Alternatives for Administering the Wisconsin Retirement System

1. Alternatives for Administering the Wisconsin Retirement System Current Policy versus Total Retirement Outsourcing Prepared for the Wisconsin Legislative Council Bethany Ackeret Hope Harvey Daniel Kleinmaier Noah Natzke Susanna Rasmussen

2. Agenda Agenda • Project Summary • Overview of Wisconsin Retirement System • Privatization Definition • Policy Alternatives • Analysis of Alternatives • Recommendation

3. Project Overview & Aims Project Summary • Question: Should the WRS be privatized? • Analysis of two options: • Current WRS policy • Complete outsourcing of WRS to private firm • Complement to the forthcoming report on a defined contribution option

4. Structure of the WRS Wisconsin Retirement System Department of Employee Trust Funds(ETF) State of Wisconsin Investment Board (SWIB) Provides day-to-day benefits administration for WRS Manages invested retirement system assets

5. Framework for Decision-Making • The WRS is a trust • State statutes dictate that ETF and SWIB board members are fiduciaries of the trust • Must enact management decisions that result in the lowest responsible cost • Decisions regarding privatizing functions are dictated by this responsibility

6. ETF: Summary • Retirement, health, life, income continuation and long-term disability benefits • Duties: • Collects retirement funds; remits to SWIB • Calculates disbursement of payments • Provides information to participants and employers

7. SWIB: Investment Strategy and Approach • Board of Trustees establishes investment policy • Day-to-day investment decisions must fall within the parameters of the policy • Day-to-day decisions made by SWIB in-house professional investors or external private firm professional investors

8. Levels of Assets Invested by SWIB In-House Investors • 2007: 21% invested by SWIB investors • 2009: 41% invested by SWIB investors • 2010: 47% invested by SWIB investors • Increase in internal investment resulted in estimated net annual savings of $13 million in 2010 Source: State of Wisconsin Investment Board, 2011

9. CEM Benchmarking, Inc. Evaluation • The WRS Core Fund five-year total return of 5.0 percent was above the peer median of 4.5 percent • The WRS Core Fund had a lower cost than peers by 17 basis points on average (without adjusting for asset mix differences) Hopkins, 2011

10. Source: CEM Benchmarking, Inc., 2012

11. Privatization Definitions • Scaling back of direct government action • The expansion of subsidies for private insurance, savings, and charitable activities • Use of vouchers that provide opt-out alternatives for the public service • Expansion of government contracting

12. Policy Alternatives • Piecemeal Outsourcing (current policy) • Total Retirement Outsourcing: Contracting with a single private sector firm to administer the WRS

13. Piecemeal Outsourcing • SWIB outsourced 52.7 percent of investment in 2010 (currently approximately 45%) • ETF outsources administration of IT services and actuarial services SWIB Management Costs SWIB AssetManagement 11.3%

14. Reasons for State Privatization (1998-2002) Source: Chi, Arnold, & Perkins, 2004

15. Policy Goals • Reduce Costs • Enhance Service • Have a Positive Economic Impact • Be Feasible

16. Reduce Costs

17. Enhance Service

18. Economic Impact

19. Feasibility

20. Recommendation • Our report demonstrates superiority of Current Policy • Reduced costs, level of service, economic impact, and feasibility ranked lower for Total Retirement Outsourcing • Current WRS lauded as low-cost, high-performance

21. For further information Contact the La Follette School’s publications office at 608-263-7657 or publications@lafollette.wisc.edu Or see www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workshops.html Thank you!

22. Policy Alternatives in terms of Policy Goals