Another Pension Bailout?

Reporters and other keen observers know that a news release late on Friday usually means that the government hopes it will not get much attention.

Thus on April 30 there was a little reported story that the Teachers Pension Plan is to receive a modest extra payment of $1.5 million from the province because it is in deficit. This looks very small compared to the $536 million payment into the Public Service Superannuation Plan (PSSP) announced a few weeks earlier. The associated financial reports were only released in May and a much darker picture becomes evident.

Unlike the PSSP, the Teacher’s plan has received a number of prior extra payments, totaling over $400 million. So the accumulated total extra payments for the two plans is closing in on one billion dollars, or more than four years worth of the HST increase just imposed.

The financial statements for the Teacher’s Plan reveals a deficit at the end of 2009 of $1.274 billion. The April 30 letter from the trustee contained this optimistic statement:

“It will definitely take some time to recover from the effects of recent market conditions and restore the funded status of the plan, but it is moving in a positive direction.”

Most readers would conclude from this that it will only be a matter of time until investment returns solve the problem. In fact the most likely outcome is that it will get worse. The deficit calculation assumes that future investment returns will be consistent with historical averages. So it is equally likely that actual returns on invested assets will be better or worse. But because the plan is under funded, there will be no investment return on the $1.274 billion of assets that are not available to be invested.

So who owns this very large problem? As things stand taxpayers are responsible for half of it. Under an agreement between the teachers and the province, the pensions starting on or after Aug 1 2006 only receive indexing if the plan meets certain funding criteria. In a year (such as 2009) when funding is inadequate the taxpayer makes extra payments into the fund equal to half the value of the indexing that those pensions did not receive. Of course most of the pensions being paid started before Aug 1 2006 so the current year’s down payment was small—only $1.5 million. But it will grow very rapidly as more and more of the pensions are affected by the provision. If investment returns are consistent with historical averages taxpayers will end up with extra payments into the plan equal to half of the current deficit—$637 million—plus interest.

This is outrageously unfair to taxpayers, most of whom have no pension plan at all.

The current collective bargaining agreement between the teachers and the province expires on July 31, 2010. The next agreement must put the province in a position that restricts taxpayer liability to regular payments into the pension plan—which amount to almost 10% of salary, matched by the teachers. Provisions for early retirement and inflation indexing will need to be adjusted to bring the plan to a sound financial position. The resulting plan would still be among the most generous in the province.

Taxpayers have already made extra contributions to these two public sector pension plans of almost a billion dollars. It is time for taxpayers to get some relief.

Share

Revisions

Reference Material

The Nova Scotia Pension Agency is the administrator for all three plans mentioned here. The agency has an excellent website (novascotiapension.ca) that provides good information on both benefits and funding status. The information taken from there for this report has been simplified to improve readability, which means some of the characterizations are approximate. Readers interested in further details will find the website a worthwhile visit.

This document from the CD Howe Institute shows the comparable status of the federal government’s plans–an even uglier picture.

What happens when you don’t deal with the problem:

For additional reading, have a look at these articles “California’s $500-billion pension time bomb” by David Crane and “Going for Broke in L.A.?” by Tim Rutten as they examine the current affairs and potential damages regarding California’s unfunded pension payouts.

Post a Comment

Most Recent Comments

  • Ernie my understanding is that over $400 million of extra funding has been put in by the taxpayer but none has ever been taken out.

    Bill Black

    Bill | January 17, 2011

  • This is a serious problem, has the NS
    government taken any monies out of
    the teachers pension fund over the
    years? Ernie

    ernie bolivar | January 17, 2011

  • I was just wondering what you think about the approach the Minister took with regard to the PSS Plan in his budget & the related changes put in place through the Financial Measures Act (FMA).

    More specifically, what is your feelings about the government of NS retroactively rewriting the employment (compensation arrangements) contracts of 30,000 retired and current public servants. These 30,000 Nova Scotians completed their part of the contract & because of the manner in which the plan benefit changes have been or will be implemented the NS government is reneging on its obligations.

    For example, a public servant who worked for the government for 30 years, did so under an emplyment contract that included the following
    - annual salary & benefits while employed
    - deferred compensation in the form of PSS pension benefits that included the following
    – basic pension of 2% per year X the average of the 5 highest years’ income
    – the above adjusted annually for CPI up to a max of 6%
    – a provincial guarantee that if the fund is not able to pay the earned benefits then the government will provide the funds necessary

    Now – one can argue that these are pretty good retirement arrangements compared to what other may or may not have, but the fact can not be ignored that these were legally contracted & earned benefits by the above individual with 30 years of service.

    I wonder how bond holders would feel if the government decided to unilaterally reduce the rate of interest they are prepared to pay on NS debt.

    Your thoughts please

    - on the NS government breaking a contract where the other party has already fulfilled its obligations under that contract?
    - and to add insult to injury, the FMA included provisions that eliminated the legal rights of the injured party to sue the government or anybody else for breach of contract.

    Claude thank you for the question.
    The Minister asserted his right as sole trustee of the plan to make the benefit changes. You may recall that Joan Jessome, who is never reluctant to assert rights contained in a bargaining agreement, was quoted as acknowledging that the Minister had the authority .

    Having said that I am sure there are many people like you who did not realize that these kinds of changes could be made. I am not in a position to know how well the possibility was communicated but I do know that most people do not tune into pension issues until sometime after age 50.

    Bill

    Hi Bill
    The following comments are provided “Without Prejudice”.

    First…I have been fully aware of the fact that such changes were possible to the PSS. What concerns me – & should concern anybody that does ‘business’ with the government of NS – is that obligations owed for goods & services provided may not be worth the paper they are written on.
    It appears many people do not fully understand the facts & background
    associated with the PSS plan and the fund itself or what the government has in fact just done.
    It is one thing to change benefits being earned prospectively, but quite another to change those already earned retroactively.
    I doubt you or any other Nova Scotians would like a past employer to unilaterally decided that they could not afford to compensate you the way they did, and retroactively claw back some part of the compensation or other benefits you earn long ago.
    What’s next…unilaterally cutting % rates on PNS debentures? Hey anything is possible.
    Next – NSGEU & the bargaining agreements are not relevant to my original question. All PSS retirees & many current active members are not & never have been represented by NSGEU or covered by the related
    agreements.
    Further, neither is/was relevant to the legal rights & interest of retired public servants to collect their earned retirement benefits.
    I would suggest that the Minister as sole trustee, did not have the unilateral right or authority to make benefit changes – otherwise there would have been no need for changes to be made to the PSS Act.
    It could be strongly suggested that the sole trustee’s responsibility would have included ensuring that the province (as sponsor of the PSS plan) completely & adequately met & fulfilled its obligations to the retirees & other plan beneficiaries as it relates to those benefits that had already been earned via the provision of pensionable time.
    The Financial Measures Act included provisions that were intended to
    eliminate/remove the rights of many now private taxpaying citizens of NS to hold the government legally accountable for fulfilling its contract obligations which provides evidence that the government was concerned that what it was doing amounts to breaking the employment contracts it had or has with approx 30,000 Nova Scotians.
    The fact is that retired public servants (at all levels) worked for years under an agreed upon employment contract which included the earning/accruing of retirement benefits (including guaranteed indexing and other benefits) that called for them to fulfill their part of the agreement & then the Province would fulfill/complete its obligations under those arrangements.
    Next – I agree with you that the communication around the ‘what & the
    why’ should have been much more thorough. The reality is, most people
    (including those affected directly & MLAs) likely did not fully & adequately appreciate the scope of the changes made (which go well beyond just indexing).
    Next – With regard to the $560m extra contribution, it should be noted that each year the government would have been charged interest on the PSS unfunded liability, so if they can borrow at a rate lower than that charged on its PSS obligation, there could actually be a saving realized as it relates to the calculation of the annual surplus of the Province.
    Last – Until the real facts behind this ‘transaction’ are known and understood, more fully & broadly I have no desire to have my comments
    included in any kind of public forum. I have seen first hand what happens to people who take a position contrary to a governing party or which may not suit the views of those members of the public who feel all current & past public servants are useless, overpaid, etc.
    So, now I am back to my original question….do you believe it is OK for the government of NS to renege on paying for goods & services already provided to used by it?
    Claude

    Thanks Claude.
    My view is that the government also has an obligation to taxpayers and that, without violating contractual obligations, it must balance those
    interests against those of pension plan beneficiaries.
    It is also my view that our democracy is enhanced when people publicly express views that are important but may not be popular with fellow
    citizens or the government of the day.
    Bill

    Thanks Bill….I agree fully…despite my initial concerns about participating in a public debate on the issueClaude

    Claude Carter | June 11, 2010

View all comments