Opinion
Stock market soars — and so do public pension costs
The way our government accounts for public employee pension promises is nothing short of fraud, yet no public official has gone to jail or paid a price for what surely ranks among the largest muggings of citizens in US history. Let me explain.
As the stock market reaches record levels, little is heard anymore from public officials who used to blame market declines for rising pension costs. A few years ago, the CEO of the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) attributed his pension fund’s deficit to the 2008-09 market decline. Yet despite a stock market that now stands 2.5 times above its 2009 low, CalSTRS’s shortfall is so large that to help address the deficit, California recently enacted legislation that will divert at least $170 billion from classrooms over the next 30 years. That means current and future schoolchildren are paying off past pension promises.
Why do pension costs climb even when markets rise? The answer is captured by an aphorism: “Live by the sword, die by the sword.”
Despite the bull market, the state’s other big pension fund, the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS), recently imposed a 50% increase in pension costs on local and state governments, and there will be more. The diversion of government revenues to pension costs explains in part why, despite record revenues higher than before the Great Recession, state spending on social services, courts, parks, universities and other programs is lower.
Why do pension costs climb even when markets rise? The answer is captured by an aphorism: “Live by the sword, die by the sword.” The sword in this case is financial accounting for public pension plans. Believe it or not, US public pension fund officials get to choose how to account for public pension promises. They could choose an honest path but not surprisingly, California officials select an approach that – initially – artificially suppresses the reported size of liabilities created by pension promises. That allows them to claim that the future costs created by the promises will be smaller than they really will be. But eventually that choice cuts the other way. In fact, the more that liabilities were suppressed by aggressive accounting in the past, the greater the rebound effect in the future. The truth can no longer be hidden and public pension liabilities gallop at a fast pace. At that point not even a bull market can keep up.
One of the most expensive examples of that behavior took place in 1999 when California’s leaders gave a massive pension boost to government employees. Though that act amounted to the single greatest issuance of debt in state history, public officials chose an accounting method that supported a claim that the retroactive increases wouldn’t “cost a dime.” They were right. Instead, the boost cost 800 billion dimes, and counting. Worse, those dimes are being extracted from schoolchildren, college students, young teachers, welfare recipients, park users, fee-payers, taxpayers and other Californians who are paying more but getting less. To add insult to injury, citizens weren’t even given the choice of approving the pension boost. That’s because, unlike general obligation bonds that require voter approval, under current law politicians can make retirement promises without voter consent. Obscured by shady accounting, protected from voter review, and fueled by political contributions from interested parties, that’s how hundreds of billions of dollars of pension costs get loaded on to innocent citizens without their knowledge or consent. Only now are the full costs starting to show up. When that happens, citizens get angry with the public employees who receive the pensions. But those recipients did nothing wrong. They are not responsible for accounting choices by pension fund board members and officials.
The dollars diverted from services and the taxes raised on taxpayers to pay off the 1999 pension boost will never be recovered. At least AIG paid back its 2008 bailout. But there’ll be no payback from this theft. Worse, California officials are still choosing accounting methods that hide the true cost of new pension promises. That means more theft is taking place every day.
Our public officials have a choice. They don’t have to obscure financial truths. They should choose to protect innocent citizens. If they don’t, they should pay a price.
—
Ed’s Note: David Crane is a lecturer and research scholar at Stanford University and president of Govern For California.
Want to see more stories like this? Sign up for The Roundup, the free daily newsletter about California politics from the editors of Capitol Weekly. Stay up to date on the news you need to know.
Sign up below, then look for a confirmation email in your inbox.
Elected Officials can always choose to be more transparent than what is required, regarding their finances and obligations, that is what ethical people do.
On the other hand, if you have been approving costs you can’t afford, the last thing you are going to do as an elected official, is inform the voting public what you agreed to on their behalf that was not affordable.
The financial malfeasance on behalf of the political class in California, is criminal and yet no one will go to jail and there are no legal liabilities for public officials who make irresponsible financial decisions, you can remove them at the ballot box, but the financial carnage remains intact.
As wise man once said, instead of waiting for the perfect candidate to run, create a system where the wrong people are forced to do the right thing.
The unfunded pension & heath-care costs for public sector workers, demand that the system has to change; California politicians have proven that they can’t be trusted to make responsible financial decisions on behalf of the public they represent.
Public employee unions provide politicians with votes and millions of dollars in campaign contributions in exchange for wage increases and benefits that the rest of us in the private sector can only dream of but must pay for nonetheless. This debacle is precisely why public employee unions are a horrible idea.
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics.” More bogus information from David Crane. But he can’t deny this fact: CalSTRS and CalPERS had made up all the recession losses caused by Crane and his Wall Street cronies. And his information about the state budget is completely false. Not surprising, of course, given his anti-labor agenda and his presiding over the loss of hundreds of thousands of CA jobs as Schwarzenegger’s “jobs czar.” What a disaster.
Do you actually think anyone with a brain believes your union hack propaganda?
We get it – you’re paid to make stuff up. We have no doubt you’re one of of the clowns that just a couple of years ago was blaming the pension shortfall on “wall street.”
It’s a small miracle you didn’t accuse Mr. Crane of “attacking firefighters, nurses and teachers.” blah blah blah
Classy comment, as usual.
Do you actually think anyone with a brain believes your union hack propaganda?
==
Only one person believes Steven Maviglio’s comments; Steven Maviglio!
If your entitled kids want to go to UCLA I assume you won’t mind UC’s $15,000 a year tuition. UC has very big pension bills, too.
$15k a year is still an exceptional deal. In any private institution of similar caliber to the UC system, your tuition would be far closer to $60k per year.
More bogus information from David Crane
==
LOL…this coming from a paid public union mouthpiece. Steven, how much are you PAID to be a mouthpiece? Is it by 1) the word, 2) the # of comments or 3) the content of your fraudulent “bogus information”? Until you disclose the $$$$$$$$ you get paid yo be a mouthpiece your comments are worth as much as your “bogus information”. Zero. Nada. Nothing.
I don’t trust David Crane. This is one of many articles he has written in the last half dozen years which creates much more heat than light.
I also don’t trust Steven “thou dost protest too much” Maviglio.
Crane:
“As the stock market reaches record levels, little is heard anymore from public officials who used to blame market declines for rising pension costs.”
Yes, the market is reaching record levels, and yes, CalPERS is still increasing required contributions to compensate for market losses. As anyone with a 401(k) or an IRA might have noticed, a 50% market loss requires a 100% gain to return to the original amount.
Maviglio:
“fact: CalSTRS and CalPERS had made up all the recession losses caused by Crane and his Wall Street cronies.”
Well, not really. They may arguably have “made up losses”, but they have not made up the returns that would normally have been earned on those losses.
Por exemplo, if my $100,000 IRA in 2008 fell to a value of $50,000, and gradually climbed back up to $100,000 by 2015, have I “made up my losses”? I think not. I have my original amount back but, assuming a 7% annual return, that original $100k …..should be…. over $150k by now. So yes, CalPERS and CalSTRS are still requiring increased contributions to recoup those losses.
There’s another aphorism for M. Crane: “When you’re in over your head, stop digging.”
He doesn’t mention any of the changes in the last five years to control pension costs. Employees now are contributing much more toward pensions. In our bargaining unit, employees originally contributed 5% of salary. Now it is 10%. The 1999 formula increases he mentions have all been returned to pre 1999 values, for new employees. A cap has been placed on pensionable income equal to the cap on Social Security income (for new employees)…. No more $200,000 pensions.
And, for M. Maviglio, it is much to simplistic to blame ALL the recession losses on “Wall Street Cronies”.
To paraphrase M. Crane: To add insult to injury, citizens weren’t even given the choice of approving the pension …..cuts. Dozens of city, county, and state MOUs have controlled or reduced wages and reduced pensions for new employees.
Yes, it’s a lot of money. Is it “fair”? There have been several major studies comparing public and private sector pay in the period from about 2008 to 2012. Three of these studies show that the average compensation of public workers is equal to or less than private sector compensation. These studies, in addition to wages, INCLUDE the cost pensions, healthcare, and paid time off. The one study from the American Enterprise Institute says that when “properly accounting” for pension and healthcare costs, state workers earn on average 23% more than the private sector.
All these studies were done before the 2012 PEPRA changes, and they all agree that, in wages alone, state workers earn less than the private sector. An average of 12% less.
In the public v private comparisons, unfunded pension and medical benefits are not added as part of the public employee’s compensation. Yet the public employee’s benefits are dependent on those deficits, which are paid by taxpayers by way of new fees, but also by rapidly declining services. The young suffer the most. While the market has made a good come-back, pension liability has also exploded. . Taxpayer’s pay the salary increases that provide the greater employee contributions.Like all bubbles, it is a musical chairs scene. It will end badly for the younger employees when it ends. PEPRA was and is a fraud. Why? Because it does not regulate salaries.
Does that mean you’re in support of state level controls on all public salaries?
Yes, for pension purposes. 2% a year for the pupose of calculating pensions seems reasonable. Pension reform without closing the salary loop-hole is no reform at all.
So you don’t want to actually count all of an individual’s salary for pension purposes? Interesting.
Retiree medical (unfunded) is included, though there are disagreements about the assumptions. The major studies that include it calculate the value at the risk free rate.
POBs, etc. are not and should not be included. The biggest point of contention here is the discount rate. AEI uses risk free rate and Boston College use 6 point something percent.
I also don’t trust Steven “thou dost protest too much” Maviglio.
==
Jesus Maviglio, if Dougie is finding fault with you, then you KNOW you have lost all credibility.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-calpers-finances-20150114-story.html
18% return is fantastic. Especially since my pension is riding on it. But it is irrelevant to this discussion. CalPERS at this point in time has not recouped all the losses from the Great Recession. And until it does, it will continue to require extra contributions from gov employers in addition to the ARC.
Actually, it has. Please review the facts from CalPERS.
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/about/facts/facts-at-a-glance.pdf
Facts!!!!!! Hahahha…CalTURDS “Facts” are almost as “factual” as your paid comments. Of course the best “fact” CalTURDS ever posted was that SB400 “would not cost taxpayers a dime”, care to address that “fact” Stevie???
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7w9In9khv39UHFIRk92NWI2TGM/edit?pli=1
Facts!!!!!! Steve, you missed your calling, in STAND UP, you’re not a very good mouthpiece.
Actually no it has not, it is still short $148 BILLION, and CalPERS does not publish “facts” they publish fraud, propaganda and talking points, sort of like their SB400 “facts”…err…frauds;
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7w9In9khv39UHFIRk92NWI2TGM/edit?pli=1
We call it compounding math, and when the fund is built on a 7.5% (or higher) discount rate it is on ALL the funds, so when the funds lose 35%, as in 2008, the ROI on 65% is 35% less than what it should been, that year and every year after. Dougie- we rarely agree, but this time I applaud you for your math. Now, if we could only get you to understand that SB400 was a 50% increase from 2%@55, and 5 years younger.
Nice spin Steve, since it is anecdotal may I add my link in; Calpers To Report Losses of 103% on its Residential Investments
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/12/calpers-to-report-losses-of-103-on-its.html#pAxMilQJf88rsavU.99
This is well reported. Public pension funds in many states and localities are deeply underwater prompting bankruptcies in Detroit, Stockton and San Bernardino among others, while driving the debt ratings of Chicago and the Chicago Board of Ed to junk bond status. The problem originated with concessions to union salary and benefit demands during the period leading up to the financial crisis, where local government revenues from property and sales taxes were growing in line with the housing bubble and surge in consumer spending. With those markets now flatlining, the benefit payments continue to grow putting great pressure on local government budgets.
I can understand how union officials and public sector employees might want to protect their benefits, but to argue that the crisis does not exist is indefensible. More here: http://chumbucketlive.blogspot.com/2015/05/san-bernardino-circles-drain.html