Wilshire Report shows pensions continue trending in right direction

Since 2008 there have been numerous reports decrying the funded ratios of public employee pension funds around the United States.

Of course, 2008-09 were tough times for stock and bond market investors and the historic downward spirals offered the opponents of public employees’ defined benefit plans plenty of opportunity to knock them. Unfunded liabilities would break the backs of cities and states, they said (and continue to say in many cases).

The truth of the matter is that public employee pensions are long term investors and focusing on returns – and the subsequent consequences to a pensions unfunded liabilities – for a year or two or five or ten -- doesn’t make much sense to those in the industry. The time frames for most pension investments are 15-20 years and as long as the longer-term, multi-year trends for both returns and unfunded liabilities are positive, public officials should not be too concerned except in a relatively small number of cases.

Such is the situation we’re seeing with a national report by Wilshire Associates on the state of U.S. retirement systems. A few points from the survey of 111 pension plans that reported their returns to Wilshire, as reported in Asset International’s Chief Investment Officer:

1. The aggregate funding rose three percent to 75% in 2013, from 72% in 2012.
2. For 111 pension plans, assets grew 8% from $1.96 trillion to $2.12 trillion in 2013.
3. The 111 plans’ aggregate funding shortfall decreased from $863.3 billion to $779.8 billion.
4. The average assets-to-liabilities ratio was 70%.
5. Only 8 had assets worth less than 50% of their liabilities.

All said, only 7 percent of the reporting pensions were in a truly concerning situation, with their assets less than 50% of liabilities. These might warrant some review and action by the people involved to ensure their future solvency, but they are certainly salvageable. All the other findings were very positive.

The best news from our perspective was the aggregate funding trend, up 3% in one year. In investing terms, the trend is your friend, and as long as the large majority of pension funds continue in this positive direction the din and cry for ‘pension reform at all costs’ will slowly fade – until the next historic market downturn. – Max Patterson

 

Opponents to Defined Benefit Plans Never Stop Their Non-factual Assaults

Would new public employees accept wages lower than what they could get in the private sector if they were offered “portable” defined contribution plans like private sector employees are?

It’s a valid question which is being touted by the Honorable Talmedge Heflin, director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, in his opposition to the use of defined benefit plans today. It seems as though Heflin is suggesting that people seeking employment would be more inclined toward 401(k)s and lower compensation:

It would be folly for the state to try to chase private sector pay during an economic boom, said Talmadge Heflin, director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Instead, Heflin suggested the state try to lure younger workers by creating a portable retirement plan akin to a 401(k) and dispensing with the pension that serves as a "golden handcuff" that has kept older employees on the job. (Why state workers are leaving their jobs,” by Kate Alexander, in the Austin American Statesman, Jan. 23, 2014)

One way to probe Heflin’s assertion would be to look at the popularity of defined contribution plans to private sector employees. We know that public sector employees accept their golden handcuffs as a primary reason to stay on the job. But how do private sector employees view them?

 The Deloitte Annual 401(k) Benchmarking Survey for 2012 holds some clues:

 1) The last several Deloitte surveys have found private sector employers (PSEs) worried that their employees aren’t saving enough for retirement. “In 2012, plan sponsors reported a continued sense of obligation in preparing employees for retirement. The number of plan sponsors rating retirement readiness of participants as quite important or very important increased to 78% in 2012 from 73% in 2011. This uptick in concern from plan sponsors may signal that they feel participants are trending in the wrong direction with respect to understanding their retirement income needs and saving appropriately.” 

Our question is “Why?”

If 401(k)s are so popular with employees, why are they not using them appropriately? If as Heflin asserts that 401(k)s should be viewed as a replacement for “golden handcuff” defined benefit plans, why must PSEs go to such lengths to promote 401(k)s within their organization?


2) Participants’ activity with their 401(k)s is decreasing each year, according to the following chart from the Deloitte study.
 

Again, we have some questions.

If 401(k)s are so popular (and a draw to private sector employment), wouldn’t employee involvement increase?

Another statement in the report reflects this skepticism: “Without taking an active role in managing their 401(k) accounts, employees can remain stuck at a low deferral rate and disengaged from investment decisions that impact their retirement savings. With this in mind, plan sponsors are looking to their recordkeepers to help improve plan effectiveness via an overall enhanced participant experience aimed at active engagement.” (As an aside, it seems this sentence is saying that plan sponsors see the need to improve positive results for employees in order to make them less complacent and despairing of their investment results.)

We are going to look for other surveys and research that go more to the heart of Heflin’s assertions.

While the Deloitte study has fairly consistently found that PSEs feel 401(k)s fit their recruitment and retention requirements, the study never asks them any questions comparing their feelings about the use of DB plans for recruitment and retention. And Heflin’s assertion seems to imply the opposite view, that only if DC plans are implemented would more employees gravitate toward lower paying government work.

Of course, as we go looking for more facts, we’d encourage the Honorable Mr. Heflin to offer any proof that “creating a portable retirement plan akin to a 401(k) and dispensing with” golden handcuff pensions would serve the public interest in attracting more employees to replace the outflow of state workers. Somehow we doubt he’d have even an iota of evidence in that regard. – Max Patterson

 

Just Because You’re Rich Doesn’t Mean You’re Immune to Scrutiny

We’ve previously offered our opinion about billionaire John Arnold’s efforts to insert his foundation’s opinions about public employee pensions into the public debate.

Our point has been simple – Arnold secured his retirement by the age of 39 with single-minded focus on investment trading while hard working men and women taught children, fought fires and busted bad guys for the general benefit of society. Their retirement may be later in their life than his, but they deserve the opportunity to have good investment management for their retirement nest egg, just as Arnold created for himself. Defined benefit plans offer that opportunity for people more concerned about the public good than their own trading account.

Over time we’ve also noticed that David and Charles Koch have become active participants in policy debates about public employees’ pensions. The Koch brothers’ financial support of the Cato Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council are all documented fact by other sources, here and here as examples. (Other billionaires, like George Soros and Michael Bloomberg, are known to swing their money around as well for their pet causes, so we don’t want to seem lopsided in our concern about billionaire influence on U.S. politics.)

But we wanted to spend just a minute congratulating MSNBC TV host Rachel Maddow for her recent stand in support of general journalistic prerogative in investigating and recounting the activities of the Koch brothers and their billionaire power plays. You can see here her brave stand against the Koch brothers’ attempt to dissuade her investigation of their activities.

Just as TEXPERS has had to spend time and effort defending public employees’ pension benefits from billionaires’ schemes, we support all journalists in their attempts to expose the influence of wealthy people on public policy through various front groups. The structure for local public employee pension systems in Texas has contributed to their success, just as the structure for a free media has been effective for informing the general public of the activities of the billionaire club. We salute Maddow and all those journalists who endeavor to report on these influencers, just as we salute those who cover events on Wall Street, Main Street and everywhere else in America and the world. – Max Patterson

A Good Reminder from Our Friends at the San Antonio Pension

No matter your profession, each of us have a motivating reason for participating in the line of work that we do.

Police officers do their job to put bad people behind bars. Fire fighters do their job to help protect lives in the case of fire.

Pension administrators make sure that police officers, fire fighters and their families are adequately cared for after putting their lives on the line for others.

In this light, please read an op-ed that was published recently in the San Antonio Express News by Warren Schott, the executive director of the San Antonio Fire and Police Pension.

It’s a great reminder of the motivations behind the establishment of police and firemen’s pensions.