Get More, Spend More, Lay Waste Your Powers

For as long as I've been paying attention to the American financial sector, the California Public Employees Retirement System has been a major mover in the stock market, whose investment decisions are as closely watched as those of the Fidelity Magellan fund, Berkshire-Hathaway and other nine-zillion pound gorillas of yore. So it was news to me, and may be news to you, that within living memory CalPERS was a mostly-bonds investor as staid and cautious in its strategy as the little old lady from Pasadena.

Ed Mendel's excellent long post on CalPERS' 1984 shift into higher-risk, high-return stock market investing is an object lesson in the way public entities can only respond to healthy increases in revenue one way -- through unhealthy increases in spending. Some history:

As the stock market began a decades-long boom, the Legislature placed a measure on the ballot, Proposition 6 in November 1982, allowing up to 60 percent of pension fund investments to be in stocks. It was rejected by 61 percent of the voters.

After a series of hearings the Legislature, with only two “no” votes, placed Proposition 21 on the June 1984 ballot to replace the 25 percent cap on stocks with a broader guide based on what a “prudent person” would do.

The stock market bet brought handsome rewards. Just a few years ago, returns on investment were paying 75 percent of CalPERS revenues, with another large chunk coming from the state's general fund and a small portion from employee contributions. The inevitable result: impossibly high projections of future returns, and a massive increase in pension payouts. Mendel again:

When funds had surpluses from a booming stock market, pensions were increased to levels now said by some to be “unsustainable.” CalPERS famously told legislators a major increase for state workers, SB 400 in 1999, would leave state costs little changed for a decade. But expected investment earnings fell far short, causing a dramatic increase in state costs to $3.9 billion in the new fiscal year...

Critics say pension funds understate the debt owed for future pensions by assuming costs will be covered by overly optimistic earnings, about 8 percent a year.

It turns out the stock market doesn't go up all the time. Beginning in 2008, CalPERS lost somewhere between a quarter and a half of its portfolio. Even with the recent series of fools' rallies on Wall Street, returns on investments have shrunk to 63 percent of CalPERS' ongoing funding. And the taxpayers are on the hook to cover the shortfall. Should CalPERS return to a more stodgy investment strategy, the growth of pension payouts creates a massive liability for the state:

What happens when the debt is calculated with the less risky and much lower earnings from government bonds, a little over 4 percent, was shown in a study done by Stanford graduate students in April.

The Stanford report said the shortfall or “unfunded liability” for the three state pension funds (CalPERS, CalSTRS and UC Retirement) was a “hidden debt” of $500 billion, not $55 billion as reported by the retirement systems.

Nevertheless, reducing CalPERS' exposure to the market is probably the smartest move, if only because it reduces the incentive to keep spending. It's too easy to blame the shortfall on market setbacks. Market setbacks are an inevitable fact of life, but decisions to overspend are something you can avoid. Mendel resisted my invitation to say the pension "crisis" is strictly a spending rather than a revenue problem, saying "I don't know that you can separate the two." Nevertheless, he notes that after a decade of high returns on Wall Street, "they assumed they could make this gigantic increase in payments."

Even the chastened CalPERS is still making improbable projections of 7-to-8 percent on the market in order to sustain its inflated payments. To maintain the fund's current level of payouts, the Dow would have to reach 25,000 within a few years. Supposing that happened, history indicates the result would not be that CalPERS balances its books but that it ups its payouts. In public sector finance, everybody is Scottie Pippen.

Mendel's complete story.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Jennifer||

    It turns out the stock market doesn't go up all the time.

    What defeatist twaddle is this? See, propaganda like this is why libertarians never win elections.

  • Barack Obama||

    No but Progressives like me win elections. Thank you once again for your vote Jennifer.

  • ||

    Read what Gary North has to say about municipal and state retirement funds. Looks like a lot of public sector employees will be hurting. Mr. North's columns can be found at Lew Rockwell dot com.

  • ||

    Looks like a lot of public sector employees taxpayers will be hurting.

  • ¢||

    To maintain the fund's current level of payouts, the Dow would have to reach 25,000 within a few years.

    It will! That'll be $642.34 in today's money. And Ted Nugent will trade an orange El Camino full of empty chicken cages he "found" on his ranch for the NYSE.

  • PR||

    Carousel instead of pensions. It's the only way to be sure.

  • Don't squeeze the Charmin||

  • Paul||

    Tim,

    Can you really attribute the increase in CalPERS pension payouts to stock market activity? I mean (and I don't follow Cal politics closely), but is it possible that Golden State pols knew they were going to jack up public pension payouts as vote-buying schemes for their heavy union constituencies, and therefore felt the need to invest in higher-risk, higher return stock profiles?

    Which came first? The jacking of (or desire to jack) retirement/pension benefits, or the push to engage in high risk investment profiles?

  • ||

    the other day i saw a squirrel reading The Way Things Ought To Be. it jumped up nd bit me on teh left nut twice. don't juge me i was on me properta so i dont hav two wear pants. God Bless America!

  • Paul||

    Generally, most here speak english. So your post is lost on us.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement