| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | California 2018 Funding Assumption Survey | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Updated May 2018 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Assumed | Base | Assumed | Amortization | Valuation | Asset | |||||||||||||||||||
8 | RANK | PLAN SPONSOR | Investment | Wage | "Excess" | Period | Asset | Smoothing | |||||||||||||||||
9 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | Return | Inflation | Investment | (years) | Corridor | Period | ||||||||||
10 | Return | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | (a) | (b) | (a) - (b) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | CalPERS - Legislative (closed) | 5.75% | 3.00% | 2.75% | 30- but FR > 100%; G/L 30 layered | N/A (Market) | N/A | |||||||||
14 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | CalPERS - Judges System II 1, 3 | 6.50% | 3.00% | 3.50% | 29-declining (100+% FR at start) ; G/L 30 layered | N/A (market) | N/A | |||||||||
15 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 10 | San Mateo County | 6.75% | 3.00% | 3.75% | 6 - declining; G/L 15 layered | Y: 80-120 | 5 | |||||||||
16 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 11 | 15 | City of San Diego 5 | 6.75% | 3.05% | 3.70% | 10-declining and part layered ;G/L layered 15. most level $$ | Y: 80-120 | 4 | |||||||||
17 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 23 | 17 | 3 | 7 | 13 | City of San Jose (Safety) | 6.875% | 3.25% | 3.625% | most G/L 15 layered | Y: 80-120 | 5 | |||||||||
18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | Contra Costa County | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | 6 - declining; G/L 18 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
20 | 7 | 16 | 12 | 12 | 31 | 29 | 33 | 34 | 40 | City of San Jose (General) | 6.875% | 3.25% | 3.625% | most 22 - declining; G/L layered 20 | N | 5 | |||||||||
21 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 7 | LA Department of Water & Power | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | 15 - layered Level $$ | N | 5 | |||||||||
22 | 9 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 22 | 20 | 22 | 24 | Fresno County | 7.00% | 3.50% | 3.50% | 16-declining; G/L 15 layered | Y: 70-130 | 5 | |||||||||
23 | 10 | 9 | 20 | 20 | 16 | 18 | 18 | 30 | 31 | Santa Barbara County 3 | 7.00% | 3.00% | 4.00% | most 13-declining; G/L 19 layered and ramped | N/A(market) | N/A | |||||||||
24 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | 11 | 10 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 11 | Sonoma County | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | 11-declining; G/L 20 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
26 | 12 | 31 | 30 | 28 | 29 | 25 | 25 | 24 | 29 | Sacramento County | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | Most 18 - declining; G/L 20 layered | Y: 70-130 | 7 | |||||||||
27 | 13 | 11 | 15 | 15 | 13 | 33 | 32 | 31 | 32 | City of Fresno (Safety) 10 | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | G/L 15-layered (100+% FR) | N | 5 | |||||||||
28 | 14 | 12 | 16 | 16 | 14 | 34 | 31 | 32 | 33 | City of Fresno (General) 6 10 | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | G/L 15 layered (100+% FR) | N | 5 | |||||||||
29 | 15 | 29 | 29 | 30 | 32 | 30 | 36 | 27 | 8 | Mendocino County | 7.00% | 3.50% | 3.50% | 22-declining; G/L 18 layered | Y: 75-125 | 5 | |||||||||
30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | 16 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 17 | 12 | 34 | 33 | 35 | Orange County | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | 16-declining; G/L 20 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
32 | 17 | 21 | 24 | 19 | 15 | 9 | 21 | 21 | 14 | Marin County 4 | 7.00% | 3.00% | 4.00% | 13-declining; G/L 24 layered | N/A (Market) | N/A | |||||||||
33 | 18 | 15 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 16 | San Bernardino County | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | 5-declining; G/L layered 20 | N | 5 | |||||||||
34 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 22 | 22 | 31 | 30 | 29 | 30 | San Diego County | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | 7-declining; G/L 20 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
35 | 20 | 24 | 23 | 21 | 25 | 16 | 17 | 16 | 19 | Los Angeles Fire & Police | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | most G/L 20 layered; 9.7 years = avg. remaining period | Y: 60-140 | 7 | |||||||||
36 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | 21 | 20 | 19 | 18 | 18 | 23 | 22 | 15 | 17 | Imperial County | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | 14 - declining; G/L 15 layered | Y: 70-130 | 5 | |||||||||
38 | 22 | 28 | 28 | 27 | 28 | 24 | 23 | 17 | 20 | Alameda County | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | 15 - declining ; G/L 20 layered | Y: 60-140 | 5 | |||||||||
39 | 23 | 27 | 25 | 24 | 26 | 20 | 24 | 23 | 25 | Kern County | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | 18.5 - declining; G/L 18 layered | Y: 50-150 | 5 | |||||||||
40 | 24 | 13 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 11 | 37 | 36 | Alameda-Contra Costa Transit 4 | 7.125% | 3.00% | 4.125% | 11-declining; G/L 20 layered | Y: 80-120 | 5 | |||||||||
41 | 25 | 14 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 11 | 13 | 10 | 12 | Ventura County | 7.50% | 3.50% | 4.00% | 2-declining; G/L 15 - layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
42 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | 26 | 22 | 22 | 36 | 36 | 37 | 39 | 39 | 38 | Stanislaus County | 7.25% | 3.25% | 4.00% | 19 - declining | Y: 80-120 | 5 | |||||||||
44 | 27 | 25 | 27 | 25 | 27 | 21 | 35 | 35 | 28 | San Luis Obispo County 8 | 7.125% | 2.625% | 4.50% | 23- declining | N | 5 | |||||||||
45 | 28 | 17 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 3 | City & County of San Francisco | 7.50% | 3.50% | 4.00% | most 16-declining; G/L 20 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
46 | 29 | 23 | 31 | 31 | 21 | 15 | 16 | 14 | 9 | Merced County | 7.25% | 2.75% | 4.50% | 12- declining;G/L 24 layered and ramped | N/A(market) | N/A | |||||||||
47 | 30 | 30 | 21 | 26 | 20 | 14 | 15 | 6 | 6 | University of California 9 | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | 23-declining, G/L 20 layered Level $$ | N | 5 | |||||||||
48 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | 31 | 33 | 32 | 32 | 30 | 26 | 26 | 20 | 22 | City of Los Angeles | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | most 25-declining ; G/L 15-layered | Y: 60-140 | 7 | |||||||||
50 | 32 | 37 | 37 | 29 | 24 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 21 | Tulare County | 7.25% | 3.00% | 4.25% | 17-declining; G/L 19 layered | Y: 70-130 | 10 | |||||||||
51 | 33 | 36 | 36 | 37 | 37 | 35 | 29 | 28 | 26 | CalSTRS | 7.00% | 3.50% | 3.50% | 28 years with laddered increases | N | 3 | |||||||||
52 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | 34 | 32 | 34 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 40 | 40 | 39 | East Bay Municipal Utility | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | Pre-2012 layered 30; Otherwise G/L-20 layered | Y: 70-130 | 5 | |||||||||
54 | 35 | 34 | 33 | 33 | 33 | 32 | 37 | 38 | 37 | CalPERS 3 | 7.25% | 2.875% | 4.375% | 18-declining ; G/L 30 layered with ramping | N/A(market) | N/A | |||||||||
55 | 36 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 34 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 27 | Los Angeles County | 7.25% | 3.25% | 4.00% | 22- declining; G/L 30 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
56 | 37 | 26 | 26 | 23 | 19 | 28 | 28 | 25 | 23 | San Joaquin County 7 | 7.40% | 2.90% | 4.50% | 16-declining; G/L 15 layered | Y: 80-120 | 5 | |||||||||
57 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | NOTES: | Bold indicates change from previous survey. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | 1: This does not reflect the Judges I system closed in 1994: features include pay-as-you-go funding and a 4.25% assumed investment return | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | 2: Legal agreement determines contribution level -- pegged to specified funded ratios | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | 3: Instead of asset smoothing, contribution smoothing via ramping. 2018 discount rate will be 7% and base pay increase will be 2.75% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | 4: 50% of "extraordinary" 2008/09 losses amortized over 30 years; 2019 discount rate will be 7% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | 5 System is closed for non-Police; assumed investment return will reduce to 6.50% in 2018 valuation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | 6 Amortization will revert to average future working lifetime, roughly 10 years, in event FR becomes < 100% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | 7 Extraordinary 2008 actuarial loss amortized over 30 years | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | 8 2008 actuarial losses amortized over 10 years but with some accelerated funding | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | 9 Post-7/1/16 hires have option to elect to be in defined contribution ("DC") plan; to date, 35% have elected DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | 6% contribution will be made toward UAL for those in DC plan. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | Additional state contributions may be required as 14% employer rate and 8% employee rate are below actuarial funding policy rate. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | 10 If FR (funded ratio) >110%, 25-year amortization of surplus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | Survey and related text will be posted on roederfinancial.com We can be contacted at (619) 300-8500 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | FR = Funded ratio | G/L = actuarial gains/actuarial losses | "Layered" means a new amotization base is created each year. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | POB = Pension Obligation Bond | DC = Defined Contribution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | Effective with the 2013 survey, the number of entities was reduced from 40 to 37, eliminating three small closed systems. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | The amortization periods for assumption changes are often longer than for G/L and are not shown here. Often, there is a separate amortization policy applicable to benefit changes. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||