Benefits January 7, 2005

CalPERS Fights Back Against Reform Proposals

January 7, 2005 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) has denouncied current efforts to reduce its influence in the state by introducing 401(k)-style accounts for new employees.

Reported by

Kip McDaniel

Acting President Rob Feckner, issued a statement Thursday warning that state government should be careful with what it does to the giant defined pension plan

Get more! Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters. 

“CalPERS has more than 70 years experience generating investment income to cover pensions,” Feckner said. “I believe it is unwise to abandon that model for a slap-dash effort to rush onto the law books a defined contribution plan that will be disastrous for everyone.

“Our investment research shows the defined contribution model will provide a meager retirement for most public workers, which today is on average only $20,000 a year, and it will cost more,” he continued. “Public workers will not be allowed to invest in all asset classes and they’ll pay six to seven times more in professional fees for the privilege of investing.”

Feckner questioned the cost to government as well, asserting that instead of reducing the cost, it will add to the state’s costs for years to come.

“Most sadly, it will hurtCalifornia’s economy because it will put an end to any pension monies being plowed back into the California economy,” he also added. “More than $19 billion dollars of our pension assets are invested into real estate, private businesses and communities in California.”

The statement comes a day after Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would back any effort to produce 401(k)-style plans for state employees, reducing the number of people receiving a pension from CalPERS (See Schwarzenegger Supports CalPERS Overhaul Efforts ).

Earlier in the week, a Republican Assemblyman proposed a ballot initiative that would see all workers starting after July 1, 2007 get a 401(k) plan, and not the benefits from the state pension system (See Assemblyman Floats DC Plan for Golden State Employees ). Representative Keith Richman also introduced a constitutional amendment on Friday that would require the same conditions for hired workers as was stated in his bill, which was filed in conjunction with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association, according to news reports. Under both initiatives, current workers would also be allowed to opt for a 401(k)-style plan if they wished to. An amendment in California requires the Legislature to vote before and after an election, each time reaching a three-quarters vote.

By delivering a bill to the Legislature and preparing a ballot initiative at the same time, the California GOP is repeating the formula Schwarzenegger used to force a Democratic-controlled Legislature to revamp the workers’ compensation system, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Despite calls for such reform, any actual change is unlikely, since Democrats – usually supportive of the pension giant – control the state Legislature, according to a Los Angeles Times news report.

You Might Also Like:

Investing | June 18th, 2024

Funded Status of the Largest Public Pension Funds Rises

Strong investment returns pushed funding level to 79.4% in May.

Benefits | October 26th, 2023

Despite Savings Shortfall for Public Sector Workers, Automatic Options Yet to Catch On

Research from the MissionSquare Research Institute shows that with defined benefit pensions not providing enough for full retirement, plan design...

Data and Research | May 12th, 2022

State Pensions’ Funded Status Jumped in 2021

While state pensions reached their highest funded status in six years, market volatility and declining markets signal potential difficulty ahead.

Administration January 6, 2005

Regulators Put Out Consultant Conflict of Interest Guidance

June 1, 2005 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - In the wake of a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) warning about potential conflicts of interest among investment consultants, federal regulators have released a series of suggestions on how plan sponsors can deal with the conflict issue.

Reported by

Fred Schneyer

The US Department of Labor (DoL) and the SEC put out the 10 suggestions in an effort to help plan fiduciaries better review consultants’ conflicts of interest. Officials said in a news release from both agencies that the tips address issues raised in the SEC report . The SEC asserted in the document that the investment consultant industry is rife with potential conflicts of interest – many of which are never properly disclosed to clients (See SEC Calls for Pension Consultant Disclosure Reforms ).

“The tips we are releasing today will help plan fiduciaries evaluate the objectivity of advice and recommendations furnished by their pension consultants,” said Ann Combs, assistant DoL secretary of labor for employee benefits security. “Fiduciaries must be provided the information necessary to ensure that advice is objective and not influenced by revenue sharing and other arrangements pension consultants may have with other service providers.”

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

The questions regulators suggest plan sponsors ask their consultants include:

Are you registered with the SEC or a state securities regulator as an investment adviser? If so, have you provided me with all the disclosures required under those laws?
Do you or a related company have relationships with money managers that you recommend, consider for recommendation, or otherwise mention to the plan for our consideration? If so, describe those relationships?
“When pension consultants have alliances or financial or other relationships with money managers or other service providers, the potential for material conflicts of interest increases, depending on the extent of the relationships,” regulators wrote. “Knowing what relationships, if any, your pension consultant has with money managers may help you assess the objectivity of the advice the consultant provides.”
Do you or a related company receive any payments from money managers you recommend, consider for recommendation, or otherwise mention to the plan for our consideration? If so, what is the extent of these payments in relation to your other income (revenue)?
Do you have any policies or procedures to address conflicts of interest or to prevent these payments or relationships from being considered when you provide advice to your clients? “Probing how the consultant addresses these potential conflicts may help you determine whether the consultant is right for your plan,” the regulators wrote.
If you allow plans to pay your consulting fees using the plan’s brokerage commissions, do you monitor the amount of commissions paid and alert plans when consulting fees have been paid in full? If not, how can a plan make sure it does not over-pay its consulting fees?
If you allow plans to pay your consulting fees using the plan’s brokerage commissions, what steps do you take to ensure that the plan receives best execution for its securities trades? “Where and how brokerage orders are executed can impact the overall costs of the transaction, including the price the plan pays for the securities it purchases,” regulators commented.
Do you have any arrangements with broker-dealers under which you or a related company will benefit if money managers place trades for their clients with such broker-dealers?
If you are hired, will you acknowledge in writing that you have a fiduciary obligation as an investment adviser to the plan while providing the consulting services we are seeking?
Do you consider yourself a fiduciary under ERISA with respect to the recommendations you provide the plan?
What percentage of your plan clients utilize money managers, investment funds, brokerage services or other service providers from whom you receive fees?