The Path of Thorns

The Oregonian has the first glimpse of what the future might look like for active and inactive Tier 1 members. As reported here on multiple occasions spanning back to early 2004, the OIC has been pressing for a reduction in the "assumed interest rate" from 8% to something significantly less. The employers have squashed any discussion in the past, but now that the issue has become public again (recall Ballot Measure 8 in 1994), it is more likely that the discussion will carry some weight. Read the Oregonian's report here. It paints a sorry picture and begins the first salvo in the path of thorns. I hope I'm wrong, but methinks this will gain more traction as time goes on.

Blowin' in the Wind

The answer my friends, is blowin in the wind. My email box runneth over. The dogs have been unleashed and all those people who retired around mid-2004 are now discovering just how much of a "do over" PERS got. I've heard from about a dozen post April 1, 2004 retirees of the following scenario. You've gotten your recalculation letter. Your "at retirement" balance is higher AFTER the Strunk/Eugene adjustment than before (in one case, more than $20,000) higher. First, for the good news. The reason your balance is higher is because PERS was forced to pay you 8% for 2003 on both contributions and balance, and a pro-rate of 8% for 2004 on your beginning 2004 account balance. They also reduced your 1999 balance, but the 2003 & 2004 earnings were larger than the 1999 reduction; hence an increased account balance at retirement. Now for the really bad news. If you go back to your original Notice of Entitlement - the one you got when you originally retired, you should see that your benefit was calculated on the basis of the "Lookback" (surely you've forgotten that by now). The "lookback" was created by the Legislature to give you a "floor" under your benefits so that you could still get the benefit of the "old" actuarial factors, but at a price. The price was that your account was frozen at its balance as of June 30, 2003 - nothing else was added. If, when you retired, your frozen benefit on June 30, 2003 was higher than your benefit accounting for all additional earnings and contributions after that date using the NEW (less generous) actuarial tables, you got the higher benefit. So now, four years later, they go back and they are forced to give you additional money. The consequence is that although you left money on the table to get the higher benefit, it no longer works out that way when they add in even more money. They recalculate your benefit and lo and behold, the "lookback" doesn't "win" anymore. Now, your benefit is higher using the new (higher) account balance than it is using the "lookback" in the same comparison. Voila. You get the higher benefit. Unfortunately, the higher benefit is lower than your benefit when you had the lookback because you're under the NEW actuarial tables. Still more unfortunately, PERS is obliged to "give" you the highest benefit. And sadly, the higher benefit is still lower than your previous benefit because you're now using different actuarial tables. Remember that the lookback preserved the "old" tables (the ones usually called the 1978 tables). After the Strunk/Eugene adjustments, you end up, by pure computation, under a set of tables that went into effect on 7/1/03 and are less generous than the 1978 tables.

PERS should have explained this in the letter. It would have saved them a ton of grief. Now, the only thing I can offer is that people appeal their benefit. I'm afraid the appeal won't show much except you'll get the details of the calculation so you can see how this all worked out.

I remember this topic coming up in a PERS Board meeting and the PERS staff cautioning that a complete review of calculations could end up in situations like this. Unfortunately, they underplayed their hand. It looks like it is happening in every single case I've heard about. So far, every single example I have where the "lookback" was the winning procedure originally, it now loses and produces a smaller gross benefit. This is a sick and cruel joke. Appeal the invoice. Make PERS do the extra work to provide you with the explanation. Make sure you thank your legislator. After you've done that, consider a contribution to one of the legal defense funds to help the litigation to stop this dead in its tracks.

P.S. In an answer to an obvious followup question. Why doesn't the "lookback" still work? Because the original lookback was formed on an assumption that is no longer legally correct. PERS calculated your "at retirement" actual account balance assuming 0% earnings for 2003 and 2004. Since the "lookback" used a pro-rate of 8% to simulate the June 30, 2003 balance, the "lookback" balance upon recalculation is actually lower than it was when originally calculated. The original "lookback" continued to "freeze" the 20% for 1999 without the 0% freeze. If you reduce 1999 but not the 2003 earnings rate, the revised "lookback" balance cannot possibly be higher. However, the total account balance is likely to be significantly higher because it was originally formulated with 20% for 1999, 0% for 2003, and 0% for whatever period you worked in 2004. The 1999 adjustment is common to both balances, 2003 had already been adjusted for the "lookback" but not the final account balance, and so there is virtually no way that the actual account balance adjusted for the Strunk/Eugene matter could be anything but significantly higher. And so, the "lookback" has little chance of "winning" against a significantly higher account balance after the recalculation.

Math Sucks

Even though Jimmy Buffett sings of his despair with math (tough sell for one shrewd moneymaker), the PERS math turns out not to be as hard as people are making, although PERS certainly makes life more difficult for itself by putting in extra filips on its forms that confuse rather than help. If you want the "411" explanation of what is happening, consider the forms published yesterday- particularly the first form - as our example. We have a "Before Recalculation" benefit and an "After Recalculation Benefit". One represents what you are currently getting as a result of the 1999 overcredit. The other represents what you *should be getting* after the recalculation of the 1999 interest at 11.33%. Down at the bottom of the page is a list of the COLAS that need to be applied to the revised benefit. The final number represents what your new revised benefit will be, before actuarial reduction. For the amount labeled "Your initial actuarial reduction", subtract that to get "Your recalculated benefit starting [date, 2007] under the ARM". Consider this your NEW REVISED BENEFIT and forget everything else. Nothing more will be done to you. From that benefit forward - assuming it is computed correctly - you will get COLA adjustments on the NEW REVISED BENEFIT. You should never see another ARM reduction as they've just taken it away from you forever in "one touch". Presto, your account is in PERS harmony and PERS doesn't have to fiddle with anything related to your account again except for those annual COLAS. The ARM amount is a one-time reduction to your permanent benefit. The issue of increased ARM payments is a "red herring" as this is invisible to you. PERS is simply banking your ARM monthly and has to apply the COLA to it in the same way it applies a COLA to your benefit. Unless PERS is looking to needlessly complicate its life, there is no reason for it to do anything else. You'll be repaying for the rest of your life in the form of a permanently reduced benefit. I sincerely hope this helps people understand what is going on.

Lowdown

I've finally gotten information that settles the question of how PERS will implement the recovery after year one. This is explained and confirmed in this document from the actuarial firm contracting with PERS - Mercer. You can read the explanation here. The Mercer explanation matches almost exactly with how I interpreted the implementation method in my Lipscomb calculator. The most important "bullet" point is the last one on the page. I think it is self-explanatory. My thanks to David Crosley and Mercer for supplying this needed clarification.

Dirt and Dead Ends

During the week, I spent a lot of time wrestling with stupid compiler tricks trying to get my Lipscomb program to compile so it would run on several flavors of Macs. Thanks to a couple of persistent testers and one particular Mac expert and PERS retiree, I solved the problem and learned a lot in the process. Thanks Dick! The program now available is the penultimate version. I still haven't added the wider age range (sorry Peg). That is on hold right now until I complete a backlog of other work. Give me a week or two and the Lipscomb project will be as complete as I can make it.

Apropos of Lipscomb, the wide boys representing PERS were busy assuring Judge Kantor (in Robinson) that they weren't invoicing anyone yet. That was only a small prevarication as I'm in possession of a real invoice carrying the date of 9/26/2006. Rather than quibble over the PERB lawyers' bending of the truth, I'll focus today's angst on the invoice itself. Despite repeated assurances from PERS that the recipient would be able to see clearly how PERS arrived at the adjusted benefit, that too is an even larger prevarication. The invoice is a 5 page document consisting of a two page 'explanatory' letter, which cuts to the chase (what you owe, when the payment is due, and how much the actuarial reduction in the benefit will be). They include a phone number for Strunk Eugene questions and a number of other pieces of helpful information. The other 3 pages are of numbers, but none truly useful. One curious page is a revised Notice of Entitlement (yep, one of those) with the new benefit. Its most curious feature is a Notice of Entitlement just like the one we got when we retired. It even includes the SAME statutory right to change benefit options within 60 days and the right to appeal the calculation over 240 days. Since the PERB specifically disallowed changes to benefit options this time around and they limited the contest period to 60 days, this is yet another small distortion that may have legal ramifications for PERS. Surely they didn't intend to offer these options to people again. Perhaps they just had a lot of extra old Notices of Entitlement laying around and were trying their hand at sustainability. The truly pissy thing is that anyone trying to challenge PERS (within 60 days or 240 days) wouldn't have enough information from this 5 page "invoice" to do it. That flatly contradicts what PERS told the assembled masses at their 9/23/05 meeting that would happen. Not there in any form.

During the 2005 and early 2006 discussions of the implementation method, PERS staff recommended against allowing retirees who wanted to pay the full lump sum of the "invoice" by rolling over tax sheltered assets (e.g. IRA, 401-K, 457, 403-B, etc) directly to PERS. PERS claimed there was no IRS basis to permit them to do this. Well, now there may be. A newly passed Federal law trumps PERS on this matter and may require PERS to permit this kind of payback. It was discussed at Friday's PERB meeting, but no decision was made. Before long, however, this option may be forced on PERS over its own objections. It will certainly make their bookkeeping a headache. Poor things.

On the labor front, Gene Mechanic, the lawyer handling the Robinson case will be leaving his firm at the end of December. In fact, the entire firm is disbanding with the principals going in different directions. One of the partners will continue to handle the outstanding labor cases, which presumably is the Robinson case, but Gene himself is taking a position in Miami with the SEIU. I have no idea what the ramifications of this will be.

Finally - at least for today - I'm now officially a voting member of Clackamas County. We got our property tax bill last Thursday and our ballots today. I'm still studying many of the ballot measures (I tend to follow the motto that if it takes me a long time to read and to understand a measure, there are too many unintended consequences and so I vote NO. It is a principle that has served me well through many initiatives. I don't care how much I agree with the ballot title or the central intent of the measure, if it takes me long to read it and longer to try to understand it, it is too complex to be enshrined in the Oregon Constitution and too difficult to remove). I will vote for Governor Kulongoski (with my nose pinched); I will proudly vote for Virginia Linder for the Supreme Court vacancy; and I will also vote for my two representatives - Richard Devlin (happily) and Greg MacPherson (grumblingly). I can't wait for election season to be over. Am I the only one who simply can't stand the sleazeballs any longer? If I see one more smarmy and distorted Ron Saxton ad I'm gonna puke.

Universal soldier

For users reporting problems running the Mac version of the Lipscomb Calculator, I am happy to report that I've identified the problem, and fixed it for some people. The version I uploaded today (as in 10 minutes ago) is a "Universal" binary. This means that it will run happily on an older Mac or a new Intel Mac. The only limitation is that you MUST (no exceptions) be running OS X 10.3 or OS X 10.4 (Tiger). Earlier versions of OS X and OS 9 will not run the program. If you have problems please let me know. If you have success, please let me know.

Party At The End Of The World

Time to find out what the end of the world might look like. In case you missed the notice yesterday (buried in the bottom of a lengthy post), I have released OSX and Windows versions of my Strunk Eugene calculator. It has been tested extensively by people who have independently validated the results. I'm confident that I've captured PERS' methodology correctly (at least as it has been publicly explained) and the results should give you a picture of what your situation could look like next July 1. In later versions I am going to try to give the user the choice of implementation date, although there will be constraints as I cannot forecast COLAs out too far. You can download the program by clicking on the link to the left of the blog screen, below the "About Me" section. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE (did I say it often and loud enough) read the posted "Read Me" before downloading and, especially, before coming to me about problems. Thanks to Martha and Peg for their unflagging help in getting out some gnarly bugs and for data entry, and to Dick for some OS X suggestions and help.

Seen it All Before

My sources at PERS remind me that I've "seen it all before". I posed this question to them earlier this year, as they remind me, and they claim to have settled the matter of my question in the last post. They report that the method that will be use to adjust benefits after year 1 of the Strunk Eugene plan, follows the description I give in method number 2. This means that your year 1 "net gross" benefit (adjusted minus actuarial recovery amount) becomes the new base for the COLA in the next year. This is the entire assumption of the actuarial recovery tables used to construct my program. See "Gimme Some Truth" for more details about the differences in methodology.

The more I think about this and discuss it with mathematicians, business people, and engineers, the more I'm thinking there may be a difference of interpretation between the approached intended by the actuaries in using these actuarial recovery factors, and PERS' implementation of the recovery mechanism for producing the monthly benefit check. In the main, my question lies with Option 2 -- the mechanism that PERS has multiply told me is the way they plan to apply the reductions. What still isn't clear in PERS' answer, and what makes a really big difference is how the benefit is figured beyond the first year. We all agree that the first year benefit is computed as: take the revised benefit with all COLAS and subtract some amount representing the proper actuarial recovery factor for your retirement option and your single (Option 1) life expectancy. From this, we come up with the net gross benefit - an amount that has de facto been subjected to the actuarial recovery factors. From this point further, there is no actuarial reduction remaining as the benefit has been reduced by the flat amount in perpetuity. It should be this simple. Future COLAS should be applied to the "net gross benefit" starting after year 1 and should continue to grow without further reduction thereafter. If this is what PERS is planning to do, they should acknowledge it. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough in formulating my question, but I understand the ramifications much more clearly now than I did when I first asked the questions. Watch this space for a more definitive answer.

Speaking of programs, I released version 1.0PR (release candidate 1) for Windows and OS X early this afternoon. You can visit the link over on the left, which will take you to the web page where the program links can be found. Please do read the instructions. They will save you (and me) a lot of time later.