| 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 | Z | AA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | California 2020 Funding Assumption Survey | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Updated April 2020 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Assumed | Base | Assumed | Amortization | Valuation | Asset | |||||||||||||||||||||
8 | RANK | PLAN SPONSOR | Investment | Wage | "Excess" | Period | Asset | Smoothing | |||||||||||||||||||
9 | 2020 | 2019 | 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 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | CalPERS - Legislative (closed) 3 | 5.00% | 2.75% | 2.25% | 100+% FR; G/L 20 layered with certain ramping | N/A (Market) | N/A | |||||||||
14 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 11 | 15 | City of San Diego 5 | 6.50% | 3.05% | 3.45% | 8-declining and part layered ;G/L layered 15. most level $$ | Y: 80-120 | ||||||||||
15 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | CalPERS - Judges System II 1, 3 | 6.50% | 2.75% | 3.75% | G/L 20 layered with certain ramping | N/A (market) | N/A | |||||||||
16 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 10 | San Mateo County | 6.75% | 3.00% | 3.75% | 4 - declining; G/L 15 layered | Y: 80-120 | 5 with offsets | |||||||||
17 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 23 | 17 | 3 | 7 | 13 | City of San Jose (Safety) 9 | 6.75% | 3.25% | 3.50% | most G/L 15 layered | Y: 80-120 | 5 | |||||||||
18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 7 | LA Department of Water & Power | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | 1-declining; G/L 15 - layered Level $$ | N | ||||||||||
20 | 7 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 21 | 26 | 20 | 14 | 15 | 6 | 6 | University of California 8 | 6.75% | 3.25% | 3.50% | 21-declining, G/L 20 layered Level $$ | N | ||||||||||
21 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | Contra Costa County | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | 4 - declining; G/L 18 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
22 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 16 | 12 | 12 | 31 | 29 | 33 | 34 | 40 | City of San Jose (General) 9 | 6.75% | 3.00% | 3.75% | most 20 - declining; G/L layered 20 | N | 5 | |||||||||
23 | 10 | 9 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 22 | 22 | 31 | 30 | 29 | 30 | San Diego County | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | 6-rolling; G/L 20 layered but not less than 6 | N | 5 | |||||||||
24 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | 11 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 11 | Sonoma County | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | 9-declining; G/L 20 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
26 | 12 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 22 | 20 | 22 | 24 | Fresno County | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | 14-declining; G/L 15 layered | Y: 70-130 | 5 | |||||||||
27 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 11 | 15 | 15 | 13 | 33 | 32 | 31 | 32 | City of Fresno (Safety) | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | G/L 15-layered; (100+% FR); surplus over 110%-30 | N | ||||||||||
28 | 14 | 15 | 14 | 12 | 16 | 16 | 14 | 34 | 31 | 32 | 33 | City of Fresno (General) 6 | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | G/L 15 layered (100+% FR); surplus over 110%-30 | N | ||||||||||
29 | 15 | 12 | 10 | 9 | 20 | 20 | 16 | 18 | 18 | 30 | 31 | Santa Barbara County | 7.00% | 3.00% | 4.00% | most 11-declining; G/L 19 layered and ramped | N/A(market) | N/A | |||||||||
30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | 16 | 26 | 24 | 13 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 11 | 37 | 36 | Alameda-Contra Costa Transit 4 | 7.00% | 3.00% | 4.00% | 9-declining; G/L 20 layered | Y: 80-120 | ||||||||||
32 | 17 | 13 | 12 | 31 | 30 | 28 | 29 | 25 | 25 | 24 | 29 | Sacramento County | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | Most 16 - declining; G/L 20 layered | Y: 70-130 | 7 | |||||||||
33 | 18 | 16 | 15 | 29 | 29 | 30 | 32 | 30 | 36 | 27 | 8 | Mendocino County | 7.00% | 3.50% | 3.50% | 20-declining; G/L 18 layered | Y: 75-125 | 5 | |||||||||
34 | 19 | 17 | 16 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 17 | 12 | 34 | 33 | 35 | Orange County | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | 14-declining; G/L 20 layered | N | 5 | -16116 | ||||||||
35 | 20 | 18 | 17 | 21 | 24 | 19 | 15 | 9 | 21 | 21 | 14 | Marin County 4 | 7.00% | 3.00% | 4.00% | 11-declining; G/L 24 layered and ramped | N/A (Market) | N/A | |||||||||
36 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | 21 | 19 | 18 | 15 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 16 | San Bernardino County | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | 3-declining; G/L layered 20 | N | 5 | |||||||||
38 | 22 | 20 | 20 | 24 | 23 | 21 | 25 | 16 | 17 | 16 | 19 | Los Angeles Fire & Police | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | most G/L 20 layered; overall remaining period: 7-8 yrs. | Y: 60-140 | 7 | |||||||||
39 | 23 | 21 | 21 | 20 | 19 | 18 | 18 | 23 | 22 | 15 | 17 | Imperial County | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | 12 - declining; G/L 15 layered | Y: 70-130 | 5 | |||||||||
40 | 24 | 22 | 25 | 14 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 11 | 13 | 10 | 12 | Ventura County | 7.25% | 3.25% | 4.00% | G/L 15 - layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
41 | 25 | 23 | 22 | 28 | 28 | 27 | 28 | 24 | 23 | 17 | 20 | Alameda County | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | 13 - declining ; G/L 20 layered | Y: 60-140 | 5 | |||||||||
42 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | 26 | 24 | 23 | 27 | 25 | 24 | 26 | 20 | 24 | 23 | 25 | Kern County | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | 16.5 - declining; G/L 18 layered | Y: 50-150 | 5 | |||||||||
44 | 27 | 25 | 26 | 22 | 22 | 36 | 36 | 37 | 39 | 39 | 38 | Stanislaus County | 7.00% | 3.00% | 4.00% | 17 - declining | Y: 80-120 | 5 | |||||||||
45 | 28 | 29 | 29 | 23 | 31 | 31 | 21 | 15 | 16 | 14 | 9 | Merced County | 7.00% | 2.75% | 4.25% | 10- declining;G/L 24 layered and ramped | N/A(market) | ||||||||||
46 | 29 | 27 | 27 | 25 | 27 | 25 | 27 | 21 | 35 | 35 | 28 | San Luis Obispo County | 7.00% | 2.75% | 4.25% | 21- declining; G/L 20 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
47 | 30 | 28 | 28 | 17 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 3 | City & County of San Francisco | 7.40% | 3.50% | 3.90% | most 14-declining; G/L 20 layered | N | 5 | |||||||||
48 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 33 | 32 | 32 | 30 | 26 | 26 | 20 | 22 | City of Los Angeles | 7.25% | 3.50% | 3.75% | most 23-declining ; G/L 15-layered | Y: 60-140 | most 7 | |||||||||
50 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 37 | 37 | 29 | 24 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 21 | Tulare County | 7.25% | 3.00% | 4.25% | 15-declining; G/L 19 layered | Y: 70-130 | 10 | |||||||||
51 | 33 | 33 | 34 | 32 | 34 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 40 | 40 | 39 | East Bay Municipal Utility | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | Pre-2012 layered 30; Otherwise G/L-20 layered | Y: 70-130 | 5 | |||||||||
52 | 34 | 34 | 33 | 36 | 36 | 37 | 37 | 35 | 29 | 28 | 26 | CalSTRS | 7.00% | 3.50% | 3.50% | 28 years with some laddered increases of 0.5% | N | 3 | |||||||||
53 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
54 | 35 | 35 | 37 | 26 | 26 | 23 | 19 | 28 | 28 | 25 | 23 | San Joaquin County 7 | 7.25% | 3.15% | 4.10% | 14-declining; G/L 15 layered | Y: 80-120 | 5 | |||||||||
55 | 36 | 37 | 36 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 34 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 27 | Los Angeles County | 7.00% | 3.25% | 3.75% | 22- declining; G/L 20 layered with 3-year phase-in | N | 5 | |||||||||
56 | 37 | 36 | 35 | 34 | 33 | 33 | 33 | 32 | 37 | 38 | 37 | CalPERS 3 | 7.00% | 2.75% | 4.25% | 17-declining ; G/L 20 level $$ with certain ramping | N/A(market) | N/A | |||||||||
57 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | NOTES: | Bold indicates change from previous survey. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | 1: This does not reflect the Judges I system closed in 1994: features include pay-as-you-go funding and a 3% assumed investment return | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | 2: Legal agreement determines contribution level -- pegged to specified funded ratios | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | 3 Ramping apllies only to the investment portion of the gain/loss; not to the non-investment component | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | 4: 50% of "extraordinary" 2008/09 losses amortized over 30 years | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | 5 System is now closed for non-Police but subject to ongoing litigation and court challenges | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | 6 Amortization will revert to average future working lifetime, roughly 10 years, in event FR becomes < 100% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | 7 Extraordinary 2008 actuarial loss amortized over 30 years | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | 8 Post-7/1/16 hires have option to elect to be in defined contribution ("DC") plan; to date, roughly 35% have elected DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | 6% contribution will be made toward UAL for those in DC plan. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | Additional state contributions may be required as 14% employer rate and 8% employee rate are below actuarial funding policy rate. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | 9 Amortization payments increase at less than wage inflation; for San Jose General-2.75%; for San Jose Safety-2.50% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | Survey and related text will be posted on roederfinancial.com We can be contacted at (619) 300-8500 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | FR = Funded ratio | G/L = actuarial gains/actuarial losses | "Layered" means a new amotization base is created each year. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | POB = Pension Obligation Bond | DC = Defined Contribution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | Effective with the 2013 survey, the number of entities was reduced from 40 to 37, eliminating three small closed systems. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||