The Squid Jigging Ground
I attended part of today's PERS Board meeting. (I confess that it was
getting so tedious and boring that I left after about 105 minutes when
it was apparent that there was still one long and boring report to
go). There weren't too many surprises to report. Paul Cleary handed
out a new document called "PERS by the numbers", which was intended to
pull together all the disparate statistics PERS has given out over the
years. It is a really useful document that PERS intends to post on its
web site after the State finishes its maintenance early next week.
Many of the facts will surprise people and will, hopefully, disabuse
some of the system critics of ideas they have that retirees are
getting fat and rich. The statistics simply don't bear that conclusion
out. (I have asked for my own electronic copy, but haven't received
one yet).
It is clear that the Strunk/Eugene implementation project will take a
long time. The first order of business is to get 2004 Member
Statements completed for still-active and inactive members. That will
involve recrediting for 1999, adjusting 2003 and then crediting 2004.
The goal is to have those statements out by the end of January 2006.
To follow will be the 2005 member annual statements at close to the
usual time in 2006 (mid May). The retiree piece is expected to consume
the lion's share of time and resources. While the short-term deadline
is April 1, 2006, it is obvious from comments and observations that
this is expected to be a multi-YEAR project (it might have been Paul
Cleary who remarked, somewhat off-the-cuff, that it would probably be
2008 before they'd be able to 'close the books' on the Strunk/Eugene
implementation). One new fact emerged today. In terms of the actuarial
reduction method, Craig Stroud confirmed that if the member took an
option that involved joint survivorship (2, 2A, 3, 3A), the actuarial
reduction *would* be based on joint life expectancies IF both parties
were still alive. Otherwise, the reduction would be based on single
life expectancy of the surviving recipient. The planning group and the
Board are still open to alternative payment options and heard again
today from someone advocating that PERS agree to an installment plan
that allowed the member to repay the exact amount owed in something
other than a lump sum. The Board was receptive to the idea, but there
was no committment made to implementing such a method. The
Strunk/Eugene implementation plan is still short on many details and
it is expected that it will continue to evolve for 3 more months (and
3 more meetings) before a final plan emerges.
There was a lengthy and tedious discussion over the 2004 crediting
order, which has never been finalized. PERS Staff asked for finality
today so that the Strunk/Eugene implementation could proceed. As I was
leaving, virtually everything about 2004 had been settled except for
the matter of whether or not to fund the Capital Preservation Reserve
(henceforth CPR). The Board struggled with the concept of taking money
from Tier 2 members to put into the CPR. Staff had recommended that
the CPR be funded at 0% for 2004; the Board wanted something more than
0% and something less than 7.5%. The discussion centered on 0.75%, but
the real debate was whether Tier 2 members should have their earnings
diverted to the CPR when there was no clear plan to repay Tier 2
members in down markets. Greg Hartman argued against putting money in
the CPR, PERS Staff discouraged putting 2004 money into the CPR, Tom
Grimsley wanted 0% to go into the CPR, while other Board members
wanted something more than 0% to go in. Since this discussion seemed
to be going nowhere quickly, I decided to leave. The main message is
that Tier 2 members have been losing earnings to the CPR since 2003,
even though they're supposed to "earn what they earn". That's another
discussion for another time.
One other final note. Marsha Chapman, one of the two local Mercer
actuaries assigned to PERS, has already resigned to "pursue other
opportunities".
No comments:
Post a Comment