The bottom line is this is that the Actuarial Equivalency Factors that PERS uses are adopted in the same year that PERS adopts the Assumed Interest Rate for the next even numbered year and the following year. In July, the PERS Board approved maintaining the assumed interest rate of 7.2%. At the time, it was expected that the Actuarial Equivalency Factors (AEF) would also remain unchanged. As it turns out, the Milliman Experience Study, which involves examining elements of mortality among recent PERS retirees of all classes, as well as national mortality rates among similar classes of people, showed increases in longevity that MAY result in some small adjustments to the Actuarial Equivalency Factors, which are used to compute benefits for anyone retiring under Money Match, or any other method involving a beneficiary (Full Formula, for example).
So, this means that the Action Item on the PERS Board Agenda for its December 6 meeting includes "Approve Actuarial Equivalency Factors". It is likely, though not certain, that the AEFs approved on 12/6 will be slightly different from the current AEFs even though the Assumed Interest Rate has not changed. The problem is that December 6 is past the last day for someone eligible to retire on December 1 to make that decision. Worse, PERS does NOT have the new AEFs yet from the actuary, so they do not know by how much the setback might be. PERS Phone Support has been suggesting 3 months as a "worst case", but they don't actually know that.
I have actually spent a fair bit of time on the phone today to a Senior PERS Manager who has assured me that if they get the AEFs on Monday (something apparently likely), they will get something on their website on Monday alerting people to this.
My advice at this point is to get your retirement papers in order if you were planning to retire in the early part of 2020. The additional work probably won't benefit you in terms of your computed benefit (it might be lower), and then make your decision after Monday's (hopefully) post from PERS. If nothing is forthcoming, and you don't want to take any risk, then you need to get your papers in by
This is NOT a stealth change as some have suggested, but results from a variety of factors including the altered timing of the Experience Study, the Economic Assumptions, and the PERS Board altered meeting schedule. It might also be a result of the changing leadership at PERS. In addition, both PERS Staff and Milliman have had to deal with a Secretary of State-ordered audit of PERS during 2018, which subsequently required both staff and Milliman to respond to pieces of the audit during 2019. Keep in mind that PERS has never before been subjected to an audit, and there was little experience anywhere on how to deal with one.
I have implored PERS to be forthcoming with this as soon as possible. Unfortunately, telling somebody that "something might happen" isn't sufficient. They need to be clear about what that "something" is. Without the new AEFs, there is nothing to say.
One final note, this isn't limited to Tier 1 retirees. This affects all retirees who retire with a benefit having a beneficiary. Tier 1 members are also affected with or without a beneficiary if they retire under Money Match.
36 comments:
Great heads up for those on the precipice.
I wish it didn’t show up so late. Too much staff turnover, too much Board turnover, loss of institutional memory, and a somewhat blasé attitude towards the significance of the change to on the cusp retirees.
Thank you for the claification, as much as it could be clarified.
If you are retiring Dec. 1, 2019, I have some pertinent information gleaned from two Member Services staff re: getting your application to PERS in time.
Because PERS is closed for Thanksgiving next Thursday and Friday, the last day to hand deliver application materials is Wednesday, Nov. 27.
If you are mailing your application, it would need to be mailed Saturday, Nov.23 to get there on time.
If faxing the application, the last day would be next Monday, Nov.25th. You would need to call them 24 hours after faxing to make sure it was received.
Also, please remember that if you plan to buy wait time, checks need to be mailed by Saturday, Nov. 23 at the latest. However, if your check is not received in time, your application will be processed without the buyback.
LK
When I was on a board of directors, it was customary to provide information to be voted on in the board packets provided to each member. This is so that directors can be informed of what they are voting on. Directors were expected to have read everything in the packet, and to be able to discuss everything.
It was also important important in my organization to provide transparency to stakeholders and to make information available to general membership. Our organization also invited members to attend board meetings when we were not in executive session, and there was time allowed for members to make presentations or comments to the Board.
I think it is odd that the PERS Board has not been provided with the information on which they are supposed to vote. Does the PERS Board just approve everything that Milliman says? If so, we would be correct to question and worry. Milliman is on record recommending Draconian measures.
LK
You can also use delivery services such as FedEx and UPS to expedite delivery, and the US Postal Service can be used as well. I'm not sure all the information you are getting from Member Services is precisely correct. I have ample information that the Member Service people are not always fully in the loop about specific details. Your dates are certainly safe dates to be thinking about, but I suspect that there is some slippage in those dates, particularly the earlier ones. In the past, sending via certified mail with a certificate of mailing was sufficient proof of the timeliness of application, but I wouldn't swear to it these days. I would encourage those who can do so to deliver their completed application to PERS in person at either the Tigard or Salem location. If you must mail, I think you are probably safe to wait until Monday as long as you are anywhere in Oregon. To be on the safe side, if you live anywhere some distance away from either PERS Offices, you can overnight the application on Monday and it will be there on Tuesday, in time to meet deadlines. Even a by 10 a.m. delivery on Wednesday meets both the spirit and the letter of the law. Having said this, it is always best to verify this yourself with PERS. Alas, today is Friday and the next time PERS will be open is 8 a.m. PST Monday. Call early if you have questions.
The clarification comes directly from one of the highest ranking members of PERS management. It is exactly what I said in the blog post. We can try to make this out to be a conspiracy, but I think it is more like a combination of unique circumstances that landed during 2019 that contribute to this years' delay. Whether members should have to pay for delays like this is a different matter, but there is no conspiracy of silence at least not on the part of PERS Staff. Part of the Board is new, particularly its Chair, and the Executive Director of PERS has only been on the job since February. The Secretary of State's audit of PERS added some new burdens to Milliman, in addition to their usual duties. I think that all these factors conspired to delay finalization of the Actuarial Equivalency Factors, including the very late Experience Study that motivated the changes to the mortality factors that come into play in constructing the AEFs. It is an unfortunate piece of timing and I hope PERS is able to get the word out soon enough (or offer a bit slack in the dates) once they learn of the impact of new AEFs on retirement calculations. My source tells me that it is completely possible that the changes will be so small that they will be literally negligible (a few dollars one way or the other). But that is only a possibility. Until the actual factors appear in PERS' hands, no one actually knows how much, if any, the changes will be.
@LK. The Board Packet is not complete. Once PERS receives the information from Milliman, it will be added to the Board packet - well before the meeting - and to the public information posted on the PERS web site. Milliman has always been completely transparent in their presentations to the Board, and their presentations have always appeared in the Board packet whenever an Action item that requires a vote takes place. I've been on Boards as well, so I know that what is going on right now is that not all the information in the Board packet is complete. In fact, one of the unusual aspects of the current management of PERS is that they publish the Board packets long before the meetings take place, a refreshing change from past practice. Prior to 2019, the Board agenda would come out on the Friday before the meeting, and the Board packet would be posted Monday for the upcoming Friday meeting. One consequence of posting agendas and packets early is that they are frequently incomplete and get filled out in a timely manner before the meeting.
What bunch of snakes ! God I hate the continued cuts of my future retirement plan.
PERS has said that they will try to get the information re: changes to beneficiary retirement options today, Monday. I am not seeing it at this point, but will call if it's not up before too long.
I also really dislike not being able to make plans because PERS changes things around. One would think that our accounts would be earning more interest the longer we have worked, and I have been told that at PERS workshops. This is not always so due to the assumed rate and life expectancy change vulnerability every odd year. It is scary for people who do not have high salaries.
Indeed, we need to pay attention.
LK
Your Tier 1 account continues to earn interest as does your IAP account. How they factor into your actual benefits depend on the retirement option that yields the highest benefit for you. Of course, you can choose a lump sum option, which gives you all your money and the employer match - no annuity, no beneficiary - and then you can invest it yourself. If, as a Tier 1 member, you think you can beat 7.2%, good luck keeping that financing your retirement.
I have heard that it is unwise to try to beat the PERS return.
It is somewhat puzzling why estimates from month to month vary, though not widely (except for the birthday month of my beneficiary, apparently, when there is a loss from the previous month).
PERS says that Milliman would have informed them if the AEFs would affect benefits much in 2020. So, people should just retire when they think it is best for them to do so. Until the data is loaded into the system, PERS is not able to quote benefits based on the new calculation method, but it isn't predicted to be very much different than the current calculations.
LK
Not only is it unwise, the evidence is strongly in favor of not trying to do so. According to PERS’ own internal data, a large number of members who have selected one of the two lump sum options have had to return to work within 5 years after retiring.
As for the AEFs, the information I’ve extracted from combing publicly available information is that the actuaries predicted that changes to mortality factors would reduce employer contribution rates by 0.1%. That is negligible, but it still doesn’t easily translate into a number an individual can wrap their mind around. It kind of sounds like a two-week setback, which might result in a lowering of a monthly benefit by 0.1% if you retire after 12/1/2019. That would be my best guess. I have no other information to confirm that. But if your benefit was, say,$3000 per month on 12/1/19 and you waited until 1/1/2020, that benefit might be $2997 instead.
That would be nice if the assumptions turn out to be negligible. Dropping the assummed rate .3 percent resulted in a $200 per month drop in my chosen benefit option. I'll let you know the outcome when the new information becomes available for estimated benefits after they are voted on by the board in December, and go into effect in Jan. 2020.
Reading the Milliman 2018 report that the assumptions are based on, it was difficult to ascertain just what is intended.
A public entitiy, PERS needs to be transparent. One possible improvement would be to include a little explanation on agenda items in the Board packets in plain English, so that members know what is really going on. Another necessary improvement is that whenever PERS makes a change to member benefits, that members will be notified and given six months to retire under current rules before the old rules expire. It's only fair that we should be able to make informed decisions about our own money.
LK
mfearless....I just received the latest edition of PERS News and I am more confused than EVER!! I am retired P&F since January 1, 2018, Tier 1, retired at 52. I have been working 20 hours a week +/- at the office (parole & probation) since the day I retired. Never going over the 1040 hour annual limit. My boss and I have have been very interested the removal of the 1040 limitation because the office is short handed and my help is invaluable to them. I can't tell if I can work over the limit or not! I have printed out all the rules and changes and they seem to contradict each other. Can you help me understand if I can or if I can't work over the 1040 hour limit. From what I am understanding it appears I can't because I didn't separate from the employer for a full 6 months. I am also concerned about wording in 459-017-0060 Section 2 (A) states "for retirees who have not reached full retirement age under the Social Security Act the annual compensation limit is $17,640".....what the heck does that mean? I am making more than twice that working part-time......now I'm kind of freaking out.....any clarity you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks
Unknown: there are two parts to your question. Part 1 has to do with the 1040 hour limit. Unfortunately, you don't qualify because you don't meet the conditions of the law. The 6 month separation is a requirement of the IRS to avoid the retire/rehire rule. The 1040 hour rule escapes because of differences in the amount of service and the fact that you are only technically part time. The retire/no rehire requires a full 6 month separation. No way around this.
The second part has to do with Social Security limits. If you are NOT drawing Social Security, the rule doesn't apply to you at all. Only if you draw Social Security early (prior to your reaching full SS retirement age (66 or 67 or thereabouts)) does this apply. Social Security limits how much you can earn from employment if you start drawing your benefits "early" (age 62 or later). If you wait to draw Social Security until after you reach full SS retirement age for your birth year, there is no limit on the amount you can earn.
So, the basis answer to your questions are (1) no, you don't qualify and (2) it is irrelevant for now.
Hope this helps.
The new life expectancy AEFs are in effect on the PERS website. I compared the benefit estimates under the 2019 rules with the new 2020 rules. There is a 2.3% cut in benefits. Shortly before Thanksgiving, I was told by a PERS spokeswoman that these changes in 2020 would be "inconsequential." She also told me that the information was not available to the public before the new assumptions take effect. I now doubt very much that she did not have access to this information. It looks like there was a plan by PERS to keep this cut to benefits a big secret. As far as member benefits go, it is tantamount to PERS cutting the assumed rate by 2.3% without telling anyone beforehand.
A 2.3% cut in the assumed rate would have caused many people to retire. But PERS members were not given the chance. PERS slipped this cut in under the guise of life expectancy assumptions. This leads me to wonder, naturally inquisitive person that I am, whether Milliman's life expectancy study was biased toward reducing benefits to bail out PERS. This is not cynical, this is a survival skill if your money is invested in PERS.
The bottom line is that it will take me a very long time to make up 2.3%, not a couple of months, as I was told by the PERS authority whom I talked with. What about those members who were planning to retire in the first half of 2020? They are working for nothing, in fact, just digging out of a hole that PERS surreptitiously put them in.
This is infuriating and unfair. How can PERS intentionally keep its members in the dark on matters that affect their retirement plans and still be a trusted agency? PERS has certainly lost credibility with this member.
For me, over the next 30 years, this cut caused by the new life expectancy assumptions will be a loss of over $43,000. Knowing the political situation surrounding PERS and the many efforts by Gov. Brown, PERS, and others to cut member benefits in recent years, not to mention that life expectancy varies greatly by where one lives in Oregon, I am doubtful about the very nature of the new life expectancy tables.
I would like to see an impartial agency, not Milliman or PERS, confirm these long-range life expectancy assumptions. One would think, with the low income of many State of Oregon workers and the high cost of health care, that their lives will be actually be shorter, which is the trend in many parts of the United States. This is because we know that the less money someone has, the shorter they live. People who live near I-5 in Medford, for example, have shorter lifespans than the average person in India, I read in an article recently.
Climate change will negatively impact life expectancy. Did Milliman take this into acount? "In Oregon alone, the impacts of climate change—devastating wildfires and the resultant polluting smoke, ocean acidification, increasingly extreme and variable precipitation patterns—are already having severely adverse effects on public health, ecosystems, and the economy."-- The New Yorker, https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-rogue-republicans-killed-oregons-climate-change-bill
Due to the fact that PERS intentionally withheld the information that it was substantially cutting benefits from its members, I think that this action might be illegal. What do you think? Why not add this to the other ongoing lawsuits against PERS? And what if these life expectancy assumptions are wrong? Just the fact that PERS admits that they intentionally do not tell its members about these things shows that harm was intended to its members.
LK
@lk. The information you provided isn’t suffient for me to draw any inferences one way or the other. For example, I don’t known which specific benefit you are referring to: full formula with a beneficiary, or Money Match with or without a beneficiary. We need to compare apples with apples. Only Option 1 base benefit. Once you add a beneficiary, there are significant confounding factors constructing joint mortality assumptions.
I don’t disagree with your concern about the tardiness of the release of this information, but I think you have the wrong villian in your sights. SB 1049 and some of its clinker clauses delayed the calculation and distribution of the new AEFs. PERS couldn’t do anything until the legislature signed off on the economic assumptions, including the unchanged assumed rate. Complicating that process was the necessity of PERS and the actuary finalizing their response to an agency audit ordered by the Secretary of State in early 2018 and not completed until mid 2019. If you believe you have a basis for litigation, you should take it up with your union, which should be part of the PERS Coalition. However, you may be in a bind there because the culprit in this case is largely a result of SB 1049. The window for litigating any element of SB 1049 closed on August 12, 2019, the required 60 day period from passage for an expedited direct review by the Oregon Supreme Court. Any other litigation pursuant to this requires filing in Marion County Circuit Court, and would need to follow the lemgthy legal route,rather than the direct route provided in the bill’s emergency clause.
As for Milliman being biased or PERS being biased,both were just audited by a completely external firm,not connected in any way with PERS, Milliman, or State Government. While the outside audit found some areas of concern, their recommendations might have resulted in even further reductions to benefits both in mortality assumptions and in assumed rates.
Since I have not analyzed the new AEFs relative to those that technically expired for retirements after 12/1/2019, it is not possible for me to comment further. What I can say is that in the past, AEF changes tend to affect older members greater than younger members because younger members have a longer life expectancy over which to distribute the changes, while the opposite is true with members who retire at an older age. So whenever they talk about setbacks or the magnitude of changes, they always tend to use the average age of the most recent cohort of retirees.
The cut affected Options 1, 2, 2A, and 3A, these are the ones I looked at.
I referred this to SEIU today.
The fact that PERS refused to share this information that they knew would affect benefits of members is a big problem. I only found out about this by a casual remark, remember, of someone in Member Services, that my benefit estimates might change. When I spoke with someone with more authority, she downplayed the event as "inconsequential."
The 2018 Milliman report mentioned in the Dec. Board packet was difficult to read, but they seemed to be intent on taking Tier 1 members to 6.8% assumed rate, if I comprehended this correctly. I gave up trying to figure it out. That is why it is important that PERS be crystal clear with its members about what they are doing.
I was correct to trust my gut instinct that something was going down. I wish I had not listened to PERS.
LK
Options 2, 2A, and 3A involve a beneficiary. Option 1 does not. Options 2, 2A, and 3A derive from Option 1 and are based onthe joint mortality of you and your beneficiary. Depending on your age difference based only on birth years, you may be seeing the impact described in the last paragraph of my previous response.
Where did you find thenew tables? I don’t have a copy so I can’t see the direct impact on typical scenarios. Ifypu have thecomplete set, canyou email me a copy. feldesmanm at gmail dot com.
I’ve just gotten my hands on the new tables, all 216 pages. In order to properly assess the amount of the cuts, I need spe ific data, but I can start with a single data point. For a Tier 1 member retiring at age 60, the AEF reduction is 0.4% meaning that the benefit would be reduced by less than 0.5 % and the setback relative to a Dec 1, 2019 retirement is less than 2 months. YMMV depending on age, tier, and retirement method.
That's good news re: the tables. What would be the effect on a Tier 1 person retiring at age 68? The options under consideration are Opt.1, 2, 2A, and 3A.
I still think PERS is pulling a fast one on its members by hiding that this is happening. PERS normally informs its members when the AEFs are changed.
It is very strange not to have the data loaded and thus to be able to get a benefit estimate.
I do not know what I was looking at last night re: benefit estimates, because the AEF data has not been loaded. PERS will be testing it for several weeks yet. I was very stressed out by what I thought I saw. Good to hear that I was wrong!
I don't think I can stand to work another two months to make up the difference. Can I quit my job and wait a couple of months until retiring to make up the difference? I could live off savings and Social Security with no problem for quite a while. I am being bullied at work. There is no protection for older workers.
Thanks, LK
@lk. I can’t resolve anything other than Option 1, which is the only benefit that involves you and you alone. The others involve a beneficiary and are nothing more than a percentage of the Option 1 benefit. So, here's the number you want. Under the existing 2018 AEF, a member 68 years, 0 months at retirement would receive $8.10 per $1000 of member account balance. Under the 2020 tables, the same member would receive $8.09 per $1000 of account balance. In terms of setback, it is less than one month since the factor increases to $8.11 in the new tables if you wait one additional month to retire. There are bigger impacts on younger retirees, but a your age, the changes are genuinely minor.
Hope this helps.
Thank you! I may have to sit tight until the beneficiary benefit estimates up and running. I am interested if new retirees change the option that they chose to retire under within the 60 day period after receiving their first check. It sounds like it could be complicated, so I'm thinking it's best to choose the right one before retiring. LK
It isn’t any more complicated than it was before. The beneficiary options are based on joint mortality of member and beneficiary. The younger your beneficiary is the greater the “cost” in terms of benefit reduction. If, under the 2018 tables, you have a rough estimate of Option 1, 2, 2a, 3, 3a, you can calculate the percentage reduction from Option 1 each of beneficiary options are. You could then apply those general percentages to the estimate of your Option 1 benefit under the new tables. While the new figures will only be approximate, they will give you some idea. Alternatively, the new tables are available for download (all 213 pages) at PERS’ website under Financials, Actuarial Equivalency Factors. While the tables are not self explanatory, once you figure out your option 1 base rate (in $$ per $1000account balance), the beneficiary options are all expressed as percentages of the Option 1 benefit by way of lookup tables where you find the row and column intersecting with your age at retirement and the age difference in years between you and your beneficiary. It isn’t hard; just tedious. There are 4 separate tables for 2, 2a, 3, 3a. You can compare the percentages with the same tables for the 2018 set and you can see in percent terms how the new tables ramify to a specific setback.
I hope my answer doesn’t confuse or stress you. It is just that the relevant information is now available, but you’ll have to do some work to determine more specifically how this affects your specific circumstances.
We attempted to calculate the changes to my benefits due to the new AEF tables. It does not look like it is going to make a major difference, about $10 per month or so, if we calculated correctly. This is a relief. So, would you say that PERS members should be relatively safe from any more benefit cuts until Jan. 2020?
Thanks for all your invaluable help with understanding this.
LK
Does anyone know if Julie Parrish's ballot measure will be on the November 2020 election ? I believe what she's trying is an end round attack, so evil.
As of the morning of Jan. 2nd, PERS online benefit estimates using the new life expectancy tables are not yet available. It would be helpful to confirm that our individual calculations match those that will be used in the PERS system.
LK
It's shocking how much the IAP accounts have lost, as shown this evening. I lost about 9% of my total balance in the last 30 days. And this was supposedly invested in the most conservative way. No, our economy isn't doing great, don't believe it.
To those commenting on the performance of the IAP. I am not an expert on the IAP, having retired before they became a "thing". I do know that the "age-specific" investments are tied to conventional wisdom about investing as you get older. Basically, as you age into retirement, your risk tolerance is expected to be less; therefore the proportion of money devoted to equities versus bonds changes dramatically with age. Sadly, this "conventional wisdom" hasn't held for a very long time, and bonds significantly underperform equities at just about all stages of life. And in particular, while the stock market was blazing away to an approximately 30% return (S&P) in 2019, the bond market seems to have fallen off a cliff. December was amazing for anyone in the stock market, but for those in the bond market it just sucked. I fear that those of you who lost money were probably, perforce, in the age-tracked funds that are mostly bonds. I don't know what to suggest other than to complain both to the Legislature and to PERS and the Oregon Investment Council. They make the decisions on what and how those IAP monies are invested, and also on the degree of choice you have.
To those wondering about the new Actuarial Equivalency Factors being loaded into the Online PERS Benefit Calculator, all I can say is that it takes about 45-60 days for the new tables to be reprogrammed into the Online Calculator. Since the tables are not generated by a computer program itself in the Online Calculator, they have to be manually loaded as "look up tables". This takes time, many pairs of eyeballs, and lots of testing. Since PERS didn't see the tables until early December, I'd be surprised if they are loaded by mid-January.
Finally, please do remember that I am a messenger, not the message itself. So, coming here to complain about something PERS has done or not done won't generally accomplish much since I am only a messenger. Remember the axiom - don't shoot the messenger.
Stinek,
I rolled my IAP into my Deferred Comp when I retired. For 2019 my account earned 16.79 percent. So the economy is doing great when my deferred comp is doing more than twice what the fixed PERS accounts are doing. Also for those who don't know, your estimate PERS gives you is less than what you will get when you get your entitlement statement. Most people I retired with ended up getting 300-400 dollars a month more than the estimate. Mine was $367 more than the estimate. I think they like to estimate lower to be safe.
The estimates for Tier 1 members who started work before 1990 are always off (the online ones, not the written ones) because they don’t include the income tax remedy. For Tier 1 & Tier 2, the online estimates are off because the sick leave calculations are usually member inputs which frequently don’t match actual employer records. Both of these factors contribute to lower online estimates that written estimates and actual payments.
Thank you, Mrfearless47, for clarifying why the IAP accounts took such a big hit. Bonds vs stocks. I've been tracking the wrong investment. I did contact PERS directly, but have yet to receive a response. I am considering withdrawing my IAP and taking the tax hit. At least the community would benefit from the taxes paid, rather than just losing the money through what appears to be evaporation. To "Unknown", I have no idea what a Deferred Comp is. I don't know whether I had that as an option as I have never heard of it before. As for the benefit estimate I received from PERS--the one mailed to me was within a few dollars of what I actually received. I did have a data verification completed before I retired, and my main variable was how much vacation time and sick time would be included in the calculations. I recommend everyone have the data verification completed before retiring, as I understand PERS will recover any over payment they make. Now I have to figure out how to track the performance of bonds. Thank you again!
@Stinek. If you are already retired, you can roll your IAP account into a rollover IRA with any custodian you wish. For low cost management, I recommend Vanguard, one of the lowest cost, best-managed mutual funds in the industry. They have a variety of choices (actually hundreds). I suggest an Index Fund, or an Exchange Traded Fund that tracks the broad stock and bond market. It won’t perform as well as an Index that tracks only the stock market (e.g. the S&P 500), but it also won’t be as volatile as the broad stock market either. Vanguard has a Balanced Index Fund (information, not recommendation) that tracks both stocks and bonds, which may be more to your liking or risk tolerance than a pure stock market play. As a benchmark, my wife’s retirement is a pure 401k rolled over into a managed IRA. She is over 70 and her asset mix is 70% stocks and 30% bonds. My 403b ( a deferred compensation package like the 457 that @Unknown mentioned) is invested in funds that work out to be 90% stocks and 10% bonds. Your risk tolerance may be lower than ours, but I can see no logic in keeping money in an age fund that is probably 20% stocks and 80% bonds. You can roll out your IAP without any tax liability if you are (a) retired and (b) the rollover is direct and does not pass through your hands.
Also the nice thing about a 457b(Deferred Compensation) is you do not have to wait until 59 1/2 to start withdrawing funds without penalty.
Thank you, Mrfearless47, for your helpful information. You've given me options to explore. Thank you again!
fyi-- The new AEF data has been vetted and is now incorporated into PERS member online benefit estimates.
LK
Post a Comment