Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Tweet[IWS] STATES HAVE MORE COSTS WHEN SWITCHING FROM PENSIONS TO INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS: CASE STUDIES [10 February 2015]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies-----------------Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor--------------------Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html
National Institute on Retirement Security
PUBLIC PENSION RESOURCE GUIDE
Case Studies of State Pension Plans that Switched to Defined Contribution Plans [10 February 2015]
[full-text, 12 pages]
Press Release 10 February 2015
NEW CASE STUDIES FIND INCREASED COSTS WHEN STATES SWITCHED FROM PENSIONS TO INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS
Alaska, Michigan, and West Virginia Experiences Offer Cautionary Examples to Policymakers
http://www.nirsonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=879
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 10, 2015 – A series of new case studies finds that states that shifted retirement plans from defined benefit (DB) pension plans to defined contribution (DC) 401(k)-type individual accounts experienced higher costs. The case studies also indicate that the DB to DC switch exacerbated rather than solved any pension underfunding issues, and employees faced increased levels of retirement insecurity.
Case Studies of State Pension Plans that Switched to Defined Contribution Plans, by the National Institute on Retirement Security, presents summaries of changes in three states – Alaska, Michigan, and West Virginia – that made the switch from a DB pension to DC accounts. The case studies examine key issues that impact pension plans, including demographic changes, the cost of providing benefits, actuarially required contributions (ARC), plan funding levels and retirement security for employees.
The case studies indicate that the best way for a state to address any pension underfunding issue is to implement a responsible funding policy with full annual required contributions, and for states to evaluate assumptions and funding policies over time, making any appropriate adjustments.
“These case studies are important cautionary examples for policymakers examining retirement plans in their states,” said Diane Oakley, National Institute on Retirement Security executive director. “It’s clear that closing a pension plan to new employees doesn’t fill overdue funding gaps or reduce the cost of providing employees’ pensions, and in fact has had the exact opposite effect of increasing costs to taxpayers. Moreover, employees that moved to individual DC accounts found themselves with inadequate retirement account balances. We hope our research helps policymakers avoid the mistakes of these states. For example, West Virginia eventually moved back to the pension plan to shore up both plan funding and employees’ retirement security,” Oakley said.
In nearly all state and local pension plans, employees and employers share the responsibility for funding the pension plan. Investment returns also play an important role in funding retirement benefits. Nationally, employee contributions and investment returns cover about 75 percent of public pension retirement plan costs.
The case studies provide in-depth details for the following states:
· In Alaska, legislation was enacted in 2005 that moved all employees hired after July 1, 2006 into DC accounts. At the time, the state faced a combined unfunded liability of $5.7 billion for its two DB pension plans and retiree health care trust. The unfunded liability was the result of the state’s failure to adequately fund pensions over time, stock market declines and actuarial errors. Although the DC switch was sold as a way to slow down the increasing unfunded liability, the total unfunded liability more than doubled, ballooning to $12.4 billion by 2014. In 2014, the state made a $3 billion contribution to reduce the underfunding. Legislation has been introduced to move back to a DB pension plan.
·
· In Michigan, the DB pension plan was overfunded at 109% in 1997. The state then closed the pension plan to new state employees who were offered DC accounts. The state thought it would save money with the switch, but the pension plan amassed a significant unfunded liability following the closure of the pension plan. By 2012, the funded status dropped to about 60% with $6.2 billion in unfunded liabilities. In recent years, the state has been more disciplined about funding the pension plan, making nearly 80% of the ARC from 2008-2013.
·
· In West Virginia, the state closed the teacher retirement system in 1991 to new employees in the hopes it would address underfunding caused by the failure of the state and school boards to make adequate contributions to the pension. As the pension’s funded status continued to deteriorate, retirement insecurity increased for teachers with the new DC accounts. Legislation was enacted to move back to the DB plan after a study found that providing equivalent benefits would be less expensive in the DB than in the DC plan. By 2008, new teachers were again covered by the pension, and most teachers who were moved to the DC plan opted to return to the pension. After reopening the DB pension, the state was disciplined about catching up on past contributions, and the plan funding level has increased by more than 100 percent since 2005. The teacher pension plan is expected to achieve full funding by 2034.
·
Download the full study here. Download a PowerPoint summary of the findings here.
________________________________________________________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
