1 / 44

State of the State Pension Systems August 24, 2006

State of the State Pension Systems August 24, 2006. Agenda. Introduction/Overview Actuarial Methodology Budget Implications History Current Status Questions. The Nature of a Defined Benefit Plan. Employer guarantees a specific monthly amount at retirement

creda
Download Presentation

State of the State Pension Systems August 24, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. State of the State Pension SystemsAugust 24, 2006

  2. Agenda • Introduction/Overview • Actuarial Methodology • Budget Implications • History • Current Status • Questions

  3. The Nature of aDefined Benefit Plan • Employer guarantees a specific monthly amount at retirement • Employer makes contributions • Employee required to make contributions • Employee does not make investment decisions • Employer and employee contributions grow over time • Oversight of Plan assets and liabilities

  4. Risks? • Benefits guaranteed • Benefits erode without protection from inflation • Benefits not portable • Asset growth not guaranteed • Requires steady contributions • Miracle of compound interest • If assets cannot match promised benefits, pension payments have to be covered out of operating income through the budget

  5. Tracking Assets & LiabilitiesKey to: • Control Risk • Proportion “Funded” • Budget Stability

  6. Experience Determines“Key Drivers for Funding” • Life Expectancy • Size of Workforce • Career Service • Salary Growth • Inflation

  7. “Key Drivers for Funding” • Gains and losses are recognized, or smoothed, over 5 years to limit volatility • Actuarial value of assets versus actuarial liabilities determines • funding status • need for employer contributions

  8. Funding Requirements are Dynamic and Change over Time • Normal Cost – present value of service earned for that year • Accrued liability – present value of all past service • If liabilities exceed assets, we have an accrued unfunded liability which is amortized over a number of years

  9. Unfunded Liability is Growing

  10. What Is The Challenge? • Growth in cost of pension and other employee benefit programs • Finding adequate funding to meet ever growing demand among competing interests

  11. Asset/Liability Comparison All Systems Funded Ratio: 82.3%

  12. Asset/Liability Comparison PERS State Funded Ratio: 79.1%

  13. Asset/Liability Comparison TPAF Funded Ratio: 80.3%

  14. Asset/Liability Comparison PERS LocalFunded Ratio: 89.9%

  15. Asset/Liability Comparison PFRSFunded Ratio: 80.1%

  16. Asset/Liability Comparison SPRSFunded Ratio: 92.6%

  17. Are We Alone? SPRS PFRS Public Fund Survey May 2006

  18. The “’97 Gimmicks” • Issuance of Pension Obligation Bonds-$2.8 billion • Authorized temporary change in actuarial method (Mark to Market) • Authorized use of surplus assets to offset employer contributions-State and local employers get pension holiday • Reduced employee contributions for PERS and TPAF • Backloaded Debt Service

  19. Debt Service On Pension Bonds

  20. More of “How Did We Get Here?” • Surpluses grow- • positive returns of late 90s • bond proceeds • Mark to Market • Investment returns go south beginning in FY2001 • Benefits enhanced for PERS & TPAF (FY 2002), & PFRS (FY 2000) adding over $5 billion in liabilities to the systems • Another Mark to Market (retroactive to 1999) • Limited or no employer contributions for seven years • By FY 2004 pension contribution holiday comes to an end • Budget problems make contributions difficult • All benefit costs affect budget - Pension and Health • Phase-in adopted in FY 2004

  21. New Jersey’s Liabilities are Growing Faster than our Assets • Limited/No Employer Contributions • Benefit Enhancements • Benefit Payouts: $5B/yr. and growing • Investment Returns meeting benchmark targets • Retirees living/collecting benefits longer • Actives with higher salaries & more service credit

  22. What Needs To Be Done? • Make/Increase the employer pension contribution • Work to improve investment performance • Better match growth in assets and liabilities

  23. Current Budget Recommends Pension Contribution of $1.1B

  24. Q & A

  25. Benefits Review Task Force Recommendations

  26. What is the Purpose of a Retirement Benefit • To attract and retain a qualified and capable workforce • To deliver a form of compensation on a deferred basis reducing immediate cost of employment • To ensure an adequate “replacement” income to career employees

  27. Areas of Concern • Those recommendations that have a financial impact on the benefit systems • Those recommendations that address the integrity of the systems

  28. System Integrity • Make full, actuarially sound pension payments • Over $8 billion dollars in actuarially required contributions have been avoided • Practice good fiscal stewardship and do not use unsound techniques • Do not alter actuarial assumptions to meet budgetary constraints or to finance other initiatives

  29. System Integrity • Any proposed legislation must include the following elements for PHBRC consideration: • A fiscal note in the body of the bill • Description of revenue sources to cover costs • Certification that costs and revenue projections are based on generally accepted actuarial principles

  30. System Integrity • End boosting, padding and tacking • No pension for contractors/vendors • No DB Participation for elected or appointed officials • No tacking of several jobs • Restrict end of career salary hikes • End sick day manipulation

  31. Division of Pensions Recommendations • All employees and retirees should be required to contribute towards the cost of health insurance coverage • Cost have risen by 150% over the past five years and will double by 2010 • Majority of taxpaying public is required to make contributions towards their health care • At 5%, State and Local Savings exceed $348M • At 10%, savings exceed $489M

  32. End Traditional Plan and Offer a PPO • Indemnity plans not typically offered anymore • PPOs far more prevalent that plans such as NJ PLUS and meet the diverse needs of broadly dispersed population (e.g. retirees) • Annual savings if Traditional and NJ PLUS are replaced with a PPO • State $40M • Local $64M

  33. Reduce Rx Costs • Contract directly with a PBM • Currently through health plans • Estimated savings of $27M - $45M • Encourage generic drug utilization • Require mandatory mail-order • At State and Local level, more than 55% of drug spend is for maintenance drugs; less than15% is mail order • Generic & Mail-Order will save an estimated $35M

  34. SHBP Program • Apply State negotiated changes in health benefits to local employers; return SHBP to UNIFORMITY • Local Savings/Medical $25M • State PRM Savings $ 5M • Local Savings/Rx $13M

  35. Short-Term Gains • End Pension Loans or Charge Market Rate Interest • Current outstanding balance exceeds $1.1B • At 4% interest and with State assuming an 8.25% rate of return, lost earnings potential exceeds $45M per year • For “pension purchase”, determine a way to factor in the cost of health insurance • Current purchase cost address pension benefits only

  36. Short-Term Gains • End Dual Health Coverage within SHBP • Cannot implement State limits without imposing on a system wide basis • Potential Savings • Coordination of Benefits $15M • Administrative Expenses $ 3M • Declare a moratorium on ERIs • Declare a Moratorium on Benefit Plan Changes

  37. Longer-Term Solutions • Adhere to “n/55” Retirement Calculation • Not an unusual or overly generous formula; see NASRA data • Anti “two tier” philosophy • Think the Committee need to look at all options; actuary will present additional information next week • Provide for Part-Timers • Again, encourage this Committee to consider the originally stated intent of a retirement plan

  38. Longer-Term Solutions • Whether under the current system or a new design, early retirement age must be moved from 55 to 60 • Estimated savings are very long term since it would only affect: • employees not yet on the payroll • or those with less than 5 years service

  39. Longer-Term Solutions • No pension credits for jobs paying less than $5,000 • Recommend that hours worked would be a better indicator of need for retirement income • Use of a recognized benchmark, such as 1000 hours, or limits based on “full-time” status may be more appropriate • Those who do not meet the threshold could be covered under an alternative design such as a deferred compensation plan

  40. Other Recommendations • Standardize Life Insurance Fees and Benefits • Basic benefit – Employer Paid • PERS = 1.5x Base Salary • TPAF = 2.0x Base Salary • PFRS = 3.5x Salary • Entire group life system needs overhaul • Break linkage to pensions • Standardize employer paid benefit • Allow for employees to buy varying levels of optional coverage

  41. Other Recommendations • Amend dual pension and salary • Too many cases of retirement and reemployment • Inconsistencies in application (statute) across systems • Complicated to administer and manage • Difficult for participants to understand

  42. Other Recommendations • Revise Pension “pop Up” Increases • Upon death of a beneficiary, participants can revert to their full unreduced benefit • Limit the “pop up” to a period of up to 5 years from retirement • COLA • Eliminate COLA for those who vested in State system but who are not actively working at the time of retirement

  43. Other Recommendations • Change disability pensions to a disability insurance system • No middle ground today between retirement and disability • Guarantees salary replacement while disabled but allows time to determine if an employee can be returned to employment • Estimated Annual Savings • State $28.2M • Local $53.5M

  44. Division of Pensions View • Pension laws and regulations are too complex; costly to administer and difficult for the members to understand • Major overhaul should be a goal to: • Reduce administrative expenses • Eliminate disparities between systems • Help participants better understand and appreciate their benefits

More Related