Copyright © 2011 GRS – All rights reserved. South Carolina Retirement System Danny White October 18, 2011 Discuss Current and Alternative Structures for.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Lecture 22: Pension Benefit Formulas Approaches to retirement plans Defined benefit plans –Elements of defined benefit formulas –Non-pay-related formulas.
Advertisements

Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) Overview: Sweeping Changes for Defined Benefit Pension Plans Presented by David S. Boomershine, Senior Actuary Boomershine.
1 Effective Benefit Management and Allocation of SDRS Resources September 5-6, 2012 South Dakota Retirement System.
Copyright © 2008 GRS – All rights reserved. Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Financial Reporting under GASB Statement No. 45 Prepared by James J.
Retirement Workshop (PERF & TRF).
1 Administration Single-Employer Pension Reform Proposal.
University of Saskatchewan 1999 Academic Pension Plan November 8, 2013 Aon Hewitt | © 2014 Aon Hewitt. All Rights Reserved Lump Sum Transfer Option on.
FCERA Board of Retirement and Fresno County Board of Supervisors Joint Meeting – April 30, 2009 Contribution Volatility and Asset Smoothing FCERA Board.
Defined Benefit Pension Plan Chapter 14 Employee Benefit & Retirement Planning Copyright 2009, The National Underwriter Company1 What is it? A qualified.
Lesson 16 Investing for Retirement. Key Terms  401(k) Plan  Annuity  Defined-Benefit Plan  Defined- Contribution Plan  Employer- Sponsored Retirement.
Do not put content on the brand signature area ©2014 Voya Services Company. All rights reserved. CN Reward & Retain Key Executives Survivor.
Endorsement Split Dollar Plans Reward & retain key executives ©2014 Voya Services Company. All rights reserved. CN
Copyright © 2011 GRS – All rights reserved. Economic Assumption Study Norm Jones, FSA Brian Murphy, FSA Mark Buis, FSA March 10, 2011.
© 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Chapter 18 Employee Benefit Plans.
COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES Council of Ontario Universities Working Group on University Pension Plans Presentation for Briefing Meeting on Solvency.
Oregon PERS Policy Options: Effects on Employer Rates and the State General Fund ECONorthwest April 10, 2003.
Public Employee Pension Plans Steven Kreisberg Steven Kreisberg Collective Bargaining Director Collective Bargaining DirectorAFSCME 1.
The Benefits of Defined Benefit Pension Plans From a Manitoba School Sector Perspective.
Retirement Planning and Employee Benefits for Financial Planners
Copyright © 2012 GRS – All rights reserved. TMRS Rate Stabilization Part of the Toolkit October 8, 2012 Mark Randall.
Covered Employer Training Program Module One Introduction to the Retirement Systems.
PASA PENSION BRIEFING Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Charles B. Zogby, Secretary of the Budgetwww.budget.state.pa.us Pennsylvania Pension System Reform March.
Illinois SURS Member Guide –Contributions (page 2) –Disability Benefits (pages 7-9) –Disability Retirement Allowance (page 10) –Retirement Benefits (pages.
Covered Employer Training Program Module One Introduction to the Retirement Systems.
Craig Martin Pension Manager Changes to the LGPS from 1 April 2014.
Increasing contributions presentation Increasing contributions in your retirement plan account.
YOUR 403(B) TAX SHELTERED ACCOUNT PROGRAM 1 Prepared for the Employees of Riverview Intermediate Unit #6.
GASB Technical Update Mark Thomas KPMG LLP Year-End GAAP Training April 18, 2014.
1 City of Fresno’s Deferred Retirement Option Program “DROP” Police Department Retirement Planning Seminar 2008.
PENSIONS IN TRANSITION: United States and Japan Robert L. Clark Professor of Economics North Carolina State University 19 September, 2002.
FCERA April 2008 Interest Crediting FCERA Board Interest Crediting and Excess Earnings Policy Discussion Wednesday, April 16, 2008 Paul Angelo,
Chapter 14 Annuities and Individual Retirement Accounts
1 Accounting for Postemployment Benefits C hapter 19.
Copyright © 2008 GRS – All rights reserved. Health and OPEB Funding Strategies: 2009 National Survey of Local Governments A presentation by Paul Zorn Director.
County of Onondaga GASB Valuation Presentation Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEBs) December 5, 2007.
TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OKLAHOMA Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2008 Presented by J. Christian Conradi and Mark Randall on October 22, 2008.
Getting the Most from Social Security Stephanie B. Wade Financial Advisor Financial Advisors of Delaware Valley 2013 FEA/NJPSA/NJASCD Fall Conference 1.
City of Hallandale Beach Professional/Management Retirement Plan Actuarial Review March 17, 2014.
Choosing between Defined Benefit Plans & Defined Contribution Plans Jon Forman Alfred P. Murrah Professor of Law University of Oklahoma August 15, 2005.
Arizona State Retirement System Presentation to the Government Finance Officers Association of Arizona January 7, 2011.
Collin County Retirement Plan Briefing September 7, 2010.
Copyright © 2007, The American College. All rights reserved. Used with permission. Planning for Retirement Needs Defined-Benefit, Cash-Balance, Target-Benefit,
Choosing between Defined Benefit Plans & Defined Contribution Plans Jon Forman Alfred P. Murrah Professor of Law University of Oklahoma Canada Cup – Toronto.
Covered Employer Training Program Module One Introduction to the Retirement Systems.
Actuarial Assumptions and Methods: What is Reasonable?
2006 General Meeting Assemblée générale 2006 Chicago, Illinois 2006 General Meeting Assemblée générale 2006 Chicago, Illinois Canadian Institute of Actuaries.
Gregory M. Curran, FCA, MAAA, ASA, EA Consulting Actuary G. S. Curran & Company, Ltd N. Glenstone Place Baton Rouge, Louisiana (225)
UC Retirement System and the Restart of Contributions UCI Financial Expo April 15, 2010.
1 Mid-Atlantic Plan Sponsors (MAPS) Trustee Educational Conference June 9, 2011 What Type of Retirement Plan Do You Want & Can You Afford It? David Boomershine.
SHARED RISK PLAN FOR ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES OF UNB (AESRP) Pre-Retirement Seminar UNB Human Resources & Organizational Development.
Covered Employer Training Program Introduction to the Retirement Systems FY 2016.
California State Employees Retiree Healthcare Benefits GASB 45 Projections December 13, 2007.
BUDGET DAY PENSION BRIEFING Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Charles B. Zogby, Secretary of the Budgetwww.budget.state.pa.us Pennsylvania Pension System Reform.
Copyright © 2016 by The Segal Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) Presentation to the Joint Board of Supervisors.
Prepared by Aon Hewitt Retirement and Investment Consulting Presentation to Iowa School Districts Changes in Postemployment Benefit Accounting July 2015.
Town of Plymouth, Massachusetts Results of the January 1, 2015 GASB 45 Valuation September 22, 2015 Linda L. Bournival, FSA Consulting Actuary KMS Actuaries,
PRESENTED BY FIRST NAME SURNAME JOB TITLE/POSITION A PRESENTATION TO CLIENT NAME FEDERAL BUDGET SUMMARY.
Copyright © 2015 GRS – All rights reserved. RTD/ATU 1001 Pension Plan January 13, 2015 Pension Fund Status As of January 1, 2014.
DC Plan Investment Menu Best Practices Date Copyright T. Rowe Price. All rights reserved.
Reforming the Second Tier of the U.S. Pension System: Tabula Rasa or Step by Step? Sandy Mackenzie & Jon Forman for Savings and Retirement Institute Washington,
Phoenix FamilyShield Annuity SM A Single Premium Immediate Annuity designed for Medicaid planning For Producer training purposes only. Not for use with.
The Principal Financial Group ® Debt Reduction Seminar.
Actuarial Status Update of the Employees’ Retirement Fund of the City of Fort Worth May 4, 2010 Presented by Doug Anderson, EA, ASA, MAAA Gallagher Benefit.
“The Future of Social Security”
Pension Reform Presentation
Funding Pension Benefits for Georgia’s Educators
Pension Reform Presentation
Actuarial Audit of the Employees’ Retirement Fund of the City of Fort Worth October 21, 2008.
Presentation transcript:

Copyright © 2011 GRS – All rights reserved. South Carolina Retirement System Danny White October 18, 2011 Discuss Current and Alternative Structures for Providing Retirement Benefits

2 Objective of Today’s Discussion  Provide information regarding the current state of the program  Identify characteristics of a successful and sustainable retirement program  Present alternative benefit structures that have those key characteristics ► Illustrate how the alternative programs impact the adequacy of retirement benefits

3 Current Program – Current (SCRS) Benefit  Monthly benefit payable for the member’s lifetime  Retirement age ► 65 with 5 years of service; or ► any age with 28 years of service  The benefit is equal to 1.82% of members 3-year average compensation times their years of service ► Example: John Smith retires with an average monthly compensation of $48,000 and 28 years of service Monthly retirement benefit is $24,460 (1.82% x $48,000 x 28) Replaces almost 50% of the members pre-retirement pay  Members contribute 6.50% of pay

4 Current State – Financial Condition $20B Market Value of Assets Funding Gap $19B $23B Accrued Retirees $16B Accrued by Actives $22B Future Accruals $20B Market Value of Assets Funded Ratio as of July 1, 2010 Note: The liabilities and costs are based on GRS’s recommended assumptions, which includes a 7.50% investment return. Assumes a 1% guarantee COLA. Current assets are not sufficient to cover the liability attributable to current retired members 30-Year Contribution Requirement on a Market Value Basis

Cost of Providing Benefits – Total Normal Cost 5 Note: The total normal cost rate is for SCRS determined using GRS’s recommended assumptions, which includes a 7.50% investment return. It Costs 10.77% of Pay to Appropriately Fund Benefits Members contributions fund over 50% of the benefit

Cost of Providing Benefits – An Alternative View 6 Source of Funds to Pay Benefits for a Member Retiring at age 63 with a $3,600 Monthly Benefit Over 80% of the benefit payments are financed by investment earnings. Example for a member retiring at age 63 with 28 years of service. The projected monthly benefit is funded as a level percentage of pay over the member’s career. $ in thousands

Cost of Providing Benefits – An Alternative View (cont’d) 7 Illustration Impact if the Fund only Earns 6.0% on Investments Employers assume all the risk and must fund investment shortfalls. Example for a member retiring at age 63 with 28 years of service. Investment losses are assumed to be orderly funded over the employee’s lifetime. $ in thousands

8  Provide an adequate level of benefits so members may retire at an appropriate age  Costs are appropriately shared by the employer and member  Risks are appropriately shared between the employer and member  Self-correcting mechanisms can substantially increase the plan’s ability to withstand adverse experience Suggested Guiding Principals

9  Provide an adequate level of benefits so members my retire at an appropriate age  Financial planners often recommend a replacement ratio of 70% to 90% of preretirement income ► Ratio could vary depending on family needs  Members retiring after 28 years receive approximately 80% to 90% in preretirement income (without reflecting personal savings) ► 50% from SCRS ► 30% to 40% from Social Security Benefit Adequacy

10  The participating employers in SCRS currently assume all the investment and demographic risk  There is political pressure to provide ad hoc COLAs when there is sufficient margin in contribution rates ► Leaves no margin in the contribution rates to manage adverse experience.  The State Statutes provide some self-correcting mechanism if the investment return assumption is reduced below 8.00% and a portion of the automatic COLA is “undone” Cost / Risk Sharing

11  Following are four strawman design alternatives that are each fundamentally different in structure  The guiding principles were considered when developing each of the alternative structures ► Benefit adequacy ► Cost sharing between employee and employer ► Risk sharing between employee and employer  Other Considerations ► It may also be possible to provide future benefits in a new program for current employees 1 ► Transitional cost to maintain funding to SCRS ► Modifications to the EIP to maintain appropriate alignment in the retiree health program Strawman Design Alternatives 1 This is not a legal opinion. South Carolina will need to seek legal counsel to obtain an opinion regarding the implications of changes in benefits for current employees.

12 Characteristics of Alternative Benefit Structures MemberEmployer What is the Appropriate Balance for Sharing the Risk? Cash Balance Hybrid Plan (DB and DC) Defined Contribution (State ORP) Traditional Defined Benefit (SCRS)

13 Characteristics of Alternative Benefit Structures (cont’d) Benefit Feature Defined Contribution (State ORP) Cash Balance Hybrid Plan (DB & DC) Traditional Defined Benefit (SCRS) Cost Variability Predictable and stable Uncertain, can be partially managed with plan design DB cost is uncertain but smaller in magnitude Uncertain and can escalate Investment Risk/Reward Employee Can vary with plan design Shared by employee and the employer Employer Target Retirement Age Uncertain, dependent on investment performance Difficult to design to target a retirement age DB portion has a defined retirement age Defined normal retirement age Payment Form Lump Sum Lump sum / Monthly Annuity Lump sum / Monthly annuity Monthly annuity

14  A defined contribution (DC) plan provides a fixed contribution to an individual account and the member is responsible for the investment earning and the utilization of those for funds for retirement  Implications ► The employers cost are fixed and certain and there is no unfunded liability that will ever require financing ► The ultimate benefit provided by those contributions are uncertain and will depend on the investment performance ► Member is responsible for decisions to ensure those resources are sufficient for his/her retirement needs ► Uncertainty in retirement security can create workforce management challenges ► Disability benefits would need to be provided through another program Structure Alternative 1 – Defined Contribution Plan

15  A defined benefit plan that looks like a defined contribution plan ► Employees are communicated a notional account that receives pay and interest credits each year ► The SCRS IC would remain in control of the assets ► Primarily communicated as an account balance; however monthly annuity options will be provided to the member upon retirement  Implications ► Employees have increased certainty of interest credit on balance; not exposed to short-term investment volatility ► Designing a plan to provided variable interest credits provides a risk sharing mechanism between the employee and employer ► Less influence on the timing of an employee’s retirement than a the current plan (i.e. there is no 28 & out in a cash balance plan) Structure Alternative 2 – Cash Balance Plan

16  A hybrid retirement program plan provides a smaller a DB and DC benefit such that both benefits combined provide adequate retirement resources  Implications ► The DB benefit provides a minimal guaranteed monthly benefit ► The benefit combination reduces the cost risk for the employers ► Investment and longevity risks are shared between the employee and employer ► Many members may appreciate the access to their retirement resources as a monthly annuity and an account balance Structure Alternative 3 – Hybrid Plan (DB & DC)

17  Other hybrid type designs may also be viable for South Carolina ► A “stacked” hybrid plan provides a DB benefit up to a given earnings threshold (e.g. $40,000) and a DC benefit for earnings in excess of the threshold Lower wage earners receive a greater portion of their benefit in the DB plan Structure Alternative 3 – Hybrid Plan (DB & DC)

18  The State’s culture and political views may be that continued use of a traditional defined benefit plan is appropriate  Increasing cost pressures and the need to greatly improve financial security of the plan means significant changes are necessary ► Benefit adequacy can be maintained after the changes ► Prospective changes in benefits for current employees will have a significantly greater impact than enacting changes to new employees ► We would recommend future ad hoc COLAs be funded with stronger policies Immediate funding Very short amortization period Advanced funded based on a higher targeted COLAs Structure Alternative 4 – Reduced Defined Benefit

19  Several modifications have been analyzed in the last few years  Some of these changes include: ► Reduce the benefit multiplier ► Increase the normal and/or minimum retirement age ► Change in definition of final average compensation ► Increase in the member contribution rate ► Elimination of TERI and Return to Work Provisions ► Etc.  Enacting several of these changes in combination have the potential to significantly impact the cost and increase the likelihood the plan is sustainable in the long-term  Changes in the retiree health insurance provisions can influence employee behavior which will also reduce the cost of providing retirement income benefits in SCRS Structure Alternative 4 – Reduced Defined Benefit

20 Strawman Design Analysis

21  Illustrative Plan - State ORP ► Total 11.50% of pay contributed annually to the member’s account Members contribute 6.50% Employers contribute 5.00% ► Members continue to control on the account’s investments Structure Alternative 1 – DC Plan

22  Illustrative Plan ► Members receive pay credits equal to 12.0% of pay ► The notional accounts increase with interest equal to 75% of the fund’s actual investment performance, subject to a minimum interest credit of 2.0% and a maximum interest credit of 12.0% Example: If the fund returns 8.00% then the interest credit for the year will be 6.00% ► Members contribute 6.50% of pay ► The members notional account balance is converted to an life annuity at retirement Structure Alternative 2 – Cash Balance Plan

23  Illustrative Plan ► Defined Benefit Plan 1.00% multiplier 3-Year final average pay Removal of TERI and Return to Work Provisions 1% guaranteed COLA Defined benefit is mostly employer financed Normal retirement is the earlier of 28 years of service or age 65 Members contribute 2.50% to the DB plan ► Defined Contribution Plan DC component is entirely funded by mandatory member contributions at the rate of 4.00% of pay Members have control on the account’s investments Structure Alternative 3 – Hybrid Plan

24  Illustrative Plan ► Current SCRS Plan with the following changes: Member contribution rate increased to 7.50% of pay Normal retirement eligibility is the lesser of age 60 with 30 years of service or age 65 with 5 years of service Final average compensation is increased from a 3-year average to a 5-year average 1% guarantee COLA Eliminate the inclusion of unused annual and sick leave in the benefit calculation Elimination of the TERI program and significant changes the RTW provisions The cost of purchasing service is actuarial cost neutral Reduction for early retirement is 8.0% per year ► Benefit multiplier remains unchanged at 1.82% Structure Alternative 4 – Modified Defined Benefit

25  The following analysis compares projected retirement income to projected income immediately prior to retirement for a new member in SCRS ► Analysis includes income from Social Security and retirement benefits from the current and strawman design alternatives ► Retirement income does not include other sources of retirement income, such as personal savings or retirement benefits earned with previous employers  Certain assumptions must be made to project income and retirement benefits ► Projections are provided under alternative economic assumptions to quantify the sensitivity of certain assumptions in the comparison analysis Principal Assumptions

26  Principal Assumptions for all scenarios ► Example is for a member earning $60,000 a year at the time of retirement. Historical compensation increases are based on historical patterns of compensation increases for State employees. ► Retirement balances from defined contribution accounts are converted to an annuity with a 1% guaranteed COLA based on current market annuity rates.  Scenario specific assumptions ► Medium Assumption: 7.00% investment return on DC benefits ► Low Assumption: 5.00% investment return on DC benefits ► High Assumption: 9.00% investment return on DC benefits Principal Assumptions (cont’d)

27 Retirement Benefits – Age 35 Hire (Average Hire Age) Member Retires at Age 63 with 28 Years of Service Note: Replacement ratios shown above do not reflect retirement benefits the member earned prior to becoming a member of SCRS at age 35.

28 Retirement Benefits – Age 35 Hire (Average Hire Age) Member Retires at Age 67 with 32 Years of Service Note: Replacement ratios shown above do not reflect retirement benefits the member earned prior to becoming a member of SCRS at age 35.

29 Retirement Benefits – Age 25 Hire (10-Years Younger than Avg.) Member Retires at Age 62 with 37 Years of Service Note: Replacement ratios represent retirement income earned over a 37 year working career with an employer of SCRS.

30 Retirement Benefits – Age 45 Hire (10-Years Older than Avg.) Member Retires at Age 65 with 20 Years of Service Note: Replacement ratios shown above do not reflect retirement benefits the member earned prior to becoming a member of SCRS at age 45.

31 Cost Impact Analysis (As a percentage of Payroll) Current Plan Alt #1 DC Plan Alt #2 Cash Balance Alt #3 Hybrid Plan Alt #4 Modified Plan Total Normal Cost10.8%11.5% 8.3% 9.2% 9.1% Member Cost -6.5% -7.5% Employer Cost 4.3% 5.0%1.8% 2.7% 1.6% Investment ReturnCurrent Plan Alt #1 DC Plan Alt #2 Cash Balance Alt #3 Hybrid Plan Alt #4 Modified Plan 6.50% (-1.00%)6.9%5.0%2.9%4.0%3.9% 7.50%4.3%5.0%1.8%2.7%1.6% 8.50% (+1.00%)2.3%5.0%0.8%1.7%0.0% Normal Cost for a Newly Hired Employees -Costs and contribution rates shown above include the cost of a defined contribution plan under Alt #1 and #3. -Please see the following slide for regarding the assumptions and methods. -Projected costs are based on GRS’s recommended assumptions documented in the September 2011 experience study report. -All costs are based on asset and census information as of July 1, Employer Normal Cost Sensitivity to Investment Performance

32  Identify a preferred benefit structure ► Refine the benefit structure to meet the Employers’ needs  Determine if the new structure will be applied to current employees ► Current employee group could be determined by age, service, or years from being eligible for a retirement benefit ► Verify that benefit adequacy is maintained for current employees that will be moved to the current benefit structure ► Research potential legal issues  Changing future benefits for current employees will have an immediate impact on the plan’s cost and future risk Next Steps / Transition

33  Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to regulations issued by the IRS, to the extent this presentation concerns tax matters, it is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed within. Each taxpayer should seek advice based on the individual’s circumstances from an independent tax advisor.  The strawman design alternatives are presented to provide a framework of different retirement benefit structures. We recommend obtaining a legal opinion to determine feasibility before enacting any changes that impact current members of SCRS  This presentation shall not be construed to provide tax advice, legal advice or investment advice. Disclaimer