LAO: Teacher pension fund too risky and complex

CalSTRSPolicy analysts are calling on state lawmakers to simplify the way the teachers’ pension fund gets funded — to improve oversight and to avoid the state being left in a lurch.

According to the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, the “subjective” funding model could leave the state with a sizable burden depending on how investments perform, adding the system is too complicated for experts to adequately monitor.

But state officials say the revised model only updates what’s been in place since the ’90s, with each stakeholder giving higher contributions.

To be clear, the LAO agrees that the new funding model — implemented in 2014 when the CalSTRS pension fund was predicted to go broke in the mid-2040s —  put the fund on the right path.

However, according to a report released Tuesday, instead of a proportional and relatively simple funding model, contributions are recalculated every year based on an “alternate universe” funding model that could expose the state to extreme liability and may violate the spirit of “shared responsibility.”

What’s The Problem?

LAO argues that when tweaks were made to the CalSTRS pension fund in 2014, lawmakers did so with the intent that the system be proportionally funded by the state, teachers and school and community college districts depending on what they owed.

At the time, the unfunded liability (meaning the amount the fund was short if it were to pay all the benefits already earned by employees and retirees) was $74 billion — $47 billion by the districts, $20 billion by the state and $8 billion by the teachers (members of the fund). The aim was to be fully funded in approximately 30 years.

According to the LAO, it would have made sense — as was its impression — to embrace the concept of “shared responsibility,” where each of the three stakeholders pays a consistent share. But, the LAO argues that under the existing model the state’s contributions decrease when the pension’s investments perform better than the estimates, thereby deferring responsibility to the districts.

But state officials say this is the language that was out there for a while before being agreed upon and that it’s not much different than how it was before, just that everyone is paying higher contributions.

“We basically updated an existing mechanism that has been in place for quite some time,” said H.D. Palmer, deputy director for external affairs at the state’s Department of Finance. “We’re at somewhat of a loss to understand how LAO can project or conclude the losses that they have, given the fact that the law is being implemented as everyone involved in its crafting intended.”

Alternate Universe Calculation

Under this calculation, both the state and district contributions to the unfunded liability are recalculated every year based on salaries, under the assumption of what the CalSTRS situation would have been in present time had the state made different decisions in the past.

To explain further, there are two consequential decisions that it’s based on:

  • In the late 1990s, the state increased pension benefits to CalSTRS’ teacher members.
  • Contributions to the pension fund were decreased around 2000 because it was fully-funded for a brief period of time.

So, again, the funding model is based on what the present-day situation would have been had those two things never happened.

Ryan Miller, a principal fiscal and policy analyst at the LAO, told CalWatchdog that he was not aware of any other pensions using this kind of mechanism, although Palmer said that the CalSTRS pension is unique in that the teachers are not employees of the state (rather employees of the districts) and a unique model is warranted.

It’s Too Darn Complicated

To describe why the CalSTRS system is overly complicated, LAO used this anecdote: “In November 2014, CalSTRS’ consulting actuary introduced the details of the proposed funding policy to the CalSTRS board as follows: ‘This is probably the most difficult thing I’ve had to explain to a board in my entire career.’”

LAO argued that despite the inherent complexity of pensions in general, the “staggering complexity” of the alternate universe model makes it difficult for legislators, the governor, the CalSTRS board, teacher members and, of course, the public, to understand how it works.

“This weakens oversight of the funding plan, adds complexity to an already complex program, and will cause confusion about teacher pensions,” the LAO wrote.

Palmer agreed the model is complex, but said CalSTRS actuaries found the model to be sound, adding that required periodic reports will help with oversight.

Extra Liability

If the state’s contribution is theoretically lessened by high-performing investments, then when investments perform poorly it could have the reverse effect, leaving the state in a bind, according to the LAO.

“(I)f investment returns fall far short of assumptions over the long run, state contributions to CalSTRS could be billions of dollars higher by the 2040s,” wrote the LAO.

But Palmer noted there will be a performance report to analyze the first year, followed up by a five-year report, where lawmakers can reassess the funding model.

“It’s premature to project the kinds of fiscal impacts that are reflected in the LAO report,” said Palmer.

9 comments

Write a comment
  1. Dawn Urbanek
    Dawn Urbanek 5 February, 2016, 06:01

    What the State did was pass the majority of the cost down to already underfunded school districts. In the Capistrano Unified School District our contribution to STRS will represent 10% of the districts total budget. Employee Compensation is at 90% – that means over 100% of our budget will be going to Salaries- pensions and benefits. See June 27, 2016 BOT Meeting Agenda Item #7 Exhibit 7 of 14http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1218998819331/1262503101751/5233370917763515617.pdf at $7,763 per student- we have to fundraise for art music and science- average class sizes of 40- buildings that have not been maintained for 40 years- this is just the final nail in the coffin. Why don’t we just close public education and pay everyone not to teach

    Reply this comment
  2. Dawn Urbanek
    Dawn Urbanek 5 February, 2016, 06:08

    And just FYI- the California Department of Education has now declared (in direct conflict with state law) that under “Local Control” Districts are no longer required to follow minimum state curriculum standards and curriculum framework. I didn’t believe it until I read it for myself see: http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/ccssfaqs.asp
    #5

    “Every school in California is required to provide instruction in the subjects named above, although physical education is the only subject that has statutorily required minutes of instruction. The schedule of the instructional day and week is determined by the teacher and the local school and district administration.

    California is supporting local implementation of the CCSS through resources available to all LEAs, many of which are noted in the Common Core State Standards Systems Implementation Plan for California. While implementation of specific academic content standards is a local decision and not specifically mandated by EC, California strongly recommends their local use”

    Reply this comment
  3. Queeg
    Queeg 5 February, 2016, 09:52

    Comrades

    Ever try to put on your skinny jeans after weekend after weekend of debachery and gluttony in tacky/miserable Sunset Beach, the Donkey lair…..

    Every pension fund out thinks itself by running multiple layered economic/sector computer models created by chubby fingers/waisted-shrimp cocktail sauce stained doomers, globalists, plutocrats, big box store monopolists, xxxl toga wearing publicans and the deplorable slaver tech trinket makers.

    The answer is a new Cultural Revolution or old fashion Purge of the entrenched Bozo’s who practice portfolio flagellation at the determinant of unsuspecting teachers and trusting goverment servants of the teaming poor masses.

    Reply this comment
  4. A Board chair
    A Board chair 5 February, 2016, 10:36

    Accounting rules now require districts to show their portion of the deficiency, causing alarm, but the bigger problem is a 7.5% rate of return assumption. Nobody in the financial services industry projects anything close to that.

    Reply this comment
    • Bill G.
      Bill G. 5 February, 2016, 21:05

      The grand old actuarial rate of return, which was always 8.0%, dates from an era when the ‘time value of money’ dictated that cash on deposit had to return an amount equal to inflation PLUS extra for the opportunity cost of keeping cash in cash. No longer. In this degraded era of ZIRP and NIRP, the actuarial rate lives on ONLY in defined benefit plans, which are ONLY offered to public employees. Since no money manager other than Madoff can guarantee such a return, the taxpayers are open to having their veins opened to keep the retirees comfy….

      Reply this comment
  5. Ted. Mentor to the doomed....
    Ted. Mentor to the doomed.... 5 February, 2016, 21:03

    Well, By Golly– These sound like great suggestions to improve our teacher’s well earned retirements!

    Bravo!!!

    Post now trolls!!!!

    Reply this comment
  6. SmartMike
    SmartMike 6 February, 2016, 06:10

    Debt doe not matter. The greatest President in history, King Obama, proves that. All govt pensions and salaries should be increased 50 percent. There would be no adverse impact. Taxes should be increased on business to double down they and their employees serve the state. Police can have little American Flags on their caps for each serf they kill.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply


Tags assigned to this article:
CalSTRSLAOLegislative Analyst's OfficeH.D. Palmer

Related Articles

Enviros battle over merits of rooftop solar vs. desert solar

Things aren’t working out well for renewable energy advocates who hoped cheaper rooftop solar energy would replace large solar power

Early release from CA prisons now a flood

Spurred by a series of court decisions ruling the state’s prison crowding unconstitutional, Gov. Jerry Brown’s ongoing “realignment” effort sought to make adequate

Minimum wage divides experts

Voters will likely decide on the November ballot whether or not to raise California’s minimum wage to $15 per hour,