ILNews

PERF benefit to decline amid fund shortfall

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Public employees, including thousands who work in Indiana’s justice system, face a looming change in retirement benefits that could cost them. Estate-planning attorneys say government workers who are considering retirement in the next couple of years should weigh their options carefully.

Effective Oct. 1, the Indiana Public Retirement System will reduce the guaranteed interest rate for workers who choose to annuitize investments in their annuity savings accounts. Employees covered by the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund have 3 percent of their salary invested in those accounts and may elect to invest a greater portion of their earnings.

joseph-hankins.jpg Hankins

But the interest rate the state previously guaranteed on those annuities has proved to be unsustainable. Like many other states, Indiana’s promises to public employees resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in unfunded obligations.

INPRS, which administers PERF, stresses that the annuity is just part of a retiree’s benefits, in addition to a defined pension. Also, annuitizing the savings account is just one of several options for retiring workers. A retiree instead may choose to take a lump-sum payout or roll the money over into another investment vehicle.

Indianapolis attorney Joseph Hankins said employees owe it to themselves to make sure they don’t get short-changed. “Some people will choose to hit the ‘annuitize’ button and be done with it,” he said.

But that could be a costly decision for people retiring after Oct. 1. That’s when the state will reduce the return on PERF annuities from an annual interest rate of 6.75 percent to 5.75 percent. In real terms, someone who annuitizes $50,000 in savings after Oct. 1 will receive almost $100 less per month than would be received by someone who retires before Oct. 1 and opts for an annuity.

perf-facts.jpgINPRS says the change was needed because Americans are living longer and guaranteed rates of return on investment have fallen. The change has prompted units of government to alert workers about how their retirement benefits may be affected.

Changes to the system were contained in HEA 1075, which Gov. Mike Pence signed into law this year. The legislation reduces the interest rate in two steps – the cut from 6.75 percent to 5.75 percent effective Oct. 1, and a further reduction to 4.5 percent on annuitized benefits after Oct. 1, 2015. The reductions apply to PERF as well as annuitized Teacher Retirement Fund benefits.

“We do not have specific estimates on the number of judiciary employees and/or all PERF and TRF members who may be retiring this year,” said Jennifer Dunlap, spokeswoman for INPRS. “We’ve seen about a 30 percent increase in overall attendance at our retirement workshops.”

Longtime Schererville attorney John O’Drobinak has advised clients who are PERF beneficiaries, and he’s one himself, having worked 19 years as a probate commissioner. “They’re going to take a pretty good hit if they annuitize” after Oct. 1, he said.

“I feel this is an effort to ensure the state doesn’t find itself in the position other states are in,” he said of unfunded pension obligations. INPRS on its website says actuaries estimated the system faced a potential loss of $181 million for current annuities, and that could have risen to $343 million if there had been no changes.

The changes have no impact on current PERF or TRF retirees, INPRS says. According to the system, there are about 73,000 current PERF benefit recipients and about 145,000 active members who will be eligible for benefits. That’s roughly twice the number receiving or eligible for TRF benefits.

Dunlap said about half of the PERF and TRF retirees choose to annuitize their annuity savings accounts through INPRS.

O’Drobinak doubts he would advise anyone to choose an annuity at the lower rates the state will enact after Oct. 1. People could likely earn a greater rate of return by rolling the money into a private-market investment, he said. Lawmakers were slow to allow INPRS to turn to the private market for investment advice, he explained, something the system will be allowed to do in 2017 under HEA 1075.

odrobinak-john.jpg O'Drobniak

O’Drobinak took a lump-sum payout of his annuity savings when he retired, and he had closely compared his options – something he’s concerned many people, PERF or not, don’t do.

“I don’t think people who are going to retire put a lot of thought into what they’re going to do until just before they’re going to retire,” O’Drobinak said.

At a recent meeting of the Marion Superior Executive Committee, judges chose to send emails to all court employees informing them of the coming change. For some, a possible benefit reduction could prompt a choice to retire sooner than they might have planned.

For employees who might be thinking of doing just that, “They need to hurry up and make a decision,” said John Galloway, training manager for the city of Indianapolis, to make certain their final service day falls before Oct. 1.

Galloway said the city arranged an information session for employees, but so many people responded that two additional sessions had to be scheduled.

Foremost, Galloway tells employees they need to be sure they can afford to retire and make sure they’ve done adequate financial planning.

Most court employees are covered by PERF. Judges and prosecutors, however, are covered by separate retirement funds administered by INPRS.

Hankins, the Indianapolis attorney, said lawmakers appeared to have no choice but to throttle down the PERF annuity interest rate or run the risk of the program becoming insolvent. But people thinking of retiring from the system do have choices.

Expediting retirement “could be a decision some employees make once they take an informed look,” Hankins said. That would include looking at various scenarios, such as whether increased annuity saving fund balances generated by working longer might offset losses from payouts at lower rates of interest.

“I would really urge anyone contemplating retirement, it’s really important to sit down with trained professionals who can help them make informed decisions,” he said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT