Featured Post

Was it constitutional for Proposition 124 to replace PSPRS' permanent benefit increases with a capped 2% COLA?

In this blog I and multiple commenters have broached the subject of the suspect constitutionality of PSPRS' replacement of the old perma...

Monday, March 11, 2013

PSPRS' unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL)

The previous post referenced PSPRS' increased annual required contribution (ARC) as a factor in the city of Tucson's budget deficit.  The following table shows a breakdown of PSPRS' aggregate ARC from all its participating employers. The table, which is incomplete due to the limited data available in PSPRS' online reports, breaks down the ARC into two parts.  The normal cost represents the employer cost to fund the retirement of current workers while the unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) represents the employer cost to cover PSPRS' unfunded liability.  This UAAL percentage represents a portion of PSPRS's unfunded liability that has been amortized over 24 years.  The sum of the normal cost and UAAL represents what employers must pay to PSPRS each year.  Using 1968 for example, this meant that for every $100 in salary paid to employees, $14.49 was paid to PSPRS; in 2012 it will be $30.44 for each $100.  The following totals represent the aggregate for all participating employers, so each individual employer's ARC will vary depending on their own pension liabilities.  For example, Tucson Fire Department's ARC for the 2012 valuation year was 46.77% (31.17% of which is UAAL), which is over 16% higher than PSPRS' aggregate ARC.

Valuation
Normal


Total
Year
Cost
UAAL
ARC
1968




14.49%
1969




15.28%
1970




15.58%
1971




22.13%
1972




21.62%
1973




20.79%
1974




20.24%
1975




16.37%
1976




15.34%
1977
11.37%
4.18%
15.55%
1978




13.46%
1979




12.28%
1980
9.15%
2.71%
11.86%
1981




10.61%
1982




10.10%
1983




9.16%
1984




7.87%
1985
7.67%
0.00%
7.67%
1986




6.67%
1987




7.18%
1988




6.72%
1986




7.01%
1990
8.26%
-0.16%
8.10%
1991




8.73%
1992




8.16%
1993




7.66%
1994




7.85%
1995
9.96%
-1.85%
8.11%
1996
9.94%
-3.58%
6.36%
1997
9.92%
-4.10%
5.82%
1998
9.76%
-4.47%
5.29%
1999
10.89%
-5.68%
5.21%
2000
10.86%
-6.65%
4.21%
2001
11.21%
-7.46%
3.75%
2002
11.61%
-3.95%
7.66%
2003
10.32%
-0.27%
10.05%
2004
10.29%
2.51%
12.80%
2005
10.71%
6.38%
17.09%
2006
10.08%
6.44%
16.52%
2007
12.33%
9.38%
21.71%
2008
11.80%
8.97%
20.77%
2009
12.08%
8.81%
20.89%
2010
12.17%
10.51%
22.68%
2011
12.61%
14.57%
27.18%
2012
13.37%
17.07%
30.44%

The pattern of ARC's follows an expected path up until 2004.  Before that we can see an early period where the ARC was high as PSPRS was established and needed additional start-up funding.  Beginning in the late 1970's, we can see the ARC begin a steady decline to where PSPRS was actually overfunded, which is represented by the negative UAAL percentages.

2004 began the steady increase of the UAAL percentage from 2.51% in 2004 to 17.07% in 2012.  This included huge year-to-year jumps between 2010 and 2012.  The last decade, of course, was when we had two major market crashes.  The average ARC over all years is 12.78%, which shows that over the long run, despite PSPRS' current underfunding, employers have always paid their fair share into PSPRS.

As can be seen in Tucson, the problems with the UAAL is that it is now being paid down at a time when governments are still struggling with their budgets.  Planned amortization of the UAAL is supposed to eventually lead to lower ARC's.  The big unknown is what happens if things do not go as planned.  Lower than expected rates of returns or, even worse another major market crash, will upset the plan and worsen the current underfunding.  How much more can a city like Tucson pay to cover the UAAL?  Cross your fingers and hope we never have to find out.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Relevant comments are welcome, but please adhere to the following rules:

1. No profanity or vulgarity.
2. No spam or advertising.
3. No copyrighted material may be posted unless you are the copyright owner.
4. Stay on topic.
5. Disagreement is fine, but please avoid ad hominem attacks.

Comments reflect the views of the authors alone, and do not reflect the opinion of this website.