Calpers: Losses pile up and cities pay up

Watching the performance of the state's pension manager, CalPers, isn't quite like watching paint dry, but close.  It is the largest pension fund in the country--and it has to be given how poorly the state is run up in Sacramento.  While it may seem arcane and far away, here is the WSJ's take on why we should watch:

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System returned minus 6.1% for the year ended June 30, the fund said Wednesday.   A multiyear downturn could be costly for states, towns and school systems around the country and by extension their residents, leading them to squeeze money from workers, taxpayers or other government services.  Calpers’ stock portfolio returned minus 13.1%, while bonds returned minus 14.5%, the pension fund said.  (Ed:  Private equity made up some of the loss but relying on it is tricky as valuations are being written down left and right.)

The lackluster return will mean California towns, counties and school districts will face higher annual pension contributions during their 2024 or 2025 fiscal year.  U.S. state and local pension funds have accumulated hundreds of billions of dollars since the last financial crisis in 2008, thanks to blockbuster returns from an 11-year bull market. Last year, huge gains in public and private equity markets drove median returns to nearly 27%, a 30-year record.

Some states also topped up their pension coffers with tax revenues from the stimulus-fueled Covid-19 recovery.  But all of those gains have been outpaced by the growth in the cost of the benefits that state and local governments have promised.

We shall see what the impact on the city budget is going forward.  We have been holding on pretty well -- you can look here for the last update from March.  I'll get around to addressing the move to raise local business tax rates in a bit, but Calpers' performance this year highlights the variability and risk associated with being tied so closely to the state.

Comments

[Joe]

Since we are on the Friends with Benefits thread here, let's recall FDR first:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed unions for government workers because the employer and workers would essentially be on the same side of the bargaining table. Politicians would have an incentive to give workers what they want, and taxpayers would have no one representing their interests in negotiations.

That sentiment ties to local news this week as the rangers look for a sweeeeet package of benefits:

Labor negotiations concerning retirement plans for 28 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District rangers have reached an impasse, according to the rangers’ newly formed bargaining group.

The group claims the rangers, who patrol the district’s 65,000 acres of preserves in the Santa Cruz Mountains region and San Mateo County coastside, are being denied appropriate retirement plans given the dangers faced on the job. The rangers are being unjustly required to work until 62 instead of 55 to reach full retirement benefits.
----------------
Yep, 55! That would be sweeeeet. But there's more about "safety" classifications:

And Midpeninsula ranger duties include those things — wildland firefighting, responding to medical emergencies and law enforcement actions including making arrests, according to the district’s description of the job.
----------------------------
So one might ask how many rangers are there, how many wildfires have they picked up an axe or hose to fight and how many arrests have they made? All of that is missing in the DJ article, but we do get this:

“The [district] will not bargain on it, they will not discuss it, they will not allow it to be in any proposals,” said Alexander Hapke, a lead ranger with the district and president of the labor representation group. He said because the rangers are first responders, striking is not an option.

“All we can do is tell the public that they are treating us in this manner, because there’s nothing that we can do to stop them,” he said.
-----------------------
Well, I consider myself alerted and I don't think the ranger job qualifies for a super-early retirement benefit. In fact, how about giving the taxpayers a break and taking it up to 65 when Medicare kicks in?

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/midpeninsula-regional-open-space-district-talks-at-an-impasse/article_9b1303d2-0fb9-11ed-8ce0-3f20b83862a6.html?utm_source=smdailyjournal.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Fheadlines%2F%3F-dc%3D1659189624&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline

[Phinancier]

Even the French are raising their public servant retirement age. THE FRENCH!!! 55 is the new 45 so let's get those Rangers working. I mean really. Talk about a comfortable job. I wish I had known about it when I was in my twenties.

[Joe]

The latest long-view of returns (or is it long-faced returns) for Calpers courtesy of today's WSJ:

The nation’s largest pension fund got a scathing performance review Monday when its new investment chief highlighted the retirement system’s underperforming returns and estimated it missed out on $11 billion in gains during a “lost decade” for private equity.

The unusually candid presentation to board members of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as Calpers, showed returns lagging behind other large pensions in almost every asset class during the past 10 years, with private equity trailing the most, 1.3 percentage points.

In each year between 2009 and 2018, the presentation showed, Calpers put $5 billion or less in new money into private equity, an asset class that public pension funds have relied on heavily in recent years to amp up returns.