0 comments | Print

CalPERS set to lower its investment forecast, pushing state cost up

Published: Wednesday, Mar. 14, 2012 - 12:00 am | Page 3A
Last Modified: Wednesday, Mar. 14, 2012 - 8:12 am

CalPERS could have socked the state for another $425 million. Instead, it chose a compromise measure that's expected to cost $167 million.

A committee of the state's big pension fund moved Tuesday to reduce its official investment forecast by a quarter-point, to 7.5 percent.

The change, if ratified by the full board at its meeting today, would force the state to contribute an additional $303 million a year to CalPERS, with $167 million coming from the general fund.

With the extra money, the total contribution from the general fund to CalPERS would come to nearly $3.7 billion, starting with the new fiscal year in July. Schools and local governments would pay more, too, although the contributions from local agencies wouldn't go up until 2013.

CalPERS' staff wanted to cut the forecast by a half-point, to 7.25 percent. That would have cost the general fund $425 million a year – and might have been political dynamite with the deficit at $9.2 billion and Gov. Jerry Brown pushing to overhaul the pension system.

The less dramatic change, a quarter-point, was deemed acceptable by CalPERS' chief actuary, Alan Milligan. The CalPERS pension and health benefits committee voted 6-2 to recommend that adjustment to the full board.

Forecasting investment profits is hard. Brad Barber, a finance professor at UC Davis, said CalPERS can't predict the future with any precision.

"We don't really know what the expected return is going to be," he said.

Some prominent critics, such as former legislator Joe Nation, have said CalPERS should cut its forecast to around 6 percent.

Nation, now a professor at Stanford University, said going to 7.5 percent is "a step in the right direction." But he added, "At the rate they're going, it'll take five or six years before they get it right."

CalPERS has averaged 8.4 percent returns over the past two decades but earned just 1.1 percent in calendar 2011. With the financial markets volatile and economic growth sluggish, many public pension funds have cut their forecasts, including the teachers' system, CalSTRS.

CalPERS resisted making a cut last year, wary of imposing a greater burden on taxpayers and possibly inviting a political backlash. But Milligan urged the pension fund to revisit the issue, arguing that doing nothing wasn't realistic.

"It's a true 'rock and a hard place' situation," said George Diehr, a member of the CalPERS committee.

An official from Santa Clara County, Peter Ng, urged CalPERS not to change. The adjustment would cost his troubled county about $34 million a year in higher contributions.

"We are just beginning to see the (budget) situation stabilize," Ng said.

School districts, which use CalPERS to cover non-teacher employees, would have to kick in another $137 million a year. CalPERS didn't have an estimate for the impact on cities, counties and other local agencies.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Read more articles by Dale Kasler



About Comments

Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "Report Abuse" link below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.

What You Should Know About Comments on Sacbee.com

Sacbee.com is happy to provide a forum for reader interaction, discussion, feedback and reaction to our stories. However, we reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments or ban users who can't play nice. (See our full terms of service here.)

Here are some rules of the road:

• Keep your comments civil. Don't insult one another or the subjects of our articles. If you think a comment violates our guidelines click the "Report Abuse" link to notify the moderators. Responding to the comment will only encourage bad behavior.

• Don't use profanities, vulgarities or hate speech. This is a general interest news site. Sometimes, there are children present. Don't say anything in a way you wouldn't want your own child to hear.

• Do not attack other users; focus your comments on issues, not individuals.

• Stay on topic. Only post comments relevant to the article at hand.

• Do not copy and paste outside material into the comment box.

• Don't repeat the same comment over and over. We heard you the first time.

• Do not use the commenting system for advertising. That's spam and it isn't allowed.

• Don't use all capital letters. That's akin to yelling and not appreciated by the audience.

• Don't flag other users' comments just because you don't agree with their point of view. Please only flag comments that violate these guidelines.

You should also know that The Sacramento Bee does not screen comments before they are posted. You are more likely to see inappropriate comments before our staff does, so we ask that you click the "Report Abuse" link to submit those comments for moderator review. You also may notify us via email at feedback@sacbee.com. Note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us the profile name of the user who made the comment. Remember, comment moderation is subjective. You may find some material objectionable that we won't and vice versa.

If you submit a comment, the user name of your account will appear along with it. Users cannot remove their own comments once they have submitted them.

hide comments
Sacramento Bee Job listing powered by Careerbuilder.com
Quick Job Search
Buy
Used Cars
Dealer and private-party ads
Make:

Model:

Price Range:
to
Search within:
miles of ZIP

Advanced Search | 1982 & Older



Find 'n' Save Daily DealGet the Deal!

Local Deals