tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post1653388284807714155..comments2024-03-26T20:09:19.458-07:00Comments on Oregon PERS Information: The Beat Goes Onmrfearless47http://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-10940075329961681582013-06-24T19:27:10.434-07:002013-06-24T19:27:10.434-07:00Marc, the previous post reminded me of some linger...Marc, the previous post reminded me of some lingering and nagging questions I have.<br />1) Do you think the anti-spiking bill is likely to gain traction in the February 2014 short session?<br />2) How soon before February would we know this?<br />3) I presume it would be safe to retire February 1 before the session got started?<br /><br />Although I'd really prefer to wait until July 2014 janedoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13893196811387092477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-11687286620960511882013-06-24T14:08:42.387-07:002013-06-24T14:08:42.387-07:00@IPS. This is getting fun . The mandatory sine d...@IPS. This is getting fun . The mandatory sine die for this year's legislative session is July 13. There is some indication that the session may not go all the way to July 13. Your second question is more complicated than it first appears as I am not sure what question you are really asking. PERS is evaluated constantly, but typically the Legislature does not consider PERS-related bills mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-76421803032256828232013-06-24T13:58:03.879-07:002013-06-24T13:58:03.879-07:00Thank you. That is very clear.
Your answers are...Thank you. That is very clear. <br /><br />Your answers are so helpful for me (and I hope others that I can't resist another). <br /><br />If I understand correctly: 1) the current legislative session ends July 13 and 2)typically PERS is evaluated every 2 years. 3) But you have also discussed that a special session could be adjourned at any time, if the legislature deems there is IPShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16728346071349291745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-96694354975543322013-06-24T12:53:43.182-07:002013-06-24T12:53:43.182-07:00@IPS. No the Money Match involves the employer ma...@IPS. No the Money Match involves the employer matching the regular account balance and partly (or wholly, depending on circumstances of gain or loss relative to regular) the variable. All I was trying to say is that regardless of the annuitization rate, PERS still requires the employer match computed and made available to the retiree as a lump sum. The annuity rate used to convert that lump mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-42257129305400469802013-06-24T10:57:03.561-07:002013-06-24T10:57:03.561-07:00You wrote "The lump sum is the lump sum and M...You wrote "The lump sum is the lump sum and Money Match still requires the "match". <br /><br />I am not sure what the second part of your statement (above) is trying to convey. <br /><br />Is Money Match different from the match? <br /><br />My understanding is that for Tier 1 employees, like the annuity distribution, the lump sum is also matched by an amount equal to the account IPShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16728346071349291745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-17116233848742434392013-06-24T10:04:56.644-07:002013-06-24T10:04:56.644-07:00@IPS. 1. I believe that is correct. The lump su...@IPS. 1. I believe that is correct. The lump sum is the lump sum and Money Match still requires the "match". The annuity methods convert the lump sum into a stream a monthly payments based on an assumed interest rate.<br /><br />2. The annuity rate is currently 8% until December 31, 2013. The PERS Board is considering a reduction in that rate from 8% to either 7.5% or 7.75%. Theymrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-80234244761979230042013-06-24T09:51:05.869-07:002013-06-24T09:51:05.869-07:00Mark, Thanks for your answers.
1) Am I correct t...Mark, Thanks for your answers. <br /><br />1) Am I correct that reducing the annuity rate would only affect those taking an annuity distribution (and not lump sum). <br /><br />2) What is the annuity rate now and what revisions to the rate are proposed. IPShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16728346071349291745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-79851519988350544752013-06-24T09:40:00.061-07:002013-06-24T09:40:00.061-07:00@CW NP. Thanks for your compliment. I agree that...@CW NP. Thanks for your compliment. I agree that they would never have me on such a committee for more reasons than I could possibly enumerate. However, the committee being proposed doesn't even look like it will have any "civilian" on it.<br />mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-13163261193065468242013-06-24T09:38:39.118-07:002013-06-24T09:38:39.118-07:00@IPS. 1. No. Reducing the annuity rate may be, ...@IPS. 1. No. Reducing the annuity rate may be, but eliminating it entirely is off the table.<br /><br />2) No, unfortunately, which is why this blog exists. Occasionally PERS' web site will have an analysis of everything that has been or might be proposed, but that isn't the same as what you are looking for. The legislature does not provide a resource, and bills concerning PERS can mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-89667031027530863962013-06-24T09:29:04.899-07:002013-06-24T09:29:04.899-07:001) Is eliminating the match entirely for Tier 1 in...1) Is eliminating the match entirely for Tier 1 inactive PERS members on the table right now. <br /><br />2) Is there a place to read concisely and/or official documents indicating what reforms are being considered?<br /><br />Thank you so much for you blog. It is a terrific resource.<br /><br />I am an inactive Tier 1, eligible to retire now with reduced benefits.IPShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16728346071349291745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-19096957233481441372013-06-24T08:18:50.070-07:002013-06-24T08:18:50.070-07:00Marc, I cannot imagine a better person to represen...Marc, I cannot imagine a better person to represent PERS retirees on such an interim committee than you. Your grasp and articulation of the PERS issues is equaled by no one else, IMHO. But you're probably not the person or opinion they would want, unfortunately.CW NP Triphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00974138747072104326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-61698488856376405232013-06-24T04:30:04.694-07:002013-06-24T04:30:04.694-07:00You are correct...inactive PERS member...thanks fo...You are correct...inactive PERS member...thanks for clarifying Kluanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11271908314307034828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-73998006833012928722013-06-23T21:06:29.185-07:002013-06-23T21:06:29.185-07:00Kluane: somehow your comment vanished. I promise ...Kluane: somehow your comment vanished. I promise I didn't delete it. I do have your question and I want to answer it. I haven't yet found where I use the term "inactive retiree". If I did and I find it, I will change it if I can. The fact is, here is no such beast. What I meant to write, on the assumption that you correctly identified this egregious typo, is "inactivemrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-51802366974743361722013-06-23T19:45:42.139-07:002013-06-23T19:45:42.139-07:00I am new to your blog..What do you mean by inactiv...I am new to your blog..What do you mean by inactive retiree?Kluanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11271908314307034828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-58256383025267450612013-06-23T12:19:11.008-07:002013-06-23T12:19:11.008-07:00Did the state compensate you for your assistance i...Did the state compensate you for your assistance in the $140 million settlement? I know of no such duress claim you can file. I believe you should contact an attorney about a duress claim; it is a civil matter. I'm guessing that by "leaving PERS" you mean you retired, or did you mean that you took your account balance and rolled it out of PERS? If the former, there isn't mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-81573743190460203152013-06-23T11:54:51.893-07:002013-06-23T11:54:51.893-07:00I have been following the recent PERS debacle and ...I have been following the recent PERS debacle and find the tactics of misinformation and off-the-wall proposals a form a harassment. I left State employment after being forced out and the federal court concurred with my contention and the federal judge suggested I leave my retirement in PERS at that time. I did and have been inactive for 14 years and recently exited PERS on June 1st and must Cascade Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15610176351248279731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-57233252421273797372013-06-22T18:32:22.032-07:002013-06-22T18:32:22.032-07:00That's the very concern everyone has. Once yo...That's the very concern everyone has. Once you open that door, there is no way to put the genie back in the bottle. The only thing the Strunk Ruling required was that PERS must pay a COLA on the entire benefit. They didn't address the amount of the COLA since that wasn't an issue in 2003. But, in 2013, it will definitely be an issue, which is why I think that people shouldn't mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-8340484257155351172013-06-22T17:40:31.976-07:002013-06-22T17:40:31.976-07:00If the Supreme Court rules that the COLA can be re...If the Supreme Court rules that the COLA can be reduced as set forth in SB 822, why couldn't the legislature in some future session reduce the COLA to .01 on all PERS benefits? Essentially take the COLA to just above zero.Becki Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03076865746688348736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-52593851913762652552013-06-22T16:16:48.615-07:002013-06-22T16:16:48.615-07:00Currently, the wide swings in funded status have h...Currently, the wide swings in funded status have had no practical effect on retirees other than these periodic attempts to reduce some element of the benefit structure. But PERS' current reserving strategy is beneficial because it is designed to insulate against the radical volatility. When the Supreme Court ruled in Strunk that PERS was obligated to pay the assumed rate for Tier 1 members,mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-49767951945167892482013-06-22T15:30:27.546-07:002013-06-22T15:30:27.546-07:00Thanks for this update Marc, cause we seem to be i...Thanks for this update Marc, cause we seem to be in one of those news blackout tunnels again, with little info to be found anywhere else. I hope we all escape this long, miserable session without further damage. More COLA cuts would be utterly infuriating. Question: You mentioned that PERS is subject to wide swings in funded status. What exactly could that mean for retirees?janedoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13893196811387092477noreply@blogger.com