Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Another big budget hit coming?

Posted in:

Illinois

* Subscribers know more about a planned vote later this week by the Teachers’ Retirement System to potentially lower its assumed investment return rate, which could blow yet another big hole in the state budget…

“If the (TRS) board were to approve a lower assumed rate of return taxpayers will be automatically and immediately on the hook for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in higher taxes or reduced services,” Michael Mahoney, Rauner’s senior advisor for revenue and pensions, wrote to the governor’s chief of staff, Richard Goldberg.

When TRS lowered the investment return rate to 7.5 percent from 8 percent in 2014 the state’s pension payment increased by more than $200 million, according to the memo. […]

One of Rauner’s top Republican legislative allies, Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, urged the TRS board to delay a vote Friday to give the public time to weigh in on its possible actions.

“This issue is important enough at the very least to put the TRS board on notice we don’t want them taking any action that could cost taxpayers $200 to $300 million without appropriate scrutiny,” she said.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:07 am

Comments

So the legislators want TRS to ignore investment return facts?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:16 am
This is long term debt. It needs to be accounted for and addressed but not in the breathless way the Rauner fear machine and the media go about making it sound like a bill that has to be paid on Friday. This is not helping the process or realistic discussions about long term solutions. GOP make america fear again.

How about some banking regulations to prevent improper lending and another financial collapse… taxpayers would like that too….

Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:16 am
No surprise.
7% is still ridiculous.
It is a rate right up there with believing in unicorns or human-caused global warming.

It is like pretending your check will magically clear your bank because you want to believe that they are paying 7% interest on your savings.

Not happening.

Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:16 am
Don’t agree with the Governor here. The sooner these assumptions are made to track reality, the better. Or maybe we could phase in the reduced return assumption, 0.1% a year for 40 years?

Comment by Put the Fun in unfunded Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:19 am
The following is a link to Sen. Radogno’s press release when TRS lowered their assumed rate of return from 8.5% to 8% in 2012. She did not make any statements I could find in 2014 when the assumption was reduced from 8% to 7.5%.

http://senatorradogno.org/Media/News/p/8820/v/2000/TRS-lowers-investment-rate-of-return-underscores-need-for-pension-reform

Comment by My button is broke... Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:20 am
Somebody needs to explain how the same people who have been demonizing the Edgar ramp and passed skipped payments, are now openly attacking TRS for not cooking the books to their own satisfaction?

Comment by ILPundit Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:21 am
=give the public time to weigh in on it’s possible actions=

Huh? Like stiffing employees who already provided services for them yet again? Wish I could do that to my bank and still keep my house.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:23 am
Senator Radogno should have stayed out of this. Political input on rates of return is dangerous.

Why not assume 20 percent returns and cut the required payment? Maybe because we need to live in reality.

Comment by Last Bull Moose Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:27 am
=give the public time to weigh in on it’s possible actions=

What? This is not a decision that is made by the public. This is the responsibility of TRS and the TRS Board.

What the governor and his minions are trying to gin up support for is TRS to put of the decision until the governor gets around to appointing his people and then shorting TRS. That is equally as irresponsible as the past 90 years of shorting the pension systems. Something has criticized in the past.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:27 am
“link to Sen. Radogno’s press release ”

That press release indicates that None of Radagno, Cross, nor their staffs actually understand what the return assumption does–changing the assumption does NOT increase the funding deficit, it “only” (scare quotes) causes the requieed future contributions to go up.

And, anyway, math is math, and you can’t fight it. The attitude that they are expressing–leave the problem for the future–is what caused this particular problem in the first place.

Comment by Chris Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:28 am
Bruce,

You asked for the tax increase to expire before taking office. When you managed the cafeteria in the nursing home, did you raise prices to the end consumer when costs went up? Or did you absorb the costs cause your a nice guy?

Thanx!
Doug Simpson

Comment by Doug Simpson Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:30 am
A leading Illinois legislator has a head-in-the-sand
moment. Not too surprising-she and her fellow Illinois politicians of both parties, let me emphasize the both, have been in head-in-the sand comas for years.

Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:30 am
They should assume an investment return of 55% and get rid of the deficit.

Comment by northshore cynic Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:31 am
Delayed reality . . . like augmented reality but with fewer Pokémon.

Comment by Dome Gnome Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:31 am
“This issue is important enough at the very least to put the TRS board on notice we don’t want them taking any action that could cost taxpayers $200 to $300 million without appropriate scrutiny.”

With all due respect, Sen. Radogno, I submit that TRS board HAS given this appropriate scrutiny. They are not making this decision on a whim.

Comment by G'Kar Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:31 am
Considering their options or possible actions is what got us into this mess. They have two realistic options - pay what they owe, and change the ramp. Everything else just makes it worse. Third needed action - reimplement the higher income tax. We’ve already proven 90% of the budget expense is more or less required. Income has to match.

Comment by Thoughts Matter Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:32 am
Sounds like TRS is making a strong case for consideration/pension reforms. we need to extend the ramp and make some other changes where pension adjustments don’t cause enormous budget hits. Illinois just makes stupid discussions on pensions.

We also need to look at pay freezes to help reduce pension costs, if an employee wants pay increases, they can switch pension plans moving forward. Pensions might be constitutionally protected, but wages are not.

Oh yea, and we still need to fix Tier 2 because those employees are getting screwed and feds are eventually going to force it, so let’s just fix it now.

Our problems aren’t easy, but the Illinois legislature makes our problems a lot harder than they should be.

Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:35 am
Rauner’s people fomenting crisis and hoping for chaos, with Radogno being the good soldier. Let TRS do their work. 7.5% is high, and our state isn’t the only one with “wishful” returns-

http://www.pionline.com/article/20150810/PRINT/308109985/high-return-era-ends-for-many-big-public-pension-funds

Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:38 am
All pension funds have seen dismal rates of return the last several years. Even IMRF, the fund some in Springfield like to point to as the best run fund in the State, had a return last year of under 1 percent. This year is not looking much better at this time.

Comment by GA Watcher Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:39 am
VanillaMan -

Look at Figure 1 on Page 1 of this link, and you’ll see 7% may not be ridiculous at all.
http://www.nasra.org/files/Issue%20Briefs/NASRAInvReturnAssumptBrief.pdf

Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:41 am
Come on people. They aren’t going to face reality. Perfidy won’t allow it. Triple down on the lie.

Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:44 am
===7% is still ridiculous.===

I have over an 8% return over the past 12 years and over 7% over the past 3 years (and so far this year). I would sure hope professional managers could do a better job than my 457, so I would not consider 7% ridiculous as a long-term average.

Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:45 am
Perhaps this is yet another instance of Sen. Radogno taking one for the Gov. and his team? In sum, she’s wrong because the Gov. and his team miss the most important point.

I think the Gov. et al are spinning this all wrong. Yes, a lowered expected return — one based in reality, btw — will create a larger unfunded pension liability … but it’s already there truth be told.

So do just that, tell the truth, unvarnished, about public pensions and all of the built-in obstacles to help re-balance things kinda, sorta in the taxpayers’ favor. Public pensions make private citizens/taxpayers crazy. So, just tell the truth!

Comment by Deft Wing Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:45 am
“urged the TRS board to delay a vote Friday to give the public time to weigh in on its possible actions”

So is the public comment supposed to somehow change the investment rate of return? I thought it was a good, conservative ideal to face economic facts and not bogus numbers. Actually, that sounds like an ideal for any public servant. If there’s bad news in the budget, let’s account for it so we can adjust. Delaying the bad news doesn’t save anyone anything.

Well, I guess it may save hard conversations with voters, but that’s a political concern. Wait…is the delay possibly for purely political reasons? I am shocked by this revelation.

Comment by illini97 Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:48 am
Champaigne. The folks running these investments CanNOT be fully invested in equities. That would be suicide. Not exactly sure of the blend that TRS has, but 40% would be my guess. Look back at 07-09 and se what could happen if they were only in stocks.

Comment by Blue dog dem Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:55 am
The average return on public pension plans across the nation was just under 6% for the 10 years ending on Dec. 31, 2015. Even an assumption of a 7% return on investment looks optimistic to me in the current low interest environment. Increased taxpayer funding of the pension systems appears to be the only sure way to fund the pension systems.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:56 am
TRS is the 37th largest pension fund in the WORLD. Seven percent is a reasonable return for that amount of capital. Imagine the increased pension debt if the system wasn’t as well invested as it is.

Comment by Diogenes in DuPage Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:58 am
There is no need to utter the words…pension reform. That is over and done with.

The Supreme Court has weighed in. Pay/fund them.

As far as reform, that’s what Tier 2 was!

Just like we all have to do……pay the darn bill.

Embarrassing that this state is full of cheaters and takers who want to pick and choose what contracts they’ll honor.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:09 am
The expected rate of return is only one side of the equation. The other side is the discount rate. I believe the state pension systems are using the same rate for both. When both rates are equal, a pension fund is only considered healthy when 100% funded, which makes the situation even worse.

For all those politicians that want to use 80% as the “healthy” target funding level, they’ll have to lower the discount rate. That also means a higher cost today. There is no escaping the math.

Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:10 am
Also, a number of groups on the far right, when writing about how underfunded pension systems are, use 2-3% as what they think the pension systems should use as an assumed rate of return. They argue that pensions should use a risk free rate and then divest of equities and invest solely in bonds. They generally point to Prof. Rauh from Stanford as their expert.

Here, IPI argues for a 4% rate of return.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/pension-funds%C2%92-expected-rates-of-return-%C2%93biggest-lie-in-global-finance%C2%94/

Comment by My button is broke... Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:11 am
The way the Gov and his staff are arguing this issue indicates their concern is on maintaining a low payout, not insuring that the board is following appropriate standards for pension systems.

We need to stop the pension funding games by the politicians.

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:14 am
Great comments.

Can you imagine working at TRS and getting Rauner heat. scary.

Comment by cdog Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:21 am
Without regard to the merits of this one decision-why hasn’t Rauner filled his three vacancies on this Board so he has some oversight as to how TRS is being managed.

Comment by Sue Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:23 am
VanillaMan***

The 7% - 3 Year return may very well include Capital Gains from the lowering of interest rates on bonds previously held by the Fund. With rates at zero or Near-Zero, Capital Gains going forward may not be as generous.

Comment by Springfield Since '77 Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:24 am
Let the TRS board do its job. They have been shown reasonable in their forecasts to date.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:27 am
7.5%..hahah

In what universe ? Try 3-4% which in and of itself may be optimistic.

Comment by JDuc Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:30 am
This is all about the fact that the income tax rate needs to be increased. Rauner knows if the rate of return is lowered he will have to come to the table and negotiate a raise in the income tax rate.

Rauner wants to cook the books and not face reality.

Comment by MOON Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:38 am
Why is this Bruce Torrence Rauner so obsessed with Teachers Unions? What is his problem?

Seriously.

Comment by Doug Simpson Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:42 am
The reduced return expectation is simply reality, which Springfield would rather deny so that it keep the political “pork” flowing instead of meeting its constitutional responsibility to fund pensions.

Other than the “tier” system that’s already been enacted, the only thing the state can do to reduce future retiree pension obligations is reduce the salary basis for those pensions. That means shifting pension costs for highly compensated public employees to their actual employers, or penalizing those organizations through reduced state grants if their upper compensation levels in pension basis years exceeds certain affordable amounts.

the full cost of early retirement also needs to be shifted to employers from the state.

Stopping this gravy train will be tough, and needs to be accompanied by a prohibition of public employee strikes in Illinois, which is the case in the overwhelming majority of other states.

Comment by Illinois bob Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:42 am
==Look at Figure 1 on Page 1 of this link, and you’ll see 7% may not be ridiculous at all.
http://www.nasra.org/files/Issue%20Briefs/NASRAInvReturnAssumptBrief.pdf==

Thanks Anyone Remember for that. Better to do some research, before shooting one’s mouth off.

TRS folks know what they’re doing without political input.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:46 am
JDuc
Check out Figure 1 on Page 1.
http://www.nasra.org/files/Issue%20Briefs/NASRAInvReturnAssumptBrief.pdf

Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:49 am
=the full cost of early retirement also needs to be shifted to employers from the state.=

ERO was eliminated.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:57 am
==TRS folks know what they’re doing without political input==

TRS folks know what they’re doing without anyone’s input. Those on the board are highly capable people. Actually remarkably so, given that everything’s still functioning in spite of public theft of their operating funds.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 12:01 pm
“This issue is important enough at the very least to put the TRS board on notice we don’t want them taking any action that could cost taxpayers $200 to $300 million without appropriate scrutiny.”
HMMMM, should we put all taxpayers on notice that the politicians of the State of Illinois have paved the path to bankrupting the State, and once again the taxpayers are stuck with paying those bills. I think politicians look at these figures like it’s Monopoly money and they can just keep making more.

Comment by FED UP w/ Politicians Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 12:09 pm
Anon- you are truly ignorant. TRS Board still has an outsized allocation to hedge funds when virtually all other large funds have exited due to cost and underperformance. It’s the hedge fund allocation which has hurt returns for nearly three years

Comment by Sue Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 12:20 pm
Illinois Bob,

There were two bills passed by the General Assembly here in Illinois to prevent state employees from striking. Our Illustrious Governor vetoed them both.

In the past our governor has said he wants to force a strike.

I think most state employees at this point would agree with you on this one issue.

Comment by Steve Polite Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 12:27 pm
===I have over an 8% return over the past 12 years and over 7% over the past 3 years (and so far this year). I would sure hope professional managers could do a better job than my 457, so I would not consider 7% ridiculous as a long-term average.===

Some pension plans require a more conservative mix of investments than your self-directed 457b.

Comment by yinn Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 12:34 pm
According to the TRS web site their actual investment returns thru March 31, 2016, for various periods were: 1 year 0.5% (half of one percent), 3 years 7.0%, 5 years 7.5%, and 10 years 5.8%. A forecast of 7% for the future looks possible but could still be hard to achieve in the current market conditions, only time will tell.

Comment by Small town taxpayer Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 12:38 pm
Thanx, Steve Polite. Great post!

Comment by Doug Simpson Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 12:40 pm
Am I missing something? Why do I think Illinois Bob’s solution is a very good one and makes a lot of sense. Good answer Bob!

Comment by Triple fat Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 12:48 pm
Bob, for what it’s worth, ERO has been self-funding for oh, about the past ten years. One of the considerations in letting it sunset, I’m told, is that the required contribution rates to keep it self-funded were extremely high.

To the Post, thanks to Anyone Remember for finding and posting the NASRA chart. It’s important to remember that these rates are made up of two components; a real return on investments plus an assumed rate of inflation. The former should be fairly close to a long bond return and the latter is self-explanatory. Over the past few years, bond yields have fallen dramatically, while inflation has almost zeroed out. In the short run, even 7.0% looks hard to justify. As the ultimate long-term investors, pension funds have to plan for a return to more normal markets and inflation rates and in that context, 7% is probably reasonable.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 12:51 pm
Sue, please define “outsized,” “underperformance,” and “all other large funds.”

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 12:54 pm
Agreed Triple fat. Why the state hasn’t pushed all responsibility for locally created teacher pension obligations down to the appropriate level is bizarre. Also should allow municipal BK.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 1:48 pm
Why is the Governor’s office interfering with the fiduciary duties of the Board?

Comment by northsider (the original) Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 2:06 pm
Mess with the Bull

Or

Maybe should of held back some of that record breaking education approp that will help hike teachers salaries and cause even more of a pension shortfall in the long run.

Comment by Winnin' Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 2:25 pm
@AA Excellent info on the long term position of TRS (as always).

One caveat to your ERO point (or maybe it further proves the point?) When ERO was chosen by a TRS employee, they were not required to give advanced notice to the district, they only had to meet the requirements. The employee usually had to come up with some money and the district had to make a payment roughly but not exactly equivalent to their final salary figure. For small districts that could be an unpleasant surprise.

Bottom line, Joe Taxpayer was not on the hook for the costs, they were covered by the local district and the .4% the district or employee paid to TRS annually.

Net, net IB was wrong about ERO. Completely.

Thanks AA!

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 2:33 pm
I look forward to when pensions are no longer offered to new teachers and they are given social security and a defined contribution retirement system. Then we just have to deal with the pension debt of the past but the future will be bright for all those involved.

Comment by Maximus Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 2:53 pm
“We need to stop the pension funding games by the politicians.”

Norseman, you are 100% correct.

Comment by Mama Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 2:53 pm
“I look forward to when pensions are no longer offered to new teachers and they are given social security and a defined contribution retirement system. Then we just have to deal with the pension debt of the past but the future will be bright for all those involved.”

Future will be bright? Hmmm… Not bright for the teachers!

Comment by Mama Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 3:00 pm
== I look forward to when pensions are no longer offered to new teachers and they are given social security and a defined contribution retirement system. ==

Assuming a typical 4% match like a lot of the private sector provides, SS plus DC will cost the taxpayers more than the current system. Even if you shift the cost from the State to the school district, taxpayers still have to pay it. The only issue is whether the money comes from income taxes or property taxes.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 3:04 pm
Adding … and the IRS won’t let you skip when you come up short in the budget, it is cash on the barrel head.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 3:07 pm
Mama,
Depending on the details of the aforementioned retirement plan that doesn’t involve pensions it is possible the teachers get a better deal. At least they know it will be funded and if they quit or leave that job the money is still there and completely theirs.

RNUG -
It would cost taxpayers more up front but nothing in the long term. With the current system the taxpayers of the future have to pay a large unknown amount. With a 401k style plan the taxpayers pay slightly more now but without any debt coming due later.

Comment by Maximus Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 3:09 pm
“we don’t want them taking any action that could cost taxpayers $200 to $300 million.”

The costs are already there, hoping for 7.5% returns just makes it worse.

30 year treasury: 2.24%
10 year inflation rate ~ 1.5%/yr
15 year S&P return (inc. dividends) 5.8%

There just isn’t a credible 7.5% story. Every dollar of unmet returns is money the taxpayers will have to contribute with interest (at 7.5%/yr.)

Comment by Fred Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 3:20 pm
@RNUG ===Adding … and the IRS won’t let you skip when you come up short in the budget, it is cash on the barrel head.===

That is a feature. not a bug.

I’ll second Maximus’ point. The debt to the pension holders is already incurred, the less we put in now, the more (much more) we will have to pay later.

Comment by Fred Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 3:27 pm
JSM, thanks for the kind words. You’re spot on re: the downsides to ERO in its later years. I don’t think it will be missed.

Northsider, I’m gonna side with the Governor’s office for right now. From what I’ve read and observed, they didn’t have a lot of time to process a decision that could blow yet another hole in the budget. They have a reasonable expectation of being briefed, and not in the newspaper, on what’s driving the change and what are the fiscal implications. That’s not crossing the line in my book. I think Leader Radogno also raises a valid point.

For my two cents worth, the historical (and proper) independence of the pension systems from the jurisdiction of the Governor has led to communication problems in the past between the systems, GOMB, and Gov’s staff. This is an example of where the pension system probably should have been more proactive in reaching out.

Let’s also not forget that any assumption changes must be reviewed and approved by the State Actuary before they may be used in funding certifications submitted to the Governor and GA.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 3:35 pm
Arthur Andersen
There is nothing to prevent the pension system(s) from making projections with a range of interest rates so everyone will have an indication of what a 1% change would mean, for example.

Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 3:57 pm
AA- to what end? It is neither the Governor nor the Legislature’s decision to make, amend or review.
I don’t think it is appropriate for either branch to demand that an independent decision be delayed for an undefined period of time (that I cynically guess would either be after November 8th or after further appointments are made).

Comment by northsider (the original) Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 4:03 pm
A lower ROR doesn’t immediately put taxpayers on the hooks… we are immediately on the hooks as soon as the pension investment returns don’t meet the assumed RoR. May as well face facts and factor in a realistic RoR now. Just kicking can down the road otherwise, and we know how good we are at that! Every time we fund (okay, attempt to fund) pensions under an inflated return premise, we are shorting the contribution we should be making more, and losing out on the power of compounding interest.

Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 4:09 pm
“We need to stop the pension funding games by the politicians.”

We need to simply stop defined benefit pensions.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 4:11 pm
Assuming a typical 4% match like a lot of the private sector provides, SS plus DC will cost the taxpayers more than the current system. Even if you shift the cost from the State to the school district, taxpayers still have to pay it. The only issue is whether the money comes from income taxes or property taxes.”

Except taxpayers are not on the hook for investment returns. Only a public pensioner would think defined benefits are good.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 4:13 pm
RE: 7% Pension funds don’t have the same investment latitude individuals do, so that’s not a fair comparison for one. Second, erring on the low side of RoR on an underfunded pension is not the worst move.

Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 4:19 pm
Anonymous 4:11 PM
So you’re advocating instead a 401k for firemen, policemen, and prison guards?

Comment by Smitty Irving Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 4:52 pm
North, I completely agree with you that the decision is the exclusive responsibility of the TRS Board. My point, perhaps inartfully delivered, is that this is a decision with wide-ranging impact that should have some advance notice.

It’s worth noting here that the decision can not be delayed “for an indefinite period or after Nov. 8.” In order to meet statutory requirements, TRS and the other pension systems are basically committed to receiving the 6/30/16 actuarial valuation and FY18 funding recommendations at October Board meetings. I’m not sure how this assumption change figures into that process, but I imagine the actuary would prefer to have this matter settled before doing the valuation.

I have a hunch this isn’t going anywhere this week, but I could be all wet. We’ll see.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 5:56 pm
How do we, illinois residents, go about changing the states constitution
.

Comment by Blue dog dem Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 8:37 pm
Blue dog, Madigan won’t allow it.

Comment by Ron Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 8:43 pm
Blue dog dem, Google IL Constitution.

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 8:51 pm
Norseman. Will you sign up?

Comment by Blue dog dem Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 8:58 pm
Sign up for what? Goggle?

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 9:44 pm
Not sure about the Beer goggles, but no, my petition drive to revamp the states constitution to tweek existing pension laws. Going to be simple.
a.) Maximum annual benefit not to exceed
$150,000.
b.) 10%/yr deduction for retirement prior
To age 65.
C.). Suspension of annual 3% increase on
Pensions over $75,000/yr.
d.) Pensions over $150,000/ yr eligible
For state income tax.

What am I missing?

Comment by blue dog dem Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 10:29 pm
=== What am I missing? ===

How about an understanding of how the IL Constitution is amended!

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 11:20 pm
If the maximum pension is $150,000 how can anything over it be subject to state income tax?

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 9:20 am
At this date S&P 500 index funds are paying over 7% YTD.

Comment by Enviro Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 9:54 am