Washington public pensions are at risk. There are several; a few appear to be safe, but others not at all. Washington is above average among the states, but that's like getting a D grade when half the class flunks. The Seattle Times dug in and did their own analysis. They found a shortfall of $31.1 billion, that's $31,100 million.
As public pension plans come under fire around the country for being overgenerous, underfunded, loosely managed budget-busters, Washington state's massive system looks pretty good by comparison.
But that may not be good enough.
An analysis by The Seattle Times suggests that the system's promised benefits are much bigger, and its real assets smaller, than official numbers indicate.
The analysis, using market-based data and methods, pegs the total gap between the present-day value of future benefits and assets on hand at more than $31 billion.
By that measure -- one advocated by many outside experts and economists -- the system's nine major defined-benefit plans together have only about 64 cents in assets for every dollar of liabilities, rather than being 100 percent funded as the official figures indicate.
State officials defend the current way of valuing the pension system's assets and obligations, saying it's the industry standard.
But the pension industry, prodded by regulators and bond-rating agencies, is slowly moving toward a market-based approach -- treating pension promises much like state debt, and recognizing changes in the market value of pension assets immediately rather than smoothing them out over several years.
Advocates of that approach say it paints a truer picture of the pension plans' financial condition...
... The state actuary's office, which does the heavy number-crunching for the pension system, projects that over the next century it will have to pay out some $440 billion across all its defined-benefit plans. (Those plans pay a set amount per month based on the worker's salary and length of service, which makes it possible to project their future obligations fairly accurately.)
Matt Smith, the state actuary for the past decade, explains that this stream of future payments has to be converted, or "discounted," back into present-day dollars before it can be sized up against the plan's assets. The trick is picking the most appropriate discount rate; the bigger the rate, the smaller all those future obligations look in today's dollars.
If the plan's discounted liabilities are bigger than its assets, the plan is underfunded.
According to Smith's current analysis, all but two of Washington's nine major defined-benefit plans are fully funded, with combined liabilities worth $60.2 billion and assets worth $60.7 billion.The exceptions are two plans covering state workers and teachers that were closed 35 years ago.
Indeed, a recent report from the Pew Center on the States, using 2010 data, found Washington's pension system was the fourth-healthiest in the nation.
But a growing number of economists, academics and outside pension experts say the standard approach is fundamentally flawed. Most plans, they say, use discount rates that are too high, making the present-day value of their pension promises look smaller than they really are.
"I've seen people get so red-faced about this issue," said Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
Public pensions such as Washington's operate under special accounting rules, one of which allows them to assume a long-term rate of return on their investments. Most plans have picked a rate between 7 and 8 percent; all but one of Washington's plans assume 7.9 percent.
That assumed return is significant, because another special rule lets public plans use it as their discount rate -- something corporate pension plans were forced to abandon nearly two decades ago.
Critics such as Munnell and Biggs say this rule ignores the fact that pension benefits are effectively almost as guaranteed as state bonds. That, they say, means they should be valued similarly to bonds.
And that (market) picture is that interest rates are near zero. The investment portfolios include other things, of course. But the state assumes 7.9% gain per year, boldly decreasing to 7.7%. Where can I get that? On the other hand, some states and agencies are already facing reality:
• The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the nation's biggest public-pension fund, now uses the market values of its assets to determine its funded status, saying that market value "represents the true measure of the plan's ability to pay benefits at a given point in time."
• Last year Indiana's public pension fund became the nation's first to drop its assumed rate of return -- and hence its discount rate -- below 7 percent, citing low bond yields and volatile stock markets.
• Moody's, one of the three big bond-rating agencies, is considering changing the way it analyzes state pension plans. Its proposed new method, which would use market values of assets and a discount rate based on an index of high-grade corporate bonds, would nearly triple the total unfunded liability of the nation's state and local pensions, from $766 billion to $2.2 trillion.
• Even the Government Accounting Standards Board, which sets rules for public pension plans and has long defended the actuarial approach, is changing its tune. Under new rules the board issued last year, underfunded plans will have to start discounting their "excess" liabilities using municipal-bond rates.
$31.1 billion short. We are headed for, no, already in trouble. We have to put more into the current plans and consider options for the future.
Sea Times Editorial with graphic.
From the story; It sounds like it is doubtful that even Quantitative Easing would be able to get the pension system out of this ballooning debt and that ultimately most everyone in the PERS and other public pension systems will have to take a hit for it to maintain solvency - especially with a large demographic retiring over the next 10 years. Now that this is determined to be in crisis mode by the media and the politicians, action to be taken is on the table.
Posted by: KDS on March 10, 2013 10:08 AMOn the stock market. You're welcome.
http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2009/03/average-annual-stock-market-return.html
Posted by: President Obama on March 10, 2013 02:29 PMOn the other hand, some states and agencies are already facing reality:
• The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the nation's biggest public-pension fund, now uses the market values of its assets to determine its funded status, saying that market value "represents the true measure of the plan's ability to pay benefits at a given point in time."
• Last year Indiana's public pension fund became the nation's first to drop its assumed rate of return -- and hence its discount rate -- below 7 percent, citing low bond yields and volatile stock markets.
• Moody's, one of the three big bond-rating agencies, is considering changing the way it analyzes state pension plans. Its proposed new method, which would use market values of assets and a discount rate based on an index of high-grade corporate bonds, would nearly triple the total unfunded liability of the nation's state and local pensions, from $766 billion to $2.2 trillion.
• Even the Government Accounting Standards Board, which sets rules for public pension plans and has long defended the actuarial approach, is changing its tune. Under new rules the board issued last year, underfunded plans will have to start discounting their "excess" liabilities using municipal-bond rates.
$31.1 billion short. We are headed for, no, already in trouble. We have to put more into the current plans and consider options for the future.
Omitted and delayed employer contributions to the pension funds deprive the beneficiaries of the increased asset values and compound growth from invetment returns. The delayed or omitted contributions operate as unethical and illegal loans from the fund to the state and other public pension plans. It has been several years since the state made its scheduled fund contributions. Pension plan manipulation is one of tricks used to misstate state budgets and deficits incurred.
Moreover, virtually all public employee defined benefit pension plans throughout the nation employ similar flawed actuarial assumptions. This is no justification for them since actual experience requires much lower rates.
I suspect that public pension funds in WA are valued under a rolling 3 to 5 year actuarial average rather than actual net value on specific dates. This method distorts quantification of investment gains and losses.
Incorrect actuarial assumptions for growth and discounting overstate growth and grossly understate unfunded benefit liability.
In the past, collective bargaining led by the governor increased benefit levels during periods of strong growth in securities markets during the mid-90s and again 8 to 10 years later without providing for commensurate decreases during periods of strong declines, including the recessions beginning in 1999 and 2008.
Under this scenario all of the economic risks are on taxpayers, the only one not represented at the bargaining table. This outcome is typically corrupt given the inherent conflict of interest between taxpayers and public employes unions and governments that are represented by elected officials whom receive substantial reelection monetary and in kind support from those unions in return for increased pay, benefits and protective work rules.
The pension plans are obligated to pay out far more than the level of contribution and investment returns can provide. Consequently, public pension plans actual obligations must be
covered up because they will bankrupt nearly every public entity with collectively bargained public employee defined benefit pension plans.
CA public pensions are devouring the state, local governments, and all facets of public education. Except for the scope of unfunded liability, WA is similarly situated.
The Seattle Times is to be commended for its excellent investigative reporting. Now it needs to focus on King County, who manages its own pension, plus those for public utility and fire districts.
The public pension fiscal tme bombs are ticking.
Posted by: Paddy on March 10, 2013 03:19 PM
Note - there seems to be a duplication virus on this post starting with the post itself.
Posted by: KDS on March 10, 2013 05:37 PMPeople in the pension business know this. Assuming a realistic, conservative growth rate is part of the fiduciary responsibity a pension manager owes the plan participants.
Simply telling pension plan participants what they want to here is not how we provide pensn security. The chickens will eventually come hoe to roost, and the pensioners will be left holding the bag.
Posted by: Ten Years After on March 10, 2013 06:06 PMCan anyone imagine telling government workers their wages and salaries will have to be reduced in an attempt to save their jobs? Do government workers suffer as much as private sector workers in a recession? I' m going to go out on a limb hear and say no.
Posted by: Ten Years After on March 10, 2013 06:23 PMIf, the real rate is lower than 7.9 percent, and is actually 3.9 percent, you need $332,932 to fund the 20-year payout. That's 38.2 percent more with a lower rate than with the higher rate.
Given the risk/return profiles of today, it would be very difficult for a pension manager to achieve a 7.9 rate of return on plan assets and not take excessive risk to get that return.
Government needs to get serious about this or these plans will blow up.
Posted by: Tens Years After on March 10, 2013 06:57 PMA 401K plan in the public sector is the wave of the future, but those getting pensions will likely see a dip in the amount they receive - unless that is prohibited by law, which would make that proposition a sticky wicket. Government get serious about this ? Only when push comes to shove. Lawyers will be lining up for these at the feeding trough when the stuff hits the fan.
Posted by: KDS on March 10, 2013 08:02 PMReal people earn and save for their own futures.
Posted by: Leftover on March 10, 2013 08:40 PMK thanks, bye...
K thanks, bye...
Bernanke keeps printing out billions of dollars a week, then he gives them up to the investment bankers that own the debt, in turn they have to invest that money somewhere, hence the stock market and commodity markets MUST rise.
As long as the Feds keep printing the money, those investment bankers such as those funds will rise at a healthy level, while the amount of goods the money will buy once the retired folk get it, will shrink and shrink and shrink.
The MSM shouldn't be praising the Dow Jones High, they should be comparing it to what it should be if Bernanke didn't print so much money, it's probably down 30% or more from the true high.
Posted by: doug on March 11, 2013 07:27 AMThat definition would include military retiired folks.
Posted by: Ten Years After on March 11, 2013 10:23 AMS&P 500:
1/20/1009 -- 805.22
3/7/2013 -- 1544.26
Average annualized rate of return over that period: 17.1%
You just don't know much about anything, do you?
Posted by: scottd on March 11, 2013 03:48 PMThe S&P 500 returned 11.0 percent over the past 37 years, with a standard deviation of 15.2 percent. With such a large standard deviation, the index might be too volatile for a pension manager. Remember, the pension manager has a fiduciary duty to the plan participants and must meet the promised benefits.
With life expectancy increasing, that's getting hard to do. I'm afraid we will see more pensions converting to defined contribution plans because these pensions simply can't keep up with the way we're living longer. That means individuals will have to take more responsibility for planning their retirements and not rely on some state pension. Sorry, but that's the future for all of our retirements.
Posted by: Ten Years After on March 11, 2013 05:16 PMAverage Annualized rate of return over that period: About .1%
You just don't know much about anything, do you?
Posted by: Dale D on March 11, 2013 05:28 PM
What's your justification for picking the first day of your interval?
So I wouldn't get too excited about the Obama market until the Obama term has ended. In the words of the great Kenny Rogers: "You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table.There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done."
Posted by: Dale D on March 11, 2013 08:48 PMI doubt much will come of the SEC investigation of Illinois' pension system. Illinois is about one of the most corrupt states around, so they'll avoid the bullet. After all, corruption is rampant in the entire state.
Posted by: Ten Years After on March 11, 2013 08:58 PMYou just don't know much about anything, do you?
Posted by scottd at March 11, 2013 03:48 PM
Brilliant ! you cherry pick well but are blind to the big picture/reality and need a course in Econ 101 as Dale D made the point in @22 and @27. Also, could you explain why personal wealth has decreased on the average about 30% since late 2008 ?
I doubt if either one of you (tensor, scottd or any other leftist) have the clarity of thought or guts to attempt to explain or anyone like you from the feckless Krugman school of economics. Oh yes, it also would render your numbers on the S & P ineffectual to all of those except a tiny minority who only invested totally in the stock market during that period.
Posted by: KDS on March 11, 2013 09:00 PMOK, thank you for answering my question. We can therefore ignore whatever economic point you were trying to make, and we note the inherent dishonesty of your approach to economics.
Scottd was trying to make a snarky dig which has nothing to do with Ron's post or the current situation with state pensions.
Huh? Did you read Ron's post, and the comments? That's a serious question, because Ron spent quite a lot of words on this very point, eventually limping to this non-conclusion:
But the state assumes 7.9% gain per year, boldly decreasing to 7.7%. Where can I get that?
The answer, which Ron couldn't find, is about half the gains in the S&P financial index, over the Obama presidency. That's why scottd counted the S&P gains from the day Obama took office, to the most recent day on which economic data were reported (last Thursday).
If you didn't follow that on your own, I suggest you try a bit harder before the next time you decide to comment.
Posted by: tensor on March 11, 2013 10:10 PMYour point was more specific. You said a rate of return of 7.9% was unrealistic in this age of statism. Of course, you've been wrong for the last 4 years -- a period which I'm sure you will agree corresponds to maximal "statism" as you would define it. You've never been one to let data get in the way of a good rant -- so, please, continue...
Posted by: scottd on March 11, 2013 10:37 PMI am always amused how the resident left wing nuts can make contorted arguments for no other reason than to disagree with someone from the right on this blog.
You obviously don't understand how pension managers handle their funds. No one is going to throw all of their assets into one area. Diversification is the key to lowering risk. Bonds (which are generally considered safer and less volatile than stocks) are currently yeilding very low rates of return. Hence we have a problem with the long term financial viability of these pension funds because the rate of return assumptions that have been made are too low. That is the point of Ron's article.
For Scottd to throw out the short term return on one index is really off topic and pointless. Try sobering up before responding next time.
Posted by: Dale D on March 12, 2013 11:23 AMHowever, no one seems to understand this, because they are being fed candy in the form of 'good news of stock market increasing'.
Posted by: doug on March 12, 2013 02:24 PMThe first step seems to require parties that are willing to act. Educating the public and motivating them to want to rectify unsustainable plans that will inevitably bankrupt the state and local branches of government.
Posted by: Paddy on March 12, 2013 02:34 PMAll you are doing to doubling down of tensor's cherry picked numbers for the Stock Market, but you FAILED to answer my question (no surprise)- could you explain why personal wealth has decreased on the average about 30% since late 2008 ? I submit that there is as much connection between this and the rate of return - about as much as the 17.1% increase in a small slice of investments/securities and yeah they are diversely different.
@33 - Yes, tensor is a snarky little bitch, as the rest of the lemmings scottd,et.al have similar tendencies to a lesser degree whenever politics rears its ugly head.
Posted by: KDS on March 12, 2013 07:53 PMYou were the one who said a 7.9% annual return was impossible during the "this age of statism". I demonstrated you were wrong by showing actual returns during this age. Hell, even a conservative portfolio consisting of 50% stocks/50% 10-year bonds would have yielded over 9.5%.
I don't expect you to understand this -- and you haven't disappointed me. I hope you don't handle your own retirement investments.
Posted by: scottd on March 13, 2013 12:21 AM