Report Reveals Stress Points in NYC Pension System

New York City’s Bureau of Asset Management has to improve its pension oversight, the report says.

So far, the $160 billion pension fund of New York City has avoided serious operational failures, according to an independent report commissioned by Scott Stringer, New York City comptroller.

The report applauds “heroic efforts” by staff, the extensive use of investment consultants, and the five city retirement systems and the comptroller for the continued operation. However, the report recommends a substantial revamping of the Bureau of Asset Management—and says the organization’s current investment strategy “presents a very high level of operational risk.”

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

Through the bureau, the comptroller is in charge of the assets for five retirement systems in the city, as well as 11 related supplemental funds. The retirement systems are: two separate pension funds for the city’s police department and its fire department; two separate funds for New York City teachers and for the Board of Education retirement system; and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System.

These systems provide retirement security for more than 700,000 New Yorkers. According to Stringer’s report, the value of the systems’ investment portfolio has nearly doubled, to $162.9 billion in assets, since 2001. At the same time, the program to manage these assets has become more complex with the addition of new asset classes for diversification and expected risk-adjusted returns, sparking Stringer to conduct an outside assessment of the bureau and its processes.

Stringer’s system reform began in 2014, with the appointments of a chief investment officer, an internal auditor, a chief risk officer and a chief compliance officer for the bureau. Stringer has previously voiced his concern about retirement for New Yorkers and the behavior of financial advisers when giving investment advice.

Instead of 54 individual investment committee meetings a year among the five systems, Stringer and the retirement systems agreed in 2015 to hold a single Common Investment Meeting at a minimum of six times a year, scheduling additional meetings as necessary to process investment recommendations in a timely way.

NEXT: Gaps in staffing, policies, information infrastructure.

The current assessment, “Setting a Course for the Future,” a management and operations study conducted by Funston Advisory Services, continues Stringer’s initiative to bring the bureau up to date. As well as the analysis of the bureau, it surveys best practices for the city’s asset management.

Funston found gaps in staffing, organization, policies, procedures and information infrastructure, given the size and complexity of the city’s current portfolio. To close these gaps, Funston made a number of recommendations, including in-house finance, budgeting, HR and IT planning capabilities; staff training; and modernizing policies, procedures and information systems. The report also noted “key person dependency”— institutional knowledge resides in a few key people who are increasingly eligible for retirement— and a lack of formal succession planning.

Other recommendations: The operations of the bureau should be restructured to raise it to the standard of its peer pension systems. For example, in 2014, staff who invested cash holdings and those that administered the movement of cash reported to the same individual, an inherent conflict. Oversight of the cash management group was subsequently moved to the Bureau of Accountancy. The report recommends restructuring operations areas to improve timeliness and reliability of reporting, eliminate repetitive clerical tasks, enhance external vendor oversight, and improve the quality and quantity of data available by the bureau staff for analysis.

The bureau needs to formalize its risk and compliance assessments in regular reports using documented policies. At the start of 2014, the bureau had no formal risk management department, but depended on consultants for most portfolio-level risk analysis.

The bureau’s organizational structure hits bottlenecks in decision-making because it is too dependent on senior management and limits the ability to respond quickly. Most actions require formal approval of the chief investment officer or the assistant comptroller, or both. The report recommends adding one or more deputy CIOs and the formation of an internal investment committee to review investments, along with other operational changes.

NEXT: Recommendations for investment risk management, performance benchmarks.

Funston examined the bureau’s investment management systems and recommended several changes to improve investment risk management. Working with the investment strategy asset class heads, risk management should identify appropriate quantitative tools for each asset class. The quantitative tools should be robust enough to assess total fund risk and perform performance and risk attribution. Set due diligence and monitoring strategies that are coordinated between the compliance and investment strategy units.

The bureau should review its performance benchmarks, especially those that are tailored specifically to the bureau, and which have not been changed in decades—such as fixed income. Also to be scrutinized are those that contain hurdles or are expressed as absolute returns—real estate, private equity, opportunistic fixed income, infrastructure—to judge whether they are reasonable in the current market environment.

The report recommends that the bureau urge each of the five retirement systems to adopt a total fund benchmark designed to reflect progress against offsetting pension liabilities. That would be in addition to the current benchmarks, which are designed to measure relative performance.

The current assessment, “Setting a Course for the Future,” a management and operations study with best practice review for the city’s asset management, continues Stringer’s initiative to bring the bureau up to date. The report was conducted by Funston Advisory Services, which provides of governance, operations and risk intelligence research and support to public retirement systems. A link to the report is on the comptroller’s website.

IRS Proposes Normal Retirement Age Rule for Governmental Plans

The agency has added more safe harbors to the normal retirement age requirements.

In the latest iteration of rulemaking efforts that have been going on for years, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for the applicability of normal retirement age regulations to governmental pension plans.

The regulations would provide rules relating to the determination of whether the normal retirement age under a governmental plan (within the meaning of section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code) that is a pension plan satisfies the requirements of section 401(a) and whether the payment of definitely determinable benefits that commence at the plan’s normal retirement age satisfies these requirements.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

In response to a call for comments in 2012, the IRS received a range of comments regarding the pre-Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) vesting rules that apply to a governmental plan’s normal retirement age. In particular, the IRS received many comments requesting rules that would permit governmental plans to define normal retirement age by reference to a period of service. Comments also focused on whether a governmental plan is required to include an explicit definition of normal retirement age. 

Under the proposed rule, the terms of a governmental plan are not required to include an explicit definition of the term normal retirement age in order to satisfy section 401(a). However, in the absence of an explicit definition of normal retirement age, the terms of the plan must specify the earliest age at which a participant has the right to retire without the consent of the employer and to receive retirement benefits based upon the amount of the participant’s service on the date of retirement at the full rate set for in the plan. That age (the earliest age described in the preceding sentence) will be considered the plan’s normal retirement age for purposes of any statutory or regulatory requirements based on a normal retirement age. 

Governmental plans don’t need to have a definition of normal retirement age if they don’t provide for in-service distributions before age 62.

NEXT: Reasonably representative age and safe harbors

The proposed regulations would apply the reasonably representative requirement in the 2007 normal retirement age regulations for governmental plans. Thus, the normal retirement age under a governmental plan must be an age that is not earlier than the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed. 

The rule provides several safe harbors:

  • A normal retirement age of at least age 62 is deemed to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement;
  • A normal retirement age that is the later of age 60 or the age at which the participant has been credited with at least 5 years of service;
  • A normal retirement age that is the later of age 55 or the age at which the participant has been credited with at least 10 years of service;
  • A normal retirement age that is the participant’s age if the sum of the participant’s age plus the number of years of service that have been credited to the participant under the plan equals 80 or more; and
  • Any age with 25 years of service (in combination with a safe harbor that includes an age).

The proposed regulations include three safe harbors specifically for qualified public safety employees.

  • A normal retirement age of age 50 or later is deemed to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement;
  • A normal retirement age that is the participant’s age when the sum of the participant’s age plus the number of years of service that have been credited to the participant under the plan equals 70 or more; and
  • Any age with 20 years of service.
The proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register January 27, and comments will be received for 90 days.

«