New York Times article today on public pensions assuming too high returns

User Forum Topic
Submitted by ctr70 on May 28, 2012 - 10:05am

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/nyregi...

Good NYT article touching on public pension issues in New York, Rhode Island and San Jose.

Public pensions "assumptions" of their rate of return is often much higher then what they actually get. Causing the local tax payers to have dig into their pockets to make up the difference.

Being in the private sector, when my IRA or 401k takes a dump with the stock market, I just have to live with less. I don't get any tax payer bailout to "make up the difference". Why should public pensions be any different? If their investments take a dump, public pension recipients should just get less!!

We need to STOP taxpayer backstopping of public pensions!!

‹ UT Article: San Diego Rent Expected to Rise Aother way to measure the economy ›

Great article--I'm glad to
Submitted by EconProf on May 29, 2012 - 5:56am.

Great article--I'm glad to see the mainstream media is finally waking up to this looming train wreck.
CA is especially guilty of overstating expected pension fund returns because it lowers today's necessary taxpayer and public sector union members' necessary annual contributions. It is just one more way CA politicians (and voters) think short term instead of long term.
By assuming future ROR on investments will be 7.5 - 8 percent when they will more likely be half that means that today's contributions should about double. That would blow up our already troubled fiscal situation.
The unions claim that historical rates of return justify today's fantasy number. They point to three decades of strong investment returns, conveniently starting with 1980 when the DJA hovered around 1000. They won't use the past 5 years where it has declined, or the past 10 years where it has barely grown.
We are in a new world of low returns and need to adjust our assumptions about the future.

Retirement math is really
Submitted by no_such_reality on May 29, 2012 - 10:40am.

Retirement math is really simple.

If you want to retire at age 55 and be able to spend 75% of your previous income, you need to put away 25% of your salary every year.

It really is that simple. And that's assuming an average return over the 30 year cycle of 7.5%.

A lower rate of return and you need even bigger contributions.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.