1 / 34

MMAAA Actuarial Update

MMAAA Actuarial Update. Dan Sherman, ASA, EA, MAAA Sherman Actuarial Services, LLC www.ShermanActuary.com. Topics. Actuarial Valuations COLAs Funding Schedules Assessments Pension Reform GASB 67 & 68 . Actuarial Valuations. Valuations are performed annually or bi-annually

jeri
Télécharger la présentation

MMAAA Actuarial Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MMAAAActuarial Update Dan Sherman, ASA, EA, MAAA Sherman Actuarial Services, LLC www.ShermanActuary.com

  2. Topics • Actuarial Valuations • COLAs • Funding Schedules • Assessments • Pension Reform • GASB 67 & 68

  3. Actuarial Valuations • Valuations are performed annually or bi-annually • New Funding Schedules at least once every 2 years • State encourages frequent examination • For 2013, most systems still have finally recognized all of the 2008 asset losses • Actuarial value of assets typically were at 104% to 107% of market value, now at 94% to 97% • 2012 returns were very good • Expect an asset loss for your 2013 actuarial valuation, despite the good year. 2014 valuations should generate a small gain or loss

  4. Actuarial Valuations

  5. Actuarial Valuations S&P 500 Rolling 10 year average returns

  6. Actuarial Valuations • Expectations for 2014 are actuarial: • Small asset gain or loss • Gains on salary increases • Actuarial Standards Board issued a new Actuarial Statement of Practice: #35 • Must assume additional improvements in mortality • New tables will increase liabilities by 4% - 6% • Due to leverage with the assets, the unfunded liability may go up from 6% to 12% • Due to leverage with the employee deductions, the employer normal cost may go up from 6% to 14%

  7. Actuarial Valuations • Other than salary increases, all signs are pointing to significant increases in pension appropriations beyond the expected increase for FYE15. • Mitigation efforts are common • Limit the increase to x% for a number years • Increase the amortization period

  8. COLAs • Retirement Board decides the percentage increase for a COLA each year. Increase may be from 0% to 3%. • Actuaries assume that the annual increase will be 3%. Any decision for less will create an actuarial gain and reduce future funding.

  9. COLAs • 2010 legislation permits plan sponsors to increase the COLA base • Any amount is eligible as long as it is a multiple of $1000 • Increases can be authorized at anytime, there are no sunset provisions • Appropriations generally increase by about 1.25% per $1000

  10. Funding Schedules • A schedule comprises two pieces • Normal Cost – Value of one year accrual • Amortization of Unfunded Liability – Paying for the past experience • Due to unexpected increases in costs, expect a significant increase in appropriations for FYE 15 • Amortization is limited to 2040

  11. Funding Schedules

  12. Assessments • Payroll Based - Assessments to members of a retirement system are based purely on the payroll of the members, adjusted for any Early Retirement Incentives (Most systems) • Actuarial Based – Assessments to members of a retirement system are based on the Normal Cost, Accrued Liability and Early Retirement Incentive of each unit (Plymouth County, Salem and others)

  13. Assessments • Payroll based assessments ignore all of the other factors that affect the costs of a plan • Retirees and their liability • Age • Sex • Group (Fire and Police versus General) • Credited Service • Veterans • Actuarial based assessments are more fair, but do not quite go all the way to treating the member units as a separate system due to the assets

  14. Assessments • Although Actuarial based assessments are more equitable, making the change is problematic • Member units with many Fire and Police could see a significant increase in appropriations • Which means those without Fire and Police will generally see a decrease (e.g. Housing Authorities)

  15. Pension Reform • Provisions do not affect pre- April 2, 2012 actives and retired participants in a material way • No Funding Schedule relief for several years • Present Value of Future Benefits for new hires will be about 12% lower • 4% savings for Final 5 year Average Pay • 4% savings for Later Retirement Ages • 4% savings for Lower Early Retirement Subsidy • Employer Normal Costs will decrease between 25% and 35% over the next 40 years • No impact on the Unfunded Accrued Liability

  16. Pension Reform - Expectations • Lower costs in the distant future • Later retirements (could be an issue for Public Safety) • Higher turnover

  17. Retirement Board Decisions • Funding related items that the Retirement Board has direct input or makes the decision: • Selection of service providers • Actuarial assumptions and methods if not using PERAC actuary • Selection of funding schedule amortization and relief • COLA percentage increase

  18. Retirement Board Decisions • Funding related items that the Retirement Board has no or little input: • Plan benefit at retirement • COLA Base increase • Eligibility of employees • Costs related to Teachers

  19. GASB 67 & 68 • Existing standards (GASB 25 & 27) issued in 1994 • Final statements approved by GASB in June 2012 – • 2 statements – employer perspective and plan perspective • Upon issuance – this is GAAP for governmental entities • Effective Dates: • GASB Statement No.67 (for plans) – Fiscal 2014 • GASB Statement No.68 (for employers) – Fiscal 2015

  20. GASB 67 & 68 Summary • New standard is for financial reporting – not funding – the new standard “delinks” financial reporting from funding methodologies • Actuarial method – entry age normal as a level % of pay is the only permitted method • Asset valuation – fair value at balance sheet date - no smoothed market value (e.g., – 5 year) used in determining the pension liability • Discount rate – a “single” or blended rate in some instances • Expected long term rate of return on the assets as long as the plan net position is expected to be able to pay all promised benefits • Use of high quality long term municipal bond index rate after projected asset depletion • Reporting of unfunded pension liability on balance sheet • Single employer and agent plans • Cost sharing multiple employer plans – report proportionate liability (teachers)

  21. Funding versus Accounting • Current accounting standards focuses on the ARC – the ARC is determined based on the adopted actuarial methods to fund the plan • The ARC is then used to drive amounts reported on the financial statements – if 100% of ARC is contributed, no liability is recorded on financial statements • Under Chapter 32, ARC = Pension Appropriation • The new standards do not use the ARC as the basis for financial reporting amounts • pension expense and liabilities reported on the financial statements are derived using GASB’s defined parameters • this will be different from adopted funding methodologies

  22. GASB 67 & 68 Actuarial Method • Current standards permits multiple actuarial methods • New standards for financial reporting purposes limits the permitted method to just one – entry age normal – level percent of pay • This is the most common method used now by most plans, and all plans governed by Chapter 32 • Funding methodologies could use a different actuarial method but for financial reporting entry age normal would be required

  23. GASB 67 & 68 Assets • Most plans currently use a smoothed market approach to determine the actuarial value of assets – this smoothens the impact of significant market value changes • The new standard requires – for financial reporting - to determine the pension liability based on assets at fair value (market value) at the balance sheet date (e.g., June 30). • In years where there are significant market swings – there will be a similar swing in the pension expense and liability reported

  24. GASB 67 & 68 Discount Rate • Current standards – the discount rate to present value future benefits is the assumed rate of return on investments • New standards – single discount rate that reflects: • (1) The long-term expected investment return to the extent current and projected assets are sufficient to pay projected benefits and to the extent not sufficient (2) a high-quality municipal bond index rate

  25. GASB 67 & 68 Unfunded Liability • Under the new standards the full pension liability will be required to be presented on the government-wide balance sheet (statement of net assets) • This is a significant liability to include on the balance sheet • Total pension liability – plan net position (market value) = net pension liability • The new standards require that certain actuarial changes be reflected immediately and others deferred and amortized • Will likely be different from the unfunded liability reported for funding purposes • Non-investment gains/losses and assumption changes amortized over expected remaining service lives • Investment gains/losses are amortized over 5 years • Immediate recognition of plan changes

  26. GASB 67 & 68 • Inclusion of the net pension liability on the balance sheet will likely be a very material liability • The recorded net pension liability will likely be volatile since it will reflect the fair (market) value of assets • Pension expense recorded on the financial statements will be significantly different from actuarially determined contributions reflecting funding methodologies, and be volatile

  27. Supplementary Information • Support for discount rate selection • Statement of Fiduciary Net Position • Assets held by class, including receivables and payables • Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position • Additions – Contributions by employees and employer, net appreciation, investment earnings • Deductions – Benefit payments and expenses • Net position beginning of year, end of year

  28. Supplementary Information • Comprehensive plan description • Administration • Membership • Benefits provided • Contribution policies • Investments • Policy • Concentrations • Rate of Return, including long-term expected real rate of return for each asset class • Net Pension Liability • Actuarial Assumptions • Sensitivity (+ - 1% on discount rate)

  29. Supplementary Information • Schedule of changes in Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios (Funded Ratio & Net Pension Liability as a % of Payroll) for past 10 years • 10 year history of the Actuarially Determined Contribution (Pension Appropriation), actual contribution, payroll and ratio • 10 year history of investment returns

  30. Frequency • Must be done at least every two years, annually encouraged • If bi-annual, estimated net pension liability and disclosures must be completed

  31. Wakefield

  32. Wakefield – What if? Assumes 2006 adoption of GASB Statements 67 & 68, all actuarial assumptions are met, except for investment return

  33. Wakefield – What if? • 2011 ERIP included one person, this increased the liability and expense by $47,000 • If we increased COLA base to $15,000, it would add about $1.7 million to the expense in the year of implementation

  34. Questions?

More Related