This paper analyzes the financial challenges facing the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest public pension fund in the United States. Beginning with the dramatic asset losses suffered during the 2008 financial crisis, the paper traces the structural causes of CalPERS' funding deficits, including overly optimistic investment return assumptions and retroactive benefit increases enacted in 1999. It explores the broader national context of underfunded public pensions, the unsustainable cost projections acknowledged by CalPERS' own chief actuary, and specific reform measures proposed to address transparency, investment oversight, and benefit calculation. The paper concludes by evaluating the adequacy of incremental reforms and the potential consequences for California taxpayers and municipalities.
The paper demonstrates effective use of multiple source types — news articles, advocacy organizations, and official fund statements — to triangulate a policy argument. By comparing the Pew Foundation's and Barron's estimates of the national pension deficit, the writer shows awareness that sources may conflict and implicitly prompts the reader to consider the scale of uncertainty in public finance projections.
The paper opens with an overview of CalPERS' size and recent financial decline, then explains its three-part funding mechanism. It escalates to the broader national context before zeroing in on the unsustainability acknowledged by actuaries and the specific legislative history (SB 400, 1999). The final section transitions from critique to constructive reform proposals, including transparency requirements, bonus restructuring, and oversight of placement agents, before closing with a note on CalPERS' historical payment record.
The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) is the largest public pension system in the nation, with assets of approximately $200 billion. It funds pensions and health plans for retired California state and municipal workers, serving nearly two million public employees, retirees, and their families, as well as more than three thousand employers (About CalPERS, 2011). Yet CalPERS and many other public pensions now face severe economic challenges.
In 2007, CalPERS held assets of $260 billion. That figure dropped to $160 billion in 2008 and has recovered to just over $200 billion — still down 22 percent from its peak. The fund's strategy assumes a return of approximately seven percent per year to keep its funding levels steady, a target it has fallen well short of in recent years. By law, California public pensions must be financed at 100 percent. CalPERS has the authority to compel municipalities to contribute more in order to make up any funding deficits, which means taxes may rise as local governments are forced to cover the fund's losses (CalPERS continues to face severe budget shortfall, 2010).
CalPERS members have guaranteed retirement benefits that are financed in three ways: employee contributions, employer contributions, and returns on the fund's large investment portfolio. If the fund's assets decline and investment income slows too much, the fund can require employers to contribute more. This arrangement does not sit well with taxpayers outside the civil service system, because employer contributions are effectively passed on to the public — since the employers in question are government entities (Lacter, 2008).
Addressing apparent abuses is a reasonable starting point for pension reform, but minor fixes will not be sufficient to curb the growing expense of public pensions. Californians can reasonably support curtailing some of the worst excesses of the retirement system, given the state's $26.6 billion budget shortfall. There is no justification for allowing employees to inflate pension amounts by manipulating their final year of salary. Elected officials should also refrain from granting retroactive benefit increases or suspending pension contributions during economic booms — both practices undermine the sound financing of retirement benefits at taxpayers' expense. Employees should contribute to their own pensions rather than expecting the public to bear the entire cost (Pension help, 2011).
Reducing the unsustainable cost of public retirements requires sweeping changes, not merely minor adjustments. Legislators expanded state pensions in 1999, and local governments quickly followed under the mistaken assumption that high investment earnings would cover the full cost. Instead, the state's annual contribution to CalPERS jumped from $159 million in 1999–2000 to $3.7 billion. Local governments faced an equally sharp increase, from a combined annual contribution of $204 million in 1999–2000 to approximately $3.6 billion a decade later. Actuarial projections indicate those numbers will continue to climb (Pension help, 2011).
You’re 30% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.