protecting retirement security
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Protecting retirement security](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051513/547e2f78b4af9faf158b55a4/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Protecting Retirement Security and Building a Better Kentucky
Jason BaileyJanuary 30, 2013
![Page 2: Protecting retirement security](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051513/547e2f78b4af9faf158b55a4/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
How Did We Get Here?
• Failing to make the full required contribution in 14 of last 21 years– State did not make $3.2 billion in required
contributions over 1993-2013; shortfall is $4.3 billion once you count missing investment returns
• Providing but not pre-funding COLAs & temporary retirement incentives in ’98 & ‘01
• Problem exacerbated by investment losses in 2 recessions
![Page 3: Protecting retirement security](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051513/547e2f78b4af9faf158b55a4/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Sources: Kentucky Retirement Systems, Boston College Center for Retirement Research
Investment Returns Have Hurt, But Don’t Explain KY’s Problem
10-year returns 2000-2010: KRS 3.12% compared to 2.85%; Since inception to 2012: KRS 9.36% compared to 9.48% benchmark.
![Page 4: Protecting retirement security](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051513/547e2f78b4af9faf158b55a4/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Source of the Problem
“Sponsors of seriously underfunded plans, such as those in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, have behaved badly. They have either failed to make their required contributions or used inaccurate assumptions so that their contribution requirements are not meaningful.”
Alicia H. Munnell, State and Local Pensions: What Now?, Brookings Institution Press, 2012
![Page 5: Protecting retirement security](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051513/547e2f78b4af9faf158b55a4/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Public employees are undercompensated in KY compared to private sector counterparts
Jeffrey H. Keefe, “Public Versus Private Employee Costs in Kentucky: Comparing Apples to Apples,” Kentucky Center for Economic Policy
![Page 6: Protecting retirement security](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051513/547e2f78b4af9faf158b55a4/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Benefits are modest and have already been cut
• Formula multiplier– National average: 1.95%– Kentucky for most new employees post-2008:
1.1% - 1.75%• Final average salary
– Majority of plans use 3 years– Kentucky uses 5 years for new employees post-
2008• Average KERS non-hazardous retiree receives
$20,508/year
![Page 7: Protecting retirement security](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051513/547e2f78b4af9faf158b55a4/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Source: Kentucky Retirement Systems
Economic Importance of Public Pensions
• $1.6 billion in annual payments• 93,422 retirees• 95% of whom live in Kentucky
![Page 8: Protecting retirement security](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051513/547e2f78b4af9faf158b55a4/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Source: Kentucky Retirement Systems
Traditional defined benefit plans are efficient and effective ways to provide adequate benefits
![Page 9: Protecting retirement security](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051513/547e2f78b4af9faf158b55a4/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Source: Bolton Partners/Kentucky Public Pension Coalition
Cash Balance Plan Results in Lower Benefits for Many Workers, Especially Long-Term Employees
![Page 10: Protecting retirement security](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051513/547e2f78b4af9faf158b55a4/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Cash Balance Plan Would Harm State’s Ability to Attract & Retain Skilled Workers
Cash balance plan
Fewer skilled workers attracted Higher turnover
More $$ spent on recruitment &
training
Less experienced and skilled workforce
Lower quality and productivity of public services
![Page 11: Protecting retirement security](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051513/547e2f78b4af9faf158b55a4/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Cash Balance Plan Could Harm Investment Returns, Reducing Benefits Further
• More turnover and more workers withdrawing lump sums means fewer assets & more need for liquidity
• Risk to state of <4% return could mean more conservative investment strategy
![Page 12: Protecting retirement security](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051513/547e2f78b4af9faf158b55a4/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Cash Balance Plan Won’t Lower Costs or Reduce Unfunded Liability
• Pew/Arnold: “Kentucky’s current benefits for new employees are relatively modest and seeking meaningful savings from a new plan is not possible”
• Employer costs for cash balance plan = current plan.
Source: Pew/Arnold Foundation materials submitted to Task Force on Public Pensions in Kentucky
![Page 13: Protecting retirement security](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051513/547e2f78b4af9faf158b55a4/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Addressing the Real Risks Kentucky Faces
Political risk of underfunding—need
for financial plan
Risk of lowering quality of public
services Kentucky desperately
needs to grow
Risk of deepening the retirement security crisis that is coming