NY Times - Pensions - Detroit

On July 20, 2013 Mary Williams Walsh wrote the following highlighted article in the NY Times concerning the newly discovered deficit in the two Detroit municipal pension plans and the city's pending bankruptcy action. Ms. Walsh has written many pension articles in the past. Like most commentators on public pension plan issues, however, she never addresses the whole picture. Not that what she reports is necessarily incorrect but that it is incomplete.

For the record, the one issue I never hear reported is the miserable investment performance of public pension plans and how much this contributes to pension underfunding. There are also many questionable investment decisions that the NY Times never reports. It's a great newspaper but it's not always on the cutting edge.

In this article Ms. Walsh points out a sudden increase in Detroit's reported pension underfunding and lays a large amount of blame at the door of widespread actuarial practices which have lead to long term shortfalls on employers' contributions to most public pension systems around the country.

This is a valid and accurate statement but it is not a secret. Everyone in the public pension community knows that the plan actuaries have not been providing good numbers for a long time. Their chief sin has been the use of investment targets that are far to high. This has systematically lead to underfunding of the plans. It has also lead to reckless investment strategies adopted by plan trustees trying to hit the unrealistic targets. It also created the excuse to hire investment firms with outrageous fee structures.

Generally actuaries are very bright mathematicians but like all of us they are usually short on courage. No one wants to lose his/her job. That is what would happen if an actuary came in with the real numbers. So, they do what most of us would do. They bend and twist to keep the parties with power happy.

Below is an extract from Ms. Walsh's article that describes this problem. Towards the end of the extract Ms. Walsh mentions a "Blue Ribbon Panel" set up by the Society of Actuaries which was formed to look into how to address the reputational risks that "bad" numbers were creating. One of the panel members that she idnetifies is Robert North, the NYCERS and NYCTRS actuary. North has a questionable history on his own interest rate assumptions for the city pension funds. I listed below the interest rate changes he has recommended while working for NYCERS. Walsh doesn't seem to be aware of the inconsistency in having North on this panel.

This made me do a little homework. I checked the Society of Actuaries web site and listed all the panel names below. One of the names that Walsh did not identify was Mike Musuraca. For many years Musuraca worked for DC-37, a municipal union with a recent history of corruption while he was working there. He represented DC-37 on the NYCERS Board of Trustees for investment issues. In 2009 he went work for a private equity firm, Blue Wolf Capital, but not before he voted to hire Blue Wolf as private equity firm for NYCERS. Here is a little more background on Blue Wolf Blue Wolf.

When someone like Walsh has these issues in front of her and she doesn't address them, you wonder whether she serious about the problem.

Extract from NY Times article, July 20, 2013

But that is not what happens. To calculate a city’s pension liabilities, an actuary instead projects all the contributions the city will probably have to make to the pension fund over time. Many assumptions go into this projection, including an assumption that returns on the investments made by the pension fund will cover most of the plan’s costs. The greater the average annual investment returns, the less the city will presumably have to contribute. Pension plan trustees set the rate of return, usually between 7 percent and 8 percent.

...

A few years ago, with the debate still raging and cities staggering through the recession, one top professional body, the Society of Actuaries, gathered expert opinion and realized that public pension plans had come to pose the single largest reputational risk to the profession. A Public Plans Reputational Risk Task Force was convened. It held some meetings, but last year, the matter was shifted to a new body, something called the Blue Ribbon Panel, which was composed not of actuaries but public policy figures from a number of disciplines. Panelists include Richard Ravitch, a former lieutenant governor of New York; Bradley Belt, a former executive director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; and Robert North, the actuary who shepherds New York City’s five big public pension plans.

The commplete list of members of the Blue Ribbon Panel

Chair: Bob Stein, FSA, MAAA, Retired, Ernst & Young
Co-Vice Chair: Andrew Biggs, American Enterprise Institute
Co-Vice Chair: Douglas Elliott, Brookings Institution
Bradley Belt, Palisades Capital Management, former executive director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
David Crane, Stanford University, former advisor to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, CA
Malcolm Hamilton, FSA, FCIA, Retired, Mercer, senior Fellow, C. D. Howe Institute
Laurence Msall, The Civic Federation (Illinois)
Mike Musuraca, Blue Wolf Capital Partners, former trustee of the NYC Employees Retirement Systems-NYCERS and formerly of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Bob North, FSA, EA, MAAA, FCA, FSPA, New York City Office of the Actuary
Richard Ravitch, Co-chair, State Budget Crisis Task Force, formerly Lt. Governor of New York
Larry Zimpleman, FSA, MAAA, Principal Financial Group

Assumed Interest Rate History under Robert North (1990 to 2013)

1. 7/1/1995 9.0% to 8.75%
2. 7/1/1999 8.75% to 8.0%
3. 7/1/2011 8.0% to 7.0% (net of fees)

I don't have the documentation describing the origin of the 9% rate and my memory is a bit weak that far back. It is quite possible, however, that North also make the recommendation for 9%.

Tier 6 Costs and the new 7% Interest Rate - June, 2012

Now that the final specifics of Tier 6 have been locked into place and the legislature is about to adopt a new reduced assumed rate of interest (7%), I wanted rework my previous cost estimates for an average Tier 6 benefit.

I just caught the story that North didn't put a fiscal note of his new 7% assumed interest rate recommendation. This is after delaying his recommendation for three years. This forced the governor to issue a message of necessity. He hates doing that especially for someone else. Of course, this allows North to avoid giving the plain English specifics of this proposed legislation.

For instance, this law will allow the the city to postpone replacing the pension investment expenses paid in FY-2010 and any years later. There was a $493M payment scheduled to be made in FY-2012 and a $453M payment to be made in FY-2013. They will be rolled into long term pension costs paid back over 22 years. This was quite a trick on North's part.

If a person starts working at age 21 for the city under Tier 6 with a salary of $25,000 and retires at age 63 with a final salary that went up 2.5% per year ($67,126), his/her pension would be $45,215 after 42 years of service with the city.

If NYCERS earns an annual rate of return of 7% on its investments and uses a 7% annuity factor, this benefit will only cost the city 2.15% of payroll, $39,151, over the 42 years. That is an average of $933 a year. The employee will have contributed $60,127 over the 42 years.

Even though 7% is better than 8%, it is still far from realistic. Unfortunately, a more prudent 5% interest rate would also be a more costly interest rate. The bottom line with 7% is that the city is still underfunding its pension costs, even the reduced Tier 6 benefit structure.

In contrast to the 7% assumption, if NYCERS uses a 5.5% target on its investments and uses a 5% annuity factor, the city's cost for the $45,215 benefit rises from 2.15% to 4.43% of payroll, $80,670, over 42 years. That is average of $1,921 per year.

I know these numbers just make peoples eyes glaze over but that is one of the reason poor decisions continue to be made. If done right, pension can have reasonable costs and reasonable benefits.

As I have said before, it is every clear how important it is to the city and the employee that the pension fund trustees are prudent about their investment decisions. High risk/high cost strategies do not work for pension funds.

Bob North and the 8% Dilemma

This spring Bob North, the NYCERS and NYCTRS actuary, must make a very important decision. He must recommend a new assumed actuarial rate of return for the city pension systems. This recommendation has to be enacted into law and is usually effective for the next 5 years. Last year the old 8% rate expired (2004-2009). Bob chose to kick the can down the road and recommended that the old rate be renewed for one more year (C.211/L.2009, see:NYS Laws).

This sounds like a very obscure issue but it is not. This rate of return has a huge impact on the city pension costs over the next 5 years. Any reduction in the rate will greatly increase the city’s cost. Over the last ten years the pension systems have only had a 2.17% rate of return, significantly short of their 8% target. This is a big part of the pension crisis in the city.

It is bad enough that the 8% assumption leads to underfunding of the pension systems but it is creates a rationale for risky investment decisions hoping for high returns to compensate for the underfunding. You can see what a vicious cycle this is.

Because of the budget crisis there will be intense pressure on Bob North not to reduce the actuarial rate. He most likely will buckle under the pressure. This is not responsible but at least, it is understandable. The trustees, however, must abandon their current risky policies and adopt a prudent investment strategy that recognizes a lower, more realistic rate of return. The trustees must not make the situation worse.

City workers have skin in this game. Over the last ten years NYCERS members have contributed $3.3B to NYCERS from their own paychecks. In that same time period the city and the other participating employers have contributed $8B. Most of that amount was paid in the last 4 years ($6.5B: 2006 – 2009).

.

Background

In 1990, NYCERS and NYCTRS appointed Bob North as the actuary for the two pension funds. BY statute, this also made him the actuary for the police, fire, and Board of Ed. pension funds. At the same time the city created a new stand alone agency for the actuary. Previously the actuary’s operations were part of NYCERS. There was no legal basis for creating this agency but the Law Department can be counted on to be creative when asked.

This was done partly to make Bob feel good about running his own agency. This really didn’t matter much until 1996. In that year however, Albany granted NYCERS and NYCTRS their own independent budgets. The law was changed for several reasons, one of which was that the city was slowly strangling the budgets of both retirement systems.

Prudently, both retirement systems should have pulled the actuary’s operations back into their agencies in order to exercise proper control of their appointed actuary. The trustees did not do this and left the actuary under the budgetary control of the mayor. Since 1990 the mayor has controlled the actuary’s salary and he still does.

Of course, the NYC Law Department never advised the retirement system trustees that as of July, 1996 they should, as fiduciaries, place the actuary within the boards’ budgetary control. The Law Department has never given the trustees comprehensive advice about their fiduciary responsibilities. That potential advice would have had to include a clear warning about the on-going conflicts of interest that exists whenever the mayor’s lawyer is giving advice to the NYCERS Board of Trustees.

On January 28, 2010 the mayor proposed cutting the actuary’s budget for FY-2011 by $222K ($4.9M down from $5.1M) and his headcount by 5 (32 down from 37). In addition, if the state goes forward with the governor’s budget recommendations, the mayor has proposed cutting another 5 positions from the actuary’s headcount and an additional $406k from the actuary’s budget.

This is a clear reason why the actuary’s operations should be directly funded by the retirement systems. In addition, the actuary should be totally transparent with respect to any work that he does for any outside agencies. He should be more active with investment issues. He should also be more responsive to 1) the operational needs of the pension systems and 2) requests for fiscal notes of proposed legislation from all responsible parties, not just the city.

---

FYI: This is the most current estimates of the city’s ongoing pension costs. The chart below does not include the Transit Authority, the Housing Authority, HHC, and other participating employers. These figures are based on the 8% assumption. Even with 8%, you can see that the situation is deteriorating. If the rate of return is reduced, the amounts will increase even further.

Year	As of June 2009	As of Jan. 2010
FY-2010	$6.7B	$6.8B
FY-2011	$7.0B	$7.3B
FY-2012	$7.4B	$7.7B
FY-2013	$7.6B	$7.8B
FY-2014	NR	$7.9B