Pew Report Shines Light on West Virginia Public Pensions

872019 Pew Report Shines Light on West Virginia Public Pensions

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullpew-report-shines-light-on-west-virginia-public-pensions 112wwwpewcenteronthestatesorg april 201

In the midst of the Great Recession andsevere investment declines the gapbetween the promises states made foremployeesrsquo retirement benefits and themoney they set aside to pay for themgrew to at least $126 trillion in fiscalyear 2009 resulting in a 26 percentincrease in one year

State pension plans represented slightlymore than half of this shortfall with $228trillion stowed away to cover $294 trillionin long-term liabilitiesmdashleaving about a$660 billion gap according to an analysisby the Pew Center on the States Retireehealth care and other benefits accountedfor the remaining $604 billion with assetstotaling $31 billion to pay for $635 billionin liabilities Pension funding shortfalls

surpassed funding gaps for retiree healthcare and other benefits for the first timesince states began reporting liabilities forthe latter in fiscal year 2006 1

Precipitous revenue declines in fiscalyear 2009 severely depleted state coffersand constrained their ability to paytheir annual retirement bills Statesrsquoown actuaries recommended that theycontribute nearly $115 billion to build upenough assets to fully fund their promisesover the long term but they contributedonly $73 billionmdashor 64 percent of thetotal annual bill This 2009 paymentrepresents a three percentage point declinefrom the previous fiscal yearrsquos contributionwhen they set aside just under $72 billiontoward a $108 billion requirement

The Widening Gapt g r rsquo im s p dr h c c

the widening gap


httpslidepdfcomreaderfullpew-report-shines-light-on-west-virginia-public-pensions 212

Pew Center on the StateS2

And statesrsquo ability to meet their annualpayments may not improve anytime soonmost government finance experts expectstate tax revenues to continue recoveringslowly in the years ahead

The $126 trillion figure is based onstatesrsquo own actuarial assumptions Moststates use an 8 percent discount ratemdashtheinvestment target that states expect toearn on average in future years Butthere is significant debate among policymakers and experts about what discountrate is most appropriate for states to usewhen valuing pension liabilities This isan important issue because dependingon how those liabilities are calculatedstatesrsquo total funding shortfall for their long-term pension obligations to public sectorretirees could be as much as $18 trillion(using assumptions similar to corporatepensions) or $24 trillion (using a discount

rate based on a 30-year Treasury bond)How states value long-term liabilities goingforward will play an important role indefining the scale of their challenges andthe actions they will have to take tomeet them

PensionsIn all state pension systems were slightly

less than 78 percent fundedmdashdecliningsix percentage points from the 2008 levelof 84 percent New York led the way witha funding level of 101 percentmdashthe onlystate to enjoy a surplusmdashwhile Illinois and

West Virginia were at the back of the pack

with just slightly more than half of theirliabilities accounted for Overall this is aworrisome trend because most expertsincluding the Government AccountabilityOffice advise states to have at least an 80percent funding level Thirty-one stateswere below this threshold in fiscal year2009 a dramatic one-year increase fromfiscal year 2008 when 22 states were lessthan 80 percent funded

In fiscal year 2000 when pension systemswere well funded states and participatinglocal governments had to pay $27billion to fund their promised benefitsadequately In fiscal year 2009 the annualpension payment requirement grew to$68 billionmdasha nominal (non-inflation-adjusted) increase of 152 percent overnine years States paid $563 billionmdash83percentmdashof this bill in fiscal year 2009Many experts agree that making full

annual contributions is key to effectivelymanaging the long-term costs of stateretirement systems

Far too many states arenot responsibly managingthe bill for theiremployeesrsquo retirement



the widening gaP the great reCeSSionrsquoS imPaCt on State PenSion and retiree health Care CoStS 3

Exhibit 1

Thirty-one stateswere below the 80percent fundedthreshold for awell-fundedpension system

SOURCE Pew Center on the States 2011

NOTE Pew was able to obtain scal year 2009 data for all states except Hawaii and Ohio For Hawaii scal year 2008 datawere used for Ohio 2009 data were projected using preliminary valuations

Statesrsquo Public Sector Pensions 78 Funded in FY09

States with less than 80of pension liabilities funded

StatePct

fundedLatestliability

Latestrequired

contributionPctpaid State

Pctfunded

Latestliability

Latestrequired

contributionPctpaid

VA

WA

OR

CAUT

NE

ND

IA

NY

TX

MO

FL

NC

GA

PA

HI

Alabama $41634554 74 $1214983 100Alaska 15347768 61 268127 110Arizona 44078394 78 1141602 101Arkansas 22698906 78 534954 103California 490585000 81 12422673 82Colorado 54536549 69 1310315 66

Connecticut 41311400 62 1307200 96Delaware 7615166 94 148940 97Florida 141485280 84 2928569 108Georgia 79898410 87 1316048 100Hawaii 16549069 69 488770 104Idaho 12057500 74 235626 132Illinois 126435510 51 4076467 71Indiana 36924845 67 1293765 103Iowa 26602516 81 495196 87Kansas 21138206 64 660833 68Kentucky 35686737 58 964979 58Louisiana 39657924 60 1375288 97Maine 14410000 73 331700 100

Maryland 53054565 65 1338342 84Massachusetts 61140335 68 1968259 66Michigan 72911900 79 1381577 100Minnesota 60835351 77 1128407 78Mississippi 31386747 67 741520 100Missouri 55314996 79 1225512 90

Montana $10271027 74 $196002 92Nebraska 9427370 88 180411 100Nevada 33148347 72 1344489 90New Hampshire 8475062 58 262984 75New Jersey 134928225 66 4053524 36New Mexico 29003362 76 683886 93

New York 146733000 101 2456223 100North Carolina 76976542 97 762442 100North Dakota 4475800 81 83339 80Ohio 171194371 66 2565450 94Oklahoma 34815244 57 1346040 77Oregon 56810600 86 630800 100Pennsylvania 111317700 81 2405156 31Rhode Island 11500425 59 320173 100South Carolina 42050701 69 966538 100South Dakota 7494895 92 95280 100Tennessee 35198741 90 836911 100Texas 155679204 84 2611397 99Utah 24299183 86 665235 100

Vermont 4012955 73 68615 93 Virginia 69135000 80 1608466 82Washington 57754700 99 1829700 73West Virginia 14266419 56 541482 96Wisconsin 79104600 100 699300 100Wyoming 7401614 89 169712 63

TN

IL

NV

ID

MT

WY

CO

SD

MN

WI

OH

MI

NM

KS

SC

KY

ME

IN

LA

MS

AZOK

AR

WV

AL74

61

78 78

81 69

62

59

94

66

65

68

58

73

73101

81

80

97

69

87

84

67

60

84

57

64 79

77

79

100

56

66

58

6751

76

90

69

86

89

8872

74

99

86

81

92

81

74

RI

NJ

MA

NH

VT

CT

DE

MD

States with at least 80 of pension liabilities funded in scal year 2008 but less than 80 in scal year 2009Figures are in thousands




Record investment losses characterizedfiscal year 2009 The nationrsquos pensionplans suffered a median 191 percent dropin their assetsrsquo market value 2 For moststates whose fiscal year 2009 began on

July 1 2008 and ended on June 30 2009these data capture the worst effects of thefinancial crisis More recently many planshave reported double-digit investmentgains for fiscal year 2010 3

Fiscal Year 2010 Numbers

At this writing fiscal year 2010 data

are available for just 16 states but theinformation suggests great variation 4 These states represented more than aquarter of the US population in 2009

Collectively the average funding levelacross the 16 states fell slightly from 77percent in fiscal year 2009 to 75 percentin fiscal year 2010 Ten of the statessaw their pension funding levels furtherdecline ranging from 1 percentage pointin Maryland and Texas to 9 percentagepoints in North Dakota Three statesrsquopension systems rebounded with fundinglevel increases ranging from 2 percentagepoints in Vermont to a 5 percentage pointupswing in Idaho

This variation reflects in part differencesin the time of year that states recognizedinvestment gains It also is caused bystatesrsquo smoothing policies which involve

Mixed Picture FY10 Data Show Investment GainsRecessionrsquos LegacyF 16 s s f c f sc y 2010 v b v p sfu v f s y 75 p c f 77 p c p v us yFigures are in thousands

State

Pension liability Pct funded Required contribution Pct paidFY10 FY09 FY10 FY09 FY10 FY09 FY10 FY09

C c cu $44826900 $41311400 53 62 $1472000 $1307200 87 96

d 7922174 7615166 92 94 148586 148940 97 97

F 148116907 141485280 82 84 2860448 2928569 107 108

i 12513200 12057500 79 74 262100 235626 114 132

i 27057850 26602516 81 81 524877 495196 89 87

K ucky 37006999 35686737 54 58 1023898 964979 58 58

l u s 41356966 39657924 56 60 1599612 1375288 84 97

m 14799200 14410000 70 73 330300 331700 103 100

m y 54498265 53054565 64 65 1544873 1338342 87 84

m s 57604243 60835351 80 77 1276570 1128407 67 78

n v 35163755 33148347 70 72 1394802 1344489 92 90

n h ps 8953932 8475062 58 58 269677 262984 100 75

n d k 4977500 4475800 72 81 107524 83339 66 80

t ss 35198741 35198741 90 90 836727 836911 100 100

t x s 163416523 155679204 83 84 3363531 2611397 82 99

V 4090328 4012955 75 73 89514 68615 94 93


Exhibit 2




spreading investment returns out overtime to avoid extreme year-over-yearchanges in funding levels and requiredcontributions For example because Idahodoes not smooth returns its unfundedliability increased by $24 billion betweenfiscal years 2008 and 2009 but thenrecovered by $471 million in fiscal year2010 These were dramatic swings fora state with a relatively small pensionsystem Meanwhile Maryland whichsmoothes experienced losses betweenfiscal years 2008 and 2009 that weremilder but the state continued to see itsfunding level drop in fiscal year 2010

Overall these results suggest that whilestates benefited from better returns infiscal year 2010 the legacy of the financialcrisismdashand the steady deterioration in thehealth of many public sector retirementbenefit systems throughout much of the

last decademdashwill remain an issuefor years to come

Retiree Hea th Care andOther BenefitsRetiree health care and other benefitsmade up the rest of the shortfall in fiscalyear 2009 States had a total liability of $635 billion but had saved only about$31 billionmdashslightly less than 5 percent of the total cost The situation has worsenedsince fiscal year 2008 when states had$587 billion in liabilities and $32 billionin assets

Based on the most recent data statesmade only 36 percent of the $47 billionin contributions required by their ownactuaries for this long-term bill FivestatesmdashAlaska Arizona North DakotaUtah and Washingtonmdashmade fullcontributions

Making matters worse just two statesmdash Alaska and Ohiomdashaccounted for nearly62 percent of all the money set asideto fund retiree health care as of fiscalyear 2009 Nineteen states had set asidenothing to pay for these promises Thesestates continue to fund these benefits ona pay-as-you-go basis covering medicalcosts or premiums as they are incurred bycurrent retirees For states offering modestbenefits this may cause little problemBut for those that have made significantpromises the future fiscal burden could beenormous if more savings are not set asideor costs are not better managed

Alaska and Ohioaccounted for nearly 62percent of all the money

states had set aside to fundretiree health care




Exhibit 3

Nineteen states had setaside no funds as of scal

year 2009 to pay theirbills coming due forretiree health care andother non-pensionbenets Only sevenstates had fundedat least a quarterof their liability

NOTE Data are the most recent available ranging from 2007 to 2010 Figures for Nebraska are not availableSOURCE Pew Center on the States 2011

Statesrsquo Retiree Health Benets 5 Funded in FY09

Percent of Liability Funded

StatePct


Latestrequired


Pctfunded

Latestliability

Latestrequired

contributionPctpaid

FL

50 and above01 to 490




Montana $540894 0 $53276 0Nebraska NA NA NA NANevada 1874005 1 214937 21New Hampshire 3226105 5 272378 42New Jersey 66792900 0 5335500 25New Mexico 3116916 5 286538 32



Figures are in thousands

WV

NH

VT

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

MD

IL

VA

OR

CA

NV

UT

CO

NENO DATA

AVAILABLE

SD

NDMN

IA

WI

OH

MI

NY

NM

TX

KS MO

AL

SC

KY

NC

ME

LAMS

TN

GA

AZ OKAR

HI

IN

PA

MT

WA

ID

WY




Potentia Consequences andRecent Reforms

Just as failing to meet a monthly paymenton a personal loan can result in higher

payments down the road a statersquos failure topay the annual bill for retirement benefitscan mean it will have to pay more in thefuture A comparison of New York andNew Jersey provides a good example Bothstates had fully funded pension plans in2002 In subsequent years the GardenState failed to make more than 60 percentof its annual contribution in each year and

its funding gap grew to $46 billion

The Empire State on the other handcontinued to be disciplined about fundingits annual bill Today New York has a$147 billion liability compared to New

Jerseyrsquos $135 billion obligation but itsannual required contribution is $16billion less To put this in context consider

that New York increased K-12 educationspending by $17 billion from fiscal year2008 to 2009 New Jersey meanwhilereduced state education spending by $557million during the same period 5

While annual pension paymentrequirements grew 152 percent from2000-2009 state general fund spending

as a whole rose only 44 percent 6 If statesrsquoannual retirement system contributionscontinue to rise faster than overallgeneral fund spending they increasingly

could compete for resources with otherimportant priorities such as educationhuman services and infrastructure

Given these and other seriousimplications many states have taken stepsrecently to address these rising costs In

November 2010 drawing on informationcollected by the National Conference of State Legislatures the Pew Center on theStates released an analysis of reforms stateshave adopted in their pension plans since2001 to reduce benefits andor increaseemployee contributions In 2010 atleast 19 states took action to reduce theirliabilities acknowledging that the costs

they face for these benefits exceed whatthey are willing or able to pay Additionalstates are likely to do so in their 2011legislative sessions

While annual pension

payment requirementsgrew 152 percent from2000 to 2009 stategeneral fund spendingas a whole rose only 44percent




Impact of Investment ReturnAssumptionsIn recent years a debate has emergedabout the appropriate investment return

rate that states should assume whencalculating liabilities and contributionrequirements States typically assume anaverage annual return of around 8 percentand Pewrsquos analysis is based on those andother actuarial assumptions employed byeach state Most states have exceeded thisexpectation over the long term from 1984to 2009 the median investment return for

public pension plans was 93 percent 7

Still some observers including renownedfinancier and investor Warren Buffettargue that current assumptions are toooptimistic 8 From 1990 to 2009 stateshad a median investment return of 81percent But in the most recent decadefrom 2000 to 2009 that figure was 39

percent The stakes of this debate are highbecause when a state lowers its investmentreturn assumptions the projected value of its liabilities and the annual contributionsrequired to meet them increasedramatically This in turn expands thegap between liabilities and assets

While there is no consensus among state

officials or experts in the field about whatthe appropriate discount rate shouldbe it is useful to understand the impact

of various assumptions At the heart of the debate surrounding the appropriatediscount rate assumption is whether statesshould calculate the current value of these

long-term promises using an expected rateof return In other words if investmentreturns are disappointing and do not meetexpectations states are still required topay retirees the benefits they have earnedTherefore some experts recommendthat states employ a ldquoriskless raterdquo thatmight be analogous to a 30-year Treasurybond when valuing their future pension

liabilities arguing that pension obligationsare legally binding and guaranteed torecipients 9 Based on the Treasury bondrsquosrate of 438 percent as of mid-March 2011the statesrsquo cumulative liability for pensionbenefits would grow to $46 trillion withan unfunded liability of $24 trillion 10

Another benchmark suggested by some

experts is the investment return requiredby the Financial Accounting StandardsBoard (FASB) a private counterpart tothe Government Accounting StandardsBoard11 FASB requires that private sectordefined benefit plans use investmentreturn assumptions based on the rate oncorporate bonds 522 percent as of mid-March 2011 12 Based on this assumption

statesrsquo pension benefit liabilities wouldgrow to $41 trillion $18 trillion of whichwould be unfunded




Methodo ogy The main data sources used for thisproject were the Comprehensive AnnualFinancial Reports produced by each state

and pension plan for fiscal year 2009 Another key information source was stateactuarial valuations In total Pew collecteddata for 231 pension plans and 162 otherpost-employment benefit plans Pew wasable to obtain fiscal year 2009 data forall major state pension plans for all statesexcept Hawaii and Ohio For Hawaiifiscal year 2008 data were used for Ohio

data for the Public Employeesrsquo RetirementSystem were projected using preliminaryvaluations released by the plan For moreinformation please see page 52 of PewrsquosFebruary 2010 report The TrillionDollar Gap

One analysis in this brief that was notincluded in the The Trillion Dollar Gapis

Pewrsquos alternative discount rate calculationsBecause pension and retiree health careliabilities will be paid out over many yearsit is important for states to estimate thecurrent value of those future costs Statesuse various investment rate of return

assumptions the most common of whichis 8 percent In other words they calculatethe amount that were investments togenerate 8 percent returns each year

would be equal to the eventual cost whenthe bill comes due For retiree healthcare states use a lower discount rate asthey typically do not have substantialassets generating returns to pay for thosebenefits

Pew re-estimated pension liabilities byassuming they will come due in even

increments over the next 50 years Basedon that assumption Pew calculated anundiscounted liability and applied the newdiscount rate to that stream of payments

Beyond the discount rate calculations Pewadopted each statersquos actuarial assumptionsSome of the relevant assumptions statesmake include estimates of employee life

spans retirement ages salary growthmarriage rates retention rates and otherdemographic characteristics States alsouse one of a number of approved actuarialcost methods and also may smooth gainsand losses over time to manage volatility




1 Some organizations such as the Center on Budgetand Policy Priorities the National Association of StateRetirement Administrators the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Association of StateBudget Officers among others have suggested that itis not appropriate to combine the unfunded liabilitiesof state pensions and retiree health care benefits Theycontend that because retiree health care benefits donot enjoy the same level of constitutional and statutoryprotections as pensions the unfunded liabilities forthose benefits should be considered separately

2 Keith Brainard ldquoPublic Fund Survey Summary of

Findings for FY2009rdquo National Association of StateRetirement Administrators November 2010 9 http wwwpublicfundsurveyorgpublicfundsurveypdfs Summary20of20Findings20FY09pdf (accessedMarch 21 2011)

3 An August 2010 review by Stateline a news servicewithin the Pew Center on the States found that manyplans experienced double-digit gains in fiscal year2010

4 States for which Pew was able to collect complete

fiscal year 2010 pension data are ConnecticutDelaware Florida Idaho Iowa Kentucky LouisianaMaine Maryland Minnesota Nevada New HampshireNorth Dakota Tennessee Texas and Vermont

5 Calculations on K-12 education expenditures fromgeneral funds and other state funds were derived usingdata from the National Association of State BudgetOfficers Fiscal Year 2009 State Expenditure Report Table 7 16

6 Pew Center on the States analysis of expenditure datafrom the National Association of State Budget OfficersrsquoExpenditure Reports from fiscal years 2000 and2009 National Association of State Budget OfficersFiscal Year 2000 State Expenditure Report Table 1 6National Association of State Budget Officers Fiscal Year 2009 Expenditure Report Table 1 6

7 Keith Brainard ldquoPublic Pension Plan InvestmentReturn Assumptionsrdquo National Association of StateRetirement Administrators March 2010 1 http wwwnasraorgresourcesInvReturnAssumption_Finalpdf (accessed March 21 2011)

8 ldquoWarren Buffett Says That Pension AccountingEncourages Cheatingrdquo Bloombergcom July 17 2009httpwwwbloombergcomappsnewspid=newsarchiveampsid=aCb9PTevRP3gamprefer=news_index (accessedMarch 21 2011)

9 Andrew G Biggs ldquoProposed GASB Rules Show Why Only Market Valuation Fully Captures Public

Pension Liabilitiesrdquo Financial Analysts Journal MarchApril 2011 httpwwwaeiorgdocLib BiggsFinancialAnalysisJournalpdf (accessed March21 2011) Joshua D Rauh ldquoAre State Public PensionsSustainablerdquo Kellogg School of Management and theNational Bureau of Economic Research December 312009 httpwwwtaxpolicycenterorgeventsupload Rauh-ASPSS-USC-20091231pdf (accessed March 212011)

10 Based on the 30 Year Treasury yield curvefor March 16 2011 available through the USDepartment of the Treasury httpwwwtreasurygov resource-centerdata-chart-centerinterest-ratesPages TextViewaspxdata=yieldYearampyear=2011 (accessedMarch 17 2011)

11 Josh Barro ldquoUnmasking Hidden Costs BestPractices for Public Pension Transparencyrdquo CivicReport No 63 February 2011 httpwwwmanhattan-instituteorghtmlcr_63htm (accessedMarch 21 2011) Orin S Kramer ldquoUnfunded BenefitsDig Statesrsquo $3 Trillion Holerdquo Bloombergcom January19 2010 httpwwwbloombergcomappsnewspid=newsarchiveampsid=aKQk6SUcSr3A (accessed March 212011)

12 Based on the yield of a Moodyrsquos AA-rated 20-yearcorporate bond available through the Society of

Actuaries httpwwwsoaorgprofessional-interests pensionresourcespen-moody-ratesaspx (accessedMarch 17 2011)

e s




APRIl 2011

The Pew Center on the States is a division of The Pew Charitable Trusts that identifiesand advances effective solutions to critical issues facing states Pew is a nonprofitorganization that applies a rigorous analytical approach to improve public policyinform the public and stimulate civic life

pew center on the statesSusan K Urahn managing director

Project TeamDavid DraineLori GrangeKil HuhMatt McKillop

Data CollectionDavid CombsKylie Patterson

Aidan Russell Jessica Wang

CommunicationsNicole DueffertMatt MulkeyMargie Newman

Publications and WebCarla UrionaSergey Nesterov

Julia HoppockLauren Orsini

Jennifer Peltak

For additional information on Pew and the Center on the States please visitwwwpewcenteronthestatesorg

This report is intended for educational and informational purposes References to specific policy makersor companies have been included solely to advance these purposes and do not constitute an endorsementsponsorship or recommendation by The Pew Charitable Trusts

copy2011 The Pew Charitable Trusts All Rights Reserved

901 E Street NW 10th Floor 2005 Market Street Suite 1700 Washington DC 20004 Philadelphia PA 19103



9 0 1 E S T R E E T N W 1 0 T H f l o o r bull W a s h i n g t o n D C 2 0 0 0 4

W W W P E W C E N T E R O N T H E S T AT E S O R G




And statesrsquo ability to meet their annualpayments may not improve anytime soonmost government finance experts expectstate tax revenues to continue recoveringslowly in the years ahead

The $126 trillion figure is based onstatesrsquo own actuarial assumptions Moststates use an 8 percent discount ratemdashtheinvestment target that states expect toearn on average in future years Butthere is significant debate among policymakers and experts about what discountrate is most appropriate for states to usewhen valuing pension liabilities This isan important issue because dependingon how those liabilities are calculatedstatesrsquo total funding shortfall for their long-term pension obligations to public sectorretirees could be as much as $18 trillion(using assumptions similar to corporatepensions) or $24 trillion (using a discount

rate based on a 30-year Treasury bond)How states value long-term liabilities goingforward will play an important role indefining the scale of their challenges andthe actions they will have to take tomeet them

PensionsIn all state pension systems were slightly

less than 78 percent fundedmdashdecliningsix percentage points from the 2008 levelof 84 percent New York led the way witha funding level of 101 percentmdashthe onlystate to enjoy a surplusmdashwhile Illinois and

West Virginia were at the back of the pack

with just slightly more than half of theirliabilities accounted for Overall this is aworrisome trend because most expertsincluding the Government AccountabilityOffice advise states to have at least an 80percent funding level Thirty-one stateswere below this threshold in fiscal year2009 a dramatic one-year increase fromfiscal year 2008 when 22 states were lessthan 80 percent funded

In fiscal year 2000 when pension systemswere well funded states and participatinglocal governments had to pay $27billion to fund their promised benefitsadequately In fiscal year 2009 the annualpension payment requirement grew to$68 billionmdasha nominal (non-inflation-adjusted) increase of 152 percent overnine years States paid $563 billionmdash83percentmdashof this bill in fiscal year 2009Many experts agree that making full

annual contributions is key to effectivelymanaging the long-term costs of stateretirement systems

Far too many states arenot responsibly managingthe bill for theiremployeesrsquo retirement




Exhibit 1






StatePct


Latestrequired


Pctfunded

Latestliability

Latestrequired

contributionPctpaid

VA

WA

OR

CAUT

NE

ND

IA

NY

TX

MO

FL

NC

GA

PA

HI







TN

IL

NV

ID

MT

WY

CO

SD

MN

WI

OH

MI

NM

KS

SC

KY

ME

IN

LA

MS

AZOK

AR

WV

AL74

61

78 78

81 69

62

59

94

66

65

68

58

73

73101

81

80

97

69

87

84

67

60

84

57

64 79

77

79

100

56

66

58

6751

76

90

69

86

89

8872

74

99

86

81

92

81

74

RI

NJ

MA

NH

VT

CT

DE

MD













State


C c cu $44826900 $41311400 53 62 $1472000 $1307200 87 96

d 7922174 7615166 92 94 148586 148940 97 97

F 148116907 141485280 82 84 2860448 2928569 107 108

i 12513200 12057500 79 74 262100 235626 114 132

i 27057850 26602516 81 81 524877 495196 89 87

K ucky 37006999 35686737 54 58 1023898 964979 58 58

l u s 41356966 39657924 56 60 1599612 1375288 84 97

m 14799200 14410000 70 73 330300 331700 103 100

m y 54498265 53054565 64 65 1544873 1338342 87 84

m s 57604243 60835351 80 77 1276570 1128407 67 78

n v 35163755 33148347 70 72 1394802 1344489 92 90

n h ps 8953932 8475062 58 58 269677 262984 100 75

n d k 4977500 4475800 72 81 107524 83339 66 80

t ss 35198741 35198741 90 90 836727 836911 100 100

t x s 163416523 155679204 83 84 3363531 2611397 82 99

V 4090328 4012955 75 73 89514 68615 94 93


Exhibit 2















Exhibit 3






StatePct


Latestrequired


Pctfunded

Latestliability

Latestrequired

contributionPctpaid

FL









WV

NH

VT

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

MD

IL

VA

OR

CA

NV

UT

CO

NENO DATA

AVAILABLE

SD

NDMN

IA

WI

OH

MI

NY

NM

TX

KS MO

AL

SC

KY

NC

ME

LAMS

TN

GA

AZ OKAR

HI

IN

PA

MT

WA

ID

WY




































































e s




APRIl 2011









Jennifer Peltak












Exhibit 1






StatePct


Latestrequired


Pctfunded

Latestliability

Latestrequired

contributionPctpaid

VA

WA

OR

CAUT

NE

ND

IA

NY

TX

MO

FL

NC

GA

PA

HI







TN

IL

NV

ID

MT

WY

CO

SD

MN

WI

OH

MI

NM

KS

SC

KY

ME

IN

LA

MS

AZOK

AR

WV

AL74

61

78 78

81 69

62

59

94

66

65

68

58

73

73101

81

80

97

69

87

84

67

60

84

57

64 79

77

79

100

56

66

58

6751

76

90

69

86

89

8872

74

99

86

81

92

81

74

RI

NJ

MA

NH

VT

CT

DE

MD













State


C c cu $44826900 $41311400 53 62 $1472000 $1307200 87 96

d 7922174 7615166 92 94 148586 148940 97 97

F 148116907 141485280 82 84 2860448 2928569 107 108

i 12513200 12057500 79 74 262100 235626 114 132

i 27057850 26602516 81 81 524877 495196 89 87

K ucky 37006999 35686737 54 58 1023898 964979 58 58

l u s 41356966 39657924 56 60 1599612 1375288 84 97

m 14799200 14410000 70 73 330300 331700 103 100

m y 54498265 53054565 64 65 1544873 1338342 87 84

m s 57604243 60835351 80 77 1276570 1128407 67 78

n v 35163755 33148347 70 72 1394802 1344489 92 90

n h ps 8953932 8475062 58 58 269677 262984 100 75

n d k 4977500 4475800 72 81 107524 83339 66 80

t ss 35198741 35198741 90 90 836727 836911 100 100

t x s 163416523 155679204 83 84 3363531 2611397 82 99

V 4090328 4012955 75 73 89514 68615 94 93


Exhibit 2















Exhibit 3






StatePct


Latestrequired


Pctfunded

Latestliability

Latestrequired

contributionPctpaid

FL









WV

NH

VT

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

MD

IL

VA

OR

CA

NV

UT

CO

NENO DATA

AVAILABLE

SD

NDMN

IA

WI

OH

MI

NY

NM

TX

KS MO

AL

SC

KY

NC

ME

LAMS

TN

GA

AZ OKAR

HI

IN

PA

MT

WA

ID

WY




































































e s




APRIl 2011









Jennifer Peltak




















State


C c cu $44826900 $41311400 53 62 $1472000 $1307200 87 96

d 7922174 7615166 92 94 148586 148940 97 97

F 148116907 141485280 82 84 2860448 2928569 107 108

i 12513200 12057500 79 74 262100 235626 114 132

i 27057850 26602516 81 81 524877 495196 89 87

K ucky 37006999 35686737 54 58 1023898 964979 58 58

l u s 41356966 39657924 56 60 1599612 1375288 84 97

m 14799200 14410000 70 73 330300 331700 103 100

m y 54498265 53054565 64 65 1544873 1338342 87 84

m s 57604243 60835351 80 77 1276570 1128407 67 78

n v 35163755 33148347 70 72 1394802 1344489 92 90

n h ps 8953932 8475062 58 58 269677 262984 100 75

n d k 4977500 4475800 72 81 107524 83339 66 80

t ss 35198741 35198741 90 90 836727 836911 100 100

t x s 163416523 155679204 83 84 3363531 2611397 82 99

V 4090328 4012955 75 73 89514 68615 94 93


Exhibit 2















Exhibit 3






StatePct


Latestrequired


Pctfunded

Latestliability

Latestrequired

contributionPctpaid

FL









WV

NH

VT

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

MD

IL

VA

OR

CA

NV

UT

CO

NENO DATA

AVAILABLE

SD

NDMN

IA

WI

OH

MI

NY

NM

TX

KS MO

AL

SC

KY

NC

ME

LAMS

TN

GA

AZ OKAR

HI

IN

PA

MT

WA

ID

WY




































































e s




APRIl 2011









Jennifer Peltak























Exhibit 3






StatePct


Latestrequired


Pctfunded

Latestliability

Latestrequired

contributionPctpaid

FL









WV

NH

VT

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

MD

IL

VA

OR

CA

NV

UT

CO

NENO DATA

AVAILABLE

SD

NDMN

IA

WI

OH

MI

NY

NM

TX

KS MO

AL

SC

KY

NC

ME

LAMS

TN

GA

AZ OKAR

HI

IN

PA

MT

WA

ID

WY




































































e s




APRIl 2011









Jennifer Peltak












































































e s




APRIl 2011









Jennifer Peltak












APRIl 2011









Jennifer Peltak









Pew Report Shines Light on West Virginia Public Pensions

Documents

Transcript of Pew Report Shines Light on West Virginia Public Pensions