Taking a Look Under the Hood of your Defined Benefit Plan Actuarial Mechanics

Similar documents
Pension Funding & Plan Design

Pension Funding & Plan Design

Actuarial Basics. Presented by Mike Overley, Regional Manager Tony Radjenovich, Regional Manager

Experience Study 1. How does MERS ensure plans are sustainable? 2. Why does MERS conduct an Experience Study every 5 years?

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MICHIGAN ANNUAL ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 FRASER, CITY OF (5003)

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZES THE ADOPTION OF AN OPEB FUNDING POLICY FOR THE OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ( OPEB ) TRUST

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MICHIGAN ANNUAL ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2016 SPRINGFIELD, CITY OF (1303)

Minnesota Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MICHIGAN ANNUAL ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2014 OTSEGO CRC (6901)

Rock n Roll to a Successful Retirement Using AC/DC Strategies. Presented by: Debbie Rochester

Louis Kosiba IMRF Executive Director Richard DeCleene IMRF Chief Financial Officer

Funding Basics of Retirement Programs

Actuarial SECTION. A Tradition of Service

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZES THE ADOPTION OF A PENSION FUNDING POLICY FOR THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MICHIGAN ANNUAL ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2014 MANISTEE CRC (5103)

MERS Retirement Plan Basics. Presented by Sue Feinberg, Regional Manager John Waugh, Senior Benefit Plan Advisor

Pension Funding & Plan Design

Developing a Pension Funding Policy for State and Local Governments

Staff Report for the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors March 8, 2017

Lycoming County Employees Retirement System

Status Update. Donna M. Mueller, CEO IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

June 19, Compute the City s recommended contribution rate for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2015.

Actuarial Section. Actuarial Section THE BOTTOM LINE. The average MSEP retirement benefit is $15,609 per year.

GOGEBIC COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACTUARIAL FUNDING POLICY

VRS Stress Test and Sensitivity Analysis

Actuarial Valuation and Review as of June 30, 2009

CITY OF HOLLYWOOD GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2012

Pension Plan of Town of West Warwick Management Summary of 7/1/2013 Actuarial Valuation

CITY OF CONCORD JUNE 30, 2016 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

In addressing some possible viable options and recommendations, the Pension Subcommittee has prepared a presentation enumerates a number of basic fina

Benefit Provisions and Valuation Data. 1-3 Summary of Benefit Provisions 4-6 Retired Life Data 7-9 Active Member Data Asset Information

ST. CLAIR COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Actuarial Valuation and Review as of June 30, 2009

CITY OF ALLEN PARK EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

New Castle County Pension Plan Review March, Boomershine Consulting Group

PENSION RISK AND FALLING INTEREST RATES

City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System. Actuarial Valuation and Report June 30, 2018

TRA Funding Policy (adopted by TRA Board of Trustees on 9/16/15)

State Universities Retirement System of Illinois. Actuarial Valuation Report as of June 30, 2018

City of Boynton Beach Municipal Police Officers Retirement Fund Actuarial Valuation Report as of October 1, 2018

Public Pension Resource Guide

Options to Address Unfunded Pension Liability. Presentation to City Council August 13, 2010 Karen Montgomery, Assistant City Manager

July 31, The Board of Trustees City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System Pontiac, Michigan

GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY REPORT ON UNFUNDED PENSION & RETIREE HEALTH CARE LIABILITIES

CITY OF CONCORD JUNE 30, 2015 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Employees' Retirement Fund of the City of Fort Worth Revised Actuarial Valuation and Review as of January 1, 2014

CITY OF DEARBORN CHAPTER 22 RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Metropolitan Transit Authority Union Pension Plan

MEETING YOUR OPEB OBLIGATIONS PREPARING FOR GASB 75

An Overview of the New GASB Pension Accounting and Reporting Standards. Presented By: Joel Knopp, CPA

CITY OF MOUNT DORA GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2014

MISSOURI STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM - JUDGES

COUNTY OF VOLUSIA VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS PENSION SYSTEM

House Committee on Financial Institutions and Pensions. HB 2764; Moving certain Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism officers to KP&F

City of Fraser Retiree Health Care Plan Actuarial Valuation Report As of June 30, 2017

City of Brockton Contributory Retirement System

Meeting Date: September 28, From: Amy Cunningham, Administrative Services Director

ACTUARIAL & STATISTICAL SECTION

Metropolitan Transit Authority Non-Union Pension Plan

City of Grand Blanc County of Genesee State of Michigan

County of Volusia Volunteer Firefighters Pension System Actuarial Valuation Report as of October 1, 2017

June 2, 2016 City #00048

TCDRS Funding Policy. Effective as of the Dec. 31, 2014 Valuation

October 13, Dear Mr. Bean:

Teachers Pension and Annuity Fund of New Jersey. Experience Study July 1, 2006 June 30, 2009

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MICHIGAN

City of Grand Rapids Police and Fire Retirement System GASB Statement Nos. 67 and 68 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions Measurement

MPSERS REFORM (Senate Bill 1040) FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

MISCELLANEOUS PLAN OF THE CITRUS PEST CONTROL DISTRICT #2 OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY (CalPERS ID: ) Annual Valuation Report as of June 30, 2013

ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT

March 25, Mr. Randall Blum Finance Director City of Eastpointe Eastpointe, Michigan Dear Mr. Blum:

September 15, Mr. Randall Blum Deputy Finance Director City of Eastpointe Eastpointe, Michigan Dear Mr. Blum:

O A K L A N D C O U N T Y E M P L O Y E E S ' R E T I R E M E N T S Y S T E M

December Mr. Randall Blum Finance Director City of Eastpointe Eastpointe, Michigan Dear Mr. Blum:

City of. icipal Police 30, 2019

House Financial Institutions and Pensions Committee. HB 2448; Moving State Correctional Officers to KP&F

City of Clearwater Employees Pension Plan Actuarial Valuation Report as of January 1, 2018 Annual Employer Contribution for the Fiscal Year Ending

C I T Y OF GRAND RAPIDS POLICE A ND FIRE R E T I REMENT SYSTEM G A S B S T A T E M E N T NOS. 6 7 A N D 6 8 A C C O U N T I N G A N D F I N A N C I A

Understanding the CalPERS Discount Rate and the Effect on Employer Contributions. February 6, 2017

Understanding the. MERS Defined Benefit Retirement Process

TOWN OF LANTANA POLICE RELIEF AND PENSION FUND ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2014

Laborers & Retirement Board and Employees Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago

PAPERS NEW TRUSTEE WORKSHOP

SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN. ACTUARIAL VALUATION as of October 1, 2015

TEACHERS PENSION AND ANNUITY FUND OF NEW JERSEY. June 30, 2017 Actuarial Valuation Report Prepared as of July 1, 2017

CITY OF HOWELL, MICHIGAN

CITY OF YPSILANTI ACCOUNTING FOR POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PLANS UNDER GASB #45 AS OF JUNE 30, 2017 FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2017

Tacoma Employees Retirement System

SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN THE EMPLOYER S NET PENSION LIABILITY AND RELATED RATIOS GASB Statement No. 67

City of Stockton. Retiree Healthcare Plan June 30, 2007 Actuarial Valuation Executive Summary

The City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System

L C R A R E T I R E M E N T P L A N

February 3, Experience Study Judges Retirement Fund

Actuarial Valuation Report: The City of Newport, Rhode Island Post Retirement Benefits Plan as of July 1, 2013

October 13, 2016 Actuarial Valuation Report: The City of Newport, Rhode Island Post-Retirement Benefits Plan as of July 1, 2016

CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2011

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System

July 30, The Retirement Board City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System Taylor, Michigan

October 7, The Board of Trustees City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System Pontiac, Michigan

CONTENTS. 1-2 Summary of Benefit Provisions 3 Asset Information 4-6 Retired Life Data Active Member Data Inactive Vested Member Data

Transcription:

Taking a Look Under the Hood of your Defined Benefit Plan Actuarial Mechanics Leon Hank, CFO, MERS Betsy Waldofsky, Finance Director, MERS David Kausch, Chief Actuary, GRS

Agenda Defined Benefit Plan Fundamentals How Defined Benefit Plans are Funded Annual Actuarial Valuation Reports A Deep Dive into Actuarial Assumptions Experience Study Overview Economic Assumptions Demographic Assumptions Funding Looking Ahead Plan Costs 2019 Experience Study MERS of Michigan 2

Defined Benefit Plan Fundamentals

Defined Benefit Formula Final Average Compensation Service Credit Benefit Multiplier Annual Benefit The benefit formula is comprised of three components: Final Average Compensation is an average of the employee s highest consecutive wages over a period of time, usually 3-5 years Service Credit is earned for each month of work that meets the employer s requirements The Benefit Multiplier is a specific percentage adopted by the employer ranging from 1.0%-2.5% To be eligible an employee must meet both age and service requirements (also called vesting) MERS of Michigan 4

Prefunding the Benefit Defined benefit plans are required by law to be prefunded MERS pools assets for investment purposes, providing our members the benefit of investing with an $11 billion pool of assets MERS of Michigan 5

Contributions are Invested Long-Term MERS strategically invests the contributions with a prudent long-term approach to provide downside protection with upside participation MERS investment earnings fund more than half of the benefits MERS of Michigan 6

Contributing to the Plan The employer contribution is made of up two parts: Employer Normal Cost Present value of benefits allocated to the current plan year less any employee contribution Amortization Payment of Unfunded Accrued Liability Payment to reduce any shortfall between liability for past service and assets Employer Normal Cost Amortization Payment of the UAL Employer Contribution The employee contribution rate is set by each local unit of government or division MERS of Michigan 7

What is Unfunded Liability? Unfunded liability is the difference between a plan s estimated pension benefits and assets that have been set aside to pay for them The dollar value of the benefits is actuarially determined each year Unfunded liability is paid off over a period of years Employer Normal Cost Amortization Payment of the UAL Employer Contribution MERS of Michigan 8

Why Unfunded Liabilities Develop Actual experience is different than assumed (liabilities and assets) Market performance Demographic experience Rates of retirement Benefit enhancements adopted and not entirely funded Early retirement windows Increased benefit multiplier Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) Higher than projected Final Average Compensation Granting prior service for benefits without funding MERS of Michigan 9

Calculating the Actuarially Determined Contribution MARKET VALUE OF ASSETS MEMBER DATA BENEFITS IN EFFECT FOR EACH DIVISION AMORTIZATION POLICY ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODS MERS of Michigan 10

Annual Actuarial Valuation Report An important tool to help budget for your municipality s retirement benefits Measures funding progress Establishes contribution requirements for the following fiscal year Provides Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) information Delivered each year by June 30 th MERS of Michigan 11

Provides Answers to Two Key Questions What is the value of the promised benefits? Actuarial Accrued Liability How do we pay for it? Actuarially Determined Employer Contribution MERS of Michigan 12

MERS Resources MERS has created a resource page on www.mersofmich.com AAV Overview video walks through your AAV to help you understand the report Guide outlining each section of the report Frequently asked questions MERS of Michigan 13

A Deep Dive into Actuarial Assumptions

Experience Study Overview Part of MERS fiduciary responsibility Conducted with our actuarial firm every five years, with the last study covering 2009-2013 Compares actual experience of the plan with the current assumptions to determine if changes are necessary Next study started; working on economic assumptions MERS of Michigan 15

Experience Study Goals & Priorities Adequacy Ensuring each plan s assets are sufficient to provide for the benefits that are expected to be paid and that each plan is making reasonable progress to achieve full funding Intergenerational Equity & Transparency Each generation should incur the cost of benefits for the employees who provide service in that generation, rather than deferring those costs to future employees The funding policy should be easily understood Contribution Stability & Governance Contribution volatility should be balanced with the commitment to ensure plans are properly funded MERS of Michigan 16

Overview of Assumptions Funding Policy Amortization Policy Asset Valuation Method Economic Assumptions Price and Wage Inflation Investment Return Discount Rate Demographic Assumption Mortality Withdrawal Rates Normal Retirement MERS of Michigan 17

Funding Policy The MERS Funding Policy is part of the actuarial valuation process Actuarial methods include The Actuarial Cost Method for determining o The Actuarial Accrued Liability o The Normal Cost Asset Smoothing MERS smooths over a five-year period Amortization Policy for funding any Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) MERS of Michigan 18

Establishing Economic Assumptions The Actuary s role Identify the assumptions and their components Evaluate relevant data o Look at historical and current data o Consider future expectations Economic assumptions must be forward-looking Assess the reasonableness of a given assumption The Board s role Consider the advice from the Actuary Consider the advice from Investment Staff Adopt the assumptions to be used in the valuation All assumptions must follow the Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOPs) MERS of Michigan 19

MERS Current Economic Assumptions Price inflation (currently: 2.50% per year) Wage inflation (currently: 3.75% per year) A macroeconomic assumption Used to project total payroll growth for open divisions Generally higher than price inflation Merit, longevity and other salary increases Apply to individuals throughout their careers Rate of investment return (currently: 7.75% per year) Net of all administrative and investment expenses Generally has the largest impact on determining costs MERS of Michigan 20

National Economic Trends Expectations are trending down Forward looking price inflation expectations earlier this year Source 10-Year 20-Year 30-Year Federal Reserve Bank 1.97% 2.14% 2.26% of Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank 2.10% 2.08% 2.10% of St. Louis U.S. Dept. of Treasury 2.10% 2.12% 2.17% Recent short-term inflation has ticked up to 2.90% as recently as July Short-term fluctuations do not necessarily have a big impact on long-term expectations MERS of Michigan 21

National Economic Trends The gap between wages and prices has narrowed in recent years Public sector wages in particular have only slightly exceeded price inflation MERS of Michigan 22

National Economic Trends Assumed rates of return are being reduced across the country MERS of Michigan 23

Trends in Economic Assumptions Plans are beginning to review economic assumptions in alignment with asset allocation reviews, which may become more frequent 2018 market performance has experienced more volatility than we have seen in the past two years, due to a variety of macroeconomic factors Bond yields are at record lows (although starting to tick up) MERS of Michigan 24

Establishing Demographic Assumptions Demographic assumptions are a look back at actual plan experience, systematically comparing experience to expectations Typically need at least 5-year time frame to have a good data set to identify trends The roles of the Actuary and Board are the same as with economic assumptions All assumptions must follow the Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOPs) MERS of Michigan 25

Key Demographic Assumptions Mortality rates How long people live determines how long pensions will be paid Includes an assumption for future mortality improvement Retirement rates When people retire affects when pensions will be paid Theoretical Probabilities for an Active Participant 2% 1% 12% 85% Termination rates Disability rates Mortality Termination Retirement Disability MERS of Michigan 26

Trends in Demographic Assumptions Mortality trends People are living longer, but mortality improvement has slowed down in recent years The Society of Actuaries recently published new mortality tables based on public plan experience o Generally lower mortality rates o Translates into longer life expectancy o May result in increased cost for pensions The economy may affect demographic experience Turnover may be higher/lower if the job market is good/bad Retirements may be delayed in a bad economy MERS of Michigan 27

Funding Policy Asset Smoothing Smoothing is a buffer against extreme fluctuations in the market 20% 15% Annual Rate of Return 13.07% 10% 5% 0% -5% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 7.75% 6.08% -10% -15% -20% -25% -30% Actual Return (%) Smoothed Rate (%) Assumption (Target) MERS of Michigan 28

Funding Policy Amortization Schedule 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2017-2024 Liability 21 years 2024 Gains or Losses 2025 Gains or Losses 2026 Gains or Losses 15 years 15 years 15 years MERS of Michigan 29

Looking Ahead

Plan Costs Plan costs vary by municipality and depend on the benefit plan design selected by each municipality The AAV does not affect the ultimate cost of the plan The ultimate cost of the plan will not be known until the last retiree/beneficiary stops drawing a benefit Administrative Costs Plan governance Audit Legal counsel State and Federal legislative advocacy Financial reporting Administration of benefits Actuarial services Participant education and resources MERS of Michigan 31

Defined Benefit Plan Cost History Five-year history Administration Investments 0.25% 0.20% 0.25% 0.18% 0.13% 0.26% 0.22% 0.22% 0.21% 0.19% 12/31/2013 12/31/2014 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 12/31/2017 MERS of Michigan 32

Forecasting the Next Experience Study Reduced Investment Return Assumption Was reduced to 7.75% following last study Likely to be reduced again Assuming less to come from investment returns results in increased contributions We listened to your feedback from the last Experience Study and will proactively communicate any changes Reduced Wage Inflation Was reduced to 3.75% following last study Likely to be reduced again MERS of Michigan 33

Volatility Scenarios Your AAV provides analysis of potential volatility of the results and projected contributions based on that volatility This provides options for determining contributions above and beyond the minimum required amounts MERS highly encourages you to review these scenarios and make additional contributions, if possible MERS of Michigan 34

Summary of Upcoming Changes The next Experience Study is for 2014-2018 Review of the economic assumptions between MERS and GRS has already begun, which pulls ahead the economic assumption review before the demographic assumption review Based on Board review and approval, impacts of economic assumption changes may be communicated as early as the 12/31/18 AAVs Your current AAV contains projected contributions based on various rates of return so that you can plan now for changes Based on Board review and approval, there may be demographic assumption changes in the future that will impact costs MERS of Michigan 35

Contacting MERS of Michigan MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1134 Municipal Way Lansing, MI 48917 800.767.MERS (6377) www.mersofmich.com This presentation contains a summary description of MERS benefits, policies or procedures. MERS has made every effort to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. Where the publication conflicts with the relevant Plan Document, the Plan Document controls. 37