U.S. Public Pension System Faces Many Hurdles

A new survey report from S&P Global Ratings examining the pension plans of the 15 largest U.S. cities “reveals some common trends and key factors related to net pension liability per capita and funded ratios.”

The title of a new survey report from S&P Global Ratings offers a clear direct warning to readers, and it summarizes nicely the extensive findings: “Pension Pressures Will Weigh On 15 Largest U.S. Cities’ Budgets.”

The analysis suggests right off the bat that making such an assessment is no small task: “U.S. cities have varying legal, governance and benefit structures and operate in different legal and economic environments, so there’s no one-size-fits-all measure for assessing their pension risk.” Still, researchers observe there are some broad similarities that can offer an insight into how cities are doing on a relative basis with the complex and difficult job of managing a legacy pension plan for large groups of municipal workers.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

“Regardless of structure, most municipal pension plans experienced the market downturn in 2008-2009 and have not been able to recover to funded levels seen in the early 2000s,” researchers note. “Weak market returns in 2015 and 2016 have not made that recovery any easier.”

The analysis shows many plans across the country are lowering assumed long-term rates of return in light of global economic headwinds, which further contributes to declining funded ratios and puts a strain on cities’ credit ratings.

At a high level the pension systems examined have a median net pension liability per capita which exceeds median debt per capita. They also have “high fixed costs” pegged to the pension and other post-employment benefits, and debt service expenditures are in excess of 20% of expenditures. Other findings show funded ratios for the largest city plans declined between fiscal 2014 and fiscal 2015, bringing the median weighted funded pension ratio aggregated across the plans to 70%. Chicago is a major outlier, at only 23% funded.

“Despite the increasing costs, many of these largest cities benefit from relatively deep and diverse economic bases,” researchers explain. “Furthermore, some cities are experiencing revenue growth or have the capacity to raise revenue, as we have seen with a recent property tax increase in Phoenix to offset rising pension contributions or the dedication of a half-cent sales tax to shore up underfunded pension plans in Jacksonville. This revenue flexibility helps to offset the impact of higher pension liabilities.”

NEXT: Practical solutions and big thinking are both needed 

The report observes that the state “sometimes plays a critical role in determining the level of autonomy local governments can exercise in adjusting benefit management and reforming their own plans.” In states where this is the case it obviously adds yet another layer of complexity to the pension management effort.

“More broadly, as states continue to deal with fixed-cost increases that outpace revenue growth, we believe there is potential for some states to shift more of the cost onto local governments in the future,” the survey report warns. “These cost shifts could occur due to the withdrawal of traditional state support for cost-sharing plan contributions on behalf of local governments … or as state plans change actuarial assumptions that could increase required contributions for local participants.”

One of the broad conclusions drawn by researchers is that “pension, other post-employment benefits, and debt service spending is crowding out discretionary spending.” It is a particularly acute problem for some cities, notably, Chicago, Jacksonville, and San Jose, which all have a carrying charge in excess of 30%.

“As we expect these costs to increase in the near term, we likewise expect there will be additional pressures on city budgets,” researchers warn. “Identification of revenue sources to support pension costs, such as seen in Jacksonville, Philadelphia, and Phoenix, could be an option in supporting these higher costs. On the other hand, in cases where fixed costs approach a very high proportion of budget to materially reduce fiscal flexibility, local governments that lack forward-looking policies and budgetary planning to address these challenges could see their credit ratings adjusted downward.”

Information on obtaining the full analysis, which includes a detailed review of 15 U.S. cities’ pension programs, is available here

Guaranteed Income—Theoretically—a Popular Choice

Nonetheless, few people know where to find it, and many say their adviser doesn't bring it up.

Sixty-one percent of Americans between the ages of 55 and 75 believe having guaranteed income to supplement Social Security is a smart and sound benefit, Greenwald & Associates and CANNEX found in a survey of 1,105 people. Sixty-one percent believe it is incumbent on advisers to discuss guaranteed income products with them, and a great deal more, 90%, think their adviser should help them devise a retirement income strategy.

In addition, 81% of those over the age of 50 think it is important to protect their portfolio against significant investment losses. However, only 33% are highly familiar with annuities, and even fewer are familiar with annuities that guarantee income for life.

Even among those who own an annuity, only 53% say they are knowledgeable about the product’s features.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

Asked why they would want guaranteed income, respondents said it provides extra protection should they live to a ripe old age (35%), peace of mind (31%), the ability to budget with confidence (29%), maintaining a comfortable lifestyle (27%) and receiving a higher payout than what savings accounts and certificates of deposit (CDs) are currently paying in this low interest rate environment (24%).

Asked why they may not purchase a guaranteed income product, 25% said they have too many terms and conditions, 23% said they cost too much, 22% said they do not always pay back all of the money they cost to purchase, 21% said they are difficult to understand, and 19% said they tie up your money.

But people do not know what a monthly income payout from an annuity would cost; asked how much they would be willing to pay to receive $1,000 a month for life, 66% could not even hazard a guess.

Asked about withdrawal strategies, only 30% said they were pretty confident they knew what would be a good tactic.

«