“How safe are my retirement assets?”
This is a question that everyone ponders, but as an active or retired member of the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia, you should know that your future pension distributions are secure. Is that one line answer really enough though? Today’s post looks at how well the TRS plan is funded.
Honestly, I have been thinking about this one subject since the end of December. I had a few potential educator retirees that asked to meet with me individually around the end of 2010/beginning of 2011. In preparing for my meetings, I decided to review the latest financial report and actuarial report for the TRS plan. While not many items had changed, I had no idea of the coming issues in Wisconsin that would cause even more frequent questions on the subject.
First, all of the information that I reviewed came directly from the TRS website (http://www.trsga.com/), and other than my comments regarding the information, anyone can easily find and review the information themselves in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010. This is a “short” 62 page PDF that really can be informative if you want to get down to the details of the plan. The plan itself is audited annually (year end is June 30) by KPMG LLP with actuarial reviews by Cavanaugh Macdonald Consulting LLC that lag by one fiscal year (FY). Thus the report above covers the June 30, 2010 audit and the actuarial review of June 30, 2009.
In short, the plan is very strong with $45.989 billion in assets as of June 30, 2010 and an actuarial funding ratio of 87.2% through June 30, 2009. This is down from the June 30, 2008 actuarial ratio of 91.4%, but the decline in the equity markets through March 2009 was expected to hurt the ratio. Comparatively speaking, Georgia’s ERS and TRS plans are near the top of the nationwide averages of actuarial funding as of June 30, 2008 coming in at #9 overall with the average plan being funded at 80.5% (Standard & Poor’s - Pension Funding And Policy Challenges Loom For U.S. States – July 8, 2010). Performance wise, the TRS fund grew +11.1% in FY2010 versus losses of -13.1% and -3.4% respectively in FY2009 and FY2008, and over the past five years, the annualized return of the fund was +2.6%. Now that you have the basics, let’s start examining the details of the plan.
“How is the fund invested?” For the most part, the TRS fund follows a traditional 60/40 model. This means that 60% of the assets are in equities and 40% are in fixed income. This “balanced” approach tries to allow for capital appreciation in the stock market as equities grow, but with the safety of fixed income investments during tougher economic times. The fund will never keep pace with the S&P 500 as it moves up, but it should also not be as hurt as it drops. This 60/40 ratio is the “target” allocation, so since FY2005, equities have ranged from 55.2-61.8% and fixed income from 32.1-41.9% (there is also an “other” category that includes cash and receivables that will be the difference) of the total assets.
One of the questions that I am frequently asked is what stocks does the fund own. As of June 30, 2010, the fund’s top twenty holdings (ranked by allocation) were: Apple, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, IBM, Procter & Gamble, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Hewlett-Packard, Chevron, General Electric, Wells Fargo, Google, AT&T, Wal-Mart, Cisco Systems, Pfizer, Coca-Cola, Berkshire Hathaway, and PepsiCo. Obviously, these are all very large companies with some paying dividends, so the fund has tried to balance the growth stocks (Apple, Google, Cisco, etc.) with the value stocks (Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, etc.).
Contribution Rates - A piece of the puzzle that has been frequently overlooked until recently is the contribution rates of the employees and employers. This is a very important part of the puzzle as these contributions fund the plan for the current retirees and build a foundation for your own pension. Your TRS statement will never show the employer’s portion of contributions made for you, but this does not mean that it is not there.
Currently in Georgia, the employees (educators) contribute 5.53% for FY2011. Employers in Georgia currently contribute 10.28% for FY2011. (Note: The preceding contribution rates were corrected from the original post of 5.25% and 9.74% respectively). These figures are calculated based on actuarial tables, and they are reflective of the assumptions made by the actuaries for growth in the plan, salary changes, COLAs, retirees, etc.
The way I view the contributions are simple… if you want to receive your pension benefits later, it is better to make the small contributions now that will supply those. Comparatively speaking, my own 401k (not a pension) contributions are made by my employer and me, but are vastly different from the TRS contributions. I contribute 10% of my salary, and my employer “matches” the first 8% at a rate of 50% (4% max), so my total contribution is 14% with the lion’s share coming from me. Granted I have control of my 401k if I leave, but there is no defined benefit waiting for me when I retire…
In the end, what I hope you to take from this post is that the TRS plan is on good financial ground with annual audits to insure the plan is continuing on its current path. The employees and employers are continuing to make contributions to make up for the current unfunded actuarial liabilities (spreading the burden over years and years not at any one time). The fund invests in a good mix of equities and fixed income securities, and it is not simply doing nothing or gambling. None of this means that everything is perfect, but the overall fundamentals of the plan are a good guide for a long prosperous future.
This is a question that everyone ponders, but as an active or retired member of the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia, you should know that your future pension distributions are secure. Is that one line answer really enough though? Today’s post looks at how well the TRS plan is funded.
Honestly, I have been thinking about this one subject since the end of December. I had a few potential educator retirees that asked to meet with me individually around the end of 2010/beginning of 2011. In preparing for my meetings, I decided to review the latest financial report and actuarial report for the TRS plan. While not many items had changed, I had no idea of the coming issues in Wisconsin that would cause even more frequent questions on the subject.
First, all of the information that I reviewed came directly from the TRS website (http://www.trsga.com/), and other than my comments regarding the information, anyone can easily find and review the information themselves in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010. This is a “short” 62 page PDF that really can be informative if you want to get down to the details of the plan. The plan itself is audited annually (year end is June 30) by KPMG LLP with actuarial reviews by Cavanaugh Macdonald Consulting LLC that lag by one fiscal year (FY). Thus the report above covers the June 30, 2010 audit and the actuarial review of June 30, 2009.
In short, the plan is very strong with $45.989 billion in assets as of June 30, 2010 and an actuarial funding ratio of 87.2% through June 30, 2009. This is down from the June 30, 2008 actuarial ratio of 91.4%, but the decline in the equity markets through March 2009 was expected to hurt the ratio. Comparatively speaking, Georgia’s ERS and TRS plans are near the top of the nationwide averages of actuarial funding as of June 30, 2008 coming in at #9 overall with the average plan being funded at 80.5% (Standard & Poor’s - Pension Funding And Policy Challenges Loom For U.S. States – July 8, 2010). Performance wise, the TRS fund grew +11.1% in FY2010 versus losses of -13.1% and -3.4% respectively in FY2009 and FY2008, and over the past five years, the annualized return of the fund was +2.6%. Now that you have the basics, let’s start examining the details of the plan.
“How is the fund invested?” For the most part, the TRS fund follows a traditional 60/40 model. This means that 60% of the assets are in equities and 40% are in fixed income. This “balanced” approach tries to allow for capital appreciation in the stock market as equities grow, but with the safety of fixed income investments during tougher economic times. The fund will never keep pace with the S&P 500 as it moves up, but it should also not be as hurt as it drops. This 60/40 ratio is the “target” allocation, so since FY2005, equities have ranged from 55.2-61.8% and fixed income from 32.1-41.9% (there is also an “other” category that includes cash and receivables that will be the difference) of the total assets.
One of the questions that I am frequently asked is what stocks does the fund own. As of June 30, 2010, the fund’s top twenty holdings (ranked by allocation) were: Apple, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, IBM, Procter & Gamble, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Hewlett-Packard, Chevron, General Electric, Wells Fargo, Google, AT&T, Wal-Mart, Cisco Systems, Pfizer, Coca-Cola, Berkshire Hathaway, and PepsiCo. Obviously, these are all very large companies with some paying dividends, so the fund has tried to balance the growth stocks (Apple, Google, Cisco, etc.) with the value stocks (Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, etc.).
Contribution Rates - A piece of the puzzle that has been frequently overlooked until recently is the contribution rates of the employees and employers. This is a very important part of the puzzle as these contributions fund the plan for the current retirees and build a foundation for your own pension. Your TRS statement will never show the employer’s portion of contributions made for you, but this does not mean that it is not there.
Currently in Georgia, the employees (educators) contribute 5.53% for FY2011. Employers in Georgia currently contribute 10.28% for FY2011. (Note: The preceding contribution rates were corrected from the original post of 5.25% and 9.74% respectively). These figures are calculated based on actuarial tables, and they are reflective of the assumptions made by the actuaries for growth in the plan, salary changes, COLAs, retirees, etc.
The way I view the contributions are simple… if you want to receive your pension benefits later, it is better to make the small contributions now that will supply those. Comparatively speaking, my own 401k (not a pension) contributions are made by my employer and me, but are vastly different from the TRS contributions. I contribute 10% of my salary, and my employer “matches” the first 8% at a rate of 50% (4% max), so my total contribution is 14% with the lion’s share coming from me. Granted I have control of my 401k if I leave, but there is no defined benefit waiting for me when I retire…
In the end, what I hope you to take from this post is that the TRS plan is on good financial ground with annual audits to insure the plan is continuing on its current path. The employees and employers are continuing to make contributions to make up for the current unfunded actuarial liabilities (spreading the burden over years and years not at any one time). The fund invests in a good mix of equities and fixed income securities, and it is not simply doing nothing or gambling. None of this means that everything is perfect, but the overall fundamentals of the plan are a good guide for a long prosperous future.
1 comment:
I am responding to Kyle Wingfield’s recent op-ed, ‘All is not well with the Georgia teacher pension system,’ and the fact that Georgia taxpayers have been supplementing this obviously very poorly mismanaged fund by the Teachers Union since 2003, because of flawed projected assumption rates which caused the pension fund’s rate of return to be much less than was anticipated.
Over the past two years, lawmakers had to add about $589 million to shore up the Teachers Retirement System, or TRS. But next year, when lawmakers set the fiscal 2020 budget, officials say taxpayers will get a break: an increase of “only” $25 million.
To consider that much of an improvement is wrong-headed in at least two ways. First, it’s not as if those previous increases disappeared. They have been baked into the TRS cake: Taxpayers will still pay that $589 million, plus the $25 million being added.
It’s simply outrageous and disgraceful that Georgia taxpayers should be held liable for these shortfalls as a result of some Teacher Union fund manager’s incompetence or reckless decisions. The fund’s participants, the teachers, are the ones who should be held totally responsible for any required benefit adjustments or revisions. No government entity ever offered to compensate the losses my wife and I experienced with our 401K mutual funds during the 2008-2009 recession.
Tom Patterson
337 East Randall Rd
Rocky Face, GA 30740
tepatterson@optilink.us
Post a Comment