States Pension Gaps Exceed $1.25 trillion

By: Lisa Lambert
April 26, 2011

(Reuters) - States are short $1.26 trillion in paying for public employee pensions and other retirement benefits, a gap that grew 26 percent in one year and will take many more years to wipe out, according to a report released on Tuesday.

A total of 31 states had pensions that were underfunded in fiscal 2009, the latest year for which data is available, up from 22 states a year earlier, the Pew Center on the States reported.

The financial crisis in 2008 crushed many pension funds' investments, just as historic budget woes forced governments to cut contributions to those funds.

The combination "made a serious problem even worse," said Susan Urahn, the Pew Center's managing director.

In fiscal 2009, which for most states began in July 2008, states were short $660 billion for future pension payments and $604 billion for other retiree benefits, namely healthcare.

Growing unfunded pension liabilities on top of still daunting state budget gaps are a top concern of Wall Street rating agencies and investors in the $2.9 trillion municipal bond market. Most states are legally bound to pay retirees benefits, and they must make up for any investment loss from their already depleted treasuries or by borrowing.

Pensions are deemed "underfunded" when they are unable to pay at least 80 percent of liabilities.

Preliminary data for fiscal 2010 shows that pension funding levels of 10 states deteriorated further, while just three registered increases, Pew found.

"Overall, these results suggest that while states benefited from better returns in fiscal year 2010, the legacy of the financial crisis ... will remain an issue for years to come," Pew said in the report.

Last year, Pew found states were short $1 trillion in fiscal 2008 on promises to retirees, using data that came from before the financial crisis.

States typically assume an 8 percent annual return and their pension plans suffered a median 19.1 percent drop in their assets' market value in fiscal 2009, Pew said. One critic said the lagging data does not reflect the improvement in current conditions.

"Given where we are in time now, talking about 2009 numbers just isn't useful. The world has changed in the last 18 months," said Hank Kim, executive director of the National Conference of Public Employee Retirement Systems. "The market has come roaring back."

On Monday, Kim's group released a survey of 216 public pension funds showing the average return over the last year was 13.5 percent.

Illinois consistently has had the lowest pension funding level among states, one that worsened to 51 percent in fiscal 2009 from 54 percent in fiscal 2008, according to the Pew report. In fiscal 2010 and 2011, the state sold $7.16 billion of taxable bonds to raise money for its annual pension payments.

A year ago, Governor Pat Quinn signed into law a pension reform measure reducing benefits for new state workers, which he said would save more than $200 billion over nearly 35 years. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into "communications" by the state regarding potential savings or reduced contributions to pensions resulting from the law.

Five other states, including cash-strapped Rhode Island, have funding levels of less than 60 percent, according to Pew. Conversely, New York's pension is 101 percent funded, followed by Wisconsin at 100 percent and Washington at 99 percent.

States must increase their contributions when returns are low. From 2000, when the systems were well funded, to 2009 these payment requirements grew 152 percent, putting pressure on states to take dollars away from other spending areas.

Of late, Republicans in the U.S. Congress have pressed states to assume investment return rates closer to 4 percent, which they consider "riskless."

Using assumptions that private pension plans rely on, which are linked to returns on corporate bonds of about 5.22 percent, Pew found the pension shortfall for states could be as much as $1.8 trillion. By relying on a rate based on a 30-year Treasury bond, Pew found the states' shortfall could be $2.4 trillion.

(Additional reporting by Karen Pierog in Chicago. Graphic by Stephen Culp; editing by Leslie Adler)

Bernanke doing his best to make our seniors the forgotten generation

"Americans who have done everything right,

have worked hard, saved their money

and stayed out of debt are the ones

being punished by low interest rates..."

Richard Fisher-Pres. Federal Reserve

Bank of Dallas

The Wall Street Journal
By Mark Whitehouse
April 4, 2011

PORT CHARLOTTE, Fla.—Forrest Yeager, a 91-year-old resident of this seaside community, had been counting on his retirement savings to last until he died. The odds are moving against him.

With short-term bank CDs paying less than 1%, the World War II veteran expects his remaining $45,000 stash to yield just a few hundred dollars this year. So, he's digging deeper into his principal to supplement his $1,500 monthly income from Social Security and a small pension.

"It hurts," says Mr. Yeager, who estimates his bank savings will be depleted in about six years at his current rate of withdrawal. "I don't even want to think about it."

Mr. Yeager is among the legion of retirees who find themselves on the wrong end of the Federal Reserve's epic attempt to rescue the economy with cheap money.

A long spell of low interest rates has created a windfall worth billions to banks, mortgage borrowers and others it was designed to benefit. But for many people who were counting on their nest eggs, those same low rates can spell trouble.

Mr. Yeager's struggle highlights a nagging dilemma facing Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. The longer the central bank keeps interest rates low to stimulate the economy, the more money it pulls out of the pockets of millions of savers. Among the most vulnerable are retirees, who have few options to restore lost income on investments built up over entire lifetimes.

In 2009, according to the most recent data available from the Labor Department, average annual investment income for the 24.6 million American households headed by people 65 and older amounted to $2,564. That figure is down 34% from 2007, and is the lowest since 2003.

A recent survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute indicated that one in three retirees had dipped deeper than planned into their savings to pay for basic expenses in 2010.

Most economists agree that the Fed's interest-rate policies, together with other measures, have helped avert a much deeper economic slump. Still, the situation for savers has become progressively worse since the Fed first lowered its interest-rate target close to zero in late 2008.

As of January, the average interest rate paid on relatively safe vehicles such as short-term savings accounts, time deposits and money-market funds stood at only 0.24%. That's one-tenth the level of late 2007 and the lowest on records dating back to 1959. Such depressed rates don't come close to compensating for inflation, which was running at an annualized rate of 5.6% in the three months ended February.

"Americans who have done everything right, have worked hard, saved their money and stayed out of debt are the ones being punished by low interest rates," says Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and a voting member of the Fed's policy-making open market committee. "That state of affairs is not sustainable for a long period of time."

The pain inflicted on savers could have political repercussions. Retirees are among the country's most active voters, with the power to influence a wide range of issues, such as who will bear the burden of fixing the federal government's finances and whether politicians should rein in the Fed.

Over the past few years, seniors have taken a conservative turn: In the 2010 elections, Republican congressional candidates attracted 59% of the over-65 vote, compared to 48% in 2008, according to exit polls—a larger shift than that seen among the general populace.

To be sure, many retirees have no savings at all or don't recognize the extent to which interest rates affect them. The subject isn't at the top of their list of concerns, which include health-care costs and Social Security benefits, says David Certner, legislative policy director at the AARP. Still, he says, "we hear a lot of complaints from people who were counting on a certain return from their fixed-income investments."

Low rates don't just hurt retirees. They also penalize people of any age hoping to build up funds for the future, and discourage rainy-day savings that could make U.S. consumers more resilient to job losses and other financial jolts. Americans' net contributions to their financial assets, such as bank and 401(k) accounts, amounted to 4% of disposable income in 2010, according to the Fed. That's the lowest level since it began maintaining records in 1946—except for 2009, when people actually pulled money out. Keep Reading

"It makes you kind of feel like the forgotten generation,"

says Roger Cohen, a 66-year-old who retired to

the Isles from Boston, where he headed a national

coffee-service company. He says he supports the Fed's efforts

to stimulate the economy by lowering interest rates,

but "you have a lot of folks who feel there's a lack of fairness."

Senior citizens brace for Social Security freeze..Nice hack job on the U.S. Dollar Bernanke

It is absolutely appauling that our senior citizens are once again kicked to the curb. Bernanke's monetary policies have crushed and continue to crush the U.S. Dollar and each new U. S. Government administration strategically designs new manipulation tools when calculating real inflation and somehow they actually sleep at night knowing the impact this has on our senior citizens.

It is a disgrace that the generations who built this country, saved money, did not pass along a gargantuan debt burden to their grandchildren and paid off their mortgages are treated with less respect and caring than caged animals in a zoo.


By Matt Sedensky
Associated Press
10/11/10

BOCA RATON, Fla. – Seniors prepared to cut back on everything from food to charitable donations to whiskey as word spread Monday that they will have to wait until at least 2012 to see their Social Security checks increase.

The government is expected to announce this week that more than 58 million Social Security recipients will go through a second straight year without an increase in monthly benefits. This year was the first without an increase since automatic adjustments for inflation started in 1975.

"I think it's disgusting," said Paul McNeil, 69, a retired state worker from Warwick, R.I., who said his food and utility costs have gone up, but his income has not. He lamented decisions by lawmakers that he said do not favor seniors.

"They've got this idea that they've got to save money and basically they want to take it out of the people that will give them the least resistance," he said.

Cost-of-living adjustments are automatically set by a measure adopted by Congress in the 1970s that orders raises based on the Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation. If inflation is negative, as in 2009 and 2010, payments remain unchanged.

Still, seniors like McNeil said they'll be thinking about the issue when they go to vote, and experts said the news comes at a bad time for Democrats already facing potentially big losses in November. Seniors are the most loyal of voters, and their support is especially important during midterm elections, when turnout is generally lower.

"If you're the ruling party, this is not the sort of thing you want to have happening two weeks before an election," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

At St. Andrews Estates North, a Boca Raton retirement community, seniors largely took the news in stride, saying they don't blame Washington for the lack of an increase. Most are also collecting pensions or other income, but even so, they prepared to tighten their belts.

Bette Baldwin won't be able to travel or help her children as much. Dorcas Eppright will give less to charity. Jack Dawson will buy cheap whiskey instead of his beloved Canadian Club.

"For people who have worked their whole life and tried to scrimp and save and try to provide for themselves," said Baldwin, a 63-year-old retired teacher, "it's difficult to see that support system might not sustain you."

Baldwin and her husband mapped out their retirements, carefully calculating their income based on their pensions and Social Security checks. Trouble is, they expected an annual cost-of-living increase.

"When we cut back, we're cutting back on niceties," Baldwin said. "But there are other people that don't have anything to cut back on. They're cutting back on food and shelter."

Many at St. Andrews said the cost-of-living decision won't affect who they vote for next month. But seniors tied the Social Security issue to what they see as a larger societal problem with debt, entitlements and hopefulness for the future.

"I'm kind of glad in a way," Stella Wehrly, an 86-year-old retired secretary, said of the freeze. "One thing depends on the other and when people aren't working there's not enough people feeding into the Social Security system."

Wehrly and her husband, Hank, said curtailing government spending is necessary to maintain the Social Security system.

"We have a generation now that we're not going to leave a very good legacy for," she said.

Jack Dawson, 77, said the freeze is the right move considering the state of the government and the American economy.

"Who would be surprised what's happened?" he asked. "I feel this is the right decision in light of the malaise."

More than 58.7 million people rely on Social Security checks that average $1,072 monthly. It was the primary source of income for 64 percent of retirees who got benefits in 2008; one-third relied on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their income.

At the Phoenix Knits yarn shop in Phoenix, 73-year-old owner Pat McCartney said she already worries about paying for utilities, groceries and gas. Not having the increase makes her worry even more.

"If I have any major expense, I don't know what I'll do," McCartney said while helping customers with their knitting. "I live on Social Security."

In Kansas City, Mo., Georgia Hollman, 80, said Social Security is her sole source of income. She would have liked a bigger check, but said she's grateful for what she gets.

"There isn't nothing I can do about it but live with it," she said. "Whatever they give us is what we have to take. I'm thankful we get that little bit."

Advocates for seniors argue the Consumer Price Index doesn't adequately weigh the costs that most affect older adults, particularly medical care and housing.

"The existing COLA formula does not account for the economic reality of the true costs that most seniors faced," said Fernando Torres-Gil, director of UCLA's Center for Policy Research on Aging and the first person appointed to the governmental post of assistant secretary for aging, during the Clinton administration.

Still, Torres-Gil said the political reality is different, and many feel seniors are lucky to have their checks determined by the CPI, instead of some new formula that might make it even harder to secure a raise.

"We may just lucky to keep the current index," he said.