| California 2015 Funding Assumption Survey | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Roeder Financial | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated May 2015 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Funding | Assumed | Base | Assumed | Amortization | Valuation | Asset | ||||||||||||||||
| Rank | PLAN SPONSOR | Method | Investment | Wage | "Excess" | Period | Asset | Smoothing | ||||||||||||||
| 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | Return | Inflation | Investment | (years) | Corridor | Period | |||||||||||
| Return | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| (a) | (b) | (a) - (b) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | CalPERS - Legislative | EAN | 5.75% | 3.00% | 2.75% | 30-declining but FR > 100% | Y: 80-120 | 15 | |||||||||
| 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | Contra Costa County | EAN | 7.25% | 4.00% | 3.25% | 8 - declining; G/L 18 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
| 3 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 10 | San Mateo County | EAN | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | 9 - declining; G/L 15 layered | Y: 80-120 | 5 | |||||||||
| 4 | 23 | 17 | 3 | 7 | 13 | City of San Jose (Safety) | EAN | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | most G/L 16 layered | Y: 80-120 | 5 | |||||||||
| 5 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 11 | 15 | City of San Diego 5 | EAN | 7.25% | 3.30% | 3.95% | 13-declining;G/L layered 15. most level $$ | Y: 80-120 | 4 | |||||||||
| 6 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | CalPERS - Judges 1 | EAN | 7.00% | 3.00% | 4.00% | 20-declining; G/L 30 layered | Y: 80-120 | 15 | |||||||||
| 7 | 6 | 8 | 11 | 37 | 36 | Alameda-Contra Costa Transit 4 | EAN | 7.25% | 3.00% | 4.25% | most 14-declining to 12 then open | Y: 80-120 | 5 | |||||||||
| 8 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 7 | LA Department of Water & Power | EAN | 7.50% | 4.00% | 3.50% | 15 - layered Level $$ | N | 5 | |||||||||
| 9 | 7 | 11 | 13 | 10 | 12 | Ventura County | EAN | 7.75% | 4.00% | 3.75% | 6-declining; G/L 15 - layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
| 10 | 9 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 16 | San Bernardino County | EAN | 7.50% | 3.75% | 3.75% | 8-declining; G/L layered 20 | N | 5 | |||||||||
| 11 | 10 | 22 | 20 | 22 | 24 | Fresno County | EAN | 7.25% | 3.75% | 3.50% | 19-declining; G/L 15 layered | Y: 70-130 | 5 | |||||||||
| 12 | 31 | 29 | 33 | 34 | 40 | City of San Jose (General) | EAN | 7.00% | 2.85% | 4.15% | most 25 - declining; G/L layered 20 | N | 5 | |||||||||
| 13 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 3 | City & County of San Francisco | EAN | 7.50% | 3.75% | 3.75% | 20-layered; G/L 20 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
| 14 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 11 | Sonoma County | EAN | 7.50% | 4.00% | 3.50% | 14-declining; G/L 20 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
| 15 | 13 | 33 | 32 | 31 | 32 | City of Fresno (Safety) | EAN | 7.50% | 3.75% | 3.75% | G/L 15-layered (100+% FR) | N | 5 | |||||||||
| 16 | 14 | 34 | 31 | 32 | 33 | City of Fresno (General) 6 | EAN | 7.50% | 3.75% | 3.75% | G/L 15 layered (100+% FR) | N | 5 | |||||||||
| 17 | 17 | 12 | 34 | 33 | 35 | Orange County | EAN | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | 19-declining; G/L 20 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
| 18 | 18 | 23 | 22 | 15 | 17 | Imperial County | EAN | 7.50% | 3.75% | 3.75% | 17 - declining; G/L 15 layered | Y: 70-130 | 5 | |||||||||
| 19 | 15 | 9 | 21 | 21 | 14 | Marin County 4 | EAN | 7.50% | 3.25% | 4.25% | most 17-rolling thru 2013, then declining | Y: 80-120 | 5 | |||||||||
| 20 | 16 | 18 | 18 | 30 | 31 | Santa Barbara County 3 | EAN | 7.50% | 3.50% | 4.00% | most 16-declining; G/L 19 layered | N/A(market) | N/A | |||||||||
| 21 | 25 | 16 | 17 | 16 | 19 | Los Angeles Fire & Police | EAN | 7.50% | 4.00% | 3.50% | Non- G/L most 23 declining; | Y: 60-140 | 7 | |||||||||
| Most G/L 20 layered | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 | 22 | 31 | 30 | 29 | 30 | San Diego County | EAN | 7.75% | 4.00% | 3.75% | 10-declining; G/L 20 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
| 23 | 19 | 28 | 28 | 25 | 23 | San Joaquin County 7 | EAN | 7.50% | 3.25% | 4.25% | 19-declining | Y: 80-120 | 5 | |||||||||
| 24 | 26 | 20 | 24 | 23 | 25 | Kern County | EAN | 7.50% | 3.75% | 3.75% | 21.5 - declining; G/L 18 layered | Y: 50-150 | 5 | |||||||||
| 25 | 27 | 21 | 35 | 35 | 28 | San Luis Obispo County 8 | EAN | 7.25% | 3.75% | 3.50% | 26- declining | N | 5 | |||||||||
| 26 | 20 | 14 | 15 | 6 | 6 | University of California 11 | EAN | 7.50% | 4.00% | 3.50% | 26-declining, G/L 30 layered Level $$ | N | 5 | |||||||||
| 27 | 28 | 24 | 23 | 17 | 20 | Alameda County | EAN | 7.60% | 3.75% | 3.85% | 18 - declining ; G/L 20 layered | Y: 60-140 | 5 | |||||||||
| 28 | 29 | 25 | 25 | 24 | 29 | Sacramento County | EAN | 7.50% | 3.50% | 4.00% | Most 21 - declining; G/L 20 layered | Y: 70-130 | 7 | |||||||||
| 29 | 24 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 21 | Tulare County 9 | EAN | 7.70% | 3.00% | 4.70% | 15 - rolling | N | 10 | |||||||||
| 30 | 32 | 30 | 36 | 27 | 8 | Mendocino County | EAN | 7.25% | 3.75% | 3.50% | 25-declining; G/L 18 layered | Y: 75-125 | 5 | |||||||||
| 31 | 21 | 15 | 16 | 14 | 9 | Merced County | EAN | 7.75% | 3.00% | 4.75% | 16- declining | Y: 70-130 | 5 | |||||||||
| 32 | 30 | 26 | 26 | 20 | 22 | City of Los Angeles | EAN | 7.50% | 4.00% | 3.50% | most 28-declining ; G/L 15-layered | Y: 60-140 | 7 | |||||||||
| 33 | 33 | 32 | 37 | 38 | 37 | CalPERS 3 | EAN | 7.50% | 3.00% | 4.50% | 20-declining with 5-year ramping | N/A(market) | N/A | |||||||||
| G/L 30 layered | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34 | 35 | 36 | 40 | 40 | 39 | East Bay Municipal Utility | EAN | 7.50% | 3.50% | 4.00% | Average-21; Future G/L-20 layered | Y: 70-130 | 5 | |||||||||
| 35 | 34 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 27 | Los Angeles County | EAN | 7.50% | 3.50% | 4.00% | 25 - declining; G/L 30 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
| 36 | 36 | 37 | 39 | 39 | 38 | Stanislaus County 5 | EAN | 7.75% | 3.50% | 4.25% | 22 - declining | Y: 80-120 | 5 | |||||||||
| 37 | 37 | 35 | 29 | 28 | 26 | CalSTRS 10 | EAN | 7.50% | 3.75% | 3.75% | 1.2%.13%< than 30-year amortization | N | 3 | |||||||||
| but increasing funding now in place | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| NOTES: | Bold indicates change from previous survey. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 1: This does not reflect the closed Judges I system: features include pay-as-you-go funding and a 4.25% assumed investment return | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2: Legal agreement determines contribution level -- pegged to specified funded ratios | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3: Instead of asset smoothing, contribution smoothing employed | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4: 50% of "extraordinary" 2008/09 losses amortized over 30 years | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 No pay Increases assumed for near term. System is closed for non-Police | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 Amortization will revert to average future working lifetime, roughly 10 years, in event FR becomes < 100% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 Extraordinary 2008 actuarial loss amortized over 30 years | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 2008 actuarial losses amortized over 10 years | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 Assumed Investment return scheduled to decrease by 0.05% annually | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 Rates will be ramping up by roughly 17% over next 5 years through increased employer, state and employee contributions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 Current employer and employee contributions are falling roughly 7% short of calculated funding rate | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Survey and related text will be posted on roederfinancial.com We can be contacted at (619) 300-8500 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| FR = Funded ratio | G/L = actuarial gains/actuarial losses | "Layered" means a new amotization base is created each year. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| POB = Pension Obligation Bond | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Effective with the 2013 survey, the number of entities was reduced from 40 to 37, eliminating three small closed systems. | ||||||||||||||||||||||