Skip to content


FF Pensions: Over the Cliff in Illinois

No comments

 

The Big Squeeze 

Gov. Quinn

The current unfunded pension liability of five of Illinois’s state run pension systems is $96 billion.  The amount is so large that Standard and Poor, the credit rating agency, downgraded the state to A minus, making it more difficult for the them to borrow money in the form of bonds.

Governor Pat Quinn used this week’s State of the State address to once again make a plea for reform but to also point out the effects of the huge unfunded amount.  In 2014, just about 20 cents of every state dollar will be spent on servicing the funds.  Quinn likens this requirement to costing local government services such as public safety, “$17 million dollars a day.”

In Illinois, as in other places, it pays to pay attention to unfunded pension balances.  Your’s may be fine but if enough others are not, the negative effects are pervasive, as Quinn suggests.  And, fixing the problems in not easy or painless as it often involves labor contracts, state constitutions and current and former employees.  Those in the know cannot even agree on how to value current plan assets.

In December 2012, a bipartisan pension reform bill, HB6258, was introduced in an attempt to make progress.  It would effect virtually anyone receiving or expecting to receive a state pension by limiting  annual increases, phasing in an increased retirement age and a pensionable salary cap.

A 2012 Harvard/Kennedy School report estimated the total US unfunded pension liability to be several trillion dollars, a not insignificant portion of annual GDP.

The states with the largest unfunded pension liabilities in percent:

California 32%

Illinois 57%

Ohio 39%

New Jersey 51%

Texas 30%

The cities with the largest unfunded pension liabilities in percent:

Chicago 53%

New York 41%

San Francisco 27%

Boston 51%

Detroit 43%

Predictably, The Kennedy School report listed pension padding and DROP programs as being among the biggest sources of ruinous expenditure.  The current situation also emphasizes the point that giving municipalities a pass on making “required” pension system payments is never a good idea.

Finally, just about everyone seems to agree that allowing pension systems to claim an 8% return when forecasting worth is an absurd idea.

 

Credits:  NYT, Kennedy School, the Civic Federation

 

 

 

 

When Monopolies Fail

2 comments

Postal Service Fails to Gain Federal Contracts

 

Let’s face it–monopolies are not supposed to fail.  By their very nature they have captured a market to the extent that they control the vast majority of business and are often, by hook or by crook, able to set prices and the terms and conditions of business.

The description sounds a bit like municipal fire and EMS departments who are interwoven into the community fabric to the extent that any alternative seems impossible, even outlandish.

Few institutions are more interwoven than the US Postal Service, the hidebound invention of the legendary Benjamin Franklin who served as Postmaster General.  Despite their history and longevity, they are in serious trouble, and have been for years.  According to the NYT the USPS had a net loss of just about $16B last year.

The USPS Office of Inspector General recently published a report detailing that 98% of federal government long-term shipping contracts were going to United Parcel Service and FedEx.  The Postal Service is failing to capture the business of its own federal partners.  Of the $337M in 2012 federal shipping contracts, the USPS had just $4.8M, or less than 2%.

Mail volume is down and some say that fire volume is down too.  Both UPS and FedEx gained a solid hold by providing services that USPS would not provide or could not provide by congressional action.  In fact, congress, the USPS equivalent of a city council has dithered while the USPS has been bled white by poor decision-making and outmoded business practices like Saturday delivery.

The USPS faces a perfect storm or confluence of business factors that was slow in forming but which now represents a pack of hungry jackals nipping at their prey.  Who knows where the USPS would be today if they had rapidly dropped outmoded business practices and if Labor had reacted quickly and effectively to looming competition and the Internet?

The first replacement of the “USPS styled fire department” is already here.  It is, of course, the fully integrated Fire/EMS department able to provide high-quality ALS treatment and transport using multiple platforms.  If your’s is a fire department uninvolved in EMS treatment and transport or dabbling at the edges, you are pedaling the equivalent of a 10-cent first class stamp.

The psychology of monopoly is ugly and failure-ridden.  Providers talk and act like they are the only game in town, trashing customers they perceive as being unworthy of their service or compassion.  Social media, especially Facebook, have opened an ugly eye onto “professionals” who take to the Internet to speak disdainfully of those they are paid to serve.  Such talk is  sure evidence that the talker sees no connection between their salary and their sarcasm.  Vent if you must, but do it at the coffee table.

The USPS is done for in its current configuration in part because of tradition, bureaucracy, and the inertia of management and labor leaders.  Whether it survives at all will depend on the success of radical and painful surgery.

Ben Franklin started the first post office and the first fire department.  Let’s learn from the letter carriers and make him proud.

 

 

 

Fire Pensions: Big Trouble in the UK (Part 2)

No comments

It seems that David Cameron and his Coalition partner, Nick Clegg, wish to give UK firefighters a drubbing in the latest pension dust-up.

Some Significant UK/NA Pension Differences

UK and North American firefighter pensions are roughly comparable up to a point but then significant differences emerge.  UK firefighters operate under a tiered benefit system: the FPS is now closed and firefighters hired after April 2006 are in the NFPS, but here is a major difference: they can opt out at anytime—initial or continued participation is not mandatory.  And, another extraordinary (or so it would seem to us) difference:  both the FPS and NFPS are pay-as-you-go.  There are no funds invested anywhere to generate market returns.  Current employee and employer contributions pay the benefits of current retirees.

Opt-Out

Anytime opt-out of a pay-as-you-go scheme would seem to create a situation where there was little margin for error or flexibility.  (The FBU points out that the number of members opting out in the Greater Manchester Pension Fund has increased by over 50% during the most recent year.) Those not happy with changes to the plan are free to walk and seek other alternatives.  Because there is no underlying investment strategy to create additional returns, the plan would be very vulnerable to the loss of active members.  Individual plan members, and by extension, the union that represents them, could have a considerable effect on the solvency of the fund.

Contribution and Accrual Rates

The FPS has an employee contribution rate of 11%, and the NFPS is 8.5%.  The coalition government wants to increase contribution rates by as much as 3.2% through 2014 and there is much discussion as to how this would occur and exactly who would be affected.  In a possible divide and conquer scenario, lower earners could see no rise while those in higher wage scales could see significant increases.

Accrual rates (the rate at which benefits are earned) are different for FPS (1/60th per year of service through 20 years and then increasing rates up to and after 30 years) and NFPS (1/60 per year) though the NFPS has a higher accrual cap of 75%.  There is some indication that the Coalition plan would remove these caps though it’s also doubtful that firefighters would be able to work long enough to receive an “enhanced” benefit, so cap removal may be largely “window-dressing.”  Accrual rates may also be changing to require a longer career in order to achieve the same level of benefit.

Current reporting in the British press shows the Government’s on-line benefit calculators indicating current workers paying more and working longer but receiving less upon retirement.

Salary Averaging

North American firefighters generally have a 3-year salary average and in some cases a simple final salary average when determining the pension benefit.  In the UK the current norm is final average but plans are afoot to change this to a career average where some of the salary points used in the average could be over 30-years old.  The rationale for the change is that final salary unfairly rewards those who gain promotion late in their career or who receive other salary boosts.

Benefit Linking and Inflation Adjustment

The Coalition Government has shown interest in linking occupational pensions with National old-age pensions where the combination of the two would equal a type of living wage.  Such a move diffuses the ability for unions to negotiate clearly over pension benefits as the two providers could then point to the other as the cause of future problems when the sum of both falls short of previous or expected income levels.

The Coalition government also proposes to change the inflation adjustment model from the Retail Price Index to the Consumer Price Index, which it is believed will result in lower increases.  Some of these changes have been made unilaterally outside of the collective bargaining framework and are the subject of continued litigation.

What’s Next?

The Fire Brigades Union has gone to great lengths to refute the Coalition points where their members are concerned.  They have provided documentation, from actuaries and others, suggesting that firefighter pension benefits are neither more lucrative nor less sustainable than private pension schemes and that the employee contribution rates are also comparable with the private sector.

UK firefighters are engaged in a long-term battle for pension survival.  The previous Labour government, supposedly union friendly, presided over the creation of the 2006 NFPS which resulted in a lower benefit for new hires.  Now, the current Coalition government would seem poised to deliver the coup-de-grace to public employee pension benefits over the dubious rationale of national deficit control.

It all comes to a head tomorrow, November 30, as millions of UK public sector workers, will show what they think of the Coalition’s plan for the future.

Stay tuned.

 

 

Fire Pensions: Big Trouble in the UK (Part 1)

No comments

United Kingdom public sector workers, including firefighters in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are engaged in a titanic national struggle with the “Coalition” government made up of the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats. The Coalition is currently set on weakening pension benefits.

(These Liberal Democrats are not the ones your mother warned you about, but rather a political party that would be generally happy with a moderate conservative as their leader.  Think Nelson Rockefeller in Lady Thatcher’s pumps.)

The Coalition, led by David Cameron, is moving aggressively to re-design public pensions as a deficit reduction or “cost saving” measure on a national level.  It is a perfect storm with very real life implications.  We should be aware of what is taking place as bad news (and policy) travels fast, even across the Atlantic.  The Coalition argument is that retirement ages for current pension plans were created early in the 20th century when life expectancy was much lower.  They are aiming to change the pension fundamentals so that firefighters and other workers will work longer and often receive less when they eventually do retire, at a later age.

Their attack is centered largely on arguments of sustainability, fairness and employee contribution rates.  They say that the current arrangement cannot be maintained for the long run and that public pensions are more lucrative than their private counterparts.

North American Pensions

A quick take on what US and Canadian firefighters often have as a pension framework:

-  mandatory participation in a pension plan where the monies are invested and where the pension, once received, is subject to a cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) to offset the effects of inflation

-  Retirement after a set number of years, some beginning with 20 years of service, though 25 may be more the norm and in some cases there is also a tandem age requirement of 50 or 55

(Thousands of US firefighters do not participate in Federal Social Security making their work pension the only source of guaranteed income.  Some Canadian pension plans are integrated with their federal benefit where reductions can occur after age 65.)

UK Pensions

In one of those perfectly understandable language differences that makes it all interesting and sometimes amusing, the UK equivalent of “plan” as in pension plan, is “scheme”, as in pension scheme.  There are basically three firefighter pension schemes in the UK:

-  Firefighter Pension Scheme (FPS) closed to new entry since 2006 with a retirement age of 55, (which could occasionally be lower)

-  New Firefighter Pension Scheme (NFPS) for all hired after 2006, with a retirement age of 60

-   Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) with a retirement age of 65

Tomorrow- Firefighter Pensions:  Big Trouble in the UK (Part 2)

Honey, Where Did You Put the $600,000,000?

3 comments

No doubt many know that at the top of the financial news of the week is the implosion of MF Global, a New York based investment firm that went belly up after failing to attract buyers when its balance sheet was called into question by wary federal regulators.

The CEO and leader of MF Global was none other than democrat Jon Corzine, a one time governor  and US Senator from New Jersey.  Corzine,  once a partner at Goldman Sachs and a gazillionaire, was ousted from the NJ governorship by Chris Christie, a former federal prosecutor who will no doubt have a field day with the allegations swirling around the MF debacle.

Potential buyers of MF Global or its component parts walked away from the table when it was discovered, literally in the middle of the night, that $600,000,000 was unaccounted for.

This, of course, raises several questions, perhaps the first of which is how much money are you dealing with when you can not notice, immediately, that $600,000,000 is missing?

So, believe it or not, the best and brightest of Wall street have spent the last few days looking around, here and there, trying to locate the odd hundred million dollars or so that might be parked in this or that account.  Let’s hope its a high-yield checking account when they find it.

Yesterday, the NYT reported that, sigh of relief, MF Global funds had been found at JP Morgan Chase.  It turned out that it was MF Global money, but not the $600,000,000 they were looking for.  That’s right–they found MF Global money that they did not even know they were missing.  Should we feel good about that?

It is at this point that one begins to understand how New Jersey got into the mess they are in.  Corzine didn’t start their problems but it’s likely he didn’t solve any of them either.

At least one person is visibly concerned.  It is reported that J. Christopher Flowers, an MF Global investor, was seen at the negotiations wearing mismatched shoes.

What a MF mess.

Wall Street to the Rescue.

Public Pensions and the Brothers “B”

No comments

Are we fast approaching an era where people will talk of pensions the way they do of the rotary dial phone and the ringer washer? (I clearly remember both.)  More and more it’s looking that way.

The myth is that change usually emanates from the West Coast and flows toward the stodgy and staid easterners but last week’s pension news may mean a tsunami meeting in the heartlands.

California Governor and erstwhile hippy Jerry Brown teamed up, apparently unintentionally, with Hiz Honor, Mayor Bloomberg, to send ripples through the public pension community in the form of (re)forms that will surely alter the pension landscape.

 

Pensions were once a tool for providing post work income.  They were relatively modest and quite often partially paid for by the recipients during their working careers.

Decades ago, management and labor discovered that pensions were also a place to effectively obscure the costs of compensation improvements and suddenly the staid world of pensions became a center of political and negotiating activity.

Pensions were a windfall for elected officials looking for an “off the books” way to conciliate labor.  In some areas the costs could be pushed into the future through various waves of the  magic wand of actuarial science.  Employees who were paying a portion of their salary toward their pension could be charged less in what was surely a raise but one that would be flying just under the radar screen. What a wonderful world we lived in.

Labor leaders and others discovered the perks of pension boards and some have been caught up in nasty ethics scandals of alleged self-dealing and dubious decision making fraught with international travel and fancy meals.

Well, Jerry and Mike are out to change all that, or so they think.

Governor Brown has unveiled a public pension revision package that substantially alters the future of benefits in California.  He intends to succeed by going directly to the voters rather than through labor negotiations.  That’s a thorny proposition (no pun intended) for a democratic governor.

Public employees can expect to work longer and pay more for the pension they eventually receive.  Brown also intends to do away with the notorious practice of double-dipping where retirees collect one pension and then go to work for another local government to earn a second one.  He also plans on eliminating pension padding or spiking by limiting their calculation to regular wages and excluding overtime and other pay in the calculation.

In New York, Bloomberg envisions a wholesale redesign of the City’s various pension boards which have dozens of trustees who oversee  benefits for 500,000+ current and retired workers.  The plan also calls for a single board and an in-house investment staff that could be a boon or a disaster.  Either way, it probably removes power and authority from the current trustees.  Bloomberg expects to recoup as much as $1B a year under the new arrangement.

 

If you are a retiree sipping your Starbuck’s and thanking your lucky stars, don’t let your smugness get the best of you–these changes, as well as the train wreck in Rhode Island, are harbingers for a future where current retirees can see their benefits under attack, including the cornerstone of any pension– the cost of living adjustment.

AARP, anyone?

 

[Credits/Source: New York Times]

Go Along, Get Along

No comments

The New York Times reports this morning that the feds are finally charging some folks as the result of an amazing series of stories they completed back in 08 about fraud at the Long Island Railroad to the tune of $1 Billion, with a B.

They reported that “every career employee of the railroad was applying for and receiving disability benefits…)  (That’s every as in all.)

Now, a handful are under indictment including a couple of docs who were responsible for over 75% of the medical documentation for the false claims; a disability mill, they call it.

My two favorites are the guy “who has trouble gripping objects with his hands” who played golf 100 times in less than a year and also plays tennis several times a week and the other fellow who “suffers from severe and disabling pain” and went on a 400-mile bike ride around the state.

Nice work if you can get it.

What’s missing here is the fact that if the “disability” rate was really 100% than thousands of people, other than those on the gravy train, knew in some fashion about the scam but silence reined.

As always, the people who are REALLY injured in these schemes are the truly disabled and those who retire with a normal pension after a full career because their benefits are artificially held down by scammers.

Silence does have a cost.