During the first few years after Wall Street prices bottomed out in 2009, public-pension funds across the country reaped double-digit returns. They were riding a bull market pumped up by ultra-low interest rates, and it wouldn’t last.

Now pension managers have been struggling to break even — the predictable outcome of a funding strategy that continues to expose taxpayers to unreasonable long-term risks.

Case in point: New York state, where Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli announced last week that the $178 billion state and local pension fund ended its fiscal year March 31 with a minuscule return on assets of 0.19 percent, well short of its 7 percent long-term target.

Similar results can be expected from New York City’s five municipal-worker pension funds, which also bank on 7 percent returns. Based on market trends, the city funds will be lucky not to lose money in the fiscal year ending June 30.

Generally more than half the money in New York’s public-pension funds is invested in stocks. A chunk of what remains is steered to high-risk, high-reward categories such as private equity and hedge funds, as well as real estate. Less than one-third of pension-fund assets typically are parked in safer, lower-yielding government bonds and other fixed-income investments.

Like just about everyone else, the state retirement fund lost money in the stock market. DiNapoli could’ve achieved a better performance if he’d simply invested all the fund’s assets in the ultra-safe category of Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities — or even in cash.

To be sure, no one would seriously suggest the functional equivalent of stuffing New York’s pensions into a mattress. But the current strategy is almost at the opposite extreme, tolerating excessive levels of risk and volatility in a desperate effort to prevent current costs from spiking again.

Both politics and finance are to blame for this.

New York’s state and city pension funds collectively have well over a million active and retired members. Government employees can earn pension benefits that are exceptionally generous by private-sector standards—and guaranteed by the state Constitution.

But high returns aren’t.

As former Mayor Michael Bloomberg put it, “If somebody offers you a guaranteed 7 percent on your money for the rest of your life, you take it and just make sure the guy’s name is not Madoff.”

Tax-funded public-pension costs for every level of state government rose from absolutely minimal levels in 2000 to a grand total of more than $16 billion last year, half of it in New York City alone. But taxpayer costs would have to be much higher if pension contributions were based on the much more conservative rules applied to private funds.

As the State University’s Rockefeller Institute pointed out in 2014, pension-fund managers and trustees have been embracing “potentially destructive myths and misunderstanding” about the true costs and risks associated with their promises.

Among those myths is the notion — oft-repeated by DiNapoli — that public-pension funds are “long-term investors” that can stick with their assumptions through thick and thin, riding out the kind of market volatility that saw the state funds’ return on assets veer from a 26 percent loss in 2009 to a 26 percent gain in 2010.

In fact, if they really want to minimize costs for taxpayers in the long run, the state comptroller and other pension-fund managers need to be less tolerant of risk and more leery of volatility in financial markets than individual investors — who, after all, are routinely confronted with a federally required disclaimer to the effect that “past results are no guarantee of future performance.”

New York should lead all states toward more thorough and truthful public-pension accounting — linked to a more prudent funding method, as recommended by, among others, the Blue Ribbon Panel of the Society of Actuaries.

Could that result in even higher costs for taxpayers? Potentially, in the short run. But honestly confronting those costs now — and approving the fundamental reforms needed to rein them in — is the only sure way to prevent them from mushrooming in the future.

About the Author

E.J. McMahon

Edmund J. McMahon is Empire Center's founder and a senior fellow.

Read more by E.J. McMahon

You may also like

Defuse this city pension bomb

Wednesday, Mayor de Blasio presented a fiscal 2018 Executive Budget that called for pension contributions totaling $9.6 billion — another all-time high. Yet city pension plans remain significantly underfunded even by lenient government accounting standards, posing a big risk to New York’s fiscal future. Read More

Gambling with New York’s pension funds

Just in time for Wall Street’s latest bout of bearish volatility, state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli is taking an important step to fortify New York’s largest pension fund. Too bad he also passed up a golden opportunity to go further in the right direction. Read More

NY’s disability pension gambit

New York City’s pension costs will reach nearly $8.8 billion in the coming 2016 fiscal year — more than double the 2006 level and nearly eight times the 2001 amount. Yet now, with a week to go in the state legislative session, Albany is poised to drive those costs even higher. Read More

Lighting a fuse on N.Y.’s pension bomb

Last week, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a desperately needed overhaul of that state’s massively underfunded pension system. The case has chilling implications for Albany as well as Springfield — and for New York City as well as Chicago. Read More

New York lawmakers’ three big blown chances

The Legislature is on the verge of following Governor Cuomo's lead by making three big moves in the wrong direction. Read More

Defusing the Pension Bomb

DESPITE the improving national and regional economy, New York City's budget remains stuck in a hole. With operating expenses momentarily in check, the city's continuing fiscal imbalance stems mainly from big projected increases in the cost of Medicaid, debt service, employee health benefits - and, seemingly out of nowhere, pension contributions. Read More

San Diego Needs Fundamental Pension Reform

San Diego's $1.1 billion pension fund deficit has been blamed on deliberate underfunding of the city employees' pension system, compounded by costly benefit enhancements for city retirees. But San Diego is hardly the only government employer with a big pension headache these days. Read More

Start The Revolution

Arnold Schwarzenegger just proposed it for California. Michigan has had it since 1997. Florida has had an optional version since 2000. It's time for New York to join the revolution and adopt the same kind of 401(k) retirement plan that is almost universal in the private sector for its future civil servants. Read More