Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mapping America's Underfunded State Pension And Healthcare Liability Debacle
Zero Hedge ^ | 07/26/2011 | Tyler Durden

Posted on 07/26/2011 10:27:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

div class="content">

The map below, which shows the gravity of America's pervasive pension and healthcare liability underfunding problem, should certainly raise a few eyebrows. Sourced from the IMF's Article IV presentation which in turn sources the data from the Pew Center, the map shows that even despite the near doubling in the S&P since the March 2009 lows, there are still at least 9 states that have a minimum 35% underfunding in their pension and liability obligations. As a result, we expect that just like in the case of Illinois recently, many more states will be forced to issue debt to fund various entitlement plans on a "paycheck to paycheck basis." It also means that ever more states will begin scrambling after high beta, low quality, and very high risk stocks (in many cases selling CDS), in order to refill their coffers. We can only hope that the biggest dip buyer of NFLX stock today is not the Louisiana Retirement Fund system (for example), but we have a feeling we would be quite wrong.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: communism; default; economy; healthcare; liability; obamacare; pension; police; socialism; statedebt; teachers

1 posted on 07/26/2011 10:27:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Yå know what's sad is that our Republicans here in Alaska were the ones responsible for underfunding our state pension plans, no joke; my own party who still forever call begging money.

Back in 80's, the Repub legislature paid some NYC financial firm to get the desired results that said the stock market was going to keep going up forever and state didn't need to keep making their agreed to share of pension contributions. Now it's going broke, they don't want the blame, trying to blame the now defunct NYC firm. Ak has 70 bill in bank and oil for hundreds of years so doesn't matter much, but our own crooked Repubs are responsible for this and now they are trying to crawl under the rug and hide.

Palin had the guts & straight up integrity to fund some of it when oil was $140/barrel. She knew the Repubs would face the wrath of the Alaskan people someday for their filthy crooked games. I'll hand that to her, she got big ones when it comes to saying wrong is wrong and we're going to straighten this crap out.

2 posted on 07/26/2011 10:43:45 AM PDT by Eska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The next market decline will trigger a crisis. Even without chasing high beta portfolios and other risky investments, the portfolios pose huge risk to taxpayers and retirees.

The private sector separates the growth (working years) and income (retiree years) parts of retirement assets. If you want a lifetime income guarantee, you can purchase an annuity product. The portfolios supporting these products invest in relatively high grade corporate bonds. The market for these products is rather small in the US because most individuals do not like the relatively low long-term yields of these investments. Most individuals choose to manage their own portfolio during retirement without an income guarantee. The performance of the portfolio during the first few years is crucial for not outliving the portfolio.

The public DB industry comingles assets to support current workers and retirees. Some of the money is invested rather safely but the majority is invested aggressively. A market decline will hit the assets to support current retirees very hard. When a pension plan indicates that they need an average 8 percent return, they are talking about the entire portfolio to support both current workers and retirees. Realistically, the portfolio to support retirees should earn perhaps 5 to 6 percent on relatively safe investments. A market decline will put the earnings on the retiree part of the portfolio perhaps underwater. More troubling, the retiree part of the portfolio is growing rapidly while the current worker part of the portfolio is growing very slowly if at all (due to worker reductions).

Pension agencies are recklessly managing assets to provide the illusion that the benefits can be obtained without much risk to taxpayers. The private sector cannot manage retirement assets in this manner if required to guarantee income streams at retirement.


3 posted on 07/26/2011 10:44:58 AM PDT by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The next market decline will trigger a crisis. Even without chasing high beta portfolios and other risky investments, the portfolios pose huge risk to taxpayers and retirees.

The private sector separates the growth (working years) and income (retiree years) parts of retirement assets. If you want a lifetime income guarantee, you can purchase an annuity product. The portfolios supporting these products invest in relatively high grade corporate bonds. The market for these products is rather small in the US because most individuals do not like the relatively low long-term yields of these investments. Most individuals choose to manage their own portfolio during retirement without an income guarantee. The performance of the portfolio during the first few years is crucial for not outliving the portfolio.

The public DB industry comingles assets to support current workers and retirees. Some of the money is invested rather safely but the majority is invested aggressively. A market decline will hit the assets to support current retirees very hard. When a pension plan indicates that they need an average 8 percent return, they are talking about the entire portfolio to support both current workers and retirees. Realistically, the portfolio to support retirees should earn perhaps 5 to 6 percent on relatively safe investments. A market decline will put the earnings on the retiree part of the portfolio perhaps underwater. More troubling, the retiree part of the portfolio is growing rapidly while the current worker part of the portfolio is growing very slowly if at all (due to worker reductions).

Pension agencies are recklessly managing assets to provide the illusion that the benefits can be obtained without much risk to taxpayers. The private sector cannot manage retirement assets in this manner if required to guarantee income streams at retirement.


4 posted on 07/26/2011 10:46:33 AM PDT by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Nearly all of those campaigning against new mining and manufacturing operations were employed by local government or global corporations that used local government as a tool against new, domestic competition. So good. The slowdown is working. The socialists won’t be so politically active before long. And if they try more tyrannical moves to squeeze revenues out of the truly productive in wrongful ways, it’ll be much worse for them.


5 posted on 07/26/2011 12:16:28 PM PDT by familyop ("Plan? There ain't no plan!" --Pigkiller, "Beyond Thunderdome")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: businessprofessor

I agreee with you, and I have always believed that how much a portfolio pays in secure dividends is more relevent to a person than how much it is worth on any given day.


6 posted on 08/15/2011 8:26:47 PM PDT by MSF BU (YR'S Please Support our troops: JOIN THEM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson