While legislators patted themselves on the back for "doing something" about PERS this year, Moody's was not impressed as it called PERS the "riskiest combination" of asset and benefit coverage of all state retirement systems.
The ratings agency issued the report on June 12. The report is posted below.
PERS faced legislative scrutiny this year after the Board of Trustees voted to increase employer contribution rates from 19.4% to 24.5% two years ago. The contribution increase generated a backlash from local governments who would have to foot the bill. Their lamentations reached the Capitol and the Capitol acted. Posted below is a snapshot of PERS finances a year ago.
The numbers for PERS are not great. The unfunded liability is $26 billion and growing every year. Benefit payments are $1.3 billion greater than employer contributions. Even when PERS enjoys great investment returns, it remains stuck in the mud with a funding level in the mid-50's.
The legislature and PERS Board instituted several changes this year. The legislature took away the Board's power to levy contribution increases. The legislature cut the contribution increase to 2% but it will only increase 0.5% a year for four years as it assumes the power to levy such increases. However, don't worry about a shortfall because the legislature doled out $100 million in lottery proceeds to PERS.
The PERS Board instituted reforms as it created a "Tier 5" structure for employees hired after March 1, 2026. The highlights of Tier 5 are:
* Employees will still contribute 9% of pay towards PERS. However, half will be directed towards a defined benefit plan and the other half will be deposited into a defined contribution account (Think 401k).
* Vesting in the defined benefit (pension) occurs after eight years of service while immediate vesting occurs in the defined contribution plan (401k-style)
* There is no COLA.
Along with responsibility comes well, responsibility. However, there is one variable left out of their solution.
The ratings agencies giveth and the ratings agencies taketh. Taketh in the form of ratings downgrades, which are very costly to a government. Although Moody's did not issue a downgrade, it weighed the PERS reforms and found them wanting.
Moody's said the PERS reforms created "one of the riskiest combinations of asset/benefit coverage (p.4 of report posted below.). The creation of a Tier 5 was welcome but the ratings agency said it was too little, too late as it won't affect PERS until after 2055.
While Tier 5 helps PERS down the road, the legislature's inability to create an additional revenue stream while stripping the Board of its power to raise contributions creates problems for PERS now. Moody's stated (p.3):
The state's current schedule calls for participating governments to gradually increase contributions up to 19.9% of payroll, from the 17.9% of payroll in effect for this fiscal year. The schedule previously set by MS PERS, which the state has declined to implement, called for contribution rates to rise by 2% of payroll per year until reaching the actuarially determined contribution (ADC). Under that MS PERS schedule, we project the state's contributions would reach the ADC in fiscal year 2030, and that the system's unfunded liability would be around $24 billion at the end of fiscal year 2035, down slightly from about $27 billion as of June 30, 2024. In contrast,the state's current contribution schedule is not intended to reach the ADC, and we project MS PERS' unfunded liability at more than $32 billion by end of 2035, again assuming 7% annual investment returns
Translation: The legislature's "fix" this year just made things worse at PERS since it did not establish a stable revenue stream to cover shortfalls. Check out what happens to unfunded liabilities if no changes are made.
Moody's moved in the for the kill with this chart.
What does all this finance mumbo-jumbo mean? It means a major ratings agency is saying the legislature tinkered with PERS this year but did not really fix anything. The changes for new hires is nice but it will be decades before they affect the retirement system. Stripping the Board of its powers and watering down the proposed contribution increase made the plan riskier even with a $100 million donation to PERS.
Legislative leaders have said they are going to address a permanent funding stream for PERS in the next session.
Kingfish note: A legislator told me last week there was no political will to make true reforms to PERS. Well, eventually political will is going to meet reality.
One last thing. The COLA increase is around $50 million. Thus the COLA ate half of the legislature's $100 million contribution. Of course, there is also that matter of the $1.3 billion deficit between contributions and payments.
33 comments:
People really need to be aware of this behavior before deciding on working for /in the state system.
This is not unexpected considerting that we have the worst legislature and executive leadership in the country.
Such typical human behavior. Ignore the problem and maybe it will go away.
Moody's must not care about getting these state employee's mad at them...unlike most elected MS officials. Defined Benefit plans all eventually fail. PERS, Social Security, you name it. All large private defined benefit plans, which don't have taxpayer dollar support, have already failed.
And before anybody says it, yes I agree that the SLRP must also be changed.
A couple of years ago, I interviewed for a director position with a state agency. This position was a "Serve at the Will of the Governor" position, not through the state Personnel Board.
During the interview process, they lauded PERS as a benefit. I took the time to look into it and saw the same thing you see in this post. When the offer came through, I declined because of PERS. They then admitted that it was becoming a problem attracting high level talent.
This is going to be a major issue in 5-10 years. Not only is it hurting state agencies in attracting talent, its going to be a problem for school and municipal employees. IHL saw it years ago when it was hurting the recruitment of faculty at our colleges. Faculty (not staff) at the IHL institutions have the option for a regular 401k contribution. So the state knows this is a problem.
If anyone under 30 is reading this stay away from the state government or go to another state and work. PERS will fail when you retire. Again do not work for the State in any form. You will be broke when you retire
I guess I am screwed. 25 year state employee here
Lots of palm greasing??
The future of PERS is bleak. The cup of SLRP runneth over. Working for the State of Mississippi, such a drag.
So you are 47? You can work part time for 20 more years and suckle on that tit
It might help the situation if UMMC stopped using a staffing firm to get around including their employees in PERS.
The retirement pay should be based on the average pay the employee received over their years of service. The “High 4” scam is a major cause of the problem.
Isn't the pers plan a contractual obligation of the government? if so wouldn't the only way out be for the government to declare bankruptcy? I would expect to see a state income tax come back just about the time it finally goes away in order to pay for the mess politicians have kicked down the road the past few decades.
12:25 PM, pretty sure 14 years ago then Governor Hailey Barbour warned that PERS was only about 60 to 64% funded and without reforming the system - PERS was on a path that would become unmanageable. He then urged legislative action BEFORE the crisis occurred.
PERS is a scam. And retired state employees with their 13th checks, and especially those that are getting paid huge monthly incomes based off of only their highest 4 years of pay, are laughing all of the way to the bank.
Can any sane person with a 401K imagine being paid based on their highest 4 years of contributions, as if they had contributed the same amount each year over their entire career?
When will some fine investigative reporter go back and name the Governor and the so-called legislators that proposed and voted for this “state retirement is based off of their highest 4 years of pay, they get to retire long before the mere commoners do,” BS???
Those that made PERS “unmanageable” need to be known, and called out; because they knew what they were doing.
What's interesting is that for a number of years, the PERS Board has gotten forecasting on "COLA holidays," where the COLA would be paid but increases would be stopped for three years, five years, etc. They've also forecast taking out the compounding. All of those forecasts showed considerable benefit to the long-term health of the plan.
Unfortunately, the Board does now have the legal authority to make any changes to the COLA, only the Legislature can do that. Legislators are the ones who created the monster COLA in the late 90's, and they wrote into the law that they were the only ones who could change it.
They pass performative legislation about DEI and immigration and call themselves brave. Brave would be addressing that COLA.
I don't think y'all properly appreciate the true liability of the state for the contracted promises of PERS.
Only solution is haircuts. Taxpayers at the state and local levels are tapped out. No politico is going to run a campaign calling for tax increases to pay for PERS.
1:59 so nasty, the theory and the expression.
Legislators will always take care of themselves first and foremost. They consider themselves royalty.
This is true conservatism at work. Preserve the status quos and push the consequences down the line for the next guy.
PERS is one of the reasons I left state employment. That and all the lazy, worthless, incompetents and nepo hires. Good lord the nepo hires. Yeah, I know they don’t let them work directly for their relative. But everyone knows so and so’s cousin/son/brother will never get in trouble (and they know it)
Dembert’s powerlust cost the future of Mississippi. I think he wants the state bankrupt.
It is literally how elected government officials and government employees operate. You see the citizens as a giant fat sow and all you piglets are struggling for a suckle of the milk that never ends.
Meanwhile, the rest of us have to be responsible for our own savings, turning a profit, running a business, and navigating the ever-changing legislation and every growing bureaucracy that your kind forces upon us.
So I am glad it makes you uncomfortable. You deserve it!
It’s a binding legal obligation of the State of Mississippi. You can’t cut a person’s compensation after the work is performed. Haircuts sound nice, but not legal. And guess what? There is no provision in the federal code for a state to declare bankruptcy. Taxpayers will pay up. This will be what Tate is remembered for. Cutting income taxes only to see them return with a vengeance very soon.
The comments about high four are spot on. The high four rule has been manipulated by so many for long. There is no reason to limit this reform to new employees. Switch from high four to high ten or high fifteen for ALL employees except those within four years of retirement. Easy change.
If that is the case, hit the pavement getting someone else elected that isn't like that. We, the people, can choose not to re-elect these people.
I highly doubt that.
June 30, 2025 at 3:07 PM Finally said it... This isn't something that can fail. It is a legal obligation of the state and we may have to shut down schools to pay it - but it will be paid to retirees.
I wonder how many employees haircuts guy has screwed over the years?
Can you say “Class Action Lawsuit”?
Screw everybody as long as the retirees get their Ponzi money.
Isn’t the conservative plan to bankrupt the country and then sell it off cheap to the aristocracy? They’re doing a hell of a job, at both the state and national level. Project 2025 is in full force, don’t drop the soap.
Simple layperson explanation from the (conservative) American Enterprise Institute:
"In many states, an employee’s
right to public pension benefits is considered contractual, and therefore is protected against substantial
impairment under both state and federal constitutions.
This protection is provided by the Contract Clause of
the United States Constitution, which states, 'No State
shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of
Contracts.' Most state constitutions contain substantially similar language. As a result, once a court finds an
employee’s right to her public retirement benefits to be
contractual, it is generally unconstitutional for a state
to take any action that substantially impairs the
employee’s benefits."
So for those of you shedding tears for state employees, don't. They are getting paid. Every other item on the state budget may get a haircut, but they will not. Write it down.
Post a Comment