tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post6965640505660132197..comments2024-03-26T20:09:19.458-07:00Comments on Oregon PERS Information: Who'll Stop the Rain?mrfearless47http://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-51854664461269618282013-06-03T19:37:43.292-07:002013-06-03T19:37:43.292-07:00OK. See subsequent post for some additional clari...OK. See subsequent post for some additional clarification of the implementation dates. Things are not as awful as they first seemed, unless you can't retire until next year or thereafter.mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-85063230941429135722013-06-03T12:05:34.793-07:002013-06-03T12:05:34.793-07:00Marc,
Yes, I was talking about the ORP folks that...Marc,<br /><br />Yes, I was talking about the ORP folks that "left" in 1996. Thanks for the info. It ain't over till it's over, of course. I just don't see how you can treat people working side by side under the same system differently.Befuddledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327078665660845193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-63708683039723253262013-06-03T10:43:24.329-07:002013-06-03T10:43:24.329-07:00The mortality rate changes COULD (not sure) affect...The mortality rate changes COULD (not sure) affect survivorship options, but not the base benefit. This isn't entirely clear right now. Suggest you call PERS for that answer.mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-76288033323616731412013-06-03T10:40:52.076-07:002013-06-03T10:40:52.076-07:00Do the proposed changes in the assumed rate and/or...Do the proposed changes in the assumed rate and/or the mortality rates have any affect if a person retires under full formula?rkgernharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021454929551858044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-34968943712946298672013-06-03T08:48:15.751-07:002013-06-03T08:48:15.751-07:00What's not real about a system that has three ...What's not real about a system that has three times as many living members over 100 years than expected by any dynamic model of life histories? I'm not defending actuaries, but I think your comment misses an important point. There are other reasons as well, all quite based on factual experience data.mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-24743817851760868202013-06-03T08:43:13.383-07:002013-06-03T08:43:13.383-07:00I thought actuaries were supposed to concern thems...I thought actuaries were supposed to concern themselves with real data concerning survival rates and not be "forced" to make determinations based on the money and politics of the pension fund itself. Douglas Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16674959595088061015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-84438490716890225992013-06-03T08:38:05.560-07:002013-06-03T08:38:05.560-07:00@befuddled. Are you talking about the ORP members...@befuddled. Are you talking about the ORP members who moved from Tier 1 in 1996? If so, I think that is a special case that will probably (but not assuredly) be specifically excluded from any final legislation, should it occur. I can't promise this, but I know that the parties to the legislative discussions are aware of that particular problem.mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-81147379770037170302013-06-03T08:32:10.778-07:002013-06-03T08:32:10.778-07:00Is anyone even remotely cognizant that a number of...Is anyone even remotely cognizant that a number of inactives (perhaps 1500) still work for the state in higher education? If the total of inactives is 30,000, this is only 5%. Further, has anyone factored into the equation the brain drain this will cause, and the additional costs to the state of replacing faculty paid below market rates with new employees?Befuddledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327078665660845193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-18422035137220572702013-06-03T02:36:26.875-07:002013-06-03T02:36:26.875-07:00It is a rough approximation, but (a) the PERS plan...It is a rough approximation, but (a) the PERS plan, depending of survivorship options. Has a joint mortality component built in, and the mortality factors make a difference in the annuitization rate (b) depending on distribution choice, with PERS, it continues to pay long past your actuarial pull-date - a perpetuity, like social security, so you never have to worry about running out of money. I mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-37631493697806295312013-06-03T00:59:51.113-07:002013-06-03T00:59:51.113-07:00You can google a querry for an immediate annuity ...You can google a querry for an immediate annuity estimate for web based calculators to help assess the impact of a change from 8% to 4% on the money match annuity calculation. One website http://www.miniwebtool.com/immediate-annuity-calculator/ came up with a change from $3338/month to $2360 for an investment of $414,060 (total lump sum) for 22 years for an 8% annuity interest rate reduction toUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15993123159370075893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-7726965174313255582013-06-02T14:23:38.074-07:002013-06-02T14:23:38.074-07:00If the new rules are in fact adopted by the Board ...If the new rules are in fact adopted by the Board despite a ton of negative comments, the impact could/will start on August 1. If willing, pleas give your best guestimate on the chance of the new reductions being imposed by the Board. E.g., 80%? 90%? 99.9%? Will a member know before July 1 what the new mortality tables will be? I am trying to get a precise amount of the percentage of M&Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031146893534125979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-81711468543126689532013-06-02T13:57:36.568-07:002013-06-02T13:57:36.568-07:00@gcat. The wild card in the equation isn't th...@gcat. The wild card in the equation isn't the small percentage change in the assumed rate, but what might happen to the mortality factors that accompany the rate change. There are strong indications that the PERS retiree pool is having some significantly longer life expectancies than would be expected by general information. Thus, when the PERS retirre actual life expectancies are blendedmrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-56563915682825951812013-06-02T13:22:14.210-07:002013-06-02T13:22:14.210-07:00Marc,
I really appreciate your blog. If you retire...Marc,<br />I really appreciate your blog. If you retire under formula plus annuity is there a general percentage reduction range you could estimate that would result from the combined assumed rate and actuarial change?<br />GcatGcathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01809050551547656443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-18234965894677978242013-06-02T11:40:57.048-07:002013-06-02T11:40:57.048-07:00Nothing going on right now is likely to have a hug... Nothing going on right now is likely to have a huge impact on your retirement benefit. However, it is what the legislature is up to that should concern you. Both the Dems and the Rs have proposed some punitive changes to inactives. The proposal would be to drop the annuitization rate for Money Match retirements of inactives from 8% to 4%. That would reduce your benefit by roughly 37% mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-47179558229087053842013-06-02T10:44:56.880-07:002013-06-02T10:44:56.880-07:00Hi Marc and all. I am a 59 year old Tier 1 “inacti...Hi Marc and all. I am a 59 year old Tier 1 “inactive” who (thanks to this site ) just woke up to the reality the Oregon legislature could screw me and destroy my retirement. I could retire July 1 and hopefully receive around $1800 a month or gamble; wait until I’m 62 and hope I receive the promised $2,200 a month. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think I could now receive even less than $1800 a PJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00564241052600193891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-71647823648136249632013-06-02T08:57:16.322-07:002013-06-02T08:57:16.322-07:00@Bob Frazier: I've written about this briefly...@Bob Frazier: I've written about this briefly in a number of places and the history is pretty involved. I might write a new post someday this monthly, but I've given Hannah Hoffman at the Statesman Journal some of the information in a blog post on her site and suggested that she follow the trail to where it leads.mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-30273073912039137382013-06-02T08:54:18.268-07:002013-06-02T08:54:18.268-07:00@Gcat. Not really yet. The changes approved this...@Gcat. Not really yet. The changes approved this far only affect you when you retire and can be figured relatively easily. The other stuff isn't at a point where any exact information is available, just averages. The online PERS calculator will get you to the benefit you'd receive for a July 1, retirement. Beyond that, any estimate you get is likely to be too high by some finite mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-59083600878616779802013-06-02T06:50:29.198-07:002013-06-02T06:50:29.198-07:00Marc,
Is there someone who can help a employee cal...Marc,<br />Is there someone who can help a employee calculate the effect of these changes on an individual basis<br />Thanks <br />GregGcathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01809050551547656443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-27768281371484179332013-06-02T05:18:21.597-07:002013-06-02T05:18:21.597-07:00"...that the reason employer rates are rising..."...that the reason employer rates are rising is because the employers have never been required to pay their full share. "<br /><br />Mark, I'd sure appreciate learning more about this aspect since it really does seem the central issue politically and because, honestly, I ignorantly believed that people on both sides were always paying what they owed to the fund. If there is any Bob Frazierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12163525368853727502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-46572666171789292882013-06-01T16:33:18.041-07:002013-06-01T16:33:18.041-07:00M&S. The rule schedule is clear. PERS is ver...M&S. The rule schedule is clear. PERS is very strict about following protocol and implementing a rule shortly after the required hearing period is almost a formality. No flies grow on PERS staff or the PERS Board. They can't adopt without a public vote, but the public hearing period is set in statute. They COULD delay implementation to deal with all the comments, but I haven't mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-34147460726560700012013-06-01T13:44:04.478-07:002013-06-01T13:44:04.478-07:00Gee, I chose to not retire today because the odds ...Gee, I chose to not retire today because the odds were in my favor of Legis not damaging me in next 6 weeks. Wow, forgot the Board has the power to be uba-diabolical too. Silly naive me. As you noted, the timing of Repub press conference PM of May 30 is no accident --- the timing for the July 1 door nearly closed for June 1 retirements. But funny-timing on how shortly after 5 pm Friday M&Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031146893534125979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-63848666571549170342013-06-01T11:16:59.789-07:002013-06-01T11:16:59.789-07:00I guess I'd amend my own statement to argue th...I guess I'd amend my own statement to argue that Tiernan, then a legislator, conspiring with a non politician, a half-baked and unqualified, in my opinion, actuary by the name of Alan Stonewall and the ever-popular and disreputable Bill Sizemore convinced the voters to go after public employees, then all Tier 1, via Ballot Measure 8. That was the defining moment for my interest in PERS and Imrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-19032481974990314162013-06-01T10:59:04.165-07:002013-06-01T10:59:04.165-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.lledzepp10https://www.blogger.com/profile/09062956443281853651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-51154110001695269762013-06-01T10:57:52.495-07:002013-06-01T10:57:52.495-07:00Indeed, it did start 20+ years ago as politicians ...Indeed, it did start 20+ years ago as politicians were galvanizing opinion against public employees with what I call public employee "hate speech". I remember Tiernan and his radio ads brought to you by: "Lets Shine A Little Light On Them and See if They Scamper Committee". I once met with the head of EAP and asked a curious question about mental illness in public employmentlledzepp10https://www.blogger.com/profile/09062956443281853651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11957094.post-44640448684521177962013-06-01T10:50:15.812-07:002013-06-01T10:50:15.812-07:00Thanks a lot. Your story sounds vaguely familiar ...Thanks a lot. Your story sounds vaguely familiar and I appreciate your sharing my blog with your colleagues. More readers make more informed employees. I'm waiting for the media to finally tell the story of how unethical the employers have been in all of this, promising employees anything except cold, hard cash, and then starting to renege on obligations when the bill came due. This has mrfearless47https://www.blogger.com/profile/03454690519716783056noreply@blogger.com