Pensions and the State Budget Squeeze Alicia H. Munnell Peter F. Drucker Professor, Boston College Carroll School of Management Director, Center for Retirement Research at Boston College State Budget Squeeze: What s Next? The Century Foundation New York, NY January 30, 2013
Two financial crises in a decade caused a significant drop in pension funding State and Local Funded Ratios, 1994-2011 12 103% 8 88% 85% 88% 86% 84% 79% 76% 75% 4 1994 1998 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 Sources: Public Plans Database. 2001-2011. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and Center for State and Local Government Excellence; and Paul Zorn. 1994-2000. Survey of State and Local Government Retirement Systems: Survey Report for Members of the Public Pension Coordinating Council. Chicago, IL: Government Finance Officers As-sociation.. 1
and a more than doubling of the ARC. Annual Required Contributions as a Percentage of Payroll, 2001-2011 18% 15.7% 15% 12% 9% 6% 6.4% 6.1% 7.4% 9. 10.6% 11.1% 11.5% 11.8% 12.1% 13.6% 3% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Sources: Public Plans Database. 2001-2011. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and Center for State and Local Government Excellence; and author s estimates. 2
Nevertheless, pension costs are only 4.6 percent of state/local budgets. Pension Costs as a Percentage of State and Local Own-Source Revenues 2000 3.2% 2010 4.6% 96.8% 95.4% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau. 2005-2006. Employee-Retirement Systems of State and Local Governments. Washington, DC; and U.S. Census Bureau. 2000 and 2010. State and Local Government Finances. Washington, DC. 3
Absent a new crisis, funding should stabilize and the budget burden remain modest. Projected State and Local Funded Ratios under Three Scenarios, 2011-2015 12 8 87% 84% 79% Optimistic Most likely Pessimistic 76% 75% 98% 82% 74% 4 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Sources: Author s estimates for 2011-2015; and Public Plans Database. 2007-2011. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and Center for State and Local Government Excellence. 4
But aggregate numbers hide enormous heterogeneity in the public sector. Distribution of Funded Ratios for Public Plans, 2011 5 46.8% 4 3 30.2% 2 1 15.1% 5.6% 2.4% 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-99 100+ Source: Public Plans Database. 2011. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and Center for State and Local Government Excellence. 5
Moving from the short term to the longer term, the burden on states and localities will depend on: 1) returns on plan assets; and 2) the generosity of the benefit package. 6
Returns are important; today s mature plans receive bulk of revenue from investments. Asset Returns and Contributions as a Percentage of Total Plan Revenues for 2005-06 27% Contributions Asset returns 73% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2005-2006. Employee-Retirement Systems of State and Local Governments. Washington, DC. 7
Long-term returns are the key driver of the pension budget burden. Pension Contributions as a Percentage of State and Local Own-Source Revenues, 2010 and 2014-44 16% 12% Actual Projected 9.5% 14.5% 8% 4% 4.6% 5.1% 2010 8% 6% 4% Realized rates of return, 2014-44 Sources: Public Plans Database. 2010. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and Center for State and Local Government Excellence; U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. State and Local Government Finances. Washington, DC; U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. State and Local Public-Employee Retirement Systems. Washington, DC; and author s calculations. 8
Again, heterogeneity is important. Plan Characteristics and Contributions as a Percentage of State and Local Own-Source Revenues, 2010 and 2014-44 Contributions/revenue Government Rate of return 2014 44 2010 8% 6% 4% U.S. total 4.6% 5.1% 9.5% 14.5% Well run Florida 3.9 3.6 6.7 10.3 Delaware 3.0 2.4 5.5 9.3 Poorly run Illinois 8.4 9.6 14.2 20.4 New Jersey 3.1 6.1 9.8 14.5 Expensive California 6.2 7.2 14.3 21.7 New York 6.0 5.9 11.9 24.6 Sources: Public Plans Database. 2010. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and Center for State and Local Government Excellence; U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. State and Local Government Finances. Washington, DC; U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. State and Local Public-Employee Retirement Systems. Washington, DC; and author s calculations. 9
Plans need high returns, high returns involve risk, but politics make risky investing tricky. 14% Public Plans Tend to Spend Surplus 1 8% 4% Source: Author s illustration adapted from Cheiron. 2012. Presentation at Enrolled Actuaries meeting. 10
Yet, public plan investments in risky assets are near an all-time high. Percentage of State and Local and Private Pension Fund Assets Invested in Equities, 1970-2012 8 State/local Private sector 66% 6 48% 4 2 1970 1976 1982 1988 1994 2000 2006 2012 Notes: Assumes that equities account for approximately 80 percent of assets held in mutual funds. Before 1984, private sector pension funds include both defined benefit and defined contribution accounts. Source: Author s calculations from U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Flow of Funds Accounts. 1970-2012. Washington, DC. 11
And plan sponsors appear to be shifting from conventional to more complex assets. U.S. Defined Benefit Pension Sponsors: Net Share Planning to Significantly Increase Exposure Over the Next Three Years 2 Commodities Hedge fund Real estate Private equity Int l fixed income -1 Dom. fixed income Global equities Passive Active Passive Active 1-2 Domestic International equities equities Source: J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. 2012. Eye on the Market. New York, NY. 12
So tension exists between earning needed returns and getting into trouble. Risky assets High returns Low contributions Potential for losses Pocketing the gains 13
The other main determinant of cost is the generosity of the benefit package. Core benefits o Age/tenure requirements o Average salary period o Benefit factor COLA Employer contribution 14
CRR analyzed the long-term costs for 32 plans in 15 states. Sample States and Number of State-Administered Plans Source: Author s illustration. 15
29 of the 32 plans have responded to the crisis by reducing their benefit package. Sample Plans Making Pension Changes, by Type of Change 30 24 New employees All employees 20 18 15 14 10 9 3 0 Age/tenure requirements Average salary period Benefit factor COLA Contribution rate No changes Sources: Actuarial valuation reports; National Conference of State Legislatures. 2008-2012. Pensions and Retirement Plan Enactments. Washington, DC; and National Conference of State Legislatures. 2011. State Pensions and Retirement Legislation: 2011. Washington, DC. 16
For many, cuts should reduce the employer s normal cost over the long term. Plan-Level Projections of the ARC as a Percentage of Payroll for Texas Employees Retirement System: 2011-2046 2 Percent of payroll 15% 1 5% 4% 4% 1% 2% 8% Increased 7% 6% age/tenure; 6% increased avg. Increased salary period. 6% 6% employee contribution 7% 7% rate by 1%. Pre-crisis: 2007 Post-crisis: 2011 Post-reform partial impact: 2028 Post-reform full impact: 2046 Employee contribution Employer normal cost UAAL payment Sources: Author s projections based on plan actuarial valuations and Public Plans Database. 2009-2012. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and Center for State and Local Government Excellence. 17
Poorly funded plans and expensive plans have taken the most dramatic actions. Employer Normal Costs as a Percentage of Payroll, Pre-Crisis and Post-Reform 1 8% By Plan Funded Status 8. Pre-crisis Post-reform 8.5% 1 8% 9.2% By Plan Generosity Pre-crisis Post-reform 7.6% 6% 4% 3.6% 5.5% 6% 4% 4.3% 4.5% 2% 2% Poorly funded Well-funded Generous benefits Low to average benefits Source: Alicia H. Munnell, Jean-Pierre Aubry, Anek Belbase, and Joshua Hurwitz. 2013 (forthcoming). State and Local Pension Costs: Pre-Crisis, Post-Crisis, and Post-Reform. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. 18
Reductions should eventually reduce pressure on sponsor budgets to below pre-crisis levels. Pension Costs as a Percentage of State and Local Own-Source Revenues, Sample Average, Pre-Crisis through Post-Reform 8% 6% 6.5% 5.3% 4% 4.1% 3.3% 2% Pre-crisis: 2007 Post-crisis: 2011 Post-reform partial impact: 2028 Post-reform full impact: 2046 Source: Alicia H. Munnell, Jean-Pierre Aubry, Anek Belbase, and Joshua Hurwitz. 2013 (forthcoming). State and Local Pension Costs: Pre-Crisis, Post-Crisis, and Post-Reform. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. 19
But cutting benefits is not costless, because they are a key part of total compensation. Total Compensation of State and Local and Private Sector Workers, as a Percentage of Private Sector Wages, 2010 16 12 8 148.1% 147. 100. 142.3% 138.2% 90.5% 4 Private sector State and local sector Wages ECEC benefits Pension adjustment Retiree health Source: Alicia H. Munnell, Jean-Pierre Aubry, Joshua Hurwitz, and Laura Quinby. 2011. Comparing Compensation: State and Local versus Private Sector Workers. State and Local Plans Issue in Brief 20. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. 20
Reducing compensation below private sector levels will reduce the quality of new hires. Impact of Selected Factors on Teacher Undergraduate Institution SAT Score Wage ratio 8.1 Employer retirement cost 10.5 Level of school - high school 15.9 Household income ratio Minority enrollment Master's degree 18.1 12.3 38.2 Compensation variables Demands of the job Personal characteristics Age -11.2 State match -48.4 Minority teacher -69.9-80 -60-40 -20 0 20 40 60 Notes: Changes are one standard deviation for continuous variables and 0/1 for dichotomous variables. All variables displayed are significant at the 5-percent level or better. The SAT score in this equation is for the 25th percentile. Source: Alicia H. Munnell and Rebecca Cannon Fraenkel. 2012. Compensation Matters: The Case of Teachers. State and Local Plans Issue in Brief 28. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. 21
Conclusion Two financial crises in a decade hurt public plans, but pension spending is still a modest share of government budgets. If plans can overcome political challenges and earn historical returns and if cuts to benefits stick, pensions will not be main source of budget squeeze. But returns are uncertain and benefit cuts can come undone, so pension expense merits careful monitoring. 22
Retiree health spending is projected to rise but is still relatively modest share of budget. Retiree Health Costs as a Percentage of State and Local Own-Source Revenues, Sample Average, Pre-Crisis through Post-Reform 2. 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.3% 1. 0.8% 0.5% 0. Pre-crisis: 2007 Post-crisis: 2011 Post-reform partial impact: 2028 Post-reform full impact: 2046 Source: Alicia H. Munnell, Jean-Pierre Aubry, Anek Belbase, and Joshua Hurwitz. 2013 (forthcoming). State and Local Pension Costs: Pre-Crisis, Post-Crisis, and Post-Reform. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.. 23