| California 2009 Funding Assumption Survey | |||||||||
| Roeder Financial | |||||||||
| Updated July 16, 2009 | |||||||||
| Funding | Assumed | Base | Assumed | Amortization | Valuation | ||||
| Rank | PLAN SPONSOR | Method | Investment | Wage | "Excess" | Period | Asset | ||
| Return | Inflation | Investment | (years) | Corridor | |||||
| Return | |||||||||
| (a) | (b) | (a) - (b) | |||||||
| 1 | Oakland Police & Fire - Closed | N/A | 8.00% | 4.75% | 3.25% | N/A - 1997 POB | Y: 90-110 | ||
| 2 | CalPERS - Legislative | Aggregate | 7% | 3.25% | 3.75% | N/A | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 3 | City & County of San Francisco | EAN | 7.75% | 4.50% | 3.25% | 15 or 20 open | N | ||
| 4 | Contra Costa County (2007) | EAN | 7.80% | 4.25% | 3.55% | 14-declining; 18-G/L layered | N | ||
| 5 | CalPERS - Judges | Aggregate | 7%/7.25% | 3.25% | 3.75%/4% | N/A | N | ||
| 6 | City of San Jose (Safety) | EAN | 8.00% | 4.50% | 3.50% | 16 - declining | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 7 | University of California | EAN | 7.50% | 3.50% | 4.00% | 15 - layered Level $$ | N | ||
| 8 | LA Department of Water & Power | EAN | 8.00% | 4.25% | 3.75% | 15 - layered Level $$ | N | ||
| 9 | Mendocino County | EAN | 8.00% | 4.00% | 4.00% | 9-declining; | Y: 80-120 | ||
| No amortization if FR>91% | |||||||||
| 10 | Merced County | EAN | 8.16% | 4.50% | 3.66% | 16- declining | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 11 | San Mateo County | EAN | 7.75% | 4.00% | 3.75% | 15 - layered | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 12 | Sonoma County | EAN | 8.00% | 4.25% | 3.75% | 15-declining | N | ||
| 13 | Ventura County | EAN | 8.00% | 4.25% | 3.75% | 15 - layered | N | ||
| 14 | Marin County (2007) | EAN | 8.00% | 4.00% | 4.00% | 18-declining; 16 or 10 open | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 15 | City of San Diego | EAN | 7.75% | 4.00% | 3.75% | 19-declining;15-G/L layered | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 16 | San Bernardino County | EAN | 8.00% | 4.25% | 3.75% | 20 - layered | N | ||
| 17 | Imperial County | EAN | 7.90% | 4% | 3.90% | 23 - declining | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 18 | Alameda County | EAN | 8% | 4% | 4.00% | 25 - declining | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 19 | Los Angeles Fire & Police | EAN | 8% | 4.25% | 3.75% | Most 29 declining; | Y: 80-120 | ||
| G/L - most layered 15 | |||||||||
| 20 | City of Oakland - Closed | Aggregate | 8.00% | 3.25% | 4.75% | N/A - Well Overfunded | N | ||
| 21 | Tulare County | >EAN | 7.90% | 4.00% | 3.90% | 15 - open | N | ||
| 22 | City of Los Angeles | PUC | 8% | 4.25% | 3.75% | 27-declining G/L 15-layered | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 23 | San Joaquin County | EAN | 8.16% | 3.75% | 4.41% | 10 - open | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 24 | Fresno County | EAN | 8% | 4% | 4.00% | 25; new G/L 15 layered | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 25 | Kern County | EAN | 7.75% | 4.00% | 3.75% | 27.5 - declining | Y: 50-150 | ||
| 26 | CalSTRS | EAN | 8% | 4.25% | 3.75% | Small fixed rate (< 1%) | N | ||
| 27 | Los Angeles County | EAN | 7.75% | 4.00% | 3.75% | 30 - rolling: NOTE 1 | N | ||
| 28 | San Luis Obispo County | EAN | 7.75% | 3.75% | 4.00% | 26 - declining | N | ||
| 29 | Sacramento County | EAN | 7.875% | 3.75% | 4.125% | 25 - declining | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 30 | San Diego County | EAN | 8.25% | 4.25% | 4.00% | 20 - layered | N | ||
| 31 | Santa Barbara County | EAN | 8.16% | 4.00% | 4.16% | 15 - layered | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 32 | City of Fresno (Safety) | EAN | 8.25% | 4% | 4.25% | 15 rolling (100+% FR) | N | ||
| 33 | City of Fresno (General) | PUC | 8.25% | 4% | 4.25% | 15 rolling (100+% FR) | N | ||
| 34 | Pasadena Fire & Police - Closed | NOTE 2 | 8.00% | 3.80% | 4.20% | NOTE 2 | N | ||
| 35 | Orange County | EAN | 7.75% | 3.50% | 4.25% | 26-declining; G/L 15 layered | N | ||
| 36 | Alameda-Contra Costa Transit | PUC | 7.70% | 3.20% | 4.50% | 19 - declining | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 37 | CalPERS | EAN | 7.75% | 3.25% | 4.50% | G/L - open 30 | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 38 | Stanislaus County | EAN | 8.16% | 4.00% | 4.16% | 30 - declining | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 39 | East Bay Municipal Utility | EAN | 8.25% | 4.00% | 4.25% | 30 - layered | Y: 80-120 | ||
| 40 | City of San Jose (General) (2007) | EAN | 8.25% | 4.00% | 4.25% | 30 - open | N | ||
| NOTES: | COLOR CODE: | ||||||||
| Most Optimistic | |||||||||
| 1: Administrator shortly anticipates reduction in amortization period policy. | Most Conservative | ||||||||
| 2: Legal agreement determines contribution level. | |||||||||
| 3: For contract agencies, corridor temporarily widened with possible "special" amortization bases | |||||||||
| FR = Funded ratio | G/L = actuarial gains/actuarial losses | ||||||||
| POB = Pension Obligation Bond | |||||||||
| Survey by roederfinancial.com | |||||||||