Stockton leads tsunami of Calif. bankruptcies

Aug. 27, 2012

By Troy Anderson

During Vallejo’s bankruptcy, which began in 2008, the city cut the number of police in half rather than deal with the “pension problem.”

Now, a somewhat similar scenario is playing out in Stockton, a city of 292,000 east of San Francisco that recently displaced Vallejo as the nation’s largest city to declare bankruptcy.

Rather than trim generous pension benefits, the city is proposing to fully fund its pension system while defaulting on $124 million in pension bonds floated in 2007.

Assured Guaranty Ltd., a Bermuda-based bond insurance company, says Chapter 9 bankruptcy is not intended to be used as a “sword to prefer one class of similarly situated creditor over another.” In a prepared statement, the company described Stockton’s attempt to default on the bonds as “unprecedented, a contortion of the bankruptcy process and will foreclose Stockton’s access to the capital markets for the foreseeable future.”

As a growing number of cities in California are contemplating or filing bankruptcy, some pension experts say they are disappointed that the cities are choosing to default on their debts and cut public services instead of dealing with the exploding costs of public pensions.

“They won’t touch pensions,” says Joe Nation, a professor of the practice of public policy at Stanford University. “In the case of Vallejo, they literally reduced the number of police officers by about one-half. It’s horrible. They don’t want to even take modest steps to deal with the pension problem.”

To be fair, Nation says Vallejo officials contemplated the possibility of attempting to scale back generous pension benefits as part of the bankruptcy, but backed off under pressure from the California Public Employee Retirement system.

“CalPERS made it clear that if they tried to reduce those pension benefits that it would litigate,” Nation says. “These cities know CalPERS has deep pockets and is politically strong. Instead of taking on CalPERS, they took on a much easier target — their own citizens.”

CalPERS spokesman Brad Pacheco says CalPERS did not make any threat to the city of Vallejo.

“We did inform the city that any attempt to reduce pension benefits in the bankruptcy case would go to the core of CalPERS’ mission and that CalPERS would respond accordingly,” Pacheco says. “However, the city of Vallejo never seriously contemplated cutting benefits and it quickly affirmed its contract with CalPERS.”

Bankrupt cities

In recent months, Stockton, San Bernardino and Mammoth Lakes have filed bankruptcy, raising questions of whether local governments can reduce pension benefits as part of the bankruptcy process. Compton could be next. City officials say they are on pace to run out of funds by the end of summer. These bankruptcies occurred just months after Vallejo completed its three-year Chapter 9 process.

The filings come as public pensions are consuming a growing proportion of public payrolls throughout the state and nation. Last year, the Little Hoover Commission called on the governor and Legislature to freeze pension benefits for current workers and enact other reforms, noting city councils, county supervisors and school boards face the prospect of increasing contributions into pension funds by “40 to 80 percent of their payroll costs for decades to come.”

These skyrocketing costs follow decades in which public officials bestowed generous pension and retiree health benefits upon public servants. As a result, taxpayers are now on the hook for trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.

In California alone, Nation estimates the liabilities range from $265 billion to $737 billion. In a June report, the Pew Center on the States found the shortfall has grown to at least $1.38 trillion nationwide, up 9 percent over last year.

But a July report by the American Enterprise Institute found the true state of public sector pension funding is far worse.  The so-called “fair market valuation” reveals the average public employee pension plan in the United States is only 41 percent funded and unfunded liabilities total $4.6 trillion.

National reforms

In response, elected officials throughout the nation have undertaken pension reforms to reduce the costs, though most reforms have been incremental, such as increasing contributions or retirement ages. The most significant changes have been aimed only at newly hired employees, wrote Andrew G. Biggs, a resident scholar at the AEI, in the report.

“Unfortunately, these reforms won’t come close to restoring plans to true full funding, because current accounting conventions systematically understate pensions’ benefit liabilities and thereby overstate their financial health,” Biggs wrote.

Last October, Gov. Jerry Brown unveiled a 12-point pension reform plan for state and local pension systems designed to end “system-wide abuses and reduce taxpayer costs by billions of dollars over the long term.” Voters in San Diego and San Jose recently approved ballot measures to reduce pension benefits for current employees, although public employee unions are challenging the initiatives in court.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, recently wrote:

“Compounding the problem, of course, is the fact that any suggestion that government employees help out and pay their fair share toward their own guaranteed pensions is rejected out of hand by the union brass who are accustomed — because of their ability to distribute campaign cash and  deliver members’ votes to favored candidates — to being the de facto bosses of the California Democratic Party, the Legislature, and, with their chosen candidate elected governor, the entire state. 

“Now, partially to meet this mammoth pension burden, Jerry Brown wants to increase sales and income taxes. And, in an attempt to show the public that the state deserves more money, he has proposed some reforms to deal with the radically out-of-balance pension system. But proposing is one thing, actually expanding political capital to see it through is another.”          

Modify existing pensions?

As this battle intensifies, a growing number of public officials are asking whether governments can modify existing pension plans. Once a taboo topic, some legal experts say public agencies may have far more latitude to change retirement benefits than once commonly believed.

The recent spate of bankruptcies in California has only magnified this debate.

“Modifying pensions for these cities may be part of the solution,” says Lisa Hill Fenning, a Los Angeles attorney and former U.S. bankruptcy court judge. “If you look at the movable pieces in any bankruptcy case, you have to consider that from an economic standpoint.

“The problem in California is the uncertainty of the degree to which pensions can be modified. The case law has been scattered over the years. It’s most developed in state court, not bankruptcy court. We are just going to see how that body of case law is interpreted in the bankruptcy context.”

In a new report, “Local Government Bankruptcy in California: Questions and Answers,” Brian Uhler, a fiscal and policy analyst in the Legislative Analyst’s Office, addresses common questions about the Chapter 9 process for local governments, including what types of obligations can be changed or eliminated through bankruptcy.

In its case, Vallejo became the first and so far only California city to use a plan of adjustment to significantly reduce health benefits for its retirees by decreasing its payments to a flat rate of $300 per month, Uhler wrote. So far, no city has used Chapter 9 to change pension benefits for current retirees. However, pension benefits were changed in a case in Central Falls, Rhode Island.

Due to the lack of case law regarding the treatment of retiree benefits in Chapter 9, it is not clear if and under what circumstances local governments would be permitted to reduce retiree benefits in future filings, Uhler wrote.

“So, the upshot is that it’s still pretty unclear right now — especially with pensions — because no city in California has tried to modify pensions,” Uhler says. “There is only one city nationwide that has successfully modified pensions, but because of differing state laws and differing pension systems, we just don’t know how applicable that is to California.

“But, in theory, pension agreements are a contract and are just like other obligations that can be restructured or rejected through the Chapter 9 process. So, it’s fair to say that there is at least some reason to believe pensions could be considered — that they are not completely protected from the Chapter 9 process. It’s just that no city has tried it yet.”

In a prepared response to the report, Pacheco wrote CalPERS remains committed to safeguarding the constitutionally protected pension benefits of public employees and retirees.

“The obligations owed to public workers have priority over those of general unsecured creditors including bondholders,” Pacheco wrote. “We don’t agree with all of the characterizations and explanations of Chapter 9 proceedings in the LAO report.”

Taking on pensions

John Moorlach, chairman of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, says elected officials in California are waiting for a city or county “to take on pensions to find out if we can in fact make dramatic changes in pension contracts.”

“When that happens, the city councils in this state are going to have to rally around that city and give CalPERS a good punch in the nose,” Moorlach says. “We have to do something with current employees. That’s the only solution to this mess.”

Former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and Alexander Rubalcava, president of Rubalcava Capital Management, an investment advisory firm in Los Angeles, warned as early as 2006 that rising pension costs would result in government bankruptcies, massive cuts in public services and calls for a taxpayer bailout.

As a result, Stockton’s attempt to default on its pension bonds is “entirely predictable,” Rubalcava says.

“California cities have been and continue to be run for their employees, not for the people who invest in or live in them,” Rubalcava says. “Whether they can get away with that, whether they can ring-fence pensions and cut everything else to the bone, including bondholders, remains to be seen and only the courts will be able to decide that.”

If local governments won’t attempt to reduce pension benefits as part of the bankruptcy process and agencies like CalPERS maintain unrealistic discount rates, Rubalcava says this first wave of municipal bankruptcies is only the beginning.

Last month, CalPERS reported a 1 percent annual return on its $233 billion portfolio — well below the fund’s discount rate of 7.5 percent. CalPERS’ 20-year investment return is 7.7 percent.

“Some of the world’s smartest investors like Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway and Larry Fink of BlackRock, which is the world’s largest asset management firm, have said they will be lucky to make 5-6 percent going forward,” Rubalcava says.

“If that’s the case, the handful of bankruptcies we’ve had in 2012 will be just a taste of what’s to come. There will be dozens or hundreds of municipalities in California filing Chapter 9 in the decades to come.”


Write a comment
  1. Hondo
    Hondo 27 August, 2012, 10:33

    Once again, the math is 3rd grade level and doesn’t add up. One plus one does not equal ten. Past political leaders negotiated contracts with public unions that future generations would have to pay. We are that future generation.
    The current political hacks are cutting all state services to pay for the service workers pensions.
    Once again, public unions, there is no more money left to steal.

    Reply this comment
  2. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 27 August, 2012, 10:52

    If your a dutiful 35 year city maintence employee, should your retirement be swept away by Paul Ryan and Ricky Rubio types using Bain Capital business work out methods?

    Reply this comment
  3. us citizen
    us citizen 27 August, 2012, 12:06

    I am a taxpayer and I say NO. NO more taxes. Why in the hell should I pay for your pension when I dont have one with my job. Its that simple. NO Govt employees should SAVE, just like the rest of us.

    Reply this comment
  4. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 27 August, 2012, 12:21

    Ulysses – wrong again. The dirty pension deals were known to be unsustainable when they were inked.


    Reply this comment
  5. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 27 August, 2012, 13:19

    To be fair, Nation says Vallejo officials contemplated the possibility of attempting to scale back generous pension benefits as part of the bankruptcy, but backed off under pressure from the California Public Employee Retirement system….
    “CalPERS made it clear that if they tried to reduce those pension benefits that it would litigate,” Nation says. “These cities know CalPERS has deep pockets and is politically strong. Instead of taking on CalPERS, they took on a much easier target — their own citizens.”

    Vallejo City Council was/were in the unions pocket, they SHOULD HAVE taken on the pensions, so what is CalTURDS litigates- so what…..big deal, “bring it on”should have been their battle cry, CalTURDS would have loss…. just like they will in Stockton. Bu Vallejo were wussies.

    When a bully tries to take your lunch money you don’t roll over and say “OK”, you step up and punch them in the nose- and CulTURDS is about to get knocked out in BK court by the insurance companies.

    Reply this comment
  6. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 27 August, 2012, 13:21

    Ulysses – wrong again. The dirty pension deals were known to be unsustainable when they were inked.

    Katy stop calling Teddy by his alias, A/K/A Uhaul. Check the IP address, you will find they are the same.

    Reply this comment
  7. Justice
    Justice 27 August, 2012, 13:25

    Throw them all out!! Everyman for himself. I can understand giving a little of my paycheck to upkeep the city but they are robbing us. They make deals to make themselves rich while we pick up their tabs. Let the heads roll.

    Reply this comment
  8. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 27 August, 2012, 13:53

    Ulysses feels deeply for trusting long time government employees who found their leaders and employers defrauded them….it is not their fault.

    Reply this comment
  9. JoeS
    JoeS 27 August, 2012, 14:09

    The solution:
    1. Cut the pay scale for all public employees. This will affect future retirements.
    2. Privatize government jobs.

    Key paragraph:
    “CalPERS made it clear that if they tried to reduce those pension benefits that it would litigate,” Nation says. “These cities know CalPERS has deep pockets and is politically strong. Instead of taking on CalPERS, they took on a much easier target — their own citizens.”

    We the people are an “easier target” for these union sponsored politicians. An endorsement by a union should be who NOT to vote for.

    Reply this comment
  10. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 27 August, 2012, 17:46

    JoeS….stale input…Donkey beat us to death with this drivel!

    Reply this comment
  11. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 27 August, 2012, 22:40

    Teddy I would like to beat you to death with your sock puppet handles!

    Reply this comment
  12. Sean Morham
    Sean Morham 28 August, 2012, 13:18

    Be proactive: Practice, practice, practice. When the criminals arrive with felonious intent, or as the agents of the state…..

    Reply this comment
  13. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 28 August, 2012, 16:17

    Good advice Sean

    Reply this comment
  14. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 1 September, 2012, 15:27

    “”Stockton leads tsunami of Calif. bankruptcies””
    There are 482 incorporated cities in California! How many have filed for BK? LOL, talk about shock journalism and trying to grab a headline! Get back to us when the number hits around 200, then we will talk about a tsunami!!!hahahhah..

    Reply this comment
  15. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 1 September, 2012, 16:30

    Get back to us when the number hits around 200…

    Now now NTHEOC, here is what you fail to understand, if San B or Stockton REDUCE their pension cost/break the pension contract in BK, then no other city or county/muni in this state will file, or need to file, BK again.

    All a muni is going to do is make the THREAT of BK to make the unions put their tail between their legs and run for the hills. That is it.

    And make no mistake about it, the BK court is going to break the pension contracts just as they broke the health care contract.

    Reply this comment
  16. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 1 September, 2012, 16:31

    Bring Beelz back!!!!

    Reply this comment
  17. novaks47
    novaks47 15 September, 2012, 20:48

    NTHEOC : You do realize that all cities are not the same size, right? When a city as large as Stockton goes belly up, it’s news. It’s also important to see and learn WHY it happened. To see a major city go under, and turn a blind eye to it because it’s not “200 cities” is simply foolish. We must learn from these mistakes, or forever be doomed to failure.

    Reply this comment
  18. novaks47
    novaks47 15 September, 2012, 20:50

    I forgot to mention that several other cities are heading towards bankruptcy, and the rest will follow if something isn’t done. So “tsunami” isn’t terribly inaccurate at this point.

    Reply this comment
  19. Ellen Riddles
    Ellen Riddles 29 July, 2013, 04:40

    I just don’t like how cities are handling financial problems now. They seem to be running away from their responsibilities and obligations by filing for bankruptcy which is not a very noble thing to do but hey, everybody’s getting practical now. Goodbye nobility.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Pensions May Be 'Touchable'

FEB. 11, 2011 By TROY ANDERSON The prevailing wisdom holds that existing public pensions – once converted into Cadillac plans

CA Dems pass budget, forcing talks with Brown

Challenging their own governor for budget supremacy, California Democrats passed an ambitious state budget with just hours to spare before

CA’s Bond Rating Equals F-Minus Grade

APRIL 21, 2011 By WAYNE LUSVARDI Why is there such a large discrepancy between California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer’s assurances