Tag: Elizabeth Bauer

More Than An Insolvency Date: What Else To Know About The Social Security And Medicare Trustees’ Reports

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2021/09/01/more-than-an-insolvency-date-what-else-to-know-about-the-social-security-and-medicare-trustees-reports/

Excerpt:

This year, Social Security’s deficit is unusually high due to lower revenues and higher benefits: 1.75%. In 2040, the deficit climbs to 3.70% rather than 3.54%. In 2080, the deficit stands at 4.87% rather than 4.59%.

Put another way, if there were no Trust Fund accounting mechanism now, the OASI program would have been able to pay 93% of benefits. This would drop to 76% in 2035 – 2040 – 2045, then drop further to being able to pay 70% of benefits.

What’s more, this year, the actuaries changed several assumptions. They assume that by the year 2036, fertility rates will increase to 2.00 children per woman, an increase from the 2020 report’s assumption of 1.95. They also assume a long-term unemployment rate of 4.5% rather than 5%. At the same time, they calculate alternate projections with more pessimistic assumptions, including a continuingly low fertility rate (1.69), a higher rate of mortality improvement (that is, longer-lived recipients), a higher rate of unemployment (5.5%), and others. In these alternate calculations, the 2040 deficit becomes 6.47% rather than 3.7% (benefits 64% payable), and the 2080 deficit becomes 12.39% rather than 4.87% (benefits 50% payable).

Also consider that, at the moment, there are 2.7 workers for each Social Security recipient (2.8 in 2020). This is forecast to drop to 2.2 in 2040 and ultimately down to 2.1. But if the population trends are those of the pessimistic scenario, then that 2.1 would drop to 1.5 by the year 2080.

Author(s): Elizabeth Bauer

Publication Date: 1 September 2021

Publication Site: Forbes

The Massachusetts ‘Essential Worker’ Pension Boost Proposal Is A Case Study In Public Pension Failures

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2021/08/19/the-massachusetts-essential-worker-pension-boost-proposal-is-a-case-study-in-public-pension-failures/

Graphic:

Excerpt:

The text of the bill, H. 2808/S. 1669, is brief. All employees of the state, its political subdivisions, and its public colleges and universities, a bonus of three years “added to age or years of service or a combination thereof for the purpose of calculating a retirement benefit,” if, at any point between March 10, 2020 and December 21, 2020, they had “volunteered to work or who [had] been required to work at their respective worksites or any other worksite outside of their personal residence.”

…..

In subsequent reporting, government watchdog group The Pioneer Institute voiced its opposition. In a statement posted on their website, they criticized the broad coverage — acting as an unfunded mandate for municipalities, including workers even if they had worked outside their home for a single day, encompassing both blue collar and white collar workers. They estimate the bill’s cost at “in the billions of dollars” and point to a massive boost even for a single individual, the president of the University of Massachusetts, whose lifetime pension benefit would increase by $790,750.

…..

And left out of Zlotnik’s proposal is a recognition that the state’s main retirement fund is 64% funded, and the teachers’ fund, 52%, as of 2019.

Author(s): Elizabeth Bauer

Publication Date: 19 August 2021

Publication Site: Forbes

Do You Get Your Money’s Worth From Buying An Annuity?

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2021/07/08/do-you-get-your-moneys-worth-from-buying-an-annuity/?sh=380f33612082&fbclid=IwAR1dlxEjlWlmPSetMplHWU6BdPjzzo7ju983c73QKr5KKKn29PjurCq_YmA

Excerpt:

But measuring the value of annuities, generally speaking, does tell us whether consumers are getting a fair deal from their purchases, and here, a recent working paper by two economists, James Poterba and Adam Solomon, “Discount Rates, Mortality Projections, and Money’s Worth Calculations for US Individual Annuities,” lends some insight.

Here’s some good news: using the costs of actual annuities available for consumers to purchase in June 2020, and comparing them to bond rates which were similar to the investment portfolios those insurance companies hold, the authors calculated “money’s worth ratios” that show that, for annuities purchased immediately at retirement, the value of the annuities was between 92% – 94% (give-or-take, depending on type) of its cost. That means that the value of the insurance protection is a comparatively modest 6 – 8% of the total investment.

But there’s a catch — or, rather, two of them.

In the first place, the authors calculate their ratios based on a standard mortality table for annuity purchasers — which makes sense if the goal is to judge the “fairness” of an annuity for the healthy retirees most likely to purchase one. But this doesn’t tell us whether an annuity is a smart purchase for someone who thinks of themselves as being in comparatively poorer health, or with a spottier family health history, and folks in these categories would benefit considerably from analysis that’s targeted at them, that evaluates, realistically, whether annuities are the right call and whether their prediction of their life expectancy is likely to be right or wrong.

Author(s): Elizabeth Bauer

Publication Date: 9 July 2021

Publication Site: Forbes

Update On The Multiemployer Pension Plan Bailout: New Regulations Finally Unveiled

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2021/07/11/update-on-the-multiemployer-pension-plan-bailout-new-regulations-finally-unveiled/?sh=29d66f215bb2

Excerpt:

The PBGC’s decisions here are not what organizations such as the NCCMP would have liked, although, clearly, it is the PBGC’s job to interpret the law, not to try to fix a poorly-written law.

At the same time, no multiemployer pension plan is worse off with this legislation than without it, even if it isn’t as generous as they would have liked. And nothing prohibits those plans from boosting contributions and using additional contributions to fund future accruals — which would mean that pension plans which express their contributions as fixed dollar amounts, rather than a percentage of pay, will be better positioned to provide for existing employees as well as retirees. What’s more, the calculation of future contributions is based on a one-time open group projection, without being revised from year to year, so that, in principle, if more workers join a plan, the plan will be better off. (Of course, if the projection is too optimistic about the number of future workers, the opposite will be true.)

But, of course, this is $86 billion that could have been spent for other needs, or not spent at all. And, however much advocates profess that they still hope for a more comprehensive revision of funding rules for multiemployer pensions, the poorly-conceived nature of this bailout makes it less, rather than more, likely that both sides of the aisle will come together to repair multiemployer pensions and prevent future bailouts.

Author(s): Elizabeth Bauer

Publication Date: 11 July 2021

Publication Site: Forbes

The Chicago Park District’s 30% Funded Pension Plan – And More Tales Of Illinois’ Failed Governance

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2021/06/07/the-chicago-park-districts-30-funded-pension-planand-more-tales-of-illinois-failed-governance/?sh=7ce1216054fa

Graphic:

Excerpt:

The Illinois legislature ended its regular legislative session on May 31, in a flurry of legislation passed late into the night. One of those bills was a set of changes to the 30% funded pension plan of the Chicago Park District. Were these changes long-over due reforms, or just another in the long line of legislative failures? It’s time for another edition of “more that you ever wanted to know about an underfunded public pension plan,” because this plan illustrates a number of actuarial lessons.

80% is not OK. Governance – who gets to set the contributions? Funded status can collapse very quickly and be very difficult to rebuild. Need to use actuarial analysis not just legislator’s brainstorms

Author(s): Elizabeth Bauer

Publication Date: 7 June 2021

Publication Site: Forbes

Prediction: Biden’s Answer To The Medicare Trust Fund Insolvency Is Hidden In His Budget Proposal

Mary Pat Campbell

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2021/06/01/prediction-bidens-answer-to-the-medicare-trust-fund-insolvency-is-hidden-in-his-budget-proposal/

Excerpt:

According to the most recent report, from 2020, the Medicare HI (Hospital Insurance, or Part A) Trust Fund is projected to be emptied in the year 2026. That’s well before the Social Security Trust Fund’s projected insolvency in 2034, and when that happens, Medicare will only be able to pay 90% of Part A benefits, dropping down to 80% in 2038.

…..

When it comes down to it, I’ll suggest to readers that they don’t really believe that it matters. And with the Biden administration’s 2022 budget proposal comes a fairly strong indication that this is their point of view as well, that they expect, when the Trust Fund well comes dry, to simply tap general federal revenues for the necessary funds, in exactly the same manner as is done for Parts B (doctors) and D (drugs).

…..

This single sentence makes it clear that’s not the case: the only premiums paid by Medicare recipients are partial-cost payments for Parts B and D. For Part B, this is 25% of the cost for most retirees; for those with income above $85,000/$170,000 single/married, premiums are higher, reaching as much as 85% of the total cost for the highest earners. For Part D, the premium is set to cover 25.5% of the standard drug benefit, plus any extra costs charged by particular private providers for enhanced benefit levels, and an extra flat charge for higher earners. The remaining cost, 75% of Part B and 74.5% of Part D, is funded by the federal government through its general revenues.

Author(s): Elizabeth Bauer

Publication Date: 1 June 2021

Publication Site: Forbes

Op-ed: Illinois pension reform: Arizona provides a model worth another look

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-illinois-pension-reform-arizona-20210525-eb5z573ajbfdlhemyj25yij22i-story.html

Excerpt:

Which is why every politician and every voter in Illinois ought to know how Arizona managed its 2016 reform of the 48% funded Public Safety Personnel Retirement System, which had a cost-of-living adjustment calculation that everyone agreed was broken, including the unions themselves. But Arizona shares with Illinois a constitutional protection against pension changes, specifically stating that “public retirement systems shall not be diminished or impaired.”

So how did they implement this change? In a two-step process, the legislature passed reform legislation and then placed on the ballot a constitutional amendment which inserted a new clause into the state constitution: “Public retirement systems shall not be diminished or impaired, except that certain adjustments to the public safety personnel retirement system may be made as provided in Senate Bill 1428, as enacted by the fifty-second legislature, second regular session.”

This meant that the citizens of Arizona could vote on this pension change without having to worry about whether they were authorizing any unknown future changes to pensions that they might not have wanted.

Author(s): Elizabeth Bauer

Publication Date: 25 May 2021

Publication Site: Chicago Tribune

No, ‘Infrastructure Of Care’ Is Not Infrastructure – And Three Reasons Why It Matters

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2021/04/18/no-infrastructure-of-care-is-not-infrastructureand-three-reasons-why-it-matters/?sh=25de6d53721c

Excerpt:

First, as I referenced in passing in my prior column, the long-lasting nature of infrastructure is what justifies paying for it over time. This proposal’s spending is meant to be accomplished over 8 years, with the tax increase funding it over 15 years. That could be justifiable for some types of infrastructure, when it is something new rather than ongoing maintenance, but is not at all appropriate for ongoing day-to-day spending.

Author(s): Elizabeth Bauer

Publication Date: 18 April 2021

Publication Site: Forbes

Multiemployer Pensions: Will the Recent Bailout Destroy Pensions (in the Long Run)?

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://marypatcampbell.substack.com/p/multiemployer-pensions-will-the-recent

Graphic:

Excerpt:

I think it unlikely that Congress, at least this Congress, will pass any MEP reforms. The bill allowing for MEP benefit cuts passed under Obama, during his second term – with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate.

There may eventually be MEP reforms, but with a big cash injection into Central States Teamsters, the reckoning day has been pushed off.

The real crisis was Central States Teamsters going under. It would have taken down the PBGC. The puny plans like Warehouse Employees Union Local No. 730 Pension Trust (total liability amount: $474,757,777) are drops in the bucket compared with Central States (total liability amount: $56,790,308,499).

Author(s): Mary Pat Campbell

Publication Date: 5 April 2021

Publication Site: STUMP at substack

Can States Be Trusted To Manage Retirement Savings? Two New Reasons For Concern

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2021/02/28/can-states-be-trusted-to-manage-retirement-savings-two-new-reasons-for-concern/

Excerpt:

Readers, I have long been of the opinion that it’s a sensible approach to enable savers to choose among multiple retirement funds, so that they are able to reflect their particular ethical concerns, whether this means an “ESG” (environmental, social, and governance-issue focused) fund or a religious-screening approach, such as excluding companies which donate to Planned Parenthood (Ave Maria Funds) or which are in the alcohol industry (GuideStone Funds).

But no state official should be using investors’ money to play politics — not the money of individual investors through state-run IRAs or the retirement savings accounts of state employees, and not the money of public pension funds. And, frankly, I find it appalling that these sorts of actions aren’t universally considered to be wholly out of bounds — but I suppose living in Illinois (newly-declared the third-most-corrupt state, with Chicago as the most-corrupt city), I suppose I should lower my expectations. Readers in the remaining 49 states, however, should watch carefully.

Author(s): Elizabeth Bauer

Publication Date: 28 February 2021

Publication Site: Forbes

Public Pension Roundup: Reform And Regression

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2021/02/19/public-pension-roundup-reform-and–regression/

Excerpt:

Now, generally speaking, when an employer switches from a traditional pension to a defined contribution plan, this means a significant drop in plan benefits for employees. In Florida, that’s not the case — at least nominally not so: the employer contribution rate is the same for either type of plan, and varies only by employment class. (Of course, this doesn’t take into account any additional contributions needed to remedy funded status.) In addition, regular readers will know that I insist whenever the opportunity arises that state and local employees should participate in Social Security just as much as the rest of us do; as it happens, that is already the case for public employees in Florida. In addition, unlike the 8 year vesting of the traditional pension plan, the employer contributions to the defined contribution plan vest after only a year of service.

Author(s): Elizabeth Bauer

Publication Date: 19 February 2021

Publication Site: Forbes

Multiemployer Pension Plan Bailout Update: The Good News, Bad News, And The Pricetag

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2021/02/16/multiemployer-pension-plan-bailout-update-the-good-news-bad-news-and-the-pricetag/?sh=7d41ea2e6fb9

Excerpt:

The legislation states that its objective is “to pay all benefits due” up until 2051. However, experts with whom I spoke explained that this is not intended as a complete funding of all benefits due during the period, but only meant to fill in the gaps so that, added together with their current assets and future contributions, there will be enough funds to pay benefits for the next 30 years.

The bad news:

The text of the legislation, as written at the moment, does not spell out any of these mechanics. Is the plan to require contributions at the same level as these troubled plans are currently paying in, or more, or less? To what extent would those contributions be used to build assets for future accruals, vs. being “spent” on already-accrued benefits by being included in the calculations of federal bailout funds, as offsetting money? My expert friends did not know, and, to be honest, this is the sort of detail that, in any prior pension funding legislation, is spelled out in the law itself rather than left for the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation) to sort out as regulation. This is concerning, because it risks the whole program going south very quickly.

Author(s): Elizabeth Bauer

Publication Date: 16 February 2021

Publication Site: Forbes