RETIREES SUE CITY OVER HEALTH CARE:
IAccording to the Akron Beacon Journal, the city’s
police and firefighter retirees have filed suit, claiming the city has
backed out on the promise of free, lifetime health care. The suit, which
requests certification as a class action, seeks an order that the city
begin paying the retirees’ health care premiums and reimbursement
thereof for the last ten years. Apparently, the City of Akron did pass
an ordinance in 1963 that promises lifelong health care for retiring police
officers, firefighters and their families. Instead, retirees are being
forced to pay monthly premiums as high as $500.00. Of course, the city
disagrees with the retirees’ position. Stay tuned.
STARTS SERIES ON “MISBEHAVING IN PUBLIC”:
Plansponsor.com has begun the first of a two-part series. Public pension
funds have been a “target-rich” environment for unscrupulous
individuals. Will greater public scrutiny be enough to stop cronyism?
The article recounts the cases of Connecticut State Treasurer (and
sole fiduciary) Paul Silvester, who had demanded and received kickbacks
from private equity firms doing business with the state fund and of
Miriam Santos, Chicago City Treasurer, who was convicted of extortion
and fraud in connection with solicitation of campaign contributions
from firms doing business with the city. The Santos and Silvester cases
prompted the SEC to study pay-to-play practices in 17 states. As a
result, the SEC drafted a stringent new rule that would have barred
investment managers from receiving any compensation from managing money
for two years after the firm made a campaign contribution to an elected
official or candidate who could have influenced the money manager’s
selection. Not unexpectedly, the SEC received many negative comments
both from officials of large public funds and from investment firms.
And after SEC Chairman Arthur Leavitt left office, the momentum for
a rule evaporated. Then there is the example of Nathan Chapman, an
investment manager who ran money for the state retirement and pension
systems in Maryland. Chapman allowed one of his submanagers to buy
stock in Chapman’s own company, resulting in a $4 Million loss
to the state pension fund. At the same time Chapman was indicted for
the illegal investments, a trustee was indicted for failing to reveal
to a grand jury that Chapman had given her $46,000.00 in money and
gifts while they were personally involved. Pay-to-play posts a threat
to the investment process, because it opens up the possibility that
the most qualified advisor may not be selected, leading to inferior
management, diminished returns or even losses. The pension plan may
pay higher fees because advisors must recoup the cost of contributions
or because contract negotiations may not occur at arms’-length.
Pay-to-play also may mean that board members are not always inclined
to do the right thing when a manager is underperforming.
A CALL TO ACTION FOR THE SEC:
Speaking of pay-to-play, in its February 2004 Current Alert the Benchmark Companies
calls upon the SEC to scrutinize pension consultants. The commentary recognizes
that the economics of pension consulting will be radically altered by the elimination
of pay-to-play practices. Stated, disclosed fees will rise, as kick-back schemes
are exposed and pension plans will benefit as consultant objectivity is enhanced.
Today, pension consulting fees are artificially low, as a result of the willingness
of consultants subject to conflicts of interest to offer their services for free
or without a stated fee, in exchange for the opportunity to serve as “gatekeeper” to
a fund. Fees derived from advising plan sponsors are inconsequential -- the exponentially
greater surreptitious compensation available to unscrupulous firms is the prize.
The SEC’s Office of Compliance and Inspections has recently asked some
of the leading consulting firms to provide information about the consulting services
they offer and the revenues related to those services. The goal is to identify
and quantify conflicts of interest that may be harmful to pension plans. If the
SEC’s inquiry into pension consulting pay-to-play schemes results in meaningful
disclosure of conflicts of interest, quantification of conflicting sources of
revenue and a demand by pension plans to end such abuses, then firms may be forced
honestly to price the consulting services they provide. Why should pension plans
care that consultants earn millions in secret compensation from managers, if
that results in pensions paying lower stated consulting fees? The answer is because
the cost of a corrupt consultant ultimately is borne by the plan and can be enormous
-- far greater than even the undisclosed compensation earned by the consultant.
The consultant keeps the kick-backs paid by the manager for allowing the manager
to handle pension assets but the fund takes all the risk. When managers are selected,
not on the merits but based upon pay-to-play, underperformance ensues and it
is the fund that suffers. The SEC’s current inquiry into pension consulting
should be a call to action to all pension plans. The SEC is really saying that
it has serious concerns about consulting conflicts and resulting harm to funds.
Pension plans, the potential victims, should be asking for the very same information
their consultants have been asked to provide to the SEC.
PENSION ASSET/LIABILITY GAP WIDENS:
According to a short piece from plansponsor.com, pension plans’ assets
had a somewhat impressive 1.42% gain in January. However, a 2.14% liability increase
lead to a -.72% asset/liability gap. Further data from Ryan Labs indicate that
2003 ended up significantly positive, with a 20.04% asset growth compared to
a mere 1.96% liability increase. The gap numbers are -30.89% for 2002 and -8.48%
for 2001. Cumulative asset/liability data since December 1999 show a -46.95%,
suggesting that most pension funds will have funding ratios below 70%. Ryan’s
data are based on roughly $200 Billion in assets tracked by its Custom Liability
NCPERS WEIGHS IN AGAINST THE PRESIDENT’S RETIREMENT PROPOSALS:
The Administration’s retirement savings proposals -- including Lifetime
Savings Accounts (LSAs), Retirement Savings Accounts (RSAs) and Employer Retirement
Savings Accounts (ERSAs) -- would hurt public employee retirement systems and
a long history of providing guaranteed benefits to retirees with unique needs
and characteristics, so says NCPERS. Concluding that nothing in the Administration’s
proposal will increase savings for retirement, NCPERS found that the net effect
of LSAs would be to siphon off the limited amount of available money that would
otherwise go toward retirement savings. The Administration’s retirement
proposals would cause confusion, discourage savings and ultimately undermine
financially sound government pension plans. Public pension plans are created
by constitutional and statutory law, and are managed by qualified trustees with
fiduciary responsibilities. Prudent, long-term investments have produced returns
where 75% of lifetime pension benefits come from plan investments ($1.7 Trillion
over the past twenty years!), with remainder from individual and employer contributions.
Due to their size, government pension funds negotiate lower fees and take advantage
of economies of scale. Unlike individual investors, public plans have the ability
to wield purchasing power to obtain lower fees and distribute the cost over a
large number of participants. More than 97% of public employees are covered under
government pension plans. Most employees have a defined benefit plan that provides
guaranteed benefits, disability and survivor benefits, with a defined contribution
add-on to enable these employees to save more toward their retirement. Employee
participation in the private sector is far less.
PARDONED FELON WHO RECEIVED REFUND OF PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS NOT
ENTITLED TO BENEFITS:
Yasak was convicted of a federal felony. His request for pension benefits
was denied based upon the Illinois Forfeiture Statute. Yasak then applied for
and received a refund of his pension contributions. Many years later Yasak received
a full and unconditional pardon from then-President Clinton. Yasak thereupon
asked the pension board to restore his pension benefits (prospectively and retroactively),
offering to repay the amount necessary for reinstatement. Upon denial by the
board, Yasak sought a declaratory judgment in federal court. The U.S. District
judge agreed that the pension board had no duty to reinstate benefits, and dismissed
the case. On appeal, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Although there
was a lengthy discussion on the nature of a pardon -- an act of grace by which
an offender is released from the consequences of his offense -- the court’s
affirmance came down to the simple fact that Yasak voluntarily applied for and
accepted a refund of his contributions. Despite Yasak’s claim to the contrary,
the board did not force him to accept a refund of his pension contributions.
Yasak himself filled out an application and requested a refund. According to
Illinois law, a policeman who withdraws the amount credited to him surrenders
and forfeits all rights to any annuity or other benefit from the fund, for himself
and for any other person or persons who might otherwise have benefitted through
him. Rather than claiming his refund, Yasak could have waited out the pardon
process and thus retained his property interest. No law required him to seek
a refund within a certain time frame. The dissent makes a cogent argument that
the pension board exacted a penalty because Yasak was a convicted felon. Now
that this status had been removed by order of the President, the dissenter felt
that there was no basis for the board to render ineffective the Presidential
Order by continuing to exact the penalty for commission of the pardoned crime.
Yasak v. Retirement Board of Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago,
Case No. 03-1733 (U.S. 7th Cir., February 4, 2004).
7. THE LATEST ON
The February 2004 Public Sector Letter from The Segal Company focuses
on the most current DROP designs. Entitled “DROP Update: The Latest Variations
on a Popular Theme,” the piece first gives an overview of traditional deferred
retirement option plans. Then, the letter turns to the latest innovations in
DROP design, including
Immediate DROP or partial lump-sum option payouts (PLOP) -- no prior
election to participate is necessary; at time of retirement, participant
may choose a percentage reduction in his monthly benefit amount and
a partial lump-sum amount.
Retroactive DROP (Back DROP) -- similar to a PLOP, in that the employee
continues working and is not required to elect DROP until actual retirement;
however, unlike PLOP, lump sum is an accumulation of monthly benefits
that would have been paid and not the actuarial equivalent thereof.
DROP with optional features -- for example, a decreasing DROP period;
a reduction in DROP participation for every year worked beyond eligibility
for DROP (in our experience, quite prevalent in Florida).
The analysis also discusses advantages/disadvantages for employers
(to influence employee behavior/adverse selection) and employees (flexibility/less
valuable benefit). Finally, Segal treats the following policy issues:
Would a DROP support benefit and workforce objectives?
Would a DROP be consistent with or contradictory to other benefit
How will the plan monitor future amendments and their impact on the
What retirement benefits are realistic?
All in all, a terrific primer on deferred retirement option plans.
WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF CASH BALANCE PLAN:
Plansponsor.com has reported on the Financial Accounting Standards
Board’s adoption of a new definition of cash-balance pension plan.
After formal review of rules pertaining to such plans, FASB concludes
that a cash-balance pension plan is a defined-benefit pension plan that
defines the promised employee benefit by reference to a notional account
balance. An employee’s notional account balance is increased with
periodic notional principal credits and notional fixed or variable interest
or investment credits, and may be increased for other notional ad hoc
credits. Despite IRS’s decision in 1999 to stop approving new cash-balance
plans and a court ruling that IBM’s discriminated against older
workers, companies continue to adopt cash-balance plans.
IT MAY HAVE BEEN ONLY A TWO-DOG NIGHT:
The following piece is from Court TV. Do dogs make good drinking
pals? Well, Glenda Jane Davis and her cocker spaniel were both nabbed
for public intoxication after she apparently shared some hooch with her
pooch. The police department received a call from a downtown restaurant
about a woman with a small dog. The woman appeared to be intoxicated
and was cursing. She left the restaurant with the dog, but was nabbed
by police nearby. She was arrested, while her dog was taken to a local
animal shelter. Upon arrival at the shelter, the cocker reportedly was
wobbly and had bloodshot eyes. And as with humans, the dog was given
an aspirin, quickly pepped up and became friendly again. The woman pleaded
guilty to public intoxication. The dog pleaded not guilty, and is attempting
to negotiate an acceptable flea bargain -- just kidding.