Montana pension plans 'unsustainable,' researcher tells legislators

2013-02-12T19:30:00Z 2013-02-13T13:08:26Z Montana pension plans 'unsustainable,' researcher tells legislatorsBy CHARLES S. JOHNSON Missoulian State Bureau

HELENA – Montana’s pension plans are on an “unsustainable course,” and current contribution policies will never pay off their combined $4.3 billion in shortfalls, a researcher from the Pew Center on the States told legislators Tuesday.

David Draine, Pew’s lead researcher on public pensions and retiree health care plans, told three legislative committees that Montana has failed to set aside enough money to fund the pension promises it has made. As of 2012, its pension systems collectively were only 64 percent funded. He was speaking at the invitation of the Legislature.

“If not addressed, Montana’s growing pension debt of $4.3 billion will threaten public workers’ salaries and benefits and will crowd out essential state services,” Draine said.

The $4.3 billion in debt amounts to half of the state’s annual budget spending for all government services. To pay it off immediately would be the equivalent of every Montana household contributing $10,600 to the systems, Draine said.

More than 90 percent of all public workers in Montana belong to the Public Employees’ Retirement System or the Teachers’ Retirement System, he said.

“Alarmingly, our actuarial analysis of PERS and TRS reveals that, under current plan assumptions, the state’s largest plans will run out of money without a change in either contribution policy or plan benefits — in 2041 for the teachers’ plan and by 2048 for the state employees’ plan,” he said.

Gary Buchanan, co-owner of a Billings investment firm and the former chairman and current member of the state Board of Investments, also addressed the committees.

“Pension shortfalls should be direct reductions against any surplus,” he said. “They’re obligations. Pension shortfalls should be dealt with as part of the executive budget.”

He said “smart states” such a New York and Wisconsin paid their annual required contribution every year before their funding shortfalls veered out of control.

“A real solution gores everyone’s ox,” Buchanan said.

Among Buchanan’s solutions were: higher contributions from employees, a more reasonable (and lower) cost of living allowance for retirees, increased “anti-spiking” measure to stop large pay hikes for employees in their final years of work to enhance their pension benefits.

Buchanan called “totally unrealistic” the state’s actuarial assumption that pension funds will realize investment returns averaging 7.75 percent annually.

“They don’t think it’s remotely possible,” Buchanan said of investment experts. “When you tell an investment board thou shall make 7.75 percent, you increase your risks.”


Draine, meanwhile, said for Montana to offer a traditional defined-benefit pension plan in a sustainable way “requires consistent, ongoing funding discipline, not a lucky roll of the dice.”

Montana’s defined benefit pension plans provide retired public workers with a guaranteed monthly pension, regardless of how the pension investments perform. The pension is based on a formula of how many years employee worked and the average of their highest three years of salary.

State pensions went from a total surplus of $244 million in 2000 to a $4.3 billion deficit in 2012 because Montana repeatedly increased pension benefits without paying for them and failed to require public employees make adequate contributions, Draine said.

He recommended that Montana the state develop a plan to responsibly pay down the unfunded liability over a reasonable time and adopt a reformed pension system that is “affordable, sustainable and secure.”

Its features should include an unwavering commitment to full funding, Draine said, and savings and benefit accrual rates that provide a reasonable benefit to all workers, regardless of tenure. The investments should be pooled and professionally managed with low fees, he said, and can be converted easily to annuities at reasonable rates.

“These features can and should be included in any retirement plan offered by the state whether it is a traditional defined benefit, a 401(k)-style defined contribution plan or another structure like a stacked hybrid or cash balance plan,” Draine said.

“There is no one-size-fits-all solution,” he said. “Every state has a unique set of policy preferences political dynamics and budgetary challenges.”

The Montana Public Pension Coalition, comprising unions and local governments, issued a statement criticizing the Pew’s work.

“As Pew continues to advocate for public pension overhaul in Montana, it is critical that all parties are aware of how disastrous Pew’s proposals would be for Montana’s taxpayers and public workers,” the statement said, citing a report by a group in Kentucky. “Hopefully, Montana’s legislators will pay attention to the serious costs and risks associated with Pew’s plan and will not be played the fools.”

Missoulian State Bureau reporter Charles S. Johnson can be reached at (406) 447-4066 or at

Copyright 2015 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(4) Comments

  1. idiot state
    Report Abuse
    idiot state - February 13, 2013 8:50 am
    Amazing. Bullock and the union's reaction to a very important report. And it's why governor Schweitzer's boasting about Montana's economy was ludicrous: Montana is in very bad shape with its pension liabilities and does not-does not-have a "budget surplus." While states such as South Dakota are virtually fully (98%) funded, Montana continues to be the ugly stepsister in the region with poor (or nonexistent) financial management, poor growth, pension unsustainability, low state GDP, etc. etc. And Montana keeps electing big labor union controlled politicians like the current governor. Montana, you're a joke of a state. But you're cute, wink wink!!
  2. Sukey
    Report Abuse
    Sukey - February 13, 2013 6:15 am
    Easy solution Montana. Declare Bankruptcy just like the airlines have done. Let the pensioners apply for social security just like everyone else. NEVER GIVE PENSIONS AND LIFETIME INSURANCE AGAIN, TO ANYONE. This is a poor State, we taxpayers cannot fund these nonsensical Cadillac pension plans, we're an aging old Studebaker State
  3. Deadwolf
    Report Abuse
    Deadwolf - February 13, 2013 1:52 am
    I have a great idea. Let's just "kick the can down the road" like Congress does in regard to the national debt. If we think like Congress, the problem will just go away on its own. I am joking of course. The problem is too many people feeding out of the state's trough. Some think the economy is improving. Write this in is an illusion. We are headed for an economic train wreck, not a collapse, but a period where inflation will run from 28% to 100%. Pension funds will be wiped out. Think I am nuts? Tell me that a year from now.
  4. fomerliberal
    Report Abuse
    fomerliberal - February 12, 2013 9:53 pm
    Public unions are draining us dry. They need to to have the same retirement set-up most of us private sector workers have - IRA's or ROTH acoounts. I'm tired of so much my hard earned money going to taxes that support public sector employee "golden" retirement and Insurance plans
Missoulian Civil Dialogue Policy

Civil Dialogue Policy for Commenting on

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Comments can only be submitted by registered users. By posting comments on our site, you are agreeing to the following terms:

Commentary and photos submitted to the Missoulian ( may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Missoulian or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on

You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)

No short policy such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Search our events calendar