Five things to consider before cutting pension benefits

CHICAGO Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:01am EDT

A senior walks down the hallway with the aide of her walker to visit a neighbor at her independent living complex in Silver Spring, Maryland April 11, 2012. REUTERS/Gary Cameron

A senior walks down the hallway with the aide of her walker to visit a neighbor at her independent living complex in Silver Spring, Maryland April 11, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Gary Cameron

Related Topics

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The message from voters about public pension plans is clear: They're ready to cut the retirement benefits of police, firefighters, teachers and other state and municipal workers.

The latest indicators include the failed recall of Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin - which started with his efforts to cut pensions - and referendums in San Jose and San Diego, where voters overwhelmingly backed pension reform measures.

A recent study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that 35 states have reduced pension benefits since the 2008 financial crisis, mostly for future employees. Eighteen states have reduced or eliminated cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) - and some states have even applied these changes retroactively to current retirees.

This week, the Pew Center on the States reported that states are continuing to lose ground in their efforts to cover long-term retiree obligations. In fiscal year 2010, the gap between states' assets and their obligations for retirement benefits was $1.38 trillion, up nearly 9 percent from fiscal 2009. Of that figure, $757 billion was for pensions, and $627 billion was for retiree health care (see

Pensions are, no doubt, consuming a larger share of some state and local budgets. The bill has come due for years when plan sponsors did not make their full plan contributions; in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, many papered that over by relying on strong stock market returns. Many plans also took major hits in the 2008 crash, and returns have since been hurt by low interest rates.

But - before we continue swinging the axe - here are five things to keep in mind about public sector pensions:

1. Pensions aren't simply a gift from taxpayers.

They're an integral part of total compensation, along with salary, health benefits and vacation. Unlike private sector defined benefit pension plans, most state and municipal workers contribute hefty amounts from their salaries. For those who aren't participating in Social Security, the median contribution is 8.5 percent of pay; for those who do contribute to Social Security, the median contribution is 5 percent and rising, according to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.

Investment earnings account for 60 percent of all public pension revenue, NASRA reports; employer contributions cover 28 percent and employee contributions account for 12 percent.

2. Many workers don't get Social Security.

Thirty percent of state and municipal workers work for states that have not opted into Social Security. That means pensions are their only source of guaranteed lifetime income in retirement. Social Security comes with automatic cost-of-living adjustments to protect retirees from inflation - a feature that is on the chopping block under many public sector reform plans.

3. Pension underfunding isn't as bad as you think.

It's true that funding in some states has dropped to frightening levels. Illinois, for example, which failed to make the necessary plan contributions for years, has a funded ratio of 43.4 percent. But nationally, the story is more positive. Aggregate asset/liability ratios have been rising. The funding level for all state plans combined was 77 percent last year, up from 69 percent in 2010, according to Wilshire Consulting.

Most public sector pension plans have a target funding ratio of 100 percent. However, ratings agencies consider a ratio of 80 percent to be adequate. By comparison, private sector pension plans are considered at risk of default if their funded ratios fall below 80 percent.

However, it's worth noting that public sector funding ratios rely on long-term rate of return assumptions around 8 percent. Actuaries support that projection, since it is upheld by actual long-term investment history. But economists argue that a more conservative assumption should be used, reflecting only what a fund could earn on Treasuries or corporate bonds - closer to 4 percent. If public plans adopted lower projections, their funded ratios would be sharply lower than reported.

4. Pensions are more efficient than 401(k)s.

Despite the under-funding of some plans, defined benefit pensions provide retirement benefits more efficiently than defined contribution plans. The efficiencies stem from pooling of longevity risk, maintenance of portfolio diversification and professional investment by pension fund managers.

"With a 401(k), we ask people to be their own investment advisers, which takes about 200 basis points off the return," says Diane Oakley, executive director of the National Institute on Retirement Security, a not-for-profit research and education organization. "Then we ask them to be their own actuaries and decide how long they will need to draw their own money out - and most people can't do that."

That means when workers are shifted from pensions to defined contribution, the value of benefits fall - or taxpayers are on the hook to keep benefits level. For example, a study last year by the comptroller's office in New York City found that it would cost the city's taxpayers 57 percent to 61 percent more to provide workers in the city's five defined benefit plans with equivalent benefits via a defined contribution plan.

5. The retirement crisis is real.

The Federal Reserve's recently issued Survey of Consumer Finances contains these stunning figures: the median American family's net worth fell nearly 40 percent in the three years ending in 2010, and the asset accumulation of most was set back almost two decades. Real income fell 7.7 percent.

Americans' confidence in their ability to retire is at a historical low point. Just 14 percent report they expect to have enough money to live comfortably in retirement, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Sixty percent of households tell EBRI that the total value of their savings and investments -excluding their homes - is less than $25,000.

Against that backdrop, pensions are the only safety net available to public sector workers, especially in states where they are not enrolled in Social Security. That means there's a real risk that pension reforms could push public sector retirees into poverty.

Consider the actuarial assessment of pension reform in one such state - Louisiana, where Gov. Bobby Jindal this month signed a bill that would put new hires into a 401(k)-style cash-balance pension plan starting in 2013. A report by actuaries for the Louisiana legislature concluded that ". . . because there is no Social Security coverage, such a member may very well become a ward of the state because he or she has no other available resources."

(The writer is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

(Editing by Beth Pinsker Gladstone; Editing by Dan Grebler)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (4)
bvjarvis1 wrote:
Bottom-line is that we’re talking about citizens’s tax dollars so, any comparison to private sector pensions/401Ks or rationalization as to “what to keep in mind” is irrelavent.

Another way to fix this would be to change the algorithm by which public sector pensions are calculated:
(1) Change the calculation to use the average of final 5 years of salary earnings (rather than the current 3 years), (2) No spiking, (3) No more than 80 hours of accrued vacation can be applied to pension calculation, (4) No sick leave can be applied to the pension calculation, (5) No holding additional public jobs to boost pension, (6) Vacation accrual can only carry-over twice the accrual rate (i.e., use it or lose it), and (7) No carrying-over of sick leave from year to year (only use it if you need it).
That would be just a start. It’s always good to remember that these are citizens’ tax dollars we’re talking about, not profits from selling products.
What’s really harmed things in the public’s eye – at least in the City that I live in – is that over the past 25 years, first responders have gotten annual pay raises (that includes COLAs, Step increases, seniority bonuses, and others) averaging 2-1/2 times the inflation rate. (Tracking those rate of pay raises against the inflation rate results in a line that diverges obscenely.) That amount of pay growth, combined with minimal contributions to benefits, and an extremely lucrative pension calculation, has left taxpayers tapped-out.

Jun 20, 2012 2:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
station8 wrote:
The easiest solution to all of this nonsense is for municipalities to provide essential services first and finance pet projects after their obligations to their citizens have been met. In Houston we have a mayor who threatened to layoff police and firefighters one day becuase they would not accept lower wages and make concessions to their pensions, then the very next day she gave $15 million to the local soccer team to secure property for a new stadium. And just last month she renewed her attacks on the firefighters’ pension fund one day, while approving $5 million the very next day to procure a wearhouse so drunks can go sleep it off instead of going to jail. Every city does this; it’s priorities, and our elected leaders have their’s in the wrong order.

Jun 20, 2012 7:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ratsrule wrote:
bvjarvis1 offers some very sound reforms that if enacted would go a long way to saving public pensions. The biggest problem from the taxpayers point of view is the public employees ability to easily “game the system” if they so choose. If you have been given the right to retire after 20 years of service and collect 50% of your pay as a retirement benefit for the remainder of your life, as many in the military, and first responders have, don’t try and turn it into something more with overtime, unused vacation, unused sick pay, etc. “Hey, if I can bump my pay up for just three years, I could retire and collect 60% or 70% of my normal pay for the rest of my life”. Base the pension on 50% of base pay! No games.
When you start making comparisons to social security don’t forget the following; it’s based on lifetime earnings (not your three best years), you have to be in your 60′s before you can collect your “benefits for life”, and you will be receiving a much smaller benefit compared to your earnings. It’s even capped so that there is a maximum family benefit. And it’s going broke too but that’s another article.

Jun 21, 2012 4:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.