Jackson Jambalaya

Contribution rates can't be changed without the blessing of the legislature. Changing the board is smoke and mirrors and doesn't actually fix anything. The shortfall in funding has nothing to do with anything the current board has done. The shortfall is 100% due to the fact that the legislature granted an increase in benefits in an election year a long time ago, and never provided a way to pay for the increased benefits.

So the question is, what is the legislature's answer to fixing PERS? NOTHING in this bill addresses that question.

I suppose that next, somebody will introduce a bill requiring that the plan's actuary be named Bubba. Because they sure seem hell bent on ignoring the advice of the current actuarial firm.

... free from insinuation that the fund has been mismanaged.

Wouldn't be an issue if the fund was actually being managed prudently.

It is pretty clear that every representative that voted for this is ready to kill PERS off. They aren't even disguising it now. Not a single thing in that bill preserves PERS, it only coddles to the towns and counties screaming the loudest.

When the mayors and the MML raised hell about this increase, I'm pretty sure they were asking the state to step in and ease their burden, not step in a break the system.

Re: Barber of Jackson, There is no investment manangement problem, there is a benefit formula problem.

PERS investments have been beating the assumed rate of return. Haven't done 2023 yet but as of 2022:

Five-year average: 8.3%
Ten-year average: 9.45%

I saw my Rep's post on Facebook last week. Fred turned the comments off. One of my biggest gripes about PERs is why the hell do city and municipality elected officials get to join PERs? You have freaking aldermen and supervisors making next to nothing milking that system. To me, that's "one of" the issues with PERs. People working a high 4 and then riding out the rest with a couple of low paying municipal elected positions. I think that is where a good portion of the downfall of PERs is.

>which restructures the PERS Board with political appointees
Holy shit that's a big red flag. And I'm anti-PERS. I mean aren't the PERS board already political appointees in effect?

The state has always attracted competent people by offering an attractive retirement plan instead of an attractive pay scale. If PERS goes away most white collar positions in state government are going to start having to pay 30-50% more just to retain the current level of competence. If you don't want to fund PERS or want to decrease the payout expect to see six figure state employee salaries if you want to retain competent professionals in the legal and accounting fields among others.

Note to all state employees, current and retired: You are watching the political hacks screw up one of the best state retirement funds in the country. Are you ready to see it fail and your retirement plan go down the toilet? Because, putting it in the hands of the legislature is how it will go down the toilet. Remember back in the 70's when the union bosses (a.k.a mob) stole the pension funds. That's where you're headed. Except, this time, it will be "legal" because the legislature said so.

I'm just hoping that the politicians don't find a way to grab my 401k.

PERS participants are closer to a haircut than they ever have been.

PERS, Medicaid expansion, public schools. You can't fund them all. LMAO

Yes they did. The legislature increased the benefits in 99 without changing the funding mechanism. The good times would roll on forever in the markets.

None of you retirees said boo to those benefits nor complained even as Pat Robertson warned the lack of additional funding did not match the additional benefits. Now here you are. You wanted to reap the benefits of 99 for years without paying for it.

Now here you are. 5 point rate hike or the system goes down into the 40's. What do you do?

"Best state retirement funds in the country"? According to what measure? God forbid the political hacks make the truly massive underfunding worse.

Bravo Kingfish @ 10:19, Bravo!

How much money is placed into the counties by PERS Retirees? I mean these are Mississippians and people living in our communities. Has anyone looked or thought to ask about this number?

So, Brice is calling himself 'The Barber' now?

Kingfish...How the hell do you know who didn't say boo? You don't.

@ 10:00 a.m. Thanks for showing your ignorance with this comment: "I mean aren't the PERS board already political appointees in effect?" It's OK that you don't know jack-shit about the matter being discussed, but please...just sit quietly in the bleachers.

Do we really want the offices of the Governor and Lt. Governor having this much control over a state retirement. There has to be a retirement plan for teachers, fireman, state and municipal employees. So, when I ask this question, it is not necessarily directed at our current governor or lt. governor.

But who ever comes after them.....

Is this representation of the people without input from people. Just have these same offices appoint your representative or senator. No need for you to have any say in who represents you.

This bill is really not conceptually different from the idea of "packing the court." This idea provides political cover to politicians whose appointees won't be empowered to "rock the boat."

The current PERS board has made a tough decision, and the politicians have caught flak from non-government employees over the idea of dumping money into the PERS. Instead of using our budget surplus on a one-time dump into PERS (and then truly reinventing the system), we're going to kick this can down the road to when we're actually facing a budget crisis.

The PERS board members are pissed-
Are they Pers recipients?

My wife works for the state. We are in our mid 30's and I don't factor in PERS or Soc Security when projecting our retirement. We have the same degrees and certifications and she makes less than half of what I make. Yes the hours are less but not that much less. The perk of state job is a guaranteed retirement amount, do away with that and like others have said good luck attracting competent professional staff at the current pay rates.

Filed by Zuber "by request". What does that mean??? Passed 85-34! What are we missing KF???

31 basis points for $30 billion in assets? Yeah, there's some fat to be trimmed. Start there. And it doesn't matter how much other funds are paying their asset managers, what matters is what the participants are getting charged from their accounts. The expense ratios should already be on the low end from the funds since these are institutional investors. I mean, how hard is it to manage some low cost Vanguard funds?

No surprise from this group of legislators! Just look at the bills they have passed so far-only money grabbing bills and power grabbing bills that’s all! Oh I forgot - you can wear pink instead of hunter orange!! Great job guys great job!, all this group is worried about is sponsorships for their food and beverages. I bet they won’t do anything to SLURP- they will tell you its hard work being a legislator and they earned theirs- YEAH RIGHT!

It's my understanding that PERS programs throughout the country are experiencing similar problems. If possible, I suggest that PERS convert to a 401k plan like is done by many companies in the private sector. Wouldn't that cure the funding issues?

The rainy day fund is not there to bail out PERS.

How much do people deserve to receive if their ambition in life is to be a career long employee of the state?

To the Mouthbreather at 11:11 AM:

Some KF posters have working relationships with a number of state legislators and have personal knowledge of just how laboriously some legislators work in behalf of their constituency. You paint with a broad brush unfairly and ignorantly as to some legislators. Are there a few goose eggs taking up valuable space? Yes. But many of these guys and ladies are genuine public servants.

Over the past 30 years (as of June 30, 2023) the S&P 500 (the stock market) returned 10.04% per year annualized. It did this with a standard deviation of 16.7%. This level of risk lead to returns like -22.10% in 2002, -38.49% in 2008, -18.11% in 2022. This is a level of risk that would not be prudent for a pension to assume. The PERS portfolio over that same period returned 7.8% with a standard deviation of 11.7%. The PERS portfolio produced a return within 2.25% of the stock market with over 5% less risk.
The Net Asset Value of PERS in 2001 was $17.2 Billion and as of 2023 the Net Asset Value was $32 Billion. The excess benefits paid vs. contributions received, between 2001 and 2023, increased from $138 Million to $1.4 Billion per year. That is a compounded annual growth rate of 11.66%. The total amount the PERS investment portfolio had to cover during that period was approximately $16 Billion. Even with this headwind PERS grew the portfolio $14.8 Billion an 82% increase between 2001 and 2023. That is stellar performance!

All this is to say that this FUNDING ISSUE from the very start has been and will continue to be a funding issue (created by the Legislature in 1999), not a lack of performance from PERS.

Get rid of PERS, refund everyone, let them open their own 401k's

I am a current retiree who depends on PEERS. I was discusing issues related to PEERS with a prominent member of the House of Representatives. While acknowledging PEERS has problems and neither of us had a perfect resolution, one thing he did say is " one thing you dont want is the legislature involved, they will really mess it up".

Most of the anti PERS posts here are pretty ignorant of reality. Like the old commercial, you can pay me now or you can pay me later. Mayors should have gotten behind this because the cost of waiting is going to be much higher. And they are on the hook.

$3.2 Billion paid out to retirees annually with approximately $3.0 Billion staying in Mississippi. Pretty Dang Good!

Retirees in my old home county - Covington County receive $20,161,988.00 annually. That is a lot of money to put back into a local area. Using an economic impact multiplier of say 2-4 times, which is conservative. Then that money $20,161,988.00 roles over to $40,323,976.00 with (2 multiplier) or $80,647,952.00 (4 multiplier).

I know my neighboring county, Forrest County, was concerned about the employer increase, can someone here tell me what they pay in employer share?

Retirees in that county bring in $110,613,905.00 with the same multipliers as above, that would equate to: $221,227,810.00 (2 multiplier) or $442,455,620.00 (4 multiplier).

The multipliers can be added to any job or money brought into any community.

I am not exactly sure what these counties/municipalities employer share (employer rate/share) is but if anyone knows, please add to this discussion.

If I missed something, please feel free to make corrections or let me know.
Thanks

SLRP has not faced any finding issues. The legislature has generously funded SLRP so that the legislators will not have to worry about their additional retirement fund. They just want to go after teachers, firemen, police officers and medical workers at UMMC. These don’t care about those people. This is just a power grab to reduce benefits for those in retirement.

The legislature dug this hole, they need to fix it.

And now watch those campaign contributions flow in to the Governor, LT Governor and legislators from financial firms wanting to manage the money. Management fees will go up.

Attn 12:01 PM. The state can’t do that because that is too logical. The employees feel that they have been sitting on their axxes for years doing essentially nothing and feel they should be compensated eternally for never having accomplished any viable work.

Hey 11:51 what district do you represent?.

“How did you go bankrupt? Two ways, gradually and then suddenly.”

Ernest Hemingway
The Sun Also Rises

Since many of the people here believe that ALL state employees do nothing all day for 30 years waiting on retirement, the answer is simple, fire everyone, take the money saved on salaries to bolster PEERS until the last beneficiary is dead, then no retirees to worry about. Then we can sell all of the state owned buildings for even more revenue.
Magically,somehow all of the many services the state provides will somehow continue to be provided. IDIOTS!!

"And now watch those campaign contributions flow in to the Governor, LT Governor and legislators from financial firms wanting to manage the money. Management fees will go up."

You are spot on. PERS Management Fees are already some of the lowest among all Pension Systems in the Country. This is a POWER/CASH grab by the Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Rest assured if you have a pension with PERS be very concerned because they have big plans for that money and it isn't for your benefit.

It’s a money grab. Bait and switch. In 7 years, number of
State retirees that will be dropping off the rolls will increase
to the point the reserves will be adequate. Maybe even
sooner considering the lifespan of Mississippians, on average,
is lower than the national average. On the bright side, there
will be more money for corporate welfare.

1:45, incorrect, some state employees only had to do nothing for 25 years waiting on retirement.

It’s PERS, not PEERS

ffs

Bankrupt, as in the state. Not the system.

11:32 bingo! The pers members on here and social media forget that 2/3 rds of pers is funded by the taxpayers not in pers !
I like my old retired high school coach but I don’t want him handling my retirement!

This current board is doing great let’s just keep it like it is and run this SOB straight into the ground ! Yeah I don’t believe the hype going around social media or “ I heard from a friend “ just doesn’t tell me that the board knows what the hell they are doing! Counties/cities are screaming what the board wants would cause layoff’s and the best they can come up with is for the state to give them $260 million of taxpayers money for 25 years ?? Sounds like winners to me !

You show your ignorance right off the bat, 1:45. There is no such thing as PEERS.

That's right...Fix the PERS Board of Directors so Tate Reeves, with his four appointees can direct investment contracts in a manner that will benefit himself and his comrades. That sounds like a logical fix.

Delbert is already running for governor. He's salivating and at the same time knows he's driving nails in his coffin.

And Lynn is on the phone with Haley asking for advice.

Meanwhile...leave it alone - not a damned thing wrong with the program as is. Even Ellis Bodron could see that.

Same old stuff, do away with the 13th check which was investment money and go to a cost of living increase which would have been, what 4%. 13th check takes 80% of the interest buildup in the fund which was NEVER accounted for. The fund should grow with investment returns to help pay the participants. I know of several people that receive an extra 13th month payment that are worth 2 or 3 months worth of their monthly payments. If the fund returns 8% all of the money should stay in the fund to accumulate.

People, the acronym is PERS, not PEERS. PEERS is a committee formed by the legislature to investigate crap - has nothing to do with the retirement system.
Now, what @11:59 said is essentially correct, however, saying that the portfolio 'grew' $14 billion from 2001 to 2023 implies that this was due to investment - not exactly true. How much of that 14 billion was just contributions made by employer and employee? Probably a lot. But I agree with most of what he said. However, my understanding is the investment fees amount to something like 90 million a year. How about just invest the entire portfolio in a S&P500 index and save that 90 mil a year? Your return would be as good or better than what it's been making.
One of the legislators said that they were for HB1590 because some financial wizards would be appointed to the PERS board instead of just common folk like what we've elected. Thanks, I'll stick with what we've had up to now - they've done fine so far. They ain't what messed this up in the first place. Wanna guess who that was?

Third world state; third world retirement system management.

It's kind of a shame. I have worked for the state for 23 years. After 10 years I figured I would stay and retire. After 7 you are vested then it's like what do i do now. If I leave I have to start over. I know some people think state employees are just flunkies who can't make it in the private sector. I would say we work more for far less pay, but I digress. Now I am sitting here thinking the money is gonna run out before I can get to retire, or be cut. I have other investment accounts but the bulk is PEERS. Politicians on the board will make it worse. If that's the way they want to go it will turn into a slush fund.

I'm not for the legislature taking control of the PERS board. But much like COJ residents, retirees get the leadership they vote for. Even without legislators that board has been "political" for decades. I remember when the USM connected board member and several county clerks put pressure on the board members in the early 90's to hire a Superintendent of Education as director so he could get him some of that high 4. I don't think Mrs. Robertson was concerned back then. He was an "expert" as he came from more than 50 miles away. Also, when the board chooses not to listen to the actuaries about the formulas, bad things can happen.

The lack of money is the root of all evil.

Mark Twain

"How about just invest the entire portfolio in a S&P500 index and save that 90 mil a year? Your return would be as good or better than what it's been making."

A well-established idea with proven results in many other plans.

In other words, these political hacks will never try it - no opportunity for palm-greasing or other graft.

Just let it burn 🔥, why do anything to help !

No one seems to mention the taxpayers who actually fund the bulk of this thing ! I mean the ones who don’t benefit from pers. These retirees sound like the teachers, always whining! Hell nothing has even happened yet!

Where/when did the board not listen to the actuaries?
What did the PERS board do or not do in the last 20 years that caused a problem?

@3:34

It is current employees like who are getting screwed, but politicians on the board won't make it worse.

This has been a slow moving train wreck and at any time, the directors could have been responsible and raised hell about the state not having an actuarily based funding mechanism. The reason they didn't is because they were self interested. They (probably correctly) figured they would get theirs before the sh!t hit the fan, and it would be somebody else's problem. Basically the same reason the legislature didn't require actuarily based funding to begin with (except they had the extra incentive of not wanting state agencies or counties to see the cost of their pension if they hired them to give them a high 4).

Pat Robertson and every board member should have been screaming from the rooftop for the past two decades that there was a problem that needed to be fixed. They should have been rallying PERS members to support a change to the benefits formula in exchange for the legislature committing more general funds to prop up PERS. But everybody with influence apparently thought they would get theirs before it became a problem. Now the only people left to legally get screwed are current employees and taxpayers.

Attn 11:59 PM. Your response was entertaining to say the least. But that is the biggest pile of BS that I have heard in a while!

5:38
Nailed it !

5:38
The Board wants the power but not the responsibility when times get tough. They want to pass the blame with their association propaganda machine.

2:20 I’ve been a state employe for 24 years and everyone pronounces it PEERS.

So, you put the people that caused the problem in charge of correcting the problem. Yeah, that will work out well. Combined all three PERS plan into a single plan. The Legislature, MHP and the rest of the state employees should all be treated the same.

11:59 AM
Is "funding issue" code for too many beneficiaries and not enough contributors?

Shoot some of that lottery into it

Worst case scenario is current PERS employees and retirees have to return to work til they die and start paying state income taxes again like the rest of us. Welcome to the club!

3:34 Just a sign of the times. Social Security is facing a -23% cut in the not too distant future... real $$ paid in by real workers.. who are outside of the MS PERS system. Get used to the thought that you'll also face a cut in the not too distant future.

Given how little authority the current board has to change anything, I don’t see what changing boards will do. The board didn’t create the 13th check. The legislature did. This is all about steering funds to preferred money managers ie political contributors.

Cutting all the current PERS recipients and any new recipients benefits by 50% would fix the problem. Bunch of leeches..

6:19 - I've been a state employee for 35 years and everyone with a brain calls it PERS.

Bringing up a vote to change the board during Spring Break with no advance notice showed their hands. Yes, things need to change. Having a board of appointees beholden to who appointed them is not the answer. Change the high four to the highest ten, or even a true average. Don't allow more than a quarter be allowed to count towards retirement. Keep retirement at thirty years of service but don't allow benefits to begin until sixty. Acknowledge that the state has a responsibility to shore the system up since the state has slashed the number of state workers paying in. Get rid of SLRP. I know it doesn't change much moneywise but the optics stink. Get ready to pay more when this is fixed because we already have positions open for months because when people hear the salary they decline the job and that is with the current system.

7:19. Thanks for doing your part for our 13th checks last year, it’s supposed to be even better this year!!
You the man!!

Responding to “Funding Issues” above
Somebody running for re-election proudly claimed in one of their commercials that they were able to remove over 2000 state employees from the system.

Now, if you remove that many contributors from paying into any system, without adding some type of revenue stream back into the system, of course there will be funding issues. This is just one example.

Also, as mentioned above, to assist in shoring up the system, put some of that lottery or sports betting money into it. Since those are not tax dollars, what could be the opposition to doing something along those lines!

People also forget PERs is a contract. If you make some of the changes that 10:04 is talking about, the state faces lawsuits. I talked to a former board member one time and he alluded to the fact that any changes will have to be made as contracts are signed at the time of employment. I think people forget about this. People that are already in the PERs system and those already vested, I don't think the state can change the terms.

Delbert Hoseman ran his campaign on slogans, silly commercials and claims that "I cut state employment!"

I don't know how he did that, but assuming he did, that's one of the problems. Haley Barbour was the master at getting the legislature to allow 'employee trimming at will'.

When you cut the number of contributors, and then brag about it, you're a large part of the problem.

If you wonder why Fitch, other statewide elected officials and the previous speaker have avoided this issue, they don't want to be seen anywhere near this bill that's before the Senate.

5:38

The Legislature is well aware of the problems with PERS. They receive annual updates from PERS and from PEER about the system. The legislators don't do anything because they don't want to face the wrath from PERS members or from the general public, so they do nothing. The longer the delay, the more painful the remedy. Each time the PERS board tries to take action to improve financial stability by increasing employer contributions (their only lever to pull), the legislature pushes back.

Yet, we give hundreds of millions of dollars to companies worth trillions and allow those companies not to pay income taxes. As far those arguing that such arrangements bring in other money, keep in mind that PERS retirees pump about $3 billion annually into Mississippi and no it's not just taxpayer money recycling. Over half of that money comes from investment returns.
https://www.pers.ms.gov/Content/Supplemental/persfacts_figures.pdf

"No one seems to mention the taxpayers who actually fund the bulk of this thing ! I mean the ones who don’t benefit from pers. These retirees sound like the teachers, always whining! Hell nothing has even happened yet!"

March 18, 2024 at 5:32 PM

Actually the bulk 53.15% of the funding comes from investment income. Not employer contributions. Now, employer contributions make up the next largest portion of 31% but the "bulk" is not the taxpayer.

Talking about the private sector not benefiting or those who are not in PERS, well that is just not true.

I mentioned above about my old home county "Covington County" brings in $20+ million dollars annually from retirees. I asked the question "What does the county pay in employer contributions?"
From my research and math skills, the best I could find is that they pay approximately $4.5 million (+ or -) in employer contributions and bring in as mentioned $20 plus million. This money is spent in local restaurants, grocery stores, banks, hardware stores, gas stations, it pays property taxes, school taxes, etc....

So, the notion that this is just money thrown away into some dark hole is not true. Think about it...........

So, again, put $4.5 million into the system and return $20+ million. I would take that deal all day everyday and twice on Sunday.

If you would like to know about your county, I will be glad to assist. It may take some time, but if you are wondering.

When PERS goes broke, all of their employees and retirees could now work those high paying private sector jobs they didn’t take so they could draw PERS. Just a thought.

A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man.

Proverbs 24:33-34

1:34 You should've given credits.