state benefits and much better job security and the private sector advantages have disappeared."
Well, Charlie, wasn't that sort of, you know.....the objective?
Bank interest rates and the ever inflating Wall St market are not the result of a "free market" America's market is manipulated by lobbyists for the benefit of billionaires and their banks. When America was great the tax rate on an annual income of $150k was 90% and a savings account paid in excess of 4,5%. So MAGA again for people who work for a living.
When America was great the tax rate on an annual income of $150k was 90% ...
So, you are saying confiscatory income tax rates are what makes a true free market "for people who work for a living"? Like the good ol' late 40s, 1950s and early 60s?
10:44, that is a stupid comparison. We were financing a world war. A victory at that.
Which comparison?
The debt must be dealt with and the government must be supported. Are you unable or unwilling to recognize the effect of excessively high marginal tax rates?
Most Americans would be far better off with banks paying and charging a reasonable 'free market' interest rate on savings and loans. But Wall St wants everyone's money pumping up their charts and making the rich richer.
As a State Employee who is officially retired as of 1/1/2021
Keep That cheddar flowing!
"Care to explain that inexplicable statement? WHAT roads and rural hospitals?!? December 29, 2020 at 5:01 AM"
Well, take your pick. They're all tax-funded.
KF- Your headline has been written and read for over a decade. PERS is a slush fund that everyone benefits from but will soon collapse under its own weight. Our so called "leaders" don't lead. They are too chicken shit to do anything so they just follow along.
9:10- This problem isn't KF's to solve. He is simply reporting the facts. It's up to our elected officials to find the fix. So yes, KF is doing way more than you to stop the inevitable implosion of PERS.
Post a Comment