Florida's Pension Election: From DB to DC and Back

Abstract

During the year 2002, the State of Florida's 600,000 public employees were given the choice of converting their traditional defined benefit (DB) pension plan into an individual-account defined contribution (DC) plan with full control over asset allocation and investment decisions. To mitigate some of the risk and uncertainty in the decision, the State granted each employee electing the DC plan an additional option to switch back (i.e., change their mind once) at any point prior to retirement. This option has been labeled the "2nd election" by the State and the cost of reentry is fixed at the accumulated benefit obligation of their pension entitlement, which is the present value of the life annuity. Our article presents some original analytic insights relating to the optimal time and financial value of this unique 2nd election. Although our model is deterministic in nature, we believe that it provides a number of intuitive insights that are quite robust. Our results can be contrasted with Lachance, Mitchell, and Smetters (2003). We estimate that the increase in retirement wealth that arises from having the 2nd election is equivalent to at most 30 percent in future value, and only when utilized optimally. Furthermore, for most State employees above the age of 45, the 2nd election has little economic value because the DB plan dominates the DC plan from day one. Of course, it remains to be seen what percent of Florida's 600,000 employees will elect to behave rationally with their newfound pension autonomy. Copyright The Journal of Risk and Insurance.

Lessons for public pensions from Utah's move to pension choice

“…Media reports by Walsh (2011), Lyman and Walsh (2014), and Greenhouse (2011), among others, have reported on changes in public pension benefit and contribution parameters in the wake of the financial and economic crisis. In the academic literature, Chingos and West (2013), Lachance, Mitchell, and Smetters (2003), and Milevsky, Promislow, and David (2004) examined specific state pension reforms and their impacts on funding and costs. 6 More recently, Novy-Marx and Rauh (2015) have suggested that linking public pension payouts to investment performance could alleviate the critical funding shortfalls many states now face.…”

Defined Benefit or Defined Contribution? A Study of Pension Choices

“…More recently, Samwick and Skinner (2004) characterize the distribution of pension benefits for DB and DC schemes by simulating a broad range of earnings paths, portfolio composition, and portfolio returns for several different individuals, and McCarthy (2003) compares DC and DB plans in the context of a life‐cycle model. Lachance, Mitchell, and Smetters (2003) and Milevsky and Promislow (2004) compare DB and DC plans, when DC plan participants have an option to buy back their DB benefit for a price. Blake, Cairns, and Dowd (2007) present simulation results for the likely pension outcomes for different DC pension plan members distinguished by occupation and gender.…”

Do Markets Like Frozen Defined Benefit Pensions? An Event Study

“…2 2 Although this is not the focus on our paper, a number of states and public sector employers in the United States have recently taken similar steps of freezing or partially converting their DB pensions into DC plans. See the papers by Milevsky and Promislow (2004) and Lachance, Mitchell, and Smetters (2003) for a discussion of this trend and some of the financial economic issues involved. …”