Board of Trustees Meeting Agenda Meeting Docs... · 2020-06-10 · Board of Trustees Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 23, 2019 . 1:00 P.M. I. Call to Order (Mr. Kelly Breland). A. Invocation

Board of Trustees Meeting Agenda

Tuesday, April 23, 2019 1:00 P.M.

I. Call to Order (Mr. Kelly Breland)

A. Invocation B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Approval of Agenda D. Approval of Minutes – February 26, 2019

II. Report of Administrative Committee (Dr. Lee Childress)

A. Certification of Retiree Representative Election Results B. PERS Regulation 34: Reemployment after Retirement (initial adoption) C. Other

III. Report of Legislative Committee (Mr. Drew Snyder)

A. Other

IV. Report of Claims Committee (Dr. Randy McCoy) A. New Agency Joinder Agreement - Gulf Park Estates – St. Andrew’s Fire Protection District

B. Other V. Report of Audit Committee (Mr. Chris Howard) A. Other

VI. Report of Investment Committee (State Treasurer Lynn Fitch)

A. Mellon Recommendation B. Wedgewood Partners Recommendation C. Other

VII. Disability Appeals Committee VIII. Actuarial Experience Investigation Report

IX. Staff Reports

A. Executive Director’s Update B. Litigation Report C. Retiree Report D. Investment Report

X. Staff and Trustee Continuing Education A. Board Retreat – Alluvian Hotel, Greenwood, May 9-10, 2019 B. Conferences and Training

• IFEBP CAPPP - Pension Part I (Boston, MA, June 18-19, 2019) - Pension Part II (Boston, MA, June 20-21, 2019) • Callan College

- Introduction to Investments, July 23-24, 2019 – San Francisco - Introduction to Investments, October 15-16, 2019 - Chicago

• NCTR 19th Annual Trustee Workshop, July 21-24, 2019, Berkeley, CA • NASRA 2019 Annual Conference, August 3-7, 2019, Williamsburg, VA • NCTR 2019 Annual Conference, October 12-15, 2019, Nashville, TN

XI. Adjourn

BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES UNOFFICIAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM FEBRUARY 26, 2019 PAGE 1 The Board of Trustees of the Public Employees’ Retirement System met in the fourth floor board room of the PERS Building, 429 Mississippi Street, Jackson, Mississippi, at 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 26, 2019, with members present as follows: Board Chair Kelly Breland; Mr. Bill Benson; Mr. George Dale; Deputy State Treasurer Jesse Graham, representing State Treasurer Lynn Fitch; Ms. Kimberly Hanna; Mr. Chris Howard; Dr. Randy McCoy; and Dr. Brian Rutledge. Absent: Dr. Lee Childress and Mr. Drew Snyder. Staff members present: Ray Higgins, Lorrie Tingle, Shirley Sessoms, Davetta Lee, Kenny Grissett, Andrew Hoeniges, Terri Hudson, Ran Jones, Cindy Ogletree, Tony Williamson, Billy Means, Terri Bennett, Amy Marquez, LaCarole Smith, Mason Frantom, Shelley Powers, and Mary Jones. Also attending was Special Assistant Attorney General, Martin Millette. Guest attendees were: Ray Wright, Joint Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review; Terrell and Martha Tisdale, Retired Education Personnel of Mississippi; and Joshua Tillman, Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration.

Chairman Breland called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Mr. George Dale gave the invocation and led the attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag.

Chairman Breland called for a motion to approve the meeting agenda. The motion was made by Dr. Rutledge, seconded by Mr. Graham, which motion duly passed, to approve the meeting

agenda. Voting for: Benson, Breland, Dale, Graham, Hanna, Howard, McCoy, and Rutledge. Voting against: none. Absent: Childress and Snyder.

Chairman Breland called for a motion to approve the minutes of the board meeting of December 18, 2018, and the Special Called board meeting of February 12, 2019.

The motion was made by Dr. Rutledge, seconded by Ms. Hanna, which motion duly passed, to approve the minutes of the board meeting of December 18, 2018, and the Special Called board meeting of February 12, 2019. Voting for: Benson, Breland, Dale, Graham, Hanna, Howard, McCoy, and Rutledge. Voting against: none. Absent: Childress and Snyder.

Chairman Breland announced that the April through June 2019 PERS Employee of the Quarter recipient was unable to attend today’s meeting. He stated that the award would be

presented to Renee Brown, PERS Benefit Analyst in the Service Retirement Division. Chairman Breland stated that Ms. Brown was being recognized for having developed a highly successful method of auditing PERS accounts, a method which is currently being taught to new employees, and for her excellence in performing expedited processing of retirement caseloads. Chairman Breland advised that Ms. Brown was being recognized further for the assistance she provides to senior staff and for providing training to staff on the processing of unusual cases.

Chairman Breland, acting Administrative Committee Chair, reported that the committee met Tuesday, February 26, 2019.

Chairman Breland reported that the committee reviewed the Retiree Representative Election Ballot presented by staff. He reported that there are 27 candidates on the

Agenda

Minutes

Employee of the Quarter

Administrative Committee

Approval of Retiree Rep Election Ballot

BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES UNOFFICIAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM FEBRUARY 26, 2019 PAGE 2 ballot. He advised that the committee directed staff to make a revision to the ballot and change the order in which the candidates’ names are listed, from horizontal alphabetical order to vertical alphabetical order.

*The motion was made by Mr. Benson, seconded by Ms. Hanna, which motion duly passed, to approve the Retiree Representative Election Ballot presented by staff, with the revision requested by the committee, to change the order in which the candidates’ names are listed on the ballot, from horizontal alphabetical order to vertical alphabetical order. Voting for: Benson, Breland, Dale, Graham, Hanna, Howard, McCoy, and Rutledge. Voting against: none. Absent: Childress and Snyder.

*This motion was amended on page ten, under the heading Approval of Retiree Rep Election Amended Ballot.

Chairman Breland reported that the committee reviewed and approved the 2019 Interest Rate for Crediting Member Accounts report presented by staff.

2019 Interest Rate for Member Accounts

In 2016, the PERS Board of Trustees approved the amendment of Regulation 62 to adjust the interest rate for member accumulation accounts. The interest rate is now calculated based on the money market rate as published by the Wall Street Journal on December 31 each year with a minimum rate of one percent and a maximum rate of five percent. On December 31, 2018, the Money Market rate published in the Wall Street Journal was 0.56 percent; therefore, the interest rate paid shall remain set at the minimum rate of one percent as of July 1, 2019.

The motion was made by Mr. Benson, seconded by Dr. McCoy, which motion duly passed, to approve the the 2019 Interest Rate for Crediting Member Accounts report presented by staff; thereby, approving the interest rate for member accumulation accounts to remain set at the minimum rate of one percent as of July 1, 2019. Voting for: Benson, Breland, Dale, Graham, Hanna, Howard, McCoy, and Rutledge. Voting against: none. Absent: Childress and Snyder. (Addendum A – Wall Street Journal 2019 Interest Rate)

Chairman Breland advised that the committee reviewed and approved staff’s recommendations of the revisions to the Board’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) governing Public Comments.

The motion was made by Dr. Rutledge, seconded by Mr. Benson, which motion duly passed, to approve staff’s recommendations of the revisions to the Board SOP governing Public Comments. Voting for: Benson, Breland, Dale, Graham, Hanna, Howard, McCoy, and Rutledge. Voting against: none. Absent: Childress and Snyder. (Addendum B – Public Comment Policy revised)

Mr. Graham raised a question regarding agenda item II.A., Approval of Retiree Representative Election Ballot. Mr. Graham asked staff whether a member of the

Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol is eligible to participate as a candidate for the retiree representative position on the PERS Board. He stated that he noticed the name of a retired highway safety patrolman included on the list of eligible candidates on the ballot. Chairman Breland asked staff to research the Mississippi Code Section and report to the board, during this meeting, whether a retired member of the Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol is eligible to participate as a candidate for the retiree representative position on the PERS Board.

Approval of Interest Rate for Crediting Member Accounts

Board SOP Revision – Public Comment Process & Procedure

Eligibility Question: Retiree Rep Election Ballot

BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES UNOFFICIAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM FEBRUARY 26, 2019 PAGE 3

Chairman Breland advised that the committee reviewed and approved staff’s recommendation to exercise the two-year renewal option of the current Regions Bank

contract. The motion was made by Mr. Graham, seconded by Dr. Rutledge, which motion duly passed, to approve the recommendation of staff to exercise the two-year renewal option of the current Regions Bank contract. Voting for: Benson, Breland, Dale, Graham, Hanna, Howard, McCoy, and Rutledge. Voting against: none. Absent: Childress and Snyder. (Addendum C – Regions Bank Contract Renewal)

Dr. Randy McCoy, Claims Committee Chair, reported that the Committee met Tuesday, February 26, 2019.

Dr. McCoy reported that the Committee reviewed and certified the Delinquent Contributions of the Southwest Mississippi Mental Health & Retardation Commission Region XI and the Town of Jonestown. Staff reported that these entities will be notified that if the delinquent

amounts are not fully paid within thirty days, PERS will pursue legal steps to recover such amounts from any state funds due the employer from the Department of Revenue, the Mississippi Division of Medicaid, or any other department or agency of the State of Mississippi. The motion was made by Dr. McCoy, seconded by Mr. Benson, which motion duly passed, to certify the Delinquent Contributions status of the Southwest Mississippi Mental Health & Retardation Commission Region XI and the Town of Jonestown. Voting for: Benson, Breland, Dale, Graham, Hanna, Howard, McCoy, and Rutledge. Voting against: none. Absent: Childress and Snyder. (Addendum D – Certification of Delinquent Contributions)

Chairman Breland reported that the Legislative Committee met Tuesday, February 26, 2019. He advised that the committee briefly discussed PERS legislation, however, no actions were

taken by the committee. Dr. Rutledge, Defined Contribution Committee Chair, reported that the committee met Monday, February 25, 2019. He advised that no action was taken by the committee.

Mr. Graham, acting Investment Committee Chair, reported that the committee met Monday, February 25, 2019.

Mr. Graham advised that the committee reviewed and approved the Value Added Real Estate Fund recommendation of staff for a $75 million

commitment to the Westbrook Real Estate Fund XI. The motion was made by Mr. Graham, seconded by Mr. Howard, which motion duly passed, to approve a $75 million commitment to the Westbrook Real Estate Fund XI, as recommended by staff. Voting for: Benson, Breland, Dale, Graham, Hanna, Howard, McCoy, and Rutledge. Voting against: none. Absent: Childress and Snyder. (Addendum E – Value Add Real Estate Recommendation)

Regions Bank Contract Renewal

Claims Committee

Certification of Delinquent Contributions - Southwest MS Mental Health &

Retardation Commission Region XI - Town of Jonestown

Legislative Committee

Defined Contribution Committee

Investment Committee

Value-Add Real Estate Fund Commitment Recommendation


Ms. Bennett presented the recommendations of the Disability Appeals Committee (DAC). She reported that the board members were provided with the recommendations

of the DAC prior to the board meeting. She advised that board members were given an opportunity to state by case number any exceptions any board member had to these recommendations of the DAC. Mr. Breland asked for a motion concerning the following recommendations of the DAC: PERS No. 19-02: This matter came on for hearing before the Disability Appeals Committee of the Board of Trustees January 7, 2019. The Disability Appeals Committee heard sworn testimony, received evidence, and gave due consideration to the applicable laws and regulations. The Disability Appeals Committee submits to the Board of Trustees this Statement of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation that the claimant was not disabled as a direct result of an accident or traumatic event resulting in a physical injury that occurred during the performance of duty, as required for duty related disability benefits under Section 25-11-114 of the Mississippi Code. The Disability Appeals Committee recommends that the claimant’s request for duty-related and non-duty-related disability benefits be denied. PERS No. 19-03: This matter came on for hearing before the Disability Appeals Committee of the Board of Trustees January 7, 2019. The Disability Appeals Committee heard sworn testimony, received evidence, and gave due consideration to the applicable laws and regulations. The Disability Appeals Committee submits to the Board of Trustees this Statement of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation that the claimant was not disabled as a direct result of an accident or traumatic event resulting in a physical injury that occurred during the performance of duty, as required for duty related disability benefits under Section 25-11-114 of the Mississippi Code. The Disability Appeals Committee recommends that the claimant’s request for duty-related and non-duty-related disability benefits be denied. The motion was made by Dr. Rutledge, seconded by Mr. Benson, which motion duly passed, to accept the findings of the DAC and approve the DAC recommendations. Voting for: Benson, Breland, Dale, Graham, Hanna, Howard, McCoy, and Rutledge. Voting against: none. Absent: Childress and Snyder.

PERS Executive Director Higgins gave a brief update of several informational items, including the newly installed technology system in the PERS board room, the Ice Miller

tax counsel Update and Overview, and the proposed electronic board meeting platform. Director Higgins presented a brief video to the board members detailing the proposed electronic board meeting platform.

Director Higgins presented the summary of the statuses of PERS litigation cases since the December 18, 2018, board meeting. He advised that Mr. Millette reported that there

are no major changes or actions to report to the Board at this time. CLAIMS COMMITTEE HEARINGS: CIRCUIT COURT: COLEMAN v. PERS: The Disability Appeals Committee of the PERS Board of Trustees entered an Order dated February 27, 2018, denying claimant’s application for disability benefits. Coleman timely filed a notice of appeal with the Hinds County Circuit Clerk’s office on March 21, 2018. The Administrative Record has been filed with the Court.

Disability Appeals Committee

PERS Executive Director’s Update

Litigation Report

BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES UNOFFICIAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM FEBRUARY 26, 2019 PAGE 5 SMITH v. PERS: The Disability Appeals Committee of the PERS Board of Trustees entered an Order dated February 27, 2018, denying claimant’s application for disability benefits. Smith timely filed a notice of appeal with the Hinds County Circuit Clerk’s office on March 21, 2018. PERS has filed a certified copy of the transcript of administrative record with the Circuit Clerk. Briefing has been completed. THOMAS v. PERS: The Disability Appeals Committee of the PERS Board of Trustees entered an Order dated February 27, 2018, denying claimant’s application for disability benefits. Thomas timely filed a notice of appeal with the Hinds County Circuit Clerk’s office on March 27, 2018. PERS has filed a certified copy of the transcript of administrative record with the Circuit Clerk. Briefing has been completed. CIRCUIT COURT OPINIONS ISSUED: SUPREME COURT/COURT OF APPEALS: STAKELUM v. PERS: The PERS Board entered an Order dated February 24, 2015, upholding the Medical Board’s decision to deny Stakelum’s request for disability benefits. Stakelum appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Hinds County. Stakelum filed her Brief of Appellant on April 25, 2017, and PERS filed its Brief of Appellee on August 17, 2017. On September 30, 2017, Stakelum filed a Motion to Remand to PERS to Consider Award of Social Security Disability or to take Judicial Notice Thereof. PERS filed its Response in Opposition to the motion on October 5, 2017. Briefing is now complete, and parties await the Court’s decision. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on July 25, 2018. Stakelum timely filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court on August 24, 2018. Briefing is underway. BRADLEY v. PERS: On December 18, 2012, the PERS Board of Trustees entered an order adopting the recommendation of the Disability Appeals Committee that Bradley’s application for duty-related disability benefits be denied. Bradley appealed the decision to the Circuit Court. On March 21, 2018, the Court entered its Order Affirming the Decision of the PERS Board of Trustees. Bradley filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on April 17, 2018. Briefing is underway. LANG v. PERS: The case was remanded to PERS by the Court of Appeals for further determination on October 23, 2012. The Board approved the recommendation of the Disability Appeals Committee and issued its Order February 25, 2014, to deny the claimant non-duty disability benefits. Following briefing by both parties, the Court entered its Order Affirming the Decision of the PERS Board of Trustees on April 3, 2018. Lang filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on April 17, 2018. Briefing is underway. ULRICH v. PERS: The PERS Board of Trustees, upon recommendation of the Disability Appeals Committee, held in an Order dated April 19, 2016, that claimant’s application for duty related disability should be denied. On February 2, 2018, the Circuit Court issued its Opinion and Order affirming the decision of the PERS Board of Trustees. Ulrich filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on February 26, 2018. Briefing has been completed. HICKS v. PERS: On October 24, 2017, the PERS Board of Trustees entered an order adopting the recommendation of the Claims Committee to deny Hicks claim regarding survivor benefits. Ms. Hicks appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Hinds County on October 31, 2017. PERS filed the certified

BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES UNOFFICIAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM FEBRUARY 26, 2019 PAGE 6 administrative record with the circuit clerk on January 2, 2018. Brief of Appellant filed with Circuit Court on February 7, 2018. Brief of Appellee filed. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on June 13, 2018. Hicks filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on July 9, 2018. Briefing is underway. THOMPSON v. PERS: The PERS Board entered an Order dated December 15, 2015, upholding the Medical Board’s decision to deny Thompson’s request for disability benefits. Thompson has appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Hinds County. The Administrative Record was filed with the Clerk of the Court on March 23, 2016. Thompson filed her Brief of Appellant on April 25, 2017, and PERS filed its Brief of Appellee on June 23, 2017. On September 14, 2017, Thompson filed a Motion to Remand for a New Hearing, alleging PERS violated due process right to a fair hearing. PERS filed Response in Opposition to the motion on September 15, 2017. On March 26, 2018, Thompson filed a second Motion to Remand to Consider Social Security Determination or to take Judicial Notice Thereof. PERS filed its Response in Opposition to the motion on March 27, 2018. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on June 12, 2018. Thompson filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on July 9, 2018. Briefing is underway. PINION v. PERS: The PERS Board of Trustees, upon recommendation of the Disability Appeals Committee, held in an Order dated February 26, 2013, that claimant’s request for non-duty related disability should be denied. A notice of appeal was timely filed, but due to the death of the Court Reporter in attendance at the hearing, no transcript was available. The parties agreed to submit a Statement of Testimony in lieu of a transcript and the available administrative record was filed with the Clerk on April 26, 2016. The Brief of Appellant was filed July 24, 2016 and PERS’ Appellee’s Brief was filed September 22, 2016. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on June 22, 2018. Pinion filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on July 19, 2018. Briefing is underway. PHILLIPS v. PERS: The Disability Appeals Committee of the PERS Board of Trustees determined that the claimant’s request for duty-related disability should be denied. A notice of appeal was timely filed July 26, 2011. Due to the death of the Court Reporter in attendance at the hearing, no transcript was available. The parties agreed to submit a Statement of Testimony in lieu of a transcript and the available administrative record was filed with the Clerk on April 14, 2016. The Brief of Appellant was filed May 27, 2016 and PERS’ Appellee’s Brief was filed July 8, 2016. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on June 20, 2018. Richardson, the mother of Kari Phillips, who is deceased, filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on July 19, 2018. Briefing is underway. DAVIS v. PERS: On August 25, 2015, the Board of Trustees denied the claimant’s application for disability benefits, both duty and non-duty. Davis appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Hinds County on September 18, 2015. On September 29, 2015, the Circuit Court entered an Order granting PERS thirty days following receipt of a certified copy of the transcript in which to file the Administrative Record. PERS filed the Administrative Record with the Circuit Court on December 11, 2015. The Brief of Appellant was filed January 20, 2017, and PERS’ Brief was filed March 20, 2017. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on June 12, 2018. Davis filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on July 9, 2018. Briefing is underway. BUCKHAULTS v. PERS: On September 26, 2012, the Appellant, Buckhaults, an unvested member of the PERS, filed an application for PERS duty-related disability benefits. On June 24, 2014, the Board of

BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES UNOFFICIAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM FEBRUARY 26, 2019 PAGE 7 Trustees denied the claimant’s application for disability benefits. Buckhaults appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Hinds County. PERS filed the Administrative Record with the Circuit Court on August 24, 2015. The Brief of Appellant was filed March 1, 2017, and PERS’ Brief was filed April 26, 2017. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on June 26, 2018. Buckhaults filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on July 19, 2018. Briefing is underway. CARVER v. PERS: The Medical Board approved the claimant for non-duty related disability. The PERS Board of Trustees, upon recommendation of the Disability Appeals Committee, held in an Order dated August 28, 2012, that his claim for duty-related disability should be denied. A notice of appeal was timely filed, but due to the death of the Court Reporter in attendance at the hearing, only a partial transcript was available. The parties agreed to submit a Statement of Testimony in lieu of a complete transcript and the available administrative record was filed with the Clerk on April 18, 2016. The Brief of Appellant was filed July 28, 2016 and PERS’ Appellee’s Brief was filed August 26, 2016. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on July 13, 2018. Carver filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on July 3, 2018. Briefing is underway. PERS Securities Litigation: • Amedisys, Inc. • Satyam Computer Services Limited • Merck & Co., Inc. (VIOXX) • Green Mountain Coffee Roasters • IN RE: Canada, Inc. v. Qualcomm et al. • Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. • Banco Bradesco S.A. • Stericycle, Inc. et al. • TreeHouse Foods, Inc. • Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. • Endo International, PLC • Signet Jewelers Limited • Valeant Pharmaceuticals International • Volkswagen AG (Germany) • Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. • Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. • Acuity Brands, Inc. • Advance Auto Parts, Inc. • WageWorks, Inc. • Facebook, Inc. • Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. • Mednax, Inc. • Nielsen Holdings plc.

Securities-Related Cases in Which PERS Is a Defendant: • In Re: Tribune Company

Mr. Frantom reported that, as of the February 2019 payroll, all systems (PERS, SLRP, MHSPRS, and MRS) had a total of 109,924 retirees and survivors receiving monthly benefit

Retiree Report

BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES UNOFFICIAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM FEBRUARY 26, 2019 PAGE 8 payments, with a total monthly payroll of more than $173.6 million, and a year-to-date total of more than $2 billion. He provided additional breakdown information including the total number of recipients per plan, and the total number of recipients added or removed from payroll for each plan. Mr. Frantom provided the following breakdown of retirees and survivors by system and amounts paid per plan:

January 2019 February 2019 System Retirees Payments Retirees Payments PERS 107,243 $168,879,563.42 107,309 $169,125,633.81

SLRP 209 $86,957.29 209 $86,948.81 MHSPRS 744 $1,999,854.25 742 $1,993,780.30

MRS 1,674 $2,462,949.95 1,664 $2,453,660.22 TOTAL 109,924 $173,429,324.91 109,924 $173,660,023.14

ALL

SYSTEMS

COMBINED DAILY AND MONTHLY RETIREE PAYROLL TOTALS

DAILY PAYROLL**

MONTHLY PAYROLL

PAYROLL TOTALS

MONTH

YEAR

$

$

$

JULY

2018

$53,320,192.64

$170,259,902.34

$223,580,094.98

AUGUST

2018

$5,536,639.64

$171,846,546.90

$177,383,186.54

SEPTEMBER

2018

$2,533,120.87

$172,341,530.78

$174,874,651.65

OCTOBER

2018

$4,028,253.51

$172,496,180.83

$176,524,434.34

NOVEMBER

2018

$2,870,955.55

$172,544,243.83

$175,415,199.38

DECEMBER

2018

$1,278,741.13

$172,651,591.75

$173,930,332.88

DECEMBER 15th

2018

$0.00

$609,508,147.46

$609,508,147.46

JANUARY

2019

$17,335,807.05

$173,429,324.91

$190,765,131.96

FEBRUARY

2019

$0.00

$173,660,023.14

$173,660,023.14

MARCH

2019

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

APRIL

2019

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

MAY

2019

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

JUNE

2019

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

YTD

$86,903,710.39

$1,988,737,491.94

$2,075,641,202.33

BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES UNOFFICIAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM FEBRUARY 26, 2019 PAGE 9 Dr. McCoy asked staff whether it is possible to provide the number of different states or countries PERS currently sends retirement benefits to and how many different banks or financial institutions does PERS have to communicate with when administering payroll. Director Higgins stated that staff would research Dr. McCoy’s inquiry and provide the answers as soon as possible. The motion was made by Dr. McCoy, seconded by Mr. Howard, which motion duly passed, to approve the Retiree Report. Voting for: Benson, Breland, Dale, Graham, Hanna, Howard, McCoy, and Rutledge. Voting against: none. Absent: Childress and Snyder.

Mr. Hoeniges presented the Report of Investments for the period ending January 31, 2019. He reported that as of January 31, 2019, the market value of the PERS investment portfolio

was $27.1 billion. He reported that as of close of business February 25, 2019, the PERS investment portfolio market value was $27.7 billion. Mr. Hoeniges reported that PERS currently has 38 investment managers, managing 58 different portfolios. He reported that the total Securities Lending earnings amount for FY 2019 totals more than $10.2 million. Mr. Hoeniges presented the Consolidated Portfolio Summary:

Consolidated Portfolio Summary

As of: 01/31/2019

The motion was made by Mr. Benson, seconded by Dr. Rutledge, which motion duly passed, to approve the Investment Report presented by staff and to approve and certify the investment transactions and fund transfers since the last board meeting of December 18, 2018. Voting for: Benson, Breland, Dale, Graham, Hanna, Howard, McCoy, and Rutledge. Voting against: none. Absent: Childress and Snyder.

Investment Report

Asset Class

Book Value

% of Total

Book Value

Market Value

% of Total

Market Value

Domestic Equity

4,759,004,960.62 21.23% 7, 153,653,535.76 26.31%

Fixed Income 5,530,568,650.85 24.67% 5,535,264, 160.61 20.36%

International Equity 7,912,746,201.07 35.30% 8,774,988,064.41 32.27%

Real Estate 1,758,672,720.24 7.84% 2,830, 187,126.62 10.41%

Private Equity 1,723,594,539.36 7.69% 2,207,271,469.84 8.12%

Cash & Cash Equivalent In-House

362,972,748.91 1.62% 362,972,748.91 1.34%

Cash & Cash Equivalent Manager 371,238,722.31 1.66% 324,374,087.66 1.19%

Total 22,418,798,543.36 100.00% 27,188,711,193.81 100.00%


Chairman Breland called for staff to present the research previously requested by the Board in this meeting regarding the eligibility of one of the candidates included

on the Retiree Representative Election Ballot. Ms. Lee presented an excerpt from PERS Board Regulation 17, Election of Members of the Board of Trustees of the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi. She reported that section 103, part 5, of the regulation states:

“Employees who are active members of a public retirement system administered by PERS and retirees and beneficiaries, regardless of age, who are receiving a monthly retirement allowance from a public retirement system administered by PERS shall be entitled to vote in the appropriate election of the member of the Board of Trustees, as provided in Miss. Code Ann. § 25-11-15 (1972, as amended); however, only an eligible active member of PERS who has at least 10 years of creditable service or a retired member receiving a monthly retirement allowance from PERS may seek election to and, if elected, serve on the Board of Trustees.”

Ms. Lee advised that the recommendation of staff and Special Assistant Attorney General Martin Millette is to strike the name of candidate Keith Hollins from the Retiree Representative Election Ballot, as this candidate is a retired highway safety patrolman, receiving retirement benefits from the Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol Retirement System, not from PERS. Ms. Lee advised that the regulation specifically states that a candidate must be a retired member receiving a monthly retirement allowance from PERS, in order to seek election to and, if elected, serve on the PERS Board. Mr. Benson stated that he would amend his original motion. He advised that he would make a motion to approve the Retiree Representative Election Ballot, with the name of Keith Hollins removed from it, as recommended by staff, to be consistent with and to conform to Board Regulation 17.

*The amended motion was made by Mr. Benson, seconded by Dr. Rutledge, which motion duly passed, to approve the amended Retiree Representative Election Ballot, with the name of the ineligible candidate removed. Voting for: Benson, Breland, Dale, Graham, Hanna, Howard, and Rutledge. Voting against: none. Abstaining: McCoy. Absent: Childress and Snyder. (Addendum F – Retiree Rep Election Ballot 2019 (amended)) (Addendum G – Retiree Rep Candidates Bios (revised)) Mr. Higgins stated that more information would be distributed soon about the Board of Trustees’ Retreat, scheduled for May 9-10, 2019, in Greenwood, Mississippi. He asked the board members to send him any agenda topics they would like to submit for this retreat. Mr. Higgins stated that the pre-approved conferences and trainings were listed on the agenda. He added that the Callan College investment events are also pre-approved and are scheduled to be held in April, July, and October 2019, for any board member who might be interested. Mr. Higgins reminded the Board members that their Economic Interest Disclosure statements with the Mississippi Ethics Commission are currently available for online update and are to be completed by May 1, 2019.

Approval of Retiree Rep Election Amended Ballot

BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES UNOFFICIAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM FEBRUARY 26, 2019 PAGE 11 There being no additional business, Chairman Breland called for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

The motion was made by Mr. Graham, seconded by Mr. Benson, which motion duly passed, to adjourn the meeting. Voting for: Benson, Breland, Dale, Graham, Hanna, Howard, McCoy, and Rutledge. Voting against: none. Absent: Childress and Snyder. The meeting was adjourned at 1:41 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, H. Ray Higgins, Jr. Executive Director Public Employees’ Retirement System Kelly Breland Chair PERS Board of Trustees HRH: maj

State of Mississippi Retirement Systems

Experience Investigation for the

Four-Year Period

Ending June 30, 2018

April 2, 2019

The Board of Trustees

Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi

429 Mississippi Street

Jackson, MS 39201

Members of the Board:

We are pleased to submit the results of an investigation of the economic and demographic

experience for the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), the Highway Safety Patrol

Retirement System (HSPRS), the Supplemental Legislative Retirement Plan (SLRP) and the

Municipal Retirement Systems (MRS) for the four-year period from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2018.

The study was based on the data submitted by PERS for the annual valuation. In preparing this

report, we relied, without audit, on the data provided.

The purpose of the investigation was to assess the reasonability of the current PERS economic

assumptions and demographic actuarial assumptions for each Retirement System. As a result of

the investigation, it is recommended that revised economic assumptions and demographic tables

be adopted by the Board for future use.

All recommended rates of separation, mortality and salary increase at each age for each division

are shown in the attached tables in Appendix D of this report. In the actuary’s judgment, the rates

recommended are suitable for use until further experience indicates that modifications are

desirable.

We hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, this report is complete and accurate

and has been prepared in accordance with generally recognized and accepted actuarial principles

and practices which are consistent with the principles prescribed by the Actuarial Standards Board

(ASB) and the Code of Professional Conduct and Qualification Standards for Public Statements

of Actuarial Opinion of the American Academy of Actuaries.

We further certify that, in our opinion, the assumptions developed in this report satisfy Actuarial

Standards of Practice, in particular, No. 27 (Selection of Economic Assumptions for Measuring

Pension Obligations) and No. 35 (Selection of Demographic and Other Non-economic

Assumptions for Measuring Pension Obligations).

Off

Cavanaugh Macdonald CC OO NN SS UU LL TT II NN GG,, LL LL CC

The experience and dedication you deserve

3550 Busbee Pkwy, Suite 250, Kennesaw, GA 30144Phone (678) 388-1700 • Fax (678) 388-1730

www.CavMacConsulting.com Offices in Kennesaw, GA • Bellevue, NE

April 2, 2019

Board of Trustees

Page 2

The experience investigation was performed by, and under the supervision of, independent

actuaries who are members of the American Academy of Actuaries with experience in performing

valuations for public retirement systems. The undersigned meet the Qualification Standards of the

American Academy of Actuaries to render the actuarial opinion contained herein.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward J. Koebel, EA, FCA, MAAA Jonathan T. Craven, ASA, EA, FCA, MAAA

Principal and Consulting Actuary Consulting Actuary

Table of Contents

PERS State of Mississippi Retirement Systems Experience Investigation for the Four-Year Period Ending June 30, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

I Executive Summary 1

II Economic Assumptions 8

III Actuarial Methods 24

IV PERS Demographic Assumptions 28

Rates of Withdrawal 29

Rates of Pre-Retirement Mortality 33

Rates of Disability Retirement 36

Rates of Retirement 38

Rates of Post-Retirement Mortality 45

Rates of Salary Increase 51

Other Assumptions 53

V HSPRS Summary of Results 55

VI SLRP Summary of Results 57

VII MRS Summary of Results 59

Appendix

A Historical June CPI(U) Index 60

B Capital Market Assumptions and Asset Allocation 61

C Social Security Administration Wage Index 62

D Recommended Rates 63

Section I - Executive Summary

Mississippi Public Employees’ Retirement Systems Experience Investigation for the Four-Year Period Ending June 30, 2018

1

The purpose of an actuarial valuation is to provide a timely best estimate of the ultimate costs of a

retirement system. Actuarial valuations of the Mississippi Public Employees’ Retirement System

(PERS), the Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol Retirement System (HSPRS), the Mississippi

Supplemental Legislative Retirement Plan (SLRP) and the Mississippi Municipal Retirement

System (MRS) are prepared annually to determine the actuarial contribution rate required to fund

them on an actuarial reserve basis, (i.e. the current assets plus future contributions, along with

investment earnings will be sufficient to provide the benefits promised by the system). The

valuation requires the use of certain assumptions with respect to the occurrence of future events,

such as rates of death, termination of employment, retirement age, and salary changes to estimate

the obligations of the system.

The basic purpose of an experience study is to determine whether the actuarial assumptions

currently in use have adequately anticipated the actual emerging experience. This information,

along with the professional judgment of system personnel and advisors, is used to evaluate the

appropriateness of continued use of the current actuarial assumptions. When analyzing experience

and assumptions, it is important to recognize that actual experience is reported in the short term

while assumptions are intended to be long-term estimates of experience. Therefore, actual

experience is expected to vary from study period to study period, without necessarily indicating a

change in assumptions is needed.

Cavanaugh Macdonald Consulting, LLC (CMC) has performed a study of the experience of each

of the Plans under the PERS’ Board of Trustees purview for the four-year period ending

June 30, 2018. This report presents the results, analysis, and resulting recommendations of our

study. It is anticipated that the changes, if approved, will first be reflected in the June 30, 2019

actuarial valuations.

These assumptions have been developed in accordance with generally recognized and accepted

actuarial principles and practices that are consistent with the applicable Actuarial Standards of

Practice adopted by the Actuarial Standards Board (ASB). While the recommended assumptions

represent our best estimate of future experience, there are other reasonable assumption sets that

could be supported by the results of this experience study. Those other sets of reasonable

assumptions could produce liabilities and costs that are either higher or lower.

Our Philosophy

Similar to an actuarial valuation, the calculation of actual and expected experience is a fairly

mechanical process, and differences between actuaries in this area are generally minor. However,

the setting of assumptions differs, as it is more art than science. In this report, we have

recommended changes to certain assumptions. To explain our thought process, we offer a brief

summary of our philosophy:



2

Do Not Overreact: When we see significant changes in experience, we generally do

not adjust our rates to reflect the entire difference. We will typically recommend rates

somewhere between the old rates and the new experience. If the experience during the

next study period shows the same result, we will probably recognize the trend at that

point in time or at least move further in the direction of the observed experience. On

the other hand, if experience returns closer to its prior level, we will not have

overreacted, possibly causing volatility in the actuarial contribution rates.

Anticipate Trends: If there is an identified trend that is expected to continue, we

believe that this should be recognized. An example is the retiree mortality assumption.

It is an established trend that people are living longer. Therefore, we believe the best

estimate of liabilities in the valuation should reflect the expected increase in life

expectancy.

Simplify: In general, we attempt to identify which factors are significant and eliminate

or ignore the ones that do not materially improve the accuracy of the liability

projections.

The following summarizes the findings and recommendations with regard to the assumptions

utilized for PERS. Detailed explanations for the recommendations are found in the sections that

follow.

Recommended Economic Assumption Changes

Economic assumptions are some of the most visible and significant assumptions used in the

valuation process. The items in the broad economy modeled by these assumptions can be very

volatile over short periods of time, as clearly seen in the economic downturn in 2008 followed by

the rebound in many financial markets in the years following. Our goal is to try to find the

emerging long-term trends in the midst of this volatility so that we can then apply reasonable

assumptions.

Most of the economic assumptions used by actuaries are developed through a building-block

approach. For example, the expected return on assets is based on the expectation for inflation plus

the expected real return on assets. At the core of the economic assumptions is the inflation

assumption. As we discuss later in the report, based on recent trends of inflation, the market

pricing of inflation, and the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration’s view of

inflation, we are recommending a decrease in the price inflation assumption from 3.00% to

2.75%.



3

We are also recommending a corresponding decrease in the long-term expected return on

assets assumption from 7.75% to 7.50%, reflecting the 0.25% decrease in the inflation

assumption. This will be discussed in detail later in this report, but a real rate of return of 4.75%

is supported by the forecasting models developed using the Board’s investment consultant’s capital

market assumptions and the Board’s target asset allocation. Further analysis of the 35 sets of

capital market assumptions included in the Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC. Survey conducted in

2018 also support this recommendation.

Finally, we are recommending that the general wage inflation (payroll growth) assumption

used as the underlying payroll growth for active member and used in the level percent of

payroll amortization method be decreased from 3.25% to 3.00%, reflecting the 0.25%

decrease in the inflation assumption.

The following table summarizes the current and proposed economic assumptions:

Item Current Proposed

Price Inflation 3.00% 2.75%

Investment Return* 7.75% 7.50%

Wage Inflation (Payroll Growth) 3.25% 3.00%

* Net of investment expenses only.

Although we have recommended a change in the set of economic assumptions, we recognize there

may be other sets of economic assumptions that are also reasonable for purposes of funding PERS.

For example, we have typically reflected conservatism to the degree we would classify as

moderate. Actuarial Standards of Practice allow for this difference in approaches and perspective,

as long, as the assumptions are reasonable and consistent.



4

Recommended Demographic Assumption Changes

In the experience study, actual experience for the study period is compared to that expected based

on the current actuarial assumption. The analysis is most commonly performed based on counts,

i.e. each member is one exposure as to the probability of the event occurring and one occurrence

if the event actually occurs. Comparing the actual incidence of the event to what was expected

(called the Actual-to-Expected ratio, or A/E ratio) then provides the basis for our analysis.

The issue of future mortality improvement is one that the actuarial profession has become

increasingly focused on studying in recent years. This has resulted in changes to the relevant

Actuarial Standard of Practice, ASOP 35, Selection of Demographic and Other Noneconomic

Assumptions for Measuring Pension Obligations. This ASOP requires the pension actuary to make

and disclose a specific recommendation with respect to future improvements in mortality after the

valuation date. There have been significant improvements in longevity in the past, although there

are different opinions about future expectations. We believe it is prudent to anticipate that the

trend will continue to some degree in the future. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to reflect

future mortality improvement as part of the mortality assumption.

There are two widely used approaches for reflecting future improvements in mortality:

(1) Static table with “margin”

(2) Generational mortality

The first approach to reflecting mortality improvements is through the use of a static mortality

table with “margin.” Under this approach, the A/E ratio is intentionally targeted to be over 100%

so that mortality can improve without creating actuarial losses. While there is no formal guidance

for the amount of margin required (how far above 100% is appropriate for the A/E ratio), we

typically prefer to have a margin of around 10 to 14% at the core retirement ages. The goal is still

for the general shape of the curve to be a reasonable fit to the observed experience. Depending on

the magnitude and duration of actual mortality improvements in the future, the margin may

decrease and eventually become insufficient. If and when that occurs, the assumption would need

to be updated.

Another approach, referred to as generational mortality, directly anticipates future improvements

in mortality by using a different set of mortality rates for each year of birth, with the rates for later

years of birth assuming lower mortality than the rates for earlier years of birth. The varying

mortality rates by year of birth create a series of tables that contain “built-in” mortality

improvements, e.g., a member who turns age 65 in 2035 has a longer life expectancy than a

member who turns age 65 in 2020. When using generational mortality, the A/E ratios for the

observed experience are set near 100% as future mortality improvements will be taken into account

directly in the actuarial valuation process.



5

The current post-retirement mortality assumption for healthy lives, which we changed in the 2016

experience study, is a static table, the RP-2014 Healthy Annuitant Blue Collar Table projected

with Scale BB to 2022 with male rates set forward one year and adjusted by 106% for males at all

ages and as follows for females: 90% for ages less than 76, 95% for age 76, 105% for age 78 and

110% for ages 79 and greater. The results of the experience analysis indicate that this table

provides a very reasonable margin for future mortality improvements. In fact, the PERS plan

experienced a very small gain due to post-retirement mortality for the 2018 valuation, meaning

that there were slightly more deaths than expected. We have, however, decided to adopt a

generational mortality approach and have selected the mortality assumption from the recently

published Pub-2010 Public Mortality Plans Mortality Tables. These tables, released earlier this

year, were developed using public pension plan mortality experience only. More information will

be discussed in the demographic section of this report.

The following is a general list of the other recommended changes to the demographic assumptions

for PERS.

Retirement: Increased rates of retirement slightly at younger ages for members with

less than 25 years of service and for members with 25 years of service or more to

better match experience.

Disability: No changes recommended in the rates of disability retirement.

Withdrawal: Increased rates of withdrawal slightly at younger ages and during select

period (below 2 years of service).

Merit Salary Scale: No change in merit salary scale.

Section IV of this report will provide more detail to these recommended demographic changes.

Sections V-VII provide a summary of the recommended changes for each of the other three

Systems.

Actuarial Methods

The basic actuarial methodologies used in the valuation process include the:

Actuarial Cost Method

Asset Valuation Method

Amortization Method

Based on our review, discussed in full detail in Section III of this report, we recommend no

changes in these actuarial methods at this time.



6

Other Assumptions

Another assumption that is included in the valuations is the determination of administrative

expense component that is added to the total normal cost each year. The current assumption is

0.23% of payroll. After reviewing the total amount of administrative expenses for the past

four years and the percentage of payroll, we are recommending a slight increase in this

assumption from 0.23% to 0.25% of payroll. The following table shows actual percentages

over the past four years:

($ in Thousands)

Year Ending

June 30

Administrative

Expenses Annual Payroll Percentage

2015 13,523 5,904,827 0.23%

2016 15,166 6,022,533 0.25%

2017 17,056 6,038,229 0.28%

2018 16,264 5,999,231 0.27%

Financial Impact

Although the assumption changes, if approved, will first be reflected in the 2019 valuations, we

have provided the following tables which highlight the impact of the recommended changes on

the unfunded accrued liabilities (UAL), funding ratios, amortization period and projected funding

ratios for each System on the 2018 valuation and projection results.

Change in 2018 Valuation Unfunded Accrued Liability

($ in Thousands)

System Before All

Changes

After

Demographic

Changes Only

After All

Changes

PERS 16,940,459 17,295,161 18,415,764

HSPRS 175,013 178,549 192,427

SLRP 4,374 4,451 4,938



7

Change in 2018 Valuation Funding Ratio

System Before All

Changes

After

Demographic

Changes Only

After All

Changes

PERS 61.8% 61.4% 59.9%

HSPRS 66.8% 66.4% 64.7%

SLRP 80.4% 80.1% 78.4%

Change in 2018 Valuation UAL Amortization Period*

System Before All

Changes

After

Demographic

Changes Only

After All

Changes

PERS 30.9 33.8 41.5

HSPRS 18.3 20.0 24.2

SLRP 20.1 22.4 28.8

* Fixed contribution rates kept constant.

Change in Projected Funding Ratio in 2047 for PERS and 2042 for HSPRS and SLRP*

System Before All

Changes

After

Demographic

Changes Only

After All

Changes

PERS 95.8% 86.5% 70.6%

HSPRS 103.5% 97.5% 86.8%

SLRP 97.5% 91.3% 80.8%

* Fixed contribution rates kept constant.

Section II – Economic Assumptions


8

There are four economic assumptions used in the actuarial valuations performed for PERS. They

are:

Price Inflation

Investment Return

Wage Inflation

Payroll Growth for Amortization Method

Note that future price inflation has an indirect impact on the results of the actuarial valuation

through the development of the assumptions for investment return and wage inflation. However,

it is not directly used in the valuation process.

Actuarial Standard of Practice (ASOP) No. 27, “Selection of Economic Assumptions for

Measuring Pension Obligations” provides guidance to actuaries in selecting economic

assumptions for measuring obligations under defined benefit plans. ASOP No. 27 was revised in

September, 2013 and no longer includes the concept of a “best estimate range”. Instead, the

revised standard now requires that each economic assumption selected by the actuary should be

reasonable which means it has the following characteristics:

It is appropriate for the purpose of the measurement;

It reflects the actuary’s professional judgment;

It takes into account historical and current economic data that is relevant as of the

measurement date;

It reflects the actuary’s estimate of future experience, the actuary’s observation of the

estimates inherent in market data, or a combination thereof; and

It has no significant bias (i.e., it is not significantly optimistic or pessimistic), except when

provisions for adverse deviation or plan provisions that are difficult to measure are included

and disclosed, or when alternative assumptions are used for the assessment of risk.

Each economic assumption should individually satisfy this standard. Furthermore, with respect to

any particular valuation, each economic assumption should be consistent with every other

economic assumption over the measurement period.

In our opinion, the economic assumptions recommended in this report have been developed in

accordance with ASOP No. 27. The following table shows our recommendations followed by

detailed discussions of each assumption.



9

Item Current Proposed


Real Rate of Return* 4.75 4.75

Investment Return 7.75% 7.50%


Real Wage Growth 0.25 0.25

Wage Inflation 3.25% 3.00%

Payroll Growth 3.25% 3.00%

* net of investment expenses.



10

Price Inflation

Background

As can be seen from the table on the previous page, assumed price inflation is used as the basis for

both the investment return assumption and the wage inflation assumption. These latter two

assumptions will be discussed in detail in the following sections.

It is important that the price inflation assumption be consistently applied throughout the economic

assumptions utilized in an actuarial valuation. This is called for in ASOP No. 27 and is also

required to meet the parameters for determining pension liabilities and expense under

Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statements No. 67 and 68.

The long-term relationship between price inflation and investment return has long been recognized

by economists. The basic principle is that the investor demands a more or less level “real return”

– the excess of actual investment return over price inflation. If inflation rates are expected to be

high, investment return rates are also expected to be high, while low inflation rates are expected

to result in lower expected investment returns, at least in the long run.

The current price inflation assumption is 3.00% per year.

Past Experience

The Consumer Price Index, US City Average, All Urban Consumers, CPI (U), has been used as

the basis for reviewing historical levels of price inflation. The table below provides historical

annualized rates and annual standard deviation of the CPI-U over periods ending June 30th.

Period Number of

Years

Annualized

Rate of Inflation

Annual

Standard

Deviation

1926 – 2018 92 2.91% 4.08%

1958 – 2018 60 3.68 2.88

1968 – 2018 50 4.04 2.99

1978 – 2018 40 3.44 2.84

1988 – 2018 30 2.56 1.46

1998 – 2018 20 2.20 1.49

2008 - 2018 10 1.42 1.39



11

The following graph illustrates the historical levels of price inflation measured as of June 30th of

each of the last 50 years and compared to the current 3.00% annual rate currently assumed.

Annual Rate of CPI (U) Increases

Over the last 50 years, the average annual rate of increase in the CPI-U has been below 4.00%.

The period of high inflation from 1973 to 1982 has a significant impact on the averages over

periods which include these rates. The volatility of the annual rates in the more recent years has

been markedly lower as indicated by the significantly lower annual standard deviations. Many

experts attribute the lower average annual rates and lower volatility to the increased efforts of the

Federal Reserve since the early 1980’s to stabilize price inflation.

Forecasts

Based upon information contained in the “Survey of Professional Forecasters” for the fourth

quarter of 2018 as published by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank, the median expected

annual rate of inflation for the next ten years is 2.21%. Although 10 years of future expectation is

too short of a period for the basis of our inflation assumption, the information does provide some

evidence that the consensus expectations of these experts are for rates of inflation lower than our

current assumption of 3.00% for the near term future.

Interestingly, the most recent inflation data, in the graph on the following page, shows an

acceleration in the rate which is approaching the current assumption of 3.00%. This recent surge

in the inflation rate supports the Federal Reserve forecast of multiple increases in the federal funds

this year.

-3.00

-1.00

1.00

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

13.00

15.00

1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

3.00% CPI (U)



12

Month over Month Annual Inflation Rate

January 2018 through February 2019

Social Security Administration

Although many economists forecast lower inflation than the assumption used by most retirement

plans, they are generally looking at a shorter time horizon than is appropriate for a pension

valuation. To consider a longer, similar time frame, we looked at the expected increase in the CPI

by the Office of the Chief Actuary for the Social Security Administration. In the 2018 annual

report, the projected ultimate average annual increase in the CPI over the next 75 years was

estimated to be 2.60%, under the intermediate (best estimate) cost assumption. The range of

inflation assumptions used in the Social Security 75-year modeling, which includes a low and high

cost scenario, in addition to the intermediate cost projection, was 2.00% to 3.20%.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

3.00% CPI (U)



13

Peer Comparison

While we do not recommend the selection of any assumption based on what other systems use, it

does provide another set of relevant information to consider. The following chart and graph shows

the inflation rate assumptions of 150 plans in the Public Plan Database of the Center for Retirement

Research. The assumptions are from actuarial valuation reported in FYE 2017.

2.50%

2.75%

3.00%

3.25%

3.50%

3.75%

4.00%

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Inflation Assumptions

Average Median

16

3942

28

1411

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

< 2.50% 2.50% 2.75% 3.00% 3.25% > 3.25%

Syst

em

s U

sin

g A

ssu

mp

tio

n

Comparison of Inflation Assumptions

Number of Systems



14

Recommendation

It is difficult to predict inflation accurately. Inflation’s short-term volatility is illustrated by

comparing its average rate over the last 10 and 50 years. Although the 10-year average of 1.42%

is lower than the System’s assumed rate of 3.00%, the longer 50-year averages of 4.04% is

somewhat higher than PERS’ current rate. The reasonableness of PERS’ assumption is, therefore,

dependent upon the emphasis one assigns to the short and long-terms.

Current economic forecasts suggest lower inflation but are generally looking at a shorter time

period than appropriate for our purposes. We consider the range included in the Social Security

Administration of 2.00% to 3.20% to be reasonable and recommend lowering the inflation

assumption for PERS from 3.00% to 2.75%.

Price Inflation Assumption

Current 3.00%

Recommended 2.75%



15

Investment Return

Background

The assumed investment return is one of the most significant assumptions in the annual actuarial

valuation process as it is used to discount the expected benefit payments for all active, inactive and

retired members. Minor changes in this assumption can have a major impact on valuation results.

The investment return assumption should reflect the asset allocation target for the funds set by the

Board of Trustees.

The current assumption is 7.75%, consisting of a price inflation assumption of 3.00% and a real

rate of return assumption of 4.75%.

Long Term Perspective

Because the economy is constantly changing, assumptions about what may occur in the near term

are volatile. Asset managers and investment consultants usually focus on this near-term horizon

in order to make prudent choices regarding how to invest the trust funds. For actuarial calculations,

we typically consider very long periods of time. For example, a newly-hired employee who is 25

years old may work for 35 years, to age 60, and live another 30 years, to age 90 (or longer). The

retirement system would receive contributions for the first 35 years and then pay out benefits for

the next 30 years. During the entire 65-year period, the system is investing assets related to the

member. For such a typical career employee, more than one-half of the investment income earned

on assets accumulated to pay benefits is received after the employee retires. In addition, in an

open, ongoing system like PERS, the stream of benefit payments is continually increasing as new

hires replace current members who leave covered employment due to death, termination of

employment, and retirement. This difference in the time horizon used by actuaries and investment

consultants is frequently a source of debate and confusion when setting economic assumptions.

Past Experience

One of the inherent problems with analyzing historical data is that the results can look significantly

different depending on the timeframe used, especially if the year-to-year results vary widely. In

addition, the asset allocation can also impact the investment returns so comparing results over long

periods when different asset allocations were in place may not be meaningful.



16

The assets for PERS are valued using a widely accepted asset-smoothing methodology that fully

recognizes the expected investment income and also recognizes 20% of each year’s investment

gain or loss (the difference between actual and expected investment income). The recent

experience over the last five years is shown in the table below.

Year

Ending

6/30

Actuarial Value Market Value

2014 13.88 18.31

2015 11.86 3.38

2016 7.10 0.53

2017 8.91 14.51

2018 8.74 9.17

Average 10.10% 9.18%

While important to review and analyze, historical returns over such a short time period are not

credible for the purpose of setting the long-term assumed future rate of return.

Future Expectation Analysis

ASOP 27 provides that the actuary may rely on outside experts in setting economic assumptions.

PERS utilizes the services of Callan to assist them in developing investment strategies and

providing capital market assumptions for the PERS portfolio. As part of their duties, Callan

periodically performs asset-liability studies, along with comprehensive reviews of the expected

return of the various asset classes in which the PERS portfolio is invested. We believe it is

appropriate to consider the results of Callan’s work as one factor in assessing expected future

returns.

We also recognize that there can be differences of opinion among investment professionals

regarding future return expectations. Horizon Actuarial Services prepares an annual study in

which they survey various investment advisors (35 were included in the 2018 study with a 10-year

horizon) and provide ranges of results as well as averages. This information provides an additional

perspective on what a broad group of investment experts anticipate for future investment returns.

Our forward-looking analysis used the real rates of return in Callan’s capital market assumptions

for 2019-2028 and PERS’ target asset allocation. Using statistical projections that assume

investment returns approximately follow a lognormal distribution with no correlation between

years, produces an expected range of real rates of return over a 50 year time horizon. Looking at

one year’s results produces a mean real return of 5.67%, but also has a high standard deviation or



17

measurement of volatility. By expanding the time horizon, the real return does not change, but

the volatility declines significantly. The table below provides a summary of results.

Time

Span In

Years

Mean

Real

Return

Standard

Deviation

Real Returns by Percentile

5th 25th 50th 75th 95th

1 5.67% 14.71% -16.67% -4.68% 4.66% 14.91% 31.45%

5 4.86% 6.50% -5.48% 0.38% 4.66% 9.13% 15.89%

10 4.76% 4.59% -2.62% 1.61% 4.66% 7.80% 12.48%

20 4.71% 3.24% -0.54% 2.50% 4.66% 6.87% 10.13%

30 4.69% 2.65% 0.40% 2.89% 4.66% 6.46% 9.11%

40 4.69% 2.29% 0.96% 3.13% 4.66% 6.22% 8.50%

50 4.68% 2.05% 1.34% 3.29% 4.66% 6.05% 8.09%

The percentile results are the percentages of random returns over the time span shown that are

expected to be less than the amount indicated. For example, for the 10 year time span, 5% of the

resulting real rates of return will be below -2.62% and 95% will be above that. As the time span

increases, the results begin to converge. Over a 50 year time span, the results indicate there will

be a 25% chance that real returns will be below 3.29% and a 25% chance they will be above

6.05%. In other words, there is a 50% chance the real returns will be between 3.29% and 6.05%.

The results of our real return forward looking analysis are very similar to the real rate of return

analysis as developed by Callan in their first quarter of 2019 analysis, where they developed a

real return expectation of 4.75% over a 10-year horizon.

For a broader view of expected returns, we also reviewed the 2018 Survey of Capital Market

Assumptions produced by Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC to see what other investment

professionals are currently using for capital market assumptions. The Horizon survey includes

both 10-year horizon and 20-year horizon capital market assumptions. We applied the same

statistical analysis to these survey results as we did the capital market assumption of PERS

investment advisor with the following real return results for the 20-year horizon:



18

Time

Span In

Years

Mean

Real

Return

Standard

Deviation



1 5.91% 13.52% -14.77% -3.58% 5.06% 14.46% 29.50%

5 5.23% 5.99% -4.32% 1.10% 5.06% 9.17% 15.36%

10 5.14% 4.23% -1.67% 2.25% 5.06% 7.95% 12.24%

20 5.10% 2.99% 0.26% 3.06% 5.06% 7.09% 10.09%

30 5.09% 2.44% 1.12% 3.43% 5.06% 6.72% 9.15%

40 5.08% 2.11% 1.64% 3.64% 5.06% 6.49% 8.59%

50 5.07% 1.89% 2.00% 3.79% 5.06% 6.34% 8.21%

Peer Comparison

The following chart shows the nominal investment return assumptions of 150 plans in the Public

Plan Database of the Center for Retirement Research. The assumptions are from FYE 2017

reporting.

14 15

39

50

1712

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

< 7.00% 7.00% > 7.00% -7.50%

7.50% >7.50% -8.00%

8.00% > 8.00%

Syst

ems

Usi

ng

Ass

um

pti

on

Comparison of Investment Return Assumptions

Number of Systems



19

The following chart shows the changes in expected investment return assumption from the

NASRA public plan survey over the last 19 years from 2001.



20

Recommendation

By actuarial standards, we are required to maintain a long-term perspective in setting all

assumptions, including the investment return assumption. Therefore, we believe we must be

careful not to let recent experience or the short-term expectations impact our judgment regarding

the appropriateness of the current assumption over the long term.

Based on our analysis of Callan’s capital market assumptions and the Horizon Survey capital

market assumptions, we are recommending no change to the real return assumption of 4.75%.

Based on our recommended inflation assumption of 2.75%, we are recommending a 7.50%

expected long term nominal rate of return assumption.

Investment Return Assumption

Current Recommended

Real Rate of Return* 4.75% 4.75%

Inflation 3.00 2.75

Net Investment Return 7.75% 7.50%

* net of investment expenses.



21

Wage Inflation

Background

The wage inflation assumption is composed of the price inflation assumption and an assumption

for the real rate of wage increases. The salary increase assumption combines the wage inflation

assumption with an assumption for promotion and longevity, often called merit increases. Merit

assumptions are generally age and or service related, and will be dealt with in the demographic

assumption section of the report. The excess of wage growth over price inflation is also considered

the increase in productivity that labor provides.

The current wage inflation assumption is 3.25%, and is composed of a 3.00% rate of inflation

assumption and a 0.25% real rate of wage inflation.

Past Experience

The Social Security Administration publishes data on wage growth in the United States (see

Appendix C). While this is the most comprehensive data available, it is based on all wage earners

in the country so it can be influenced by the mix of jobs as well as by changes in certain sectors of

the workforce that may not be seen by all segments.

As with our analysis of inflation, we provide below wage inflation and a comparison with price

inflation over various time periods. Currently, this wage data is only available through calendar

year 2017. We remove the rate of price inflation for each year from the data to result in the

historical real rate of wage inflation.

Period Wage Inflation Price Inflation Real Wage Growth

2007-2017 2.22% 1.63% 0.59%

1997-2017 3.08% 2.14% 0.94%

1987-2017 3.41% 2.60% 0.81%

1977-2017 4.18% 3.55% 0.63%

1967-2017 4.64% 4.07% 0.57%

Thus over the last 50 years, annual real wage growth has averaged 0.57%.



22

Social Security Administration

The wage index used for the historical analysis is projected forward by the Office of the Chief

Actuary of the Social Security Administration in their 75-year projections. In June of 2018, the

annual increase in the National Average Wage Index under the intermediate cost assumption (best

estimate) was 3.8%, 1.2% higher than the Social Security intermediate inflation assumption of

2.6% per year. The range of the assumed real wage inflation in the 2018 Trustees report was

0.58% to 1.82% per year.

Recommendation

The data the Social Security Administration collects is nationwide and predominantly from the

private sector which includes many collectively bargained employees. It is questionable whether

public sector employees can match the productivity rates of the private sector. Therefore, we

recommend a 0.25% reduction in total wage inflation growth from 3.25% to 3.00%, in

conjunction with the recommendation of lowering the price inflation assumption by 0.25%.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017

Wage Inflation vs. CPI (U)

Wage Index - 30yr Rolling Avg CPI (U) - 30yr Rolling Avg

Wage Inflation Assumption

Current Recommended


Real Wage Growth 0.25% 0.25%




23

Payroll Growth

Background

The assumed future rate of payroll growth increase in the total payroll of PERS’ active members

is an assumption used in the level percentage of payroll amortization method that affects the

calculation of the amortization period required to fully amortize the unfunded actuarial accrued

liability and the actuarially determined employer contribution. The total payroll growth is

impacted by individual member’s increases and population growth. The current assumption is

3.25% per year which is comprised of the inflation assumption of 3.00% and real wage growth of

0.25%.

Past Experience

The following table shows the actual PERS’ payroll growth experienced over different time

periods.

Period Number of

Years

Annual

Payroll

Growth

Annual Active

Membership

Growth

Net Payroll

Growth

1998 – 2018 20 2.80% 0.18% 2.62%

2003 – 2018 15 2.04% -0.18% 2.22%

2008 – 2018 10 0.79% -0.95% 1.76%

2013 – 2018 5 0.60% -1.41% 2.04%

Recommendation

The table above shows annual payroll growth has been much lower than assumed and the active

membership growth has declined fairly significantly since the financial crisis of 2008/2009. The

net growth has been averaging less than the current assumption of 3.25%. Therefore, we are

recommending a payroll growth assumption reduction from 3.25% to 3.00%, which is equal

to the recommended wage inflation assumption.

Section III – Actuarial Methods


24

ACTUARIAL COST METHOD

There are various actuarial cost methods, each of which has different characteristics, advantages

and disadvantages. However, Governmental Accounting Standard Board (GASB) Statement

Numbers 67 and 68 require that the Entry Age Normal cost method be used for financial reporting.

Most systems do not want to use a different actuarial cost method for funding and financial

reporting. In addition, the Entry Age Normal method has been the most common funding method

for public systems for many years. This is the cost method currently used by PERS.

The rationale of the Entry Age Normal (EAN) cost method is that the cost of each member’s

benefit is determined to be a level percentage of his salary from date of hire to the end of his

employment with the employer. This level percentage multiplied by the member’s annual salary

is referred to as the normal cost and is that portion of the total cost of the employee’s benefit that

is allocated to the current year. The portion of the present value of future benefits allocated to the

future is determined by multiplying this percentage times the present value of the member’s

assumed earnings for all future years including the current year. The Entry Age Normal actuarial

accrued liability is then developed by subtracting from the present value of future benefits that

portion of costs allocated to the future. To determine the unfunded actuarial accrued liability, the

value of plan assets is subtracted from the Entry Age Normal actuarial accrued liability. The

current year’s cost to amortize the unfunded actuarial accrued liability is developed by applying

an amortization factor.

It is to be expected that future events will not occur exactly as anticipated by the actuarial

assumptions in each year. Actuarial gains/losses from experience under this actuarial cost method

can be directly calculated and are reflected as a decrease/increase in the unfunded actuarial accrued

liability. Consequently, the gain/loss results in a decrease/increase in the amortization payment,

and therefore the contribution rate.

Considering that the Entry Age Normal cost method is the most commonly used cost method by

public plans, that it develops a normal cost rate that tends to be stable and less volatile, and is the

required cost method under calculations required by GASB Numbers 67 and 68, we recommend

the Entry Age Normal actuarial cost method be retained for PERS.



25

ACTUARIAL VALUE OF ASSETS

In preparing an actuarial valuation, the actuary must assign a value to the assets of the fund. An

adjusted market value is often used to smooth out the volatility that is reflected in the market value

of assets. This is because most employers would rather have annual costs remain relatively

smooth, as a percentage of payroll or in actual dollars, as opposed to a cost pattern that is extremely

volatile.

The actuary does not have complete freedom in assigning this value. The Actuarial Standards

Board also has basic principles regarding the calculation of a smoothed asset value, Actuarial

Standard of Practice No. 44 (ASOP 44), Selection and Use of Asset Valuation Methods for Pension

Valuations.

ASOP 44 provides that the asset valuation method should bear a reasonable relationship to the

market value. Furthermore, the asset valuation method should be likely to satisfy both of the

following:

Produce values within a reasonable range around market value, AND

Recognize differences from market value in a reasonable amount of time.

In lieu of both of the above, the standard will be met if either of the following requirements is

satisfied:

There is a sufficiently narrow range around the market value, OR

The method recognizes differences from market value in a sufficiently short period.

These rules or principles prevent the asset valuation methodology from being used to manipulate

annual funding patterns. No matter what asset valuation method is used, it is important to note

that, like a cost method or actuarial assumptions, the asset valuation method does not affect the

true cost of the plan; it only impacts the incidence of cost.

Currently, the actuarial value of assets recognizes a portion of the difference between the market

value of assets and the expected market value of assets, based on the assumed valuation rate of

return. The amount recognized each year is 20% of the difference between market value and

expected market value. We recommend no change in this methodology.



26

AMORTIZATION OF THE UNFUNDED ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY

The actuarial accrued liability is the portion of the actuarial present value of future benefits that

are not included in future normal costs. Thus, it represents the liability that, in theory, should have

been funded through normal costs for past service. Unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL)

exists when the actuarial accrued liability exceeds the actuarial value of plan assets. These

deficiencies can result from:

(i) plan improvements that have not been completely paid for,

(ii) experience that is less favorable than expected,

(iii) assumption changes that increase liabilities, or

(iv) contributions that are less than the actuarial contribution rate.

There are a variety of different methods that can be used to amortize the UAAL. Each method

results in a different payment stream and, therefore, has cost implications. For each methodology,

there are three characteristics:

The period over which the UAAL is amortized,

The rate at which the amortization payment increases, and

The number of components of UAAL (separate amortization bases).

Amortization Period: The amortization period can be either closed or open. If it is a closed

amortization period, the number of years remaining in the amortization period declines by one in

each future valuation. Alternatively, if the amortization period is an open or rolling period, the

amortization period does not decline but is reset to the same number each years. This approach

essentially “refinances” the System’s debt (UAAL) every year.

Amortization Payment: The level dollar amortization method is similar to the method in which

a homeowner pays off a mortgage. The liability, once calculated, is financed by a constant fixed

dollar amount, based on the amortization period until the liability is extinguished. This results in

the liability steadily decreasing while the payments, though remaining level in dollar terms, in all

probability decrease as a percentage of payroll. (Even if a plan sponsor’s population is not

growing, inflationary salary increases will usually be sufficient to increase the aggregate covered

payroll).

The rationale behind the level percentage of payroll amortization method is that since normal costs

are calculated to be a constant percentage of pay, the unfunded actuarial accrued liability should

be paid off in the same manner. When this method of amortizing the unfunded actuarial accrued

liability is adopted, the initial amortization payments are lower than they would be under a level

dollar amortization payment method, but the payments increase at a fixed rate each year so that



27

ultimately the annual payment far exceeds the level dollar payment. The expectation is that total

payroll will increase at the same rate so that the amortization payments will remain constant, as a

percentage of payroll. In the initial years, the level percentage of payroll amortization payment is

often less than the interest accruing on the unfunded actuarial accrued liability meaning that even

if there are no experience losses, the dollar amount of the unfunded actuarial accrued liability will

grow (called negative amortization). This is particularly true if the plan sponsor is paying off the

unfunded actuarial accrued liability over a long period, such as 20 or more years.

Amortization Bases: The UAAL can be amortized either as one single amount or as components

or “layers”, each with a separate amortization base, payment and period. If the UAAL is amortized

as one amount, the UAAL is recalculated each year in the valuation and experience gains/losses

or other changes in the UAAL are folded into the single UAAL amortization base. The

amortization payment is then the total UAAL divided by an amortization factor for the applicable

amortization period.

If separate amortization bases are maintained, the UAAL is composed of multiple amortization

bases, each with its own payment schedule and remaining amortization period. In each valuation,

the unexpected change in the UAAL is established as a new amortization base over the appropriate

amortization period beginning on that valuation date. The UAAL is then the sum of all of the

outstanding amortization bases on the valuation date and the UAAL payment is the sum of all of

the amortization payments on the existing amortization bases. This approach provides

transparency in that the current UAAL is paid off over a fixed period of time and the remaining

components of the UAAL are clearly identified. Adjustments to the UAAL in future years are also

separately identified in each future year. One downside of this approach is that it can create some

discontinuities in contribution rates when UAAL layers/components are fully paid off. If this

occurs, it likely would be far in the future, with adequate time to address any adjustments needed.

Recommendation

In the current PERS Board funding policy, an actuarially determined employer contribution

(ADEC) is calculated during each annual valuation and the ADEC is compared to the Fixed

Contribution Rate adopted by the Board as one of its Signal Light metrics. The methodology in

calculating the ADEC is as follows:

Amortization Period – Closed period with maximum period of 25 years for new bases

Amortization Payment – Level Percentage of Payroll

Amortization Bases – Separate bases for all experience gains and losses, assumption

changes or benefit changes

We recommend no changes in these methods.

Section IV – Demographic Assumptions


28

There are several demographic assumptions used in the actuarial valuations performed for

Mississippi PERS. They are:

Rates of Withdrawal

Pre-retirement Mortality

Rates of Disability Retirement

Rates of Service Retirement

Post-retirement Mortality

Rates of Merit Salary Increase

Actuarial Standard of Practice (ASOP) No. 35, “Selection of Demographic and Other

Noneconomic Assumptions for Measuring Pension Obligations” provides guidance to actuaries in

selecting demographic assumptions for measuring obligations under defined benefit plans. In our

opinion, the demographic assumptions recommended in this report have been developed in

accordance with ASOP No. 35.

The purpose of a study of demographic experience is to compare what actually happened to the

membership during the study period (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2018) with what was expected

to happen based on the assumptions used in the most recent Actuarial Valuations.

Detailed tabulations by age, service and/or gender are performed over the entire study period.

These tabulations look at all active and retired members during the period as well as separately

annotating those who experience a demographic event, also referred to as a decrement. In addition

the tabulation of all members together with the current assumptions permits the calculation of the

number of expected decrements during the study period.

If the actual experience differs significantly from the overall expected results, or if the pattern of

actual decrements, or rates of decrement, by age, gender, or service does not follow the expected

pattern, new assumptions are recommended. Recommended changes usually do not follow the

exact actual experience during the observation period. Judgment is required to extrapolate future

experience from past trends and current member behavior. In addition non-recurring events, such

as early retirement windows, need to be taken into account in determining the weight to give to

recent experience.

The remainder of this section presents the results of the demographic study. We have prepared

tables that show a comparison of the actual and expected decrements and the overall ratio of actual

to expected results (A/E Ratios) under the current assumptions. If a change is being proposed, the

revised A/E Ratios are shown as well. Salary adjustments, other than the economic assumption

for wage inflation discussed in the previous section, are treated as demographic assumptions.



29

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM

RATES OF WITHDRAWAL

COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED WITHDRAWALS

FROM ACTIVE SERVICE

20 148 122 1.213 116 98 1.184

25 1,856 1,528 1.215 2,985 2,317 1.288

30 2,546 2,172 1.172 4,592 4,007 1.146

35 2,209 1,955 1.130 4,230 3,746 1.129

40 1,803 1,654 1.090 3,582 3,202 1.119

45 1,690 1,665 1.015 3,366 3,073 1.095

50 1,476 1,391 1.061 2,848 2,563 1.111

53 & over 2,798 2,272 1.232 4,584 3,742 1.225

14,526 12,759 1.138 26,303 22,748

Actual Expected Actual Expected

CENTRAL

AGE OF

GROUP

TOTAL 1.156

NUMBER OF WITHDRAWALS

MALES FEMALES

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

Withdrawals with more than 2 years of service

The following graphs show a comparison of the present, actual and proposed rates of withdrawal

for withdrawals with more than 2 years of service.



30


RATES OF WITHDRAWAL FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS

WITH MORE THAN 2 YEARS OF SERVICE

0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

0.3500

0.4000

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 53 & over

Age

Withdrawal Rates (Ultimate)Male

Actual Rate Expected Rate Proposed Rate

0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

0.3500

0.4000

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 53 & over

Age

Withdrawal Rates (Ultimate)Female




31

The rates of withdrawal adopted by the Board are used to determine the expected number of

separations from active service which will occur as a result of resignation or dismissal. The results

of our study indicate that for members with more than 2 years of service, the actual number of

withdrawals was more at all age groups than expected over the four year period, especially at the

youngest ages. Therefore, we recommend increasing the rates for both males and females at the

youngest ages to partially reflect the higher numbers of terminations experience over the last four

years.

Furthermore, the actual rates of withdrawal during the select period (first 2 years of employment)

indicate that both male and female members are withdrawing at a slightly greater rate during the

select period than currently expected. We recommend increasing the rate from 32.50% to 33.50%

during the first year of employment and from 23.50% to 24.00% during the second year of

employment.

The following table shows a comparison between the present withdrawal rates and the proposed

withdrawal rates for members with more than 2 years of service.

COMPARATIVE RATES OF WITHDRAWAL

Present Proposed Present Proposed

20 25.00% 26.50% 30.00% 32.50%

25 18.00 18.50 18.25 18.50

30 11.50 11.75 12.00 12.00

35 8.50 8.50 8.75 8.75

40 6.75 6.75 7.00 7.00

45 6.25 6.25 6.00 6.00

50 6.25 6.25 6.00 6.00

55 6.25 6.25 6.00 6.00

60 6.25 6.25 6.00 6.00

65 6.25 6.25 6.00 6.00

70 6.25 6.25 6.00 6.00

74 6.25 6.25 6.00 6.00

AGE

RATES OF WITHDRAWAL

MALES FEMALES



32

COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED WITHDRAWALS

FROM ACTIVE SERVICE BASED ON PROPOSED RATES

20 148 129 1.147 116 107 1.084

25 1,856 1,580 1.175 2,985 2,475 1.206

30 2,546 2,217 1.148 4,592 4,147 1.107

35 2,209 1,961 1.126 4,230 3,746 1.129

40 1,803 1,654 1.090 3,582 3,202 1.119

45 1,690 1,665 1.015 3,366 3,073 1.095

50 1,476 1,391 1.061 2,848 2,563 1.111

53 & over 2,798 2,272 1.232 4,584 3,742 1.225

CENTRAL

AGE OF

GROUP

NUMBER OF WITHDRAWALS

MALES FEMALES

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

Withdrawals with more than 2 years of service

TOTAL 14,526 12,869 1.129 26,303 23,055 1.141



33


RATES OF PRE-RETIREMENT MORTALITY

COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED PRE-RETIREMENT DEATHS

30 12 7 1.714 10 5 2.000

35 16 9 1.778 15 7 2.143

40 26 11 2.364 18 10 1.800

45 38 19 2.000 34 18 1.889

50 62 30 2.067 52 29 1.793

55 73 49 1.490 87 43 2.023

60 106 70 1.514 80 48 1.667

63 & over 151 115 1.313 46 44 1.045

TOTAL 484 310 1.561 342

CENTRAL

AGE OF

GROUP

NUMBER OF DEATHS

MALES FEMALES

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

204 1.676

The following graphs show a comparison of the present, actual, and proposed rates of

pre-retirement mortality.



34

0.0000

0.0005

0.0010

0.0015

0.0020

0.0025

0.0030

0.0035

0.0040

0.0045

30 35 40 45 50 55 60

AGE

Mortality Rates - Males


0.0000

0.0005

0.0010

0.0015

0.0020

0.0025

0.0030

0.0035

0.0040

0.0045

30 35 40 45 50 55 60

AGE

Mortality Rates - Females


We are recommending a change in the pre-retirement mortality assumption to a new mortality

table developed by the Society of Actuaries using public plan mortality experience. The new

mortality table will be 105% of the PubS.H-2010(B) Employee table for males and 70% of the

PubS.H-2010(B) Employee table for females. Mortality rates will be projected generationally

using the MP-2018 projection scale to account for future improvements in life expectancy.

The following table shows a comparison between the present pre-retirement mortality rates and

the proposed rates. The proposed rates allow for some improved mortality in the future.



35

COMPARATIVE RATES OF PRE-RETIREMENT MORTALITY

Present Proposed* Present Proposed*

20 0.0256% 0.0483% 0.0080% 0.0126%

25 0.0306 0.0567 0.0085 0.0189

30 0.0286 0.0630 0.0107 0.0259

35 0.0330 0.0714 0.0141 0.0350

40 0.0397 0.0893 0.0195 0.0483

45 0.0615 0.1218 0.0324 0.0665

50 0.1065 0.1764 0.0543 0.0917

55 0.1761 0.2594 0.0811 0.1274

60 0.2868 0.3980 0.1137 0.1757

65 0.4862 0.6353 0.1694 0.2429

AGE

RATES OF DEATH

MALES FEMALES

*Base rates

COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED PRE-RETIREMENT DEATHS

BASED ON PROPOSED RATES

30 12 17 0.706 10 12 0.833

35 16 22 0.727 15 20 0.750

40 26 25 1.040 18 26 0.692

45 38 35 1.086 34 36 0.944

50 62 47 1.319 52 48 1.083

55 73 72 1.014 87 69 1.261

60 106 99 1.071 80 75 1.067

63 & over 151 166 0.910 46 67 0.687

353 0.969TOTAL 484 483 1.002 342

CENTRAL

AGE OF

GROUP

NUMBER OF DEATHS

MALES FEMALES

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected



36


RATES OF DISABILITY RETIREMENT

COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED DISABILITY RETIREMENTS

Below 38 9 19 0.474 12 21 0.571

40 23 31 0.742 17 37 0.459

45 39 67 0.582 40 79 0.506

50 76 87 0.874 97 121 0.802

55 90 133 0.677 148 190 0.779

58 & over 132 157 0.841 144 190 0.758

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

TOTAL 369 494 0.747 458 638 0.718

CENTRAL

AGE OF

GROUP

NUMBER OF DISABILITY RETIREMENTS

MALES FEMALES

The following graphs show a comparison of the present and actual rates of disability retirements.

0.0000

0.0010

0.0020

0.0030

0.0040

0.0050

0.0060

Below 38 40 45 50 55 58 & Over

AGE

Disability Rates - Males

Actual Rate Expected Rate



37

0.0000

0.0010

0.0020

0.0030

0.0040

0.0050

0.0060

Below 38 40 45 50 55 58 & Over

AGE

Disability Rates - Females

Actual Rate Expected Rate

As can be seen from the table on the previous page, the actual rates of disability retirement are less

than expected for both males and females. The number of disabilities significantly declined for

the last two years of this study period. In the previous experience study, the actual number of

disability retirements was higher than this study. Since the disability rates were adjusted as a result

of the last experience study, we recommend no change at this time and will wait until the next

experience study to see if this pattern of fewer disability retirements continues.



38


RATES OF RETIREMENT

COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED RETIREMENTS

Retirements with less than 25 years of service

60 323 267 1.210 724 659 1.099

61 263 237 1.110 552 507 1.089

62 489 438 1.116 801 726 1.103

63 337 318 1.060 597 544 1.097

64 239 229 1.044 498 441 1.129

65 370 322 1.149 653 572 1.142

66 266 222 1.198 424 360 1.178

67 176 157 1.121 252 218 1.156

68 153 119 1.286 187 154 1.214

69 126 120 1.050 153 115 1.330

70 98 95 1.032 110 108 1.019

71 82 72 1.139 83 76 1.092

72 65 57 1.140 62 54 1.148

73 46 44 1.045 33 39 0.846

74 45 43 1.047 50 37 1.351

Subtotal 3,078 2,740 1.123 5,179 4,610 1.123

75 & Over 209 921 0.227 159 574 0.277

AGE OF

GROUP

NUMBER OF RETIREMENTS

MALES FEMALES

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

GRAND

TOTAL 3,287 3,661 0.898 5,338 5,184 1.030



39

COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED RETIREMENTS

Retirements with 25 or more years of service

Below 48 191 156 1.224 160 124 1.290

48-51 498 373 1.335 725 578 1.254

52 177 147 1.204 255 220 1.159

53 172 134 1.284 324 273 1.187

54 196 167 1.174 315 285 1.105

55 182 180 1.011 371 348 1.066

56 209 191 1.094 397 338 1.175

57 182 165 1.103 415 360 1.153

58 177 146 1.212 377 354 1.065

59 162 152 1.066 414 401 1.032

60 187 186 1.005 391 396 0.987

61 180 191 0.942 433 420 1.031

62 242 274 0.883 531 554 0.958

63 182 186 0.978 330 353 0.935

64 135 144 0.938 280 286 0.979

65 137 145 0.945 323 313 1.032

66 135 120 1.125 191 177 1.079

67 75 72 1.042 98 106 0.925

68 77 71 1.085 76 71 1.070

69 51 51 1.000 65 61 1.066

70 47 38 1.237 56 43 1.302

71 34 26 1.308 42 40 1.050

72 18 24 0.750 29 23 1.261

73 21 19 1.105 19 17 1.118

74 20 19 1.053 16 14 1.143

Subtotal 3,687 3,377 1.092 6,633 6,155 1.078

75 & Over 89 324 0.275 59 241 0.245

AGE OF

GROUP


MALES FEMALES

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

GRAND

TOTAL 3,776 3,701 1.020 6,692 6,396 1.046



40

The following graphs show a comparison of the present, actual, and proposed rates of service

retirements.

RATES OF RETIREMENT FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS

WITH LESS THAN 25 YEARS OF SERVICE

0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

0.3500

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

AGE

Retirement Rates - Svc < 25 - Males


0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

0.3500

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

AGE

Retirement Rates - Svc < 25 - Females




41

RATES OF RETIREMENT FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS

WITH 25 OR MORE YEARS OF SERVICE

0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

0.3500

0.4000

AGE

Retirement Rates - Svc >= 25 - Males


0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

0.3500

0.4000

0.4500

AGE

Retirement Rates - Svc >= 25 - Females




42

As can be seen from the previous 4 pages, the actual rates of service retirement, for both under 25

years and over 25 years are reasonably close to expected at almost all ages. However, we do

recommend a slight increase in the rates of retirement for retirements under 25 years of service

below age 73 for males and below age 70 for females. We also recommend a slight increase in

the rates of retirement at younger ages once a member reaches 25 years of service for both males

and females to better reflect experience of the System.

The following table shows a comparison between the present retirement rates and the proposed

rates.

COMPARATIVE RATES OF RETIREMENT

Present Proposed Present Proposed Present Proposed Present Proposed

45 21.75% 22.50% 17.50% 18.00%

50 14.50 15.00 12.50 13.00

55 18.25 18.25 19.00 19.00

60 10.25% 10.50% 19.50 19.50 13.00% 13.25% 22.25 22.25

62 20.25 20.75 32.00 32.00 18.75 19.00 37.50 37.50

65 24.00 25.00 29.50 29.50 28.75 29.25 42.50 42.50

70 20.00 20.00 25.00 25.00 24.00 24.00 25.50 25.50

75 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Under 25 Years of

Service

25 Years of Service

and Over

AGE

RATES OF SERVICE RETIREMENT*

FEMALESMALES

25 Years of Service

and Over

Under 25 Years of

Service

* The proposed changes shown above are used for Tier 4 service retirements as well, except

the 25 years of service is 30 years of service for these members.



43

COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED RETIREMENTS BASED ON

PROPOSED RATES

Retirements with less than 25 years of service

60 323 273 1.183 724 672 1.077

61 263 237 1.110 552 507 1.089

62 489 449 1.089 801 736 1.088

63 337 318 1.060 597 544 1.097

64 239 229 1.044 498 441 1.129

65 370 335 1.104 653 581 1.124

66 266 233 1.142 424 366 1.158

67 176 163 1.080 252 223 1.130

68 153 123 1.244 187 158 1.184

69 126 120 1.050 153 118 1.297

70 98 95 1.032 110 108 1.019

71 82 72 1.139 83 76 1.092

72 65 58 1.121 62 54 1.148

73 46 44 1.045 33 39 0.846

74 45 43 1.047 50 37 1.351

Subtotal 3,078 2,792 1.102 5,179 4,660 1.111

75 & Over 209 921 0.227 159 574 0.277

AGE OF

GROUP


MALES FEMALES

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

GRAND

TOTAL 3,287 3,713 0.885 5,338 5,234 1.020



44

COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED RETIREMENTS BASED ON

PROPOSED RATES

Retirements with 25 or more years of service

Below 48 191 161 1.186 160 127 1.260

48-51 498 386 1.290 725 601 1.206

52 177 150 1.180 255 220 1.159

53 172 134 1.284 324 273 1.187

54 196 167 1.174 315 285 1.105

55 182 181 1.006 371 348 1.066

56 209 191 1.094 397 338 1.175

57 182 165 1.103 415 360 1.153

58 177 146 1.212 377 354 1.065

59 162 152 1.066 414 401 1.032

60 187 186 1.005 391 396 0.987

61 180 191 0.942 433 420 1.031

62 242 274 0.883 531 554 0.958

63 182 186 0.978 330 353 0.935

64 135 144 0.938 280 286 0.979

65 137 145 0.945 323 313 1.032

66 135 120 1.125 191 177 1.079

67 75 72 1.042 98 106 0.925

68 77 71 1.085 76 71 1.070

69 51 51 1.000 65 61 1.066

70 47 38 1.237 56 43 1.302

71 34 26 1.308 42 40 1.050

72 18 24 0.750 29 23 1.261

73 21 19 1.105 19 17 1.118

74 20 19 1.053 16 14 1.143

Subtotal 3,687 3,399 1.085 6,633 6,181 1.073

75 & Over 89 324 0.275 59 241 0.245

AGE OF

GROUP


MALES FEMALES

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

GRAND

TOTAL 3,776 3,723 1.014 6,692 6,422 1.042



45


RATES OF POST-RETIREMENT MORTALITY

COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED CASES OF

POST-RETIREMENT DEATHS

Below 53 24 15 1.600 11 10 1.100

55 36 45 0.800 42 41 1.024

60 138 120 1.150 135 133 1.015

65 325 337 0.964 388 386 1.005

70 586 555 1.056 642 573 1.120

75 696 664 1.048 775 695 1.115

80 876 753 1.163 1,020 931 1.096

85 882 727 1.213 1,302 1,126 1.156

90 623 529 1.178 1,201 1,060 1.133

95 201 198 1.015 700 603 1.161

98 & over 45 45 1.000 231 219 1.055

Below 48 10 14 0.714 18 9 2.000

50 18 23 0.783 26 16 1.625

55 50 41 1.220 56 37 1.514

60 77 69 1.116 84 60 1.400

65 103 89 1.157 77 75 1.027

70 95 76 1.250 85 73 1.164

75 63 48 1.313 47 58 0.810

80 39 35 1.114 39 50 0.780

85 17 14 1.214 22 27 0.815

88 & over 12 9 1.333 24 21 1.143

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

SERVICE RETIREMENTS AND BENEFICIARIES

CENTRAL

AGE OF

GROUP

DISABILITY RETIREMENTS

TOTAL 4,432 3,988 1.111 6,447 5,777 1.116

NUMBER OF POST-RETIREMENT DEATHS

MALES FEMALES

TOTAL 484 418 1.158 478 426 1.122



46

The following graphs show a comparison of the present, actual and proposed rates of post-

retirement deaths.



OF DECEASED MEMBERS

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Below 48 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 98 &

Over

AGE

Non-Disabled Mortality Rates - Males

Actual Number Expected Number Proposed

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Below 48 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 98 &

Over

AGE

Non-Disabled Mortality Rates - Females




47



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

AGE

Disability Mortality Rates - Males


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

AGE

Disability Mortality Rates - Females




48

The current basis for rate of post-retirement mortality for service retirees and beneficiaries is the

static mortality table, RP-2014 Healthy Annuitant Blue Collar Mortality Table projected with

Scale BB to 2022 with male rates set forward one year and adjusted by 106% for males at all ages

and as follows for females: 90% for ages less the 76, 95% for age 76, 105% for age 78, and 110%

for ages 79 and greater. The current basis for post-retirement mortality for disability retirements

is the RP-2014 Disabled Retiree Mortality Table set forward 4 years for males and 3 years for

females.

The results of the experience analysis indicate that this table actually provides a reasonable margin

for future mortality improvements (11-12%). However, we are recommending changing from a

static mortality table to a dynamic mortality table with generational projection of future mortality

improvement. This approach is recommended by the Society of Actuaries.

In August 2018, the Society of Actuaries' Retirement Plans Experience Committee (RPEC)

released an exposure draft of the Pub-2010 Public Retirement Plans Mortality Tables. The primary

focus of this study was a comprehensive review of recent mortality experience of public retirement

plans in the United States. A total of 46 million life-years of exposure and approximately 580,000

deaths, covering 78 public sector pension plans, were used to develop the new tables. The new

mortality tables were separated into three job classifications; (1) Teachers, (2) Public Safety, and

(3) General Employees and each table was further studies by either headcount or income level.

RPEC released the final Pub-2010 report and tables are now available on the SOA website.

Since these new mortality tables are now available, we reviewed them as part of this experience

study and find that the tables provide a nice fit to the Mississippi PERS actual experience.

Therefore, for service retirees and beneficiaries, we recommend the PubS.H-2010(B) Retiree

Table with the following adjustments:

For males, 112% of male rates from ages 18 to age 75 scaled down to 105% for ages 80 to

119.

For females, 85% of the female rates from ages 18 to age 65 scaled up to 102% for ages

75 to 119.

Projection scale MP-2018 will be used to project future improvements in life expectancy

generationally.

We also recommend adoption of the PubT.H-2010 Disabled Retiree Table for disabled retirees

with the following adjustments - 137% of male rates at all ages and 115% of female rates at all

ages. Projection scale MP-2018 will be used to project future improvements in life expectancy

generationally

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__send.soa.org_link.cfm-3Fr-3DJh1uQ57lzcV35cHApCNEQQ-7E-7E-26pe-3DOtSAL7jFG9VhiSE5wb-2De32DqdTHC6U4cZeksakZ7zjG5IGnCEmov7kgBxe9-2DsRXCTK8RJR10CKP2CI7iO4ZqiA-7E-7E-26t-3DexTAh95FHwwmzSc9ePvsHg-7E-7E&d=DwMFAw&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=Ow0x-quJJjc9CpkM_OWu00bojCXfkPEp-z-3HLX97m4&m=Vtq8L_x_64JiRYFxTpOxLDvW_SeWiTCuKngfQARiGDg&s=LpIhtVscnvOjEUaiovzVtfMLccdDzsV4NxKDqW-H2qY&e=



49

The following table shows a comparison between the present and proposed base rates of mortality.

COMPARATIVE RATES OF POST-RETIREMENT MORTALITY

Present Proposed* Present Proposed*

55 0.6659% 0.6126% 0.3481% 0.2771%

60 0.9047 0.9162 0.4763 0.4633

65 1.3141 1.3451 0.7130 0.7744

70 2.0267 2.2154 1.1412 1.4231

75 3.2631 3.9267 1.8771 2.5949

80 5.3947 6.5121 3.8115 4.3381

85 9.0513 11.4986 6.4928 7.4705

90 15.8263 18.3908 11.2631 12.8999

35 1.0420% 0.7151% 0.4669% 0.4681%

40 1.5340 0.9905 0.7286 0.7234

45 1.9757 1.4988 1.0787 1.1328

50 2.2791 2.3290 1.3494 1.7066

55 2.5868 3.0524 1.5931 2.0033

60 3.0433 3.7291 1.9028 2.3460

65 3.8253 4.6443 2.4702 2.8256

70 5.0965 5.9431 3.5148 3.6237

75 7.1235 7.8378 5.2059 5.0071

80 10.4436 11.0545 7.7357 7.3922

85 15.8714 16.1318 11.3909 11.4000

90 23.1944 23.2311 16.7890 16.6658


AGE

RATES OF POST-RETIREMENT DEATH

MALES FEMALES

SERVICE RETIREMENTS & BENEFICIARIES OF DECEASED MEMBERS

* Base rates



50

The following shows a comparison of the actual and expected post-retirement deaths based on new

revised rates of mortality.

COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED CASES OF



Below 53 24 17 1.412 11 8 1.375

55 36 42 0.857 42 35 1.200

60 138 125 1.104 135 134 1.007

65 325 348 0.934 388 409 0.949

70 586 581 1.009 642 670 0.958

75 696 745 0.934 775 871 0.890

80 876 866 1.012 1,020 1,030 0.990

85 882 871 1.013 1,302 1,258 1.035

90 623 593 1.051 1,201 1,173 1.024

95 201 203 0.990 700 626 1.118

98 & over 45 44 1.023 231 220 1.050

Below 48 10 10 1.000 18 9 2.000

50 18 22 0.818 26 20 1.300

55 50 48 1.042 56 48 1.167

60 77 86 0.895 84 76 1.105

65 103 108 0.954 77 82 0.939

70 95 84 1.131 85 71 1.197

75 63 50 1.260 47 53 0.887

80 39 35 1.114 39 46 0.848

85 17 13 1.308 22 26 0.846

88 & over 12 9 1.333 24 20 1.200

MALES FEMALES

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

Actual Expected

Ratio of

Actual to

Expected

4,435 0.999 6,447 6,434 1.002



TOTAL 4,432

CENTRAL

AGE OF

GROUP

NUMBER OF POST-RETIREMENT DEATHS

465 1.041 478 451 1.060TOTAL 484



51


RATES OF SALARY INCREASE

COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED SALARIES

OF ACTIVE MEMBERS

0 $438,325 $435,508 1.006

1 1,433,050 1,451,895 0.987

2 1,291,043 1,302,815 0.991

3 1,177,806 1,180,525 0.998

4 1,032,515 1,034,596 0.998

5-9 4,692,030 4,691,833 1.000

10-14 4,070,414 4,081,800 0.997

15-19 3,334,055 3,357,439 0.993

20-24 2,437,473 2,457,036 0.992

25-29 1,297,363 1,305,103 0.994

30-34 489,844 493,613 0.992

35 & Over 254,810 257,516 0.989

$21,948,728 $22,049,679

SALARIES AT END OF YEAR ($1,000’s)

MALES AND FEMALES

Ratio of Actual

to Expected

0.995

SERVICE OF

GROUP

Actual Expected

TOTAL

Over the past four years, actual rates of salary increase have been less than expected at almost all

service breakdowns. In the economic section of this experience study report, we are

recommending the wage inflation assumption be reduced from 3.25% to 3.00% (see page 22). As

the wage inflation assumption is part of our building block approach to determining the salary

scale, the total salary scale will be reduced accordingly at all service intervals. The following table

shows a comparison between the present and proposed rates of salary increase.



52

0 18.50% 18.25%

1 8.50% 8.25%

2 6.00% 5.75%

3 5.00% 4.75%

4 4.50% 4.25%

5-7 4.00% 3.75%

8-27 3.50% 3.25%

28 and Over 3.25% 3.00%

Proposed

SERVICE OF

GROUP

SALARY INCREASE RATES

MALES AND FEMALES

Present

COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED SALARIES

OF ACTIVE MEMBERS


0 $438,325 $434,588 1.009

1 1,433,050 1,448,550 0.989

2 1,291,043 1,299,742 0.993

3 1,177,806 1,177,713 1.000

4 1,032,515 1,032,121 1.000

5-9 4,692,030 4,680,534 1.002

10-14 4,070,414 4,071,942 1.000

15-19 3,334,055 3,349,330 0.995

20-24 2,437,473 2,451,102 0.994

25-29 1,297,363 1,301,948 0.996

30-34 489,844 492,418 0.995

35 & Over 254,810 256,893 0.992

TOTAL $21,948,728 $21,996,881 0.998

SERVICE OF

GROUP

SALARIES AT END OF YEAR ($1,000’s)

MALES AND FEMALES

Actual ExpectedRatio of Actual

to Expected



53


OTHER ASSUMPTIONS

DEFERRED VESTEDS: Currently, the valuation assumes 60% of participants that leave the

System as deferred vested will receive a deferred benefit upon attaining the eligibility requirements

for retirement. During this investigation period, the plan experienced an estimated 62%

assumption. Therefore, we recommend no change at this time.

DEATH ASSUMPTION: Currently, it is assumed that 6% of active member deaths are in the

line of duty and 94% of active member deaths are not in the line of duty. During this experience

investigation period, about 3.7% of active deaths each year were in the line of duty. In the previous

experience study, the rate was 5.7%. We will review this carefully in the next experience study

but for now, we recommend no change in this assumption at this time.

DISABILITY ASSUMPTION: Currently, it is assumed that 7% of active member disabilities

are in the line of duty and 93% of active member disabilities are not in the line of duty. During

the experience investigation period, an average of about 11% of disabilities each year were in the

line of duty. During the last experience study, the average for the period was 9%. Therefore, we

recommend that the assumption be increased so that 9% of active member disabilities are

assumed to be in the line of duty and 91% of active member disabilities are assumed to be

not in the line of duty.

PERCENT MARRIED: Currently, 85% of active members are assumed to be married and elect

a joint & survivor payment form. We are not provided with marital status on the census data.

However, we believe the current assumption is fairly conservative and recommend no change

at this time.

SPOUSE AGE DIFFERENCE: Currently, for married members, it is assumed a male is three

years older than his spouse. We have reviewed this assumption and recommend no change at

this time.

UNUSED LEAVE: Currently, we assume that participants will have on average 0.50 years of

unused leave (sick and personal) at retirement. We reviewed this assumption for those participants

who retired during this four year period and the average number of years of unused leave was 0.64

years. We recommend no change at this time.



54

FINAL AVERAGE COMPENSATION: We compared the actual final average compensation

used to determine retiree benefits with the compensation predicted by our pension software. Based

on our findings, we recommend a 0.25% load on the final average compensation produced by

our valuation software.

MILITARY SERVICE: Currently, we assume that participants will have on average 0.25 years

of military service at retirement. We reviewed this assumption for those participants who retired

during this four year period and the average number of years of military service was 0.23 years.

Therefore, we recommend no change at this time.

ASSUMED INTEREST RATE ON EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS: 2.00%

OTHER ASSUMPTION LOADS: Varying loads for pre-retirement dependent children option

and for disability dependent children options.

OPTION FACTORS: The option factors, currently in use by all of the Retirement Systems, are

based on the mortality table and investment rate of return (discount rate) used in the valuation.

We recommend that the factors be revised to be based on the proposed mortality table and

the investment rate of return recommended for the valuation.

Section V – HSPRS Summary of Results


55

HIGHWAY SAFETY PATROL RETIREMENT SYSTEM

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Over the period of this investigation, we have noted the following observations:

There were 37 actual withdrawals versus 34 expected withdrawals over the four year period

of this investigation. In the prior investigation, the number of actual withdrawals was

higher than the number of expected withdrawals and the rates of withdrawal were

increased. At this time, we recommend no change in the rates of withdrawal.

There were 48 actual retirements versus 57 expected retirements over the four-year period

of this investigation. There are numerous members eligible to retire that we expect to retire

in the next few years. Therefore, we do not recommend a change in the retirement

decrements.

There was one death while in active service over the four-year period of this investigation

and there were two deaths in the prior study. We recommend updating the mortality

assumption to be consistent with our change to PERS.

There was one disability retirements over the four-year period of this investigation

compared to none in the prior study. The rates of disability were decreased in the prior

study. We recommend no change in the rates of disability at this time.

Actual rates of salary increase were higher than expected over the four year period but this

was mainly due to the negotiated increase by the System and the State during this study

period. Since we recommend lowering the wage inflation assumption from 3.25% to

3.00%, total expected salary increases will be one-quarter percent lower.

Section V – HSPRS Summary of Results


56

As mentioned in the PERS section of this report, we recommend that the rates of mortality

for service retirements be revised to match the PERS mortality table, the PubS.H-2010(B)

Retiree Table with the following adjustments. For males, 112% of male rates from age 18

– 75 scaled down to 105% for ages 80 – 119. For females, 85% of the female rates from

age 18 – 65 scaled up to 102% from ages 75 – 119. Projection scale MP-2018 will be used

to project future improvements in life expectancy generationally. In addition, we

recommend that the rates of mortality for disability retirements be revised to the PubT.H-

2010 Disabled Retiree Table for disabled retirees with the following adjustments - 137%

of male rates at all ages and 115% of female rates at all ages. Projection scale MP-2018

will be used to project future improvements in life expectancy generationally. We

recommend each of the Systems have the same mortality table.

Section VI – SLRP Summary of Results


57

SUPPLEMENTAL LEGISLATIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Over the period of this investigation, we have noted the following observations:

We have reviewed the withdrawal rates for both non-election years and election years. The

number of withdrawals during non-election years (1% of exposed) was not enough to

warrant adding withdrawal rates during these years. The actual number of withdrawals

during the election year was very close to the expected withdrawals (15 vs. 18). We

recommend no change in the rates of withdrawal.

We also reviewed the service retirements rates for both non-election years and election

years. The number of service retirements during non-election years (3% of exposed) was

not enough to warrant adding rates during those years. The actual number of service

retirements during the election year was very close to expected (25 vs. 27). Therefore, we

recommend no change in the retirement rates.

There were 2 deaths while in active service over the four-year period of this investigation

compared with 2 expected. We recommend updating the mortality assumption to be

consistent with our change to PERS.

There were no disability retirements over the four-year period of this investigation which

is close to what was expected. Therefore, we recommend no change at this time.

Actual salary increases were about 97% of what was expected. In conjunction with the

recommended decrease in the wage inflation assumption, we recommend that the salary

scale be reduced to 3.00% for all ages.


for service retirements be revised to match the PERS mortality table, the PubS.H-2010(B)

Section VI – SLRP Summary of Results


58

Retiree Table with the following adjustments. For males, 112% of male rates from age 18

– 75 scaled down to 105% for ages 80 – 119. For females, 85% of the female rates from

age 18 – 65 scaled up to 102% from ages 75 – 119. Projection scale MP-2018 will be used

to project future improvements in life expectancy generationally. In addition, we

recommend that the rates of mortality for disability retirements be revised to the PubT.H-

2010 Disabled Retiree Table for disabled retirees with the following adjustments - 137%

of male rates at all ages and 115% of female rates at all ages. Projection scale MP-2018

will be used to project future improvements in life expectancy generationally. We

recommend each of the Systems have the same mortality table.

Section VII – MRS Summary of Results


59

MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT SYSTEMS

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Since this is a closed System with very few actives remaining, we have not investigated the active

decrements, but have concentrated on the post-retirement mortality experience. Over the period

of this investigation, we have found the following observations:


for service retirements be revised be revised to match the PERS mortality table, the

PubS.H-2010(B) Retiree Table with the following adjustments. For males, 112% of male

rates from age 18 – 75 scaled down to 105% for ages 80 – 119. For females, 85% of the

female rates from age 18 – 65 scaled up to 102% from ages 75 – 119. Projection scale MP-

2018 will be used to project future improvements in life expectancy generationally. In

addition, we recommend that the rates of mortality for disability retirements be revised to

the PubT.H-2010 Disabled Retiree Table for disabled retirees with the following

adjustments - 137% of male rates at all ages and 115% of female rates at all ages.

Projection scale MP-2018 will be used to project future improvements in life expectancy

generationally. We recommend each of the Systems have the same mortality table.

Appendix A – Historical June CPI (U) Index


60

Year CPI (U) Year CPI (U)

1961 29.8 1990 129.9

1962 30.2 1991 136.0

1963 30.6 1992 140.2

1964 31.0 1993 144.4

1965 31.6 1994 148.0

1966 32.4 1995 152.5

1967 33.3 1996 156.7

1968 35.7 1997 160.3

1969 34.7 1998 163.0

1970 38.8 1999 166.2

1971 40.6 2000 172.4

1972 41.7 2001 178.0

1973 44.2 2002 179.9

1974 49.0 2003 183.7

1975 53.6 2004 189.7

1976 56.8 2005 194.5

1977 60.7 2006 202.9

1978 65.2 2007 208.352

1979 72.3 2008 218.815

1980 82.7 2009 215.693

1981 90.6 2010 217.965

1982 97.0 2011 225.722

1983 99.5 2012 229.478

1984 103.7 2013 233.504

1985 107.6 2014 238.343

1986 109.5 2015 238.638

1987 113.5 2016 241.018

1988 118.0 2017 244.955

1989 124.1 2018 251.989

Appendix B – Capital Market Assumptions and Asset Allocation


61

Callan’s Capital Market Assumptions and

PERS’ Board of Trustees Asset Allocation

Geometric Real Rates of Return and Standard Deviations by Asset Class

Asset Class Expected Real

Rate of Return Standard Deviation

Domestic Equity 4.90% 18.00%

International Equity 4.75 19.75

Global Equity 5.00 21.10

Fixed Income 1.50 3.75

Real Estate 4.00 15.70

Private Equity 6.25 29.30

Cash Equivalents 0.25 0.90

Asset Allocation Targets

Asset Class Asset Allocation

Domestic Equity 27.00%

International Equity 22.00

Global Equity 12.00

Fixed Income 20.00

Real Estate 10.00

Private Equity 8.00

Cash Equivalents 1.00

Appendix C – Social Security Administration Wage Index


62

Year Wage Index Annual

Increase Year Wage Index

Annual

Increase

1960 $4,007.12 3.92% 1989 $20,099.55 3.96%

1961 4,086.76 1.99 1990 21,027.98 4.62

1962 4,291.40 5.01 1991 21,811.60 3.73

1963 4,396.64 2.45 1992 22,935.42 5.15

1964 4,576.32 4.09 1993 23,132.67 0.86

1965 4,658.72 1.80 1994 23,753.53 2.68

1966 4,938.36 6.00 1995 24,705.66 4.01

1967 5,213.44 5.57 1996 25,913.90 4.89

1968 5,571.76 6.87 1997 27,426.00 5.84

1969 5,893.76 5.78 1998 28,861.44 5.23

1970 6,186.24 4.96 1999 30,469.84 5.57

1971 6,497.08 5.02 2000 32,154.82 5.53

1972 7,133.80 9.80 2001 32,921.92 2.39

1973 7,580.16 6.26 2002 33,252.09 1.00

1974 8,030.76 5.94 2003 34,064.95 2.44

1975 8,630.92 7.47 2004 35,648.55 4.65

1976 9,226.48 6.90 2005 36,952.94 3.66

1977 9,779.44 5.99 2006 38,651.41 4.60

1978 10,556.03 7.94 2007 40,405.48 4.54

1979 11,479.46 8.75 2008 41,334.97 2.30

1980 12,513.46 9.01 2009 40,711.61 -1.51

1981 13,773.10 10.07 2010 41,673.83 2.36

1982 14,531.34 5.51 2011 42,979.61 3.13

1983 15,239.24 4.87 2012 44,321.67 3.12

1984 16,135.07 5.88 2013 44,888.16 1.28

1985 16,822.51 4.26 2014 46,481.52 3.55

1986 17,321.82 2.97 2015 48,098.63 3.48

1987 18,426.51 6.38 2016 48,642.15 1.13

1988 19,334.04 4.93 2017 50,321.89 3.45

Appendix D – Recommended Rates


63

TABLE 1


RATES OF SEPARATION FROM ACTIVE SERVICE – MALES

AGE

ULTIMATE RATES

OF WITHDRAWAL*

RATES

OF

DEATH**

RATES

OF

DISABILITY

RATES OF RETIREMENT

LESS THAN 25 YRS

OF SERVICE***

25 OR MORE YEARS

OF SERVICE***

20

21 22

23

24 25

26

27 28

29

30 31

32

33 34

35

36 37

38

39 40

41

42 43

44

45 46

47

48 49

50 51

52

53 54

55

56 57

58

59 60

61

62 63

64

65 66

67

68 69

70

71 72

73

74 75

0.2650

0.2650 0.2650

0.2425

0.2225 0.1850

0.1715

0.1580 0.1445

0.1310

0.1175 0.1110

0.1045

0.0980 0.0915

0.0850

0.0815 0.0780

0.0745

0.0710 0.0675

0.0665

0.0655 0.0645

0.0635

0.0625 0.0625

0.0625

0.0625 0.0625

0.0625 0.0625

0.0625

0.0625 0.0625

0.0625

0.0625 0.0625

0.0625

0.0625 0.0625

0.0625

0.0625 0.0625

0.0625

0.0625 0.0625

0.0625

0.0625 0.0625

0.0625

0.0625 0.0625

0.0625

0.0625 0.0000

0.000483

0.000515 0.000536

0.000546

0.000557 0.000567

0.000578

0.000588 0.000609

0.000620

0.000630 0.000651

0.000662

0.000683 0.000693

0.000714

0.000746 0.000767

0.000809

0.000840 0.000893

0.000935

0.000998 0.001061

0.001134

0.001218 0.001302

0.001407

0.001512 0.001638

0.001764 0.001901

0.002058

0.002216 0.002394

0.002594

0.002804 0.003045

0.003329

0.003633 0.003980

0.004358

0.004788 0.005261

0.005775

0.006353 0.007172

0.008096

0.009146 0.010322

0.011655

0.013157 0.014858

0.016779

0.018942 0.021389

0.00010

0.00010 0.00011

0.00011

0.00011 0.00012

0.00014

0.00016 0.00017

0.00017

0.00017 0.00020

0.00025

0.00030 0.00034

0.00036

0.00051 0.00066

0.00081

0.00096 0.00110

0.00134

0.00158 0.00182

0.00206

0.00230 0.00242

0.00254

0.00266 0.00278

0.00290 0.00332

0.00374

0.00416 0.00458

0.00500

0.00506 0.00512

0.00518

0.00524 0.00530

0.00530

0.00530 0.00530

0.00530

0.00200 0.00200

0.00200

0.00200 0.00200

0.00200

0.00200 0.00200

0.00200

0.00200 0.00000

0.1050

0.1000

0.2075 0.1800

0.1525

0.2500 0.2250

0.1950

0.1700 0.2050

0.2000

0.1850 0.1925

0.1675

0.1900 1.0000

0.2250

0.2250

0.2250 0.2250

0.2250

0.2250 0.2250

0.2250

0.1500 0.1500

0.1500 0.1500

0.1600

0.1300 0.1600

0.1825

0.1925 0.1725

0.1525

0.1575 0.1950

0.2100

0.3200 0.2600

0.2475

0.2950 0.3175

0.2450

0.2625 0.2600

0.2500

0.2250 0.2225

0.1875

0.2175 1.0000

*For all ages, rates of 33.50% for the first year of employment and 24.00% for the second year of employment.

** Base rates

***For Tier 4 members, 30 years of service.



64

TABLE 2


RATES OF SEPARATION FROM ACTIVE SERVICE – FEMALES

AGE

ULTIMATE RATES

OF WITHDRAWAL*

RATES

OF

DEATH**

RATES

OF

DISABILITY

RATES OF RETIREMENT

LESS THAN 25 YRS

OF SERVICE***

25 OR MORE YEARS

OF SERVICE***

20 21

22

23 24

25

26 27

28

29 30

31

32 33

34 35

36

37 38

39

40 41

42

43 44

45

46 47

48

49 50

51

52 53

54

55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63

64 65

66

67 68

69

70 71

72

73 74

75

0.3250 0.3250

0.3250

0.2850 0.2350

0.1850

0.1800 0.1700

0.1570

0.1440 0.1200

0.1135

0.1070 0.1005

0.0940 0.0875

0.0840

0.0805 0.0770

0.0735

0.0700 0.0680

0.0660

0.0640 0.0620

0.0600

0.0600 0.0600

0.0600

0.0600 0.0600

0.0600

0.0600 0.0600

0.0600

0.0600 0.0600

0.0600

0.0600 0.0600

0.0600

0.0600 0.0600

0.0600

0.0600 0.0600

0.0600

0.0600 0.0600

0.0600

0.0600 0.0600

0.0600

0.0600 0.0600

0.0000

0.000126 0.000140

0.000154

0.000161 0.000175

0.000189

0.000203 0.000210

0.000224

0.000238 0.000259

0.000273

0.000287 0.000308

0.000329 0.000350

0.000371

0.000399 0.000420

0.000448

0.000483 0.000511

0.000546

0.000581 0.000623

0.000665

0.000707 0.000756

0.000805

0.000861 0.000917

0.000980

0.001043 0.001113

0.001190

0.001274 0.001358

0.001449

0.001540 0.001645

0.001757

0.001876 0.002002

0.002135

0.002275 0.002429

0.002779

0.003171 0.003626

0.004144

0.004739 0.005418

0.006195

0.007077 0.008092

0.009247

0.00009 0.00009

0.00009

0.00009 0.00009

0.00011

0.00011 0.00014

0.00014

0.00014 0.00014

0.00015

0.00015 0.00016

0.00017 0.00017

0.00028

0.00039 0.00050

0.00061

0.00070 0.00084

0.00098

0.00112 0.00126

0.00140

0.00156 0.00172

0.00188

0.00204 0.00220

0.00252

0.00284 0.00316

0.00348

0.00380 0.00384

0.00388

0.00392 0.00396

0.00410

0.00410 0.00410

0.00410

0.00410 0.00150

0.00150

0.00150 0.00150

0.00150

0.00150 0.00150

0.00150

0.00150 0.00150

0.00000

0.1325

0.1150 0.1900

0.1800

0.1800 0.2925

0.2700

0.2300 0.2000

0.2000

0.2400 0.2225

0.2075

0.1975 0.2050

1.0000

0.1800 0.1800

0.1800

0.1800 0.1800

0.1800

0.1800 0.1800

0.1300

0.1300 0.1300

0.1300

0.1425 0.1600

0.1600

0.1900 0.1825

0.1925

0.1900 0.2175

0.2225

0.2550 0.3750

0.3200

0.3200 0.4250

0.3850

0.3450 0.2825

0.2850

0.2550 0.3125

0.2375

0.2200 0.2150

1.0000

*For all ages, rates of 33.50% for the first year of employment and 24.00% for the second year of employment.**Base Rates

***For Tier 4 members, 30 years of service.



65

TABLE 3

HIGHWAY SAFETY PATROL RETIREMENT SYSTEM

RATES OF SEPARATION FROM ACTIVE SERVICE

AGE

RATES OF

WITHDRAWAL

RATES OF

DEATH*

MALES

RATES OF

DEATH*

FEMALES

RATES OF

DISABILITY SERVICE

RATES OF

RETIREMENT**

20

21

22 23

24

25 26

27

28 29

30

31 32

33 34

35

36 37

38

39 40

41

42 43

44

45 46

47

48 49

50

51 52

53

54 55

56

57 58

59

60 61

0.080

0.080

0.080 0.072

0.064

0.056 0.048

0.046

0.044 0.042

0.040

0.038 0.036

0.034 0.032

0.030

0.028 0.026

0.024

0.022 0.020

0.018

0.016 0.014

0.012

0.010 0.010

0.010

0.010 0.010

0.010

0.010 0.010

0.010

0.010 0.000

0.000

0.000 0.000

0.000

0.000 0.000

0.000483

0.000515

0.000536 0.000546

0.000557

0.000567 0.000578

0.000588

0.000609 0.000620

0.000630

0.000651 0.000662

0.000683 0.000693

0.000714

0.000746 0.000767

0.000809

0.000840 0.000893

0.000935

0.000998 0.001061

0.001134

0.001218 0.001302

0.001407

0.001512 0.001638

0.001764

0.001901 0.002058

0.002216

0.002394 0.002594

0.002804

0.003045 0.003329

0.003633

0.003980 0.004358

0.000126

0.000140

0.000154 0.000161

0.000175

0.000189 0.000203

0.000210

0.000224 0.000238

0.000259

0.000273 0.000287

0.000308 0.000329

0.000350

0.000371 0.000399

0.000420

0.000448 0.000483

0.000511

0.000546 0.000581

0.000623

0.000665 0.000707

0.000756

0.000805 0.000861

0.000917

0.000980 0.001043

0.001113

0.001190 0.001274

0.001358

0.001449 0.001540

0.001645

0.001757 0.001876

0.000675

0.000675

0.000675 0.000765

0.000765

0.000765 0.000765

0.000900

0.000900 0.000945

0.001035

0.001080 0.001215

0.001350 0.001395

0.001530

0.001575 0.001710

0.001800

0.001890 0.002025

0.002115

0.002295 0.002385

0.002565

0.002700 0.002970

0.003240

0.003465 0.003825

0.004140

0.004545 0.005040

0.005625

0.006165 0.006975

0.008010

0.009000 0.010170

0.011655

0.011655 0.000000

0

1

2 3

4

5 6

7

8 9

10

11 12

13 14

15

16 17

18

19 20

21

22 23

24

25 26

27

28 29

30

31 32

33

34 35

36

37 38

39

40+

0.00

0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00

0.05 0.05

0.05

0.05 0.05

0.05

0.05 0.05

0.05 0.05

0.05

0.05 0.05

0.05

0.05 0.05

0.05

0.05 0.05

0.05

0.01 0.15

0.20

0.25 0.25

0.25

0.25 0.25

0.25

0.25 0.25

0.35

0.50 0.75

0.75

1.00

*Base Rates

**The annual rate of service retirement is 100% at age 61.



66

TABLE 4

SUPPLEMENTAL LEGISLATIVE RETIREMENT SYSTEM


BASE RATES OF DEATH RATES OF

AGE MALES FEMALES DISABILITY

20 21

22

23

24

25

26

27 28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35 36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43 44

45

46

47

48

49

50 51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66 67

68

69

70

71

72

73 74

75

76

77

78

79

80

0.000483 0.000515

0.000536

0.000546

0.000557

0.000567

0.000578

0.000588 0.000609

0.000620

0.000630

0.000651

0.000662

0.000683

0.000693

0.000714 0.000746

0.000767

0.000809

0.000840

0.000893

0.000935

0.000998

0.001061 0.001134

0.001218

0.001302

0.001407

0.001512

0.001638

0.001764 0.001901

0.002058

0.002216

0.002394

0.002594

0.002804

0.003045

0.003329 0.003633

0.003980

0.004358

0.004788

0.005261

0.005775

0.006353

0.007172 0.008096

0.009146

0.010322

0.011655

0.013157

0.014858

0.016779 0.018942

0.021389

0.024150

0.027258

0.030776

0.034755

0.039239

0.000126 0.000140

0.000154

0.000161

0.000175

0.000189

0.000203

0.000210 0.000224

0.000238

0.000259

0.000273

0.000287

0.000308

0.000329

0.000350 0.000371

0.000399

0.000420

0.000448

0.000483

0.000511

0.000546

0.000581 0.000623

0.000665

0.000707

0.000756

0.000805

0.000861

0.000917 0.000980

0.001043

0.001113

0.001190

0.001274

0.001358

0.001449

0.001540 0.001645

0.001757

0.001876

0.002002

0.002135

0.002275

0.002429

0.002779 0.003171

0.003626

0.004144

0.004739

0.005418

0.006195

0.007077 0.008092

0.009247

0.010570

0.012082

0.013811

0.015785

0.018046

0.0004 0.0004

0.0005

0.0005

0.0005

0.0005

0.0006

0.0006 0.0007

0.0007

0.0007

0.0008

0.0009

0.0010

0.0011

0.0011 0.0012

0.0013

0.0014

0.0016

0.0017

0.0018

0.0019

0.0021 0.0022

0.0023

0.0025

0.0026

0.0027

0.0028

0.0030 0.0031

0.0032

0.0033

0.0034

0.0035

0.0036

0.0037

0.0038 0.0039

0.0040

0.0041

0.0042

0.0044

0.0045

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Withdrawal and Vesting: 20% in an election year, none in a non-election year.

Service Retirement: 30% in an election year, none in a non-election year. All members assumed to retire no later than age 80.



67

TABLE 5

MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM


AGE

RATES OF

WITHDRAWAL

RATES

OF

DEATH

RATES

OF

DISABILITY*

RATES OF RETIREMENT

SERVICE RATE**

20

21 22

23

24 25

26

27

28

29

30 31

32

33 34

35 36

37

38 39

40

41 42

43

44 45

46

47 48

49

50 51

52

53 54

55

56 57

58

59 60

61

62 63

64

65

0.10650

0.10248 0.09846

0.09444

0.09042 0.08640

0.08286

0.07932

0.07578

0.07224

0.06870 0.06468

0.06066

0.05664 0.05262

0.04860 0.04482

0.04104

0.03726 0.03348

0.02970

0.02664 0.02358

0.02052

0.01746 0.01440

0.01200

0.00960 0.00720

0.00480

0.00240 0.00000

0.00060

0.00064 0.00068

0.00072

0.00076 0.00080

0.00088

0.00096

0.00104

0.00112

0.00120 0.00128

0.00136

0.00144 0.00152

0.00160 0.00172

0.00184

0.00196 0.00208

0.00220

0.00238 0.00256

0.00274

0.00292 0.00310

0.00344

0.00378 0.00412

0.00446

0.00480 0.00512

0.00544

0.00576 0.00608

0.00640

0.00678 0.00716

0.00754

0.00792 0.00830

0.00870

0.00910 0.00950

0.00990

0.00000

0.00140

0.00160 0.00180

0.00200

0.00220 0.00240

0.00280

0.00320

0.00360

0.00400

0.00440 0.00504

0.00568

0.00632 0.00696

0.00760 0.00800

0.00840

0.00880 0.00920

0.00960

0.01004 0.01048

0.01092

0.01136 0.01180

0.01340

0.01500 0.01660

0.01820

0.01980 0.02136

0.02292

0.02448 0.02604

0.02760

0.02908 0.03056

0.03204

0.03352 0.03500

0.03685

0.03870 0.04055

0.04240

0.00000

20

21 22

23

24 25

26

27

28

29

30 31

32

33 34

35+

0.450

0.175 0.175

0.175

0.175 0.175

0.175

0.175

0.175

0.350

0.350 0.350

0.350

0.350 0.200

0.200

* No rates of disability for greater than 20 years of service.

**The annual rate of service retirement is 100% at age 65.



68

TABLE 6

RATES OF ANTICIPATED SALARY INCREASES*

(For Both Males and Females)

SERVICE PERS AGE HSPRS SLRP MRS

0

1 2

3

4 5

6

7 8

9

10 11

12

13 14

15

16 17

18

19 20

21

22 23

24

25 26

27

28 29

30

31

32

33

34 35

36

37 38

39

40

0.1825

0.0825 0.0575

0.0475

0.0425 0.0375

0.0375

0.0375 0.0325

0.0325

0.0325 0.0325

0.0325

0.0325 0.0325

0.0325

0.0325 0.0325

0.0325

0.0325 0.0325

0.0325

0.0325 0.0325

0.0325

0.0325 0.0325

0.0325

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300

0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300

20

21 22

23

24 25

26

27 28

29

30 31

32

33 34

35

36 37

38

39 40

41

42 43

44

45 46

47

48 49

50

51

52

53

54 55

56

57 58

59

60 61

62

63 64

65 66

67

68 69

70

71 72

73

74 75

0.08564

0.08180 0.06780

0.06380

0.05948 0.05309

0.04990

0.04891 0.04493

0.04493

0.04493 0.04493

0.04493

0.04493 0.04493

0.04493

0.04493 0.04493

0.04493

0.04493 0.04493

0.04493

0.04493 0.03995

0.03995

0.03995 0.03995

0.03995

0.03498 0.03498

0.03498

0.03498

0.03498

0.03498

0.03498 0.03498

0.03498

0.03498 0.03498

0.03498

0.03000 0.03000

0.03000

0.03000 0.03000

0.03000 0.03000

0.03000

0.03000 0.03000

0.03000

0.03000 0.03000

0.03000

0.03000 0.03000

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300

0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0450

0.0450 0.0450

0.0450

0.0450 0.0450

0.0450

0.0450 0.0450

0.0450

0.0450 0.0450

0.0450

0.0450 0.0450

0.0450

0.0450 0.0450

0.0450

0.0450 0.0450

0.0450

0.0450 0.0400

0.0400

0.0400 0.0400

0.0400

0.0350 0.0350

0.0350

0.0350

0.0350

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

0.0300

0.0300 0.0300

* Includes wage inflation of 3.00%



69

TABLE 7

ALL SYSTEMS

BASE RATES OF MORTALITY FOR MEMBERS RETIRED ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE

AND BENEFICIARIES OF DECEASED MEMBERS

AGE MALES FEMALES AGE MALES FEMALES

19 20

21

22 23

24

25 26

27

28 29

30

31 32

33 34

35

36 37

38

39 40

41

42 43

44

45 46

47

48 49

50

51 52

53

54 55

56

57 58

59

60 61

62

63 64

65

66 67

68

69 70

0.000482 0.000515

0.000549

0.000571 0.000582

0.000594

0.000605 0.000616

0.000627

0.000650 0.000661

0.000672

0.000694 0.000706

0.000728 0.000739

0.000762

0.000795 0.000818

0.000862

0.000896 0.000952

0.000997

0.001064 0.001131

0.001210

0.003517 0.003797

0.004077

0.004368 0.004659

0.004939

0.005174 0.005398

0.005611

0.005835 0.006126

0.006485

0.006978 0.007605

0.008333

0.009162 0.010046

0.010920

0.011771 0.012600

0.013451

0.014661 0.016072

0.017763

0.019790 0.022154

0.000136 0.000153

0.000170

0.000187 0.000196

0.000213

0.000230 0.000247

0.000255

0.000272 0.000289

0.000315

0.000332 0.000349

0.000374 0.000400

0.000425

0.000451 0.000485

0.000510

0.000544 0.000587

0.000621

0.000663 0.000706

0.000757

0.000995 0.001097

0.001216

0.001352 0.001496

0.001658

0.001836 0.002040

0.002253

0.002499 0.002771

0.003069

0.003400 0.003774

0.004182

0.004633 0.005134

0.005687

0.006307 0.006987

0.007744

0.008748 0.009883

0.011163

0.012613 0.014231

71 72

73

74 75

76

77 78

79

80 81

82

83 84

85 86

87

88 89

90

91 92

93

94 95

96

97 98

99

100 101

102

103 104

105

106 107

108

109 110

111

112 113

114

115 116

117

118 119

120

0.024875 0.027966

0.031394

0.035134 0.039267

0.043311

0.047808 0.052854

0.058605

0.065121 0.073385

0.082593

0.092684 0.103530

0.114986 0.127061

0.139839

0.153447 0.168063

0.183908

0.200057 0.216027

0.231672

0.247107 0.262616

0.278586

0.295386 0.313310

0.332462

0.352706 0.373559

0.394076

0.414120 0.433545

0.452225

0.470064 0.486980

0.502908

0.517829 0.525000

0.525000

0.525000 0.525000

0.525000

0.525000 0.525000

0.525000

0.525000 0.525000

1.000000

0.016060 0.018111

0.020430

0.023029 0.025949

0.028764

0.031875 0.035323

0.039137

0.043381 0.048256

0.053825

0.060037 0.066973

0.074705 0.083324

0.092942

0.103673 0.115648

0.128999

0.142871 0.156805

0.170697

0.186568 0.203286

0.220820

0.239261 0.258692

0.279062

0.300247 0.321932

0.343638

0.365160 0.386305

0.406898

0.426778 0.445801

0.463865

0.480879 0.496791

0.510000

0.510000 0.510000

0.510000

0.510000 0.510000

0.510000

0.510000 0.510000

1.000000



70

TABLE 8

ALL SYSTEMS

BASE RATES OF MORTALITY FOR MEMBERS RETIRED ON ACCOUNT OF DISABILITY

AGE MALES FEMALES AGE MALES FEMALES

19 20

21

22 23

24

25 26

27

28 29

30

31 32

33 34

35

36 37

38

39 40

41

42 43

44

45 46

47

48 49

50

51 52

53

54 55

56

57 58

59

60 61

62

63 64

65

66 67

68

69 70

0.005768 0.005644

0.005288

0.004905 0.004617

0.004411

0.004357 0.004576

0.004795

0.005028 0.005288

0.005549

0.005823 0.006110

0.006425 0.006768

0.007151

0.007562 0.008042

0.008590

0.009206 0.009905

0.010700

0.011590 0.012590

0.013727

0.014988 0.016385

0.017920

0.019591 0.021386

0.023290

0.024701 0.026140

0.027606

0.029071 0.030524

0.031948

0.033305 0.034620

0.035935

0.037291 0.038757

0.040388

0.042210 0.044237

0.046443

0.048799 0.051279

0.053868

0.056567 0.059431

0.002818 0.002680

0.002473

0.002231 0.002047

0.001990

0.002036 0.002208

0.002404

0.002622 0.002852

0.003105

0.003370 0.003657

0.003968 0.004313

0.004681

0.005095 0.005532

0.006026

0.006601 0.007234

0.007924

0.008671 0.009488

0.010373

0.011328 0.012340

0.013421

0.014571 0.015790

0.017066

0.017653 0.018251

0.018860

0.019458 0.020033

0.020654

0.021321 0.022000

0.022713

0.023460 0.024265

0.025128

0.026082 0.027117

0.028256

0.029521 0.030935

0.032511

0.034270 0.036237

71 72

73

74 75

76

77 78

79

80 81

82

83 84

85 86

87

88 89

90

91 92

93

94 95

96

97 98

99

100 101

102

103 104

105

106 107

108

109 110

111

112 113

114

115 116

117

118 119

120

0.062513 0.065883

0.069596

0.073747 0.078378

0.083543

0.089283 0.095653

0.102723

0.110545 0.119135

0.128520

0.138699 0.149645

0.161318 0.173730

0.186950

0.201061 0.216145

0.232311

0.249641 0.269945

0.291632

0.313538 0.335842

0.358789

0.382614 0.407479

0.433400

0.460197 0.487405

0.514175

0.540328 0.565673

0.590045

0.613322 0.635392

0.656175

0.675643 0.685000

0.685000

0.685000 0.685000

0.685000

0.685000 0.685000

0.685000

0.685000 0.685000

1.000000

0.038433 0.040894

0.043620

0.046667 0.050071

0.053866

0.058087 0.062802

0.068057

0.073922 0.080420

0.087630

0.095600 0.104363

0.114000 0.124097

0.134447

0.144946 0.155641

0.166658

0.178193 0.190475

0.203757

0.218282 0.234290

0.251908

0.271239 0.292250

0.314778

0.338514 0.362963

0.387435

0.411700 0.435540

0.458758

0.481172 0.502619

0.522986

0.542168 0.560108

0.575000

0.575000 0.575000

0.575000

0.575000 0.575000

0.575000

0.575000 0.575000

1.000000

Cavanaugh Macdonald C O N S U L T I N G, L L C

The experience and dedication you deserve

Mississippi Retirement Systems

April 23, 2019

Experience Investigation for the

Four-Year Period Ending June 30, 2018

➢ Best estimate of ultimate costs

➢ Requires use of assumptions to estimate benefit payouts

▪ When?

▪ How much?

▪ How long?

➢ Assumptions should represent the best estimate of

future experience

➢ Each assumption should be individually reasonable

Actuarial Valuations

2

➢ No “correct” assumptions

▪ Blend of art and science

▪ Range of acceptable assumptions

➢ More aggressive assumptions are more likely to generate actuarial

losses in future years; more conservative are likely to generate

actuarial gains

➢ Assumptions are long term estimates

▪ Experience emerges short term

▪ Year to year fluctuations expected

➢ Most powerful assumption is the investment return assumption

➢ Ultimate responsibility for selection of assumptions lies with the

Board of Trustees

Actuarial Assumptions

3

Selection of Assumptions

4

What

Economic

➢ Investment Return

➢Payroll Growth Rate

➢ Inflation

Who➢Mostly Board

Demographic

➢Retirement Rates

➢Promotional/Step

➢Pay Increases

➢Disability

➢Turnover

➢Mortality

➢Mostly Actuary

➢ Do Not Overreact

▪ Typically, we do not make significant changes in actuarial

assumptions unless a major event causes changes in

expectations.

➢ Anticipate Trends▪ If an identified trend is expected to continue, like retiree

mortality experience, then our assumptions should reflect these

anticipated trends.

➢ Simplify▪ We identify which factors are significant and eliminate the

ones that will not have a material impact on results.

Our Philosophy

5

➢ Actuarial Cost Method

▪ Recommend no change in the Entry Age Normal Cost Method

for All Plans.

➢ Actuarial Smoothing of Assets▪ Recommend no change in 5-year smoothing of market value

gains and losses.

➢ Amortization of Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL)▪ Recommend no change in Level Percent of Payroll

Amortization Payment Method

▪ Recommend no change in separate bases and amortization

periods for calculation of Actuarially Determined Employer

Contribution (ADEC)

Actuarial Methods

6

➢ Assumptions Reviewed

▪ Rates of Withdrawal

▪ Rates of Disability Retirement

▪ Rates of Service Retirement

▪ Post-Retirement Mortality

▪ Pre-Retirement Mortality

▪ Rates of Salary Increase

➢ Actuarial Standard of Practice (ASOP) No. 35, “Selection of

Demographic and Other Noneconomic Assumptions for Measuring

Pension Obligations”, which provides guidance to actuaries in

selecting demographic assumptions for measuring obligations

under defined benefit plans.

7

Demographic Assumptions

➢ Study compares what actually happened during the

study period (7/01/2014 through 6/30/2018) with what

was expected to happen.

➢ Assumption changes recommended if actual experience

differs significantly from expected.

➢ Judgment required to extrapolate future experience

from past experience.

8


➢ Funds reviewed

▪ PERS

▪ HSPRS

▪ SLRP

➢ Results compare actual and expected decrements and

present recommended change, if any.

9


➢ Withdrawal –

▪ Actual number of withdrawals was more than expected at

most age groups

– Total was 65,100 vs. 57,800 over four year period

▪ Select Period (First 2 years of service)

– Slight increases for both years in select period

– For every 10,000 new employees, approximately 5,050 are

remaining after 2 years of service

▪ Ultimate (Beyond 2 years of service)

– Increased rates at earlier ages (less than age 35) to better

match experience

10

PERS Demographic Assumptions

11


0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

0.3500

0.4000

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 53 & over

Age

Withdrawal Rates (Ultimate)Male


12


0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

0.3500

0.4000

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 53 & over

Age

Withdrawal Rates (Ultimate)Female


➢ Disability Retirement

▪ For both males and females, there were less disabled

retirees than expected

– Total 827 vs. 1,132 expected

▪ Some members are not eligible for service retirement at

age 65 and are instead retiring as disabled

▪ Disability rates were lowered in the last experience study

and, therefore, we recommend no change at this time

13


➢ Service Retirement

▪ Actual retirements were more than expected at most ages

but more noticeable for members with less than 25 years

of service

– Total actual retirements before age 75 was 18,600 over

four year period

– Expected retirements before age 75 was 16,900 over four

year period

▪ Recommend change in retirement rates to more closely

reflect experience, especially with members with less

than 25 years of service

14


15


0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

0.3500

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

AGE

Retirement Rates - Svc < 25 - Males


16


0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

0.3500

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

AGE

Retirement Rates - Svc < 25 - Females


➢ Post-Retirement Mortality

▪ Actual deaths were slightly more than expected at most ages

for both disabled and non-disabled retirees

– Total 11,800 vs. 10,600 expected

▪ Margin for improved longevity within reasonable actuarial

standards

▪ For healthy retiree deaths, recommend change to new

Society of Actuaries public sector mortality tables adjusted

and projected with generational mortality allowing for

improved mortality in the future

▪ For disabled retiree deaths, recommend a similar change to

new table for disabled retirees

17


18


0

200

400

600

800

1000

Below 48 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 98 &

Over

AGE

Non-Disabled Mortality Rates - Males


19


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Below 48 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 98 &

Over

AGE

Non-Disabled Mortality Rates - Females


➢ Pre-Retirement Mortality

▪ For both genders, there was significantly more deaths

than expected over 4 year period

– 826 actual vs. 514 expected

▪ Recommend using new Society of Actuaries public

sector mortality tables adjusted and projected with

generational mortality allowing for improved mortality in

the future

20


➢ Salary Scale

▪ Rates of salary increase less than expected at most

service breakdowns.

▪ In the economic section, we are recommending a

decrease in wage inflation, which is a component of

salary scale.

▪ This will drop expected total salary scale by 0.25%.

▪ So, no change to merit and production scale is

recommended.

21


22


0 18.50% 18.25%

1 8.50% 8.25%

2 6.00% 5.75%

3 5.00% 4.75%

4 4.50% 4.25%

5-7 4.00% 3.75%

8-27 3.50% 3.25%

28 and Over 3.25% 3.00%

Proposed

SERVICE OF

GROUP

SALARY INCREASE RATES

MALES AND FEMALES

Present

➢ Deferred Vesteds

▪ Current Assumption: 60% of participants that leave the System as deferred vested will receive a deferred benefit upon attaining the eligibility requirements for retirement.

▪ A review of the data over the investigation period indicates that about 62% of deferred vested participants wait and receive their accrued benefit upon retirement eligibility and do not receive employee contributions with interest.

▪ Recommendation: No Change

➢ Death Assumption

▪ Assumed that 6% of active member deaths are line of duty and 94% of deaths are not line of duty.

▪ During the investigation period, about 3.7% of active member deaths were line of duty (last study was 5.7%).


PERS Other Assumptions

23

➢ Disability Assumption

▪ Assumed that 7% of active member disabilities are line of duty and 93% of disabilities are not line of duty.

▪ During the investigation period, about 11% of active member disabilities were line of duty (last study was 9%).

▪ Recommendation: Change assumption to 9%

➢ Percent Married

▪ Assumed that 85% of active members are married and will select a joint & survivor form.


➢ Spouse Age Difference

▪ Assumed that a male is 3 years older than his spouse



24

➢ Unused Leave

▪ Assumed that participants will have on average 0.50 years of unused sick and personal leave at retirement.

▪ During the investigation period, the average number of years of unused leave was 0.64 years.


➢ Military Service

▪ Assumed that participants will have on average 0.25 years of military service at retirement.

▪ During the investigation period, the average number of years of military service was 0.23 years.


➢ Option Factors

▪ Based on the post-retirement mortality tables and investment rate of return (discount rate) used in the valuation.

▪ Recommendation: Revise based on the proposed non-disabled and disabled mortality tables recommended for the valuation.


25

➢ Withdrawal

▪ 37 Actual Withdrawals vs. 34 Expected Withdrawals

over the four year period

▪ Recommendation: No change


▪ One active deaths over period of study

▪ Recommendation: Same changes to pre-retirement

mortality as recommended for PERS.

26

HSPRS Demographic Assumptions


▪ One disability retirement over period of study, expected

three.

▪ Similar experience in the last experience study.

▪ Recommendation: No change (lowered rates last study)


▪ 48 Actual Retirements vs. 57 Expected Retirements over

the four year period.

▪ Numerous active members are eligible to retire.


27


➢ Non-disabled Post-Retirement Mortality

▪ Recommendation: Change to the same post-retirement

mortality table as recommended for PERS

➢ Disabled Post-Retirement Mortality

▪ Recommendation: Same changes as recommended for

PERS

➢ Salary Scale


PERS

28


➢ Withdrawal

▪ Current rates only in election year.

▪ 15 withdrawals in election year vs. 18 expected.

▪ Very few withdrawals in non-election years.



▪ 2 deaths vs. 2 expected


PERS

29

SLRP Demographic Assumptions


▪ No disability retirements during period.



▪ Current rates only in election year.

▪ Experience in election year close to expected (25 actual

vs. 27 expected).

▪ Very few retirements in non-election years.


30


➢ Non-disabled Post-Retirement Mortality

▪ Recommendation: change to the same post-retirement

mortality table as recommended for PERS

➢ Disabled Post-Retirement Mortality


PERS

➢ Salary Scale

▪ Actual rates were significantly lower than expected.

▪ Recommendation: Scale reduced to 3.00% for all ages

31


➢ Assumptions reviewed

▪ Price inflation

▪ Investment return

▪ Wage inflation

➢ Actuarial Standard of Practice (ASOP) No. 27, “Selection of

Economic Assumptions for Measuring Pension Obligations”

provides guidance to actuaries in selecting economic assumptions

for measuring obligations under defined benefit plans.

▪ No more “best estimate range”

▪ Assumptions reflect actuary’s professional judgment

▪ Take into account historical and current economic data

▪ Reflects actuary’s estimate of future experience

▪ No significant bias

32

Economic Assumptions

➢ Current assumption: 3.00%

➢ Historical data: Annual CPI (U) Increases

33


Price Inflation

➢ Forecasts

▪ Survey of Professional Forecasters as published by the

Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank

– Median rate over the next ten years is 2.21%

▪ Month over month annual inflation rate for January 2018

through February 2019

34


Price Inflation

➢ Peer Comparison

35


Price Inflation

➢ Peer Comparison

36


Price Inflation

➢ Recommendation

37


Price Inflation

Price Inflation Assumption

Current 3.00%

Social Security Range 2.00% - 3.20%

Recommended 2.75%

➢ Analysis may include:

▪ Long term historical information

▪ Recent experience

▪ Forward looking modeling using current capital

market assumptions developed by investment

consultant

▪ Peer system comparison


Investment Return

38

➢ Current Assumption

▪ Price inflation 3.00%

▪ Real rate of return 4.75%

▪ Total return (net of investment 7.75%

and administrative expenses)

39


Investment Return

Nominal Total Rate of Return

Year Ending 6/30 Actuarial Value Market Value

2014 13.88% 18.31%

2015 11.86% 3.38%

2016 7.10% 0.53%

2017 8.91% 14.51%

2018 8.74% 9.17%

Average 10.10% 9.18%

Setting Interest Rates

Building Block Method

➢ Using the CAPM assumptions (real rates of return net of

investment expenses, standard deviations and correlation matrix)

and asset allocation, we review lognormal distributions of

assumptions

➢ Project range of returns over a long period (30 - 50 years)

➢ Select real rate of return from the range (usually near the 50%

percentile return)

➢ Develop reasonable range for inflation assumption based on history

and future expectations and select an inflation assumption within

that range

➢ Combine the real return assumption and the inflation assumption to

generate the nominal expected rate of return

40

➢ Projected expected range of real rates of return

➢ Based on PERS’ investment consultant’s current 10-year

capital market assumptions and PERS’ Board policy target

asset allocations

41


Investment Return

Time Span

in Years

Mean Real

Return

Standard

Deviation



1 5.67% 14.71% -16.67% -4.68% 4.66% 14.91% 31.45%

5 4.86% 6.50% -5.48% 0.38% 4.66% 9.13% 15.89%

10 4.76% 4.59% -2.62% 1.61% 4.66% 7.80% 12.48%

20 4.71% 3.24% -0.54% 2.50% 4.66% 6.87% 10.13%

30 4.69% 2.65% 0.40% 2.89% 4.66% 6.46% 9.11%

40 4.69% 2.29% 0.96% 3.13% 4.66% 6.22% 8.50%

50 4.68% 2.05% 1.34% 3.29% 4.66% 6.05% 8.09%

➢ Projected expected range of real rates of return

➢ Based on Horizon Study’s current 20-year capital market

assumptions and PERS’ Board policy target asset allocations

42


Investment Return

Time Span

in Years

Mean Real

Return

Standard

Deviation



1 5.91% 13.52% -14.77% -3.58% 5.06% 14.46% 29.50%

5 5.23% 5.99% -4.32% 1.10% 5.06% 9.17% 15.36%

10 5.14% 4.23% -1.67% 2.25% 5.06% 7.95% 12.24%

20 5.10% 2.99% 0.26% 3.06% 5.06% 7.09% 10.09%

30 5.09% 2.44% 1.12% 3.43% 5.06% 6.72% 9.15%

40 5.08% 2.11% 1.64% 3.64% 5.06% 6.49% 8.59%

50 5.07% 1.89% 2.00% 3.79% 5.06% 6.34% 8.21%

➢ Peer Comparison

43


Investment Return

➢ Peer Comparison

44


Investment Return

➢ Recommendation

▪ ASOP No. 27 building block approach

45


Investment Return

Investment Return Assumption

Current Recommended

Real Rate of Return 4.75% 4.75%

Inflation 3.00% 2.75%

Net Investment Return 7.75% 7.50%

➢ Current assumption: 3.25%, which is 0.25% above price

inflation

➢ Past Experience

46


Wage Inflation

➢ Social Security 75-year projection of national wage growth

assumption is 1.2% greater than price inflation.

➢ However, PERS continues to experience gains on the salary

assumption (actual increases are less than expected)

➢ Recommendation

47


Wage Inflation

Wage Inflation Assumption

Current Recommended


Real Wage Growth 0.25% 0.25%


Financial Impact on 06/30/2018 PERS Valuation

($ thousands)

48

Key Findings

Before All

Changes

After

Demographic

Changes Only

After All

Changes

UAL $16,940,459 $17,295,161 $18,415,764

Funding Ratio in 2018 61.8% 61.4% 59.9%

UAL Amortization Period (years) 30.9 33.8 41.5

Funding Ratio in 2047 95.8% 86.5% 70.6%

* Statutory contribution rates kept constant.

Financial Impact on 06/30/2018 HSPRS Valuation

($ thousands)

49

Key Findings

Before All

Changes

After

Demographic

Changes Only

After All

Changes

UAL $175,013 $178,549 $192,427

Funding Ratio in 2018 66.8% 66.4% 64.7%


Funding Ratio in 2042 103.5% 97.5% 86.8%


Financial Impact on 06/30/2018 SLRP Valuation

($ thousands)

50

Key Findings

Before All

Changes

After

Demographic

Changes Only

After All

Changes

UAL $4,374 $4,451 $4,938

Funding Ratio in 2018 80.4% 80.1% 78.4%


Funding Ratio in 2042 97.5% 91.3% 80.8%


Media Summary Report For February 12, 2019 – April 8, 2019

This summary is built from articles found via Google News Alerts, Magnolia daily news-clipping subscription service, word of mouth, and occasional targeted media checks. While this may or may not be an exhaustive list of every mention of the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi (PERS) in the media during the span of time reviewed, this list provides an overview of how PERS is currently being represented in the media.

Overview

Total PERS-Specific Articles: .......................................................................................................................................... 19 All articles written specifically about PERS (only first printings/postings)

Total Unique Articles: ...................................................................................................................................................... 43 All PERS-related articles published (only first printings/postings, no reprints)

Total Published Articles:................................................................................................................................................ 112 All PERS-related articles published (includes reprints/reposts)

Total Publishing Outlets: ................................................................................................................................................. 67 Number of newspapers, blogs, and websites that ran articles on PERS

Trending Topics of Unique Articles

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Investments

Litigation

Contribution Rate Increase

GASB Reporting Requirements

Return to Work

Funded Status

Funding

Attorney General's Opinion

Legislation News

Editorial

Blog

Broadcast

PERS Media Summary – February 12, 2019 – April 8, 2019 2

Online and Print Newspaper Articles – 24 Article/Summary Published In/Date Type PERS to consider rule change over retirees in legislature Caleb Bedillion, reporter Discusses special called board meeting to discuss AG opinion Topic: AG Opinion

Daily Journal, 2/11 PERS

specific

Pension Board to Discuss Pensions for Serving Lawmakers Jeff Amy, AP Announces special called meeting Topic: AG Opinion

U.S. News & World Report, 2/12 Enterprise-Journal, 2/13 PERS

specific

Pensions for lawmakers could change political landscape Emily Wagster Pettus and Jeff Amy, AP Covered special called board meeting Topic: AG Opinion

Clarion-Ledger, 2/12 Miami Herald, 2/12 WTOK, 2/12 WTVA, 2/12 The News & Observer, 2/12 (Raleigh) Sun Herald, 2/12 The Commercial Dispatch, 2/13 Daily Leader, 2/13 Vicksburg Post, 2/13 Natchez Democrat, 2/13 Greenwood Commonwealth, 2/13 Meridian Star, 2/13 Picayune Item, 2/13 Daily Journal, 2/13 Enterprise-Journal, 2/14 Greene County Herald, 2/14

PERS specific

For retired teachers and state employees, running for Legislature under rule change could be a gamble Bobby Harrison, reporter Covered special called board meeting Topic: AG Opinion

Mississippi Today, 2/14 Daily Journal, 2/17

PERS specific

Legislators grapple with how to fund state employee pay raise as budget demands mount Bobby Harrison, reporter Discusses legislation and budgetary issues during 2019 Legislative Session and how funding PERS is one reason raises can’t happen Topic: Legislation

Mississippi Today, 2/20 Daily Journal, 2/21 Gazebo Gazette, 2/22 PERS

mention

Raises for Mississippi state employees unlikely, key senator says Giacomo Bologna, reporter Discusses budgetary issues during 2019 Legislative Session and how funding PERS is one reason raises can’t happen Topic: Legislation

Clarion-Ledger, 2/20

PERS mention

Democrats’ field of candidates soon will no longer be secret but cutting into GOP’s legislative advantage an uphill climb Bobby Harrison, reporter Discusses Dems seeking candidates to win election. Mentions Dems banking on change to PERS to allow retirees to run for Legislature and still receive benefit. Topic: AG Opinion


PERS mention

Cost-of-living Adjustment increase sought for city’s civil servants Haskell Burns, reporter Hattiesburg seeking 2 percent increase from Legislature in COLA to Police and Fire Disability and Relief Fund, which is separate from PERS. Topic: Legislation

HubCitySpokes.com, 2/27

PERS mention


Senate Weekly Report Senator Albert Butler Discusses legislation moving through Senate that will help fund the contribution rate increase Topic: Legislation

Meteor, 2/27

PERS mention

Senate gives funding increase Senator Joey Fillingane Discusses legislation moving through Senate that will help fund the contribution rate increase Topic: Legislation

News-Commercial, 2/27 Smith County Reformer, 2/27 Taylorsville Post, 2/27

PERS mention

Busy weeks on both sides at the Capital Sen. Chris Caughman Mentions legislative appropriations to fund contribution rate increase Topic: Legislation

Simpson County News, 2/28

PERS mention

Local parks become self-sufficient Zack Steen, reporter Discusses local park business moving away from city or county staff responsibility, including PERS Topic: Funding

Daily Corinthian, 2/8

PERS mention

Senate OK’s $6.26 billion budget Sen. Juan Barnett Mentions legislative appropriations to fund contribution rate increase Topic: Legislation

Laurel Leader-Call, 2/28

PERS mention

Analysis: Republicans in strong position to hold, maybe increase, legislative majorities Bobby Harrison, reporter Discusses candidates running for office Topic: AG Opinion

Mississippi Today, 3/6

PERS mention

MRHC Hospital pursues debt refinancing with new farm bill Jebb Johnston, reporter Discusses how Magnolia Regional Health Center is pursuing debt refinancing due to changes in GASB reporting requirements Topic: GASB

Daily Corinthian, 3/7

PERS specific

Senate balks at $4,000 teacher pay raise passed by House, cite ‘other competing needs’ Kayleigh Skinner & Bobby Harrison, reporters Discusses other needs for funding, like PERS rather than pay raise Topic: Legislation

Mississippi Today, 3/12 Daily Journal, 3/13 Gazebo Gazette, 3/15

PERS mention

Party lines crossed on passage of teacher pay raise amendment of $4,000 Sarah Ulmer, reporter Discusses other needs for funding, like PERS rather than pay raise Topic: Legislation

Y’all Politics, 3/12

PERS mention

Amory School Board updated on food services, audit John H. Ward, reporter Amory School Board included discussion about rehiring retirees and an issue with the school district processing paperwork for PERS in a timely manner Topic: Return to Work

Monroe Journal, 3/13

PERS mention

Mississippi House ups ante on teacher pay; final sum unclear Jeff Amy, AP reporter Discusses funding a pay raise for teachers while also funding PERS contribution rate increase Topic: Legislation

Starkville Daily, 3/13 Enterprise Journal, 3/13 Daily Times Leader, 3/13 Meridian Star, 3/13 Vicksburg Post, 3/13 Mississippi Press, 3/13 Sun Herald, 3/13

PERS mention


Capitol leaders showed active interest in AG ruling on retirees serving in Legislature, documents reveal Bobby Harrison, reporter Discusses communications between Legislature and PERS on AG opinion. Focused mainly on Open Records Act Topic: AG Opinion


PERS specific

Speaker: Lawmakers eye $1,000 raise for Mississippi teachers Jeff Amy, AP reporter Discusses funding a pay raise for teachers while also funding PERS contribution rate increase Topic: Legislation

Greenwood Commonwealth, 3/25 Starkville Daily News, 3/26 Education Week, 3/26 Jackson Free Press, 3/26 Mississippi Press, 3/27 Enterprise Journal, 3/27 Oxford Eagle, 3/27

PERS mention

Who gets the money? The new $6 billion Mississippi budget, by the numbers Geoff Pender, reporter Breakdown of how lawmakers are funding major state agencies or operations, much of which is to cover cost of PERS Topic: Legislation

Clarion-Ledger, 3/29

PERS specific

$1,500 teacher raise goes to Gov. Bryant Daily Leader Staff Discusses teacher pay raise bill being signed by Governor and mentions funding for PERS contribution rate increase Topic: Legislation

Daily Leader, 3/29

PERS mention

BOA narrowly rejects 2-percent employee raises Alex Holloway, reporter Starkville aldermen voted down pay increase partially because of increased funding to PERS Topic: Contribution Rate Increase

The Dispatch, 4/3

PERS mention

Editorials/Letters – 5

Article/Summary Published In/Date Type OUR OPINION: Officials must focus on financial stability Discusses the lack of effort from the state leadership to address PERS’ funded status Topic: PERS’ Funded Status

Daily Journal, 2/17

PERS specific

Adding voices to legislature beneficial Editorial staff Discusses how AG opinion could add more voices to the Legislature Topic: AG Opinion

Daily Journal, 2/21

PERS specific

PERS is on a ruinous cycle Tim Kalich, Commonwealth Editor Discusses the contribution rate increase and the cost of PERS preventing state employee pay raises and the never-ending cycle of funding issues with the plan Topic: Funding

Commonwealth, 2/24 Enterprise-Journal, 2/26 Winston County Journal, 2/27 Columbian Progress, 3/2 Yazoo Herald, 3/2

PERS specific


Letting the Good Times Roll Ricky Noble, Cartoonist Satire of Legislature as Mardi Gras krewe throwing money from State Treasury to PERS, state employees, teachers, and Medicaid with someone from the crowd yelling “Who dat gonna pay for all dat?!” Topic: Legislation

New Albany Gazette, 2/27 Clarke County Tribune, 2/28 Grenada Star, 3/5 Meridian Star, 3/5 Crystal Springs, 3/6 Lawrence County Press, 3/6 Choctaw Plaindealer, 3/6 Southern Sentinel, 3/6 Bolivar Commercial, 3/6 Winton County Journal, 3/6 Progress-Times, 3/6 Monroe Journal, 3/6 Prentis Headlight, 3/6 Coffeeville Courier, 3/7 Magnolia Gazette, 3/7 South Reporter, 3/7 Wayne County News, 3/7 Star-Herald, 3/7 Hinds County Gazette, 3/8 Daily Corinthian, 3/9 Columbian-Progress, 3/9

PERS mention

Exciting election ahead for community Kevin Cooper, publisher Discusses candidates for upcoming elections and how PERS is one of the benefits of public service. Further discusses cost of funding PERS Topic: Funding

Natchez Democrat, 3/3

PERS specific

Blog/Website Posts – 10

Post/Summary Publishing Blog/Date Type Hood Wants To Raise Taxes, Increase Spending Steve Wilson, investigative editor Covered Hood’s talk at press luncheon Topic: AG Opinion

MS Center for Public Policy, 2/11

PERS mention

State Retirees Can Soon Serve In Legislature While Drawing Pension Steve Wilson, investigative editor Covered special called board meeting Topic: AG Opinion

MS Center for Public Policy, 2/12

PERS specific

PERS board votes on provisions for retired public employees who are elected to Legislature Sarah Ulmer, reporter Covered results of special called board meeting Topic: AG Opinion


PERS specific

Mississippi House passes bill banning boycott of Israel Marcy Oster, reporter Covers bill preventing PERS from investing in companies that boycott Israel Topic: Legislation

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 2/12 The Cleveland Jewish News, 2/12 PERS

mention

McDermott International stockholder files suit over merger with Chicago Bridge & Iron Jenie Mallari-Torres, reporter PERS filed complaint McDermott International Topic: Litigation

Legal News Line, 2/13

PERS specific


PERS Regulation Change on AG’s Opinion Bigger Pie Forum Discusses decision by Board to amend regulation to align with AG opinion Topic: AG Opinion

Bigger Pie Forum, 2/14 Jackson Jambalaya, 2/27 (sponsored post)

PERS specific

The new Republican reality: Debt, debt, and more debt Bill Crawford, columnist Discusses national debt and debt in Mississippi, including PERS’ unfunded liability Topic: Funded Status

Daily Journal, 3/3 Meridian Star, 3/5 Grenada Star, 3/5 Mississippi Business Journal, 3/8 Percolating with Bill Crawford, 3/19

PERS mention

Taking a Look at PERS’ Investment Allocation Philip Thomas, 3/18 Discusses PERS’ investment allocation Topic: Investments

MS Litigation Review, 3/18

PERS specific

Sine Die comes early for the 2019 Mississippi Legislative session Sarah Ulmer, reporter Covers what legislative leadership had to say about legislation during session Topic: Legislation


PERS mention

Op-Ed: 2019 Legislative Public Education Victories Senator Chad McMahan Mentions legislation to provide funding for PERS’ contribution rate increase Topic: Legislation

Y’all Politics, 4/4 Daily Journal, 4/8 PERS

mention

Broadcast Stories (Radio/Television) – 4

Story/Summary Broadcasting Media/Date Type PERS’ board agrees to create regulation allowing retirees to run for the Legislature Ashli Coggins, written report Gerald Harris, broadcast report Covered special called board meeting Topic: AG Opinion

WJTV, 2/12

PERS specific

Mississippi pension system plans rule change for elected officials Courtney Ann Jackson, reporter Covered special called board meeting Topic: AG Opinion

WLBT, 2/12 WLOX, 2/12 PERS

specific

PERS Votes to Accept AG’s Ruling, Create Regulation Ashley Norwood, written report Desare Frazier, broadcast report Covered special called board meeting Topic: AG Opinion

MPB, 2/13

PERS specific

Facing critical staff shortages, lawmakers explore increasing salaries for prison guards Hugh Keeton, reporter Mention of PERS in relation to funding salary increase for guards Topic: Legislation

WLOX, 2/21

PERS mention

(Confidential Attorney Work Product – Do Not Disseminate) LITIGATION UPDATE TO: PERS Board of Trustees FROM: Martin Millette, Special Assistant Attorney General RE: Litigation Report Summary DATE: April 23, 2019

There are 25 cases in the appellate process at this time. There has been activity in the following cases since the February 26th, 2019, report to the Board of Trustees: CLAIMS COMMITTEE HEARINGS: CIRCUIT COURT: COLEMAN v. PERS: The Disability Appeals Committee of the PERS Board of Trustees entered an Order date February 27, 2018, denying that claimant’s application for disability benefits. Coleman timely filed a notice of appeal with the Hinds County Circuit Clerk’s office on March 21, 2018.The Administrative Record has been filed with the Court. SMITH v. PERS: The Disability Appeals Committee of the PERS Board of Trustees entered an Order date February 27, 2018, denying that claimant’s application for disability benefits. Smith timely filed a notice of appeal with the Hinds County Circuit Clerk’s office on March 21, 2018. PERS has filed a certified copy of the transcript of administrative record with the Circuit Clerk. Briefing has been completed. THOMAS v. PERS: The Disability Appeals Committee of the PERS Board of Trustees entered an Order date February 27, 2018, denying that claimant’s application for disability benefits. Thomas timely filed a notice of appeal with the Hinds County Circuit Clerk’s office on March 27, 2018. PERS has filed a certified copy of the transcript of administrative record with the Circuit Clerk. Briefing has been completed. CIRCUIT COURT OPINIONS ISSUED: SUPREME COURT/COURT OF APPEALS: STAKELUM v. PERS: The PERS Board entered an Order dated February 24, 2015, upholding the Medical Board’s decision to deny Stakelum’s request for disability benefits. Stakelum appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Hinds County. Stakelum filed her Brief of Appellant on April 25, 2017, and PERS filed its Brief of Appellee on August 17, 2017. On September 30, 2017, Stakelum filed a Motion to Remand to PERS to Consider Award of Social Security Disability or to take Judicial Notice Thereof. PERS filed its Response in Opposition to the motion on October 5, 2017. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on July 25, 2018. Stakelum timely filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court on August 24, 2018. Briefing has been completed.

Litigation Report Summary April 23, 2019 Page -2-

BRADLEY v. PERS: On December 18, 2012, the PERS Board of Trustees entered an order adopting the recommendation of the Disability Appeals Committee that Bradley’s application for duty-related disability benefits be denied. Bradley appealed the decision to the Circuit Court. On March 21, 2018, the Court entered its Order Affirming the Decision of the PERS Board of Trustees. Bradley filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on April 17, 2018. Briefing has been completed. LANG v. PERS: The case was remanded to PERS by the Court of Appeals for further determination on October 23, 2012. The Board approved the recommendation of the Disability Appeals Committee and issued its Order February 25, 2014, to deny the claimant non-duty disability benefits. Following briefing by both parties, the Court entered its Order Affirming the Decision of the PERS Board of Trustees on April 3, 2018. Lang filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on April 17, 2018. Briefing has been completed. HICKS v. PERS: On October 24, 2017, the PERS Board of Trustees entered an order adopting the recommendation of the Claims Committee to deny Hicks claim regarding survivor benefits. Ms. Hicks appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Hinds County on October 31, 2017. PERS filed the certified administrative record with the circuit clerk on January 2, 2018. Brief of Appellant filed with Circuit Court on February 7, 2018. Brief of Appellee filed. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on June 13, 2018. Hicks filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on July 9, 2018. Briefing has been completed. THOMPSON v. PERS: The PERS Board entered an Order dated December 15, 2015, upholding the Medical Board’s decision to deny Thompson’s request for disability benefits. Thompson has appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Hinds County. The Administrative Record was filed with the Clerk of the Court on March 23, 2016. Thompson filed her Brief of Appellant on April 25, 2017, and PERS filed its Brief of Appellee on June 23, 2017. On September 14, 2017, Thompson filed a Motion to Remand for a New Hearing, alleging PERS violated due process right to a fair hearing. PERS filed Response in Opposition to the motion on September 15, 2017. On March 26, 2018, Thompson filed a second Motion to Remand to Consider Social Security Determination or to take Judicial Notice Thereof. PERS filed its Response in Opposition to the motion on March 27, 2018. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on June 12, 2018. Thompson filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on July 9, 2018. Briefing has been completed. PINION v. PERS: The PERS Board of Trustees, upon recommendation of the Disability Appeals Committee, held in an Order dated February 26, 2013, that claimant’s for non-duty related disability should be denied. A notice of appeal was timely filed, but due to the death of the Court Reporter in attendance at the hearing, no transcript was available. The parties agreed to submit a Statement of Testimony in lieu of a transcript and the available administrative record was filed with the Clerk on April 26, 2016. The Brief of Appellant was filed July 24, 2016 and PERS’ Appellee’s Brief was filed September 22, 2016. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on June 22, 2018. Pinion filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on July 19, 2018. Briefing has been completed.


PHILLIPS v. PERS: The Disability Appeals Committee of the PERS Board of Trustees determined that the claim for duty-related disability should be denied. A notice of appeal was timely filed July 26, 2011. Due to the death of the Court Reporter in attendance at the hearing, no transcript was available. The parties agreed to submit a Statement of Testimony in lieu of a transcript and the available administrative record was filed with the Clerk on April 14, 2016. The Brief of Appellant was filed May 27, 2016 and PERS’ Appellee’s Brief was filed July 8, 2016. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on June 20, 2018. Richardson, the mother of Kari Phillips, who is deceased, filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on July 19, 2018. Briefing has been completed. DAVIS v. PERS: On August 25, 2015, the Board of Trustees denied the claimant’s application for disability benefits, both duty and non-duty. Davis appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Hinds County on September 18, 2015. On September 29, 2015, the Circuit Court entered an Order granting PERS 30 days following receipt of a certified copy of the transcript in which to file the Administrative Record. PERS filed the Administrative Record with the Circuit Court on December 11, 2015. The Brief of Appellant was filed January 20, 2017, and PERS’ Brief was filed March 20, 2017. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on June 12, 2018. Davis filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on July 9, 2018. Briefing has been completed. BUCKHAULTS v. PERS: On September 26, 2012, the Appellant, Buckhaults, an unvested member of the PERS, filed an application for PERS duty-related disability benefits. On June 24, 2014, the Board of Trustees denied the claimant’s application for disability benefits. Buckhaults appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Hinds County. PERS filed the Administrative Record with the Circuit Court on August 24, 2015. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on June 26, 2018. Buckhaults filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on July 19, 2018. Briefing has been completed. CARVER v. PERS: The Medical Board approved the Claimant for non-duty related disability. The PERS Board of Trustees, upon recommendation of the Disability Appeals Committee, held in an Order dated August 28, 2012, that his claim for duty-related disability should be denied. A notice of appeal was timely filed, but due to the death of the Court Reporter in attendance at the hearing, only a partial transcript was available. The parties agreed to submit a Statement of Testimony in lieu of a complete transcript and the available administrative record was filed with the Clerk on April 18, 2016. The Circuit Court affirmed the Decision of the Board on July 13, 2018. Carver filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on July 3, 2018. Briefing has been completed. SUPREME COURT/COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS ISSUED: ULRICH V. PERS: The PERS Board of Trustees, upon recommendation of the Disability Appeals Committee, held in an Order dated April 19, 2016, that claimant’s application for duty related disability should be denied. On February 2, 2018, the Circuit Court issued its Opinion and Order affirming the decision of the PERS Board of Trustees. Ulrich filed a timely Notice of Appeal


to the Supreme Court on February 26, 2018. On April 2, 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Board to deny benefits to Ulrich.

SECURITIES LITIGATION 1. Amedisys, Inc.: Court approval was received January 28, 2019. BLB&G completed the first distribution of funds to Eligible Class Members in March 2019. Case has been resolved and is in the claims payment process. 2. Satyam Computer Services Limited: The claims outstanding against Satyam’s former officers and directors who are not in jail were dismissed. Officer Defendants are in jail in India with no recoverable assets or insurance. Accordingly, claims against them were dismissed without prejudice in July 2013. Claims processing has been completed and the Court authorized a distribution. On April 8, 2014, PERS received an initial distribution check in the amount of $106,803.26. An appeal is pending in India regarding the taxes paid to India. The hearing, which was postponed several times by the court, took place on September 9, 2014. The High Court issued a ruling in our favor, stating that the AAR ruling was based on an erroneous presumption and cannot stand. The ruling was set aside and the High Court remanded the matter back to the AAR with a direction that the issue of taxability of the settlement amount be looked at afresh. On January 12, 2016, the AAR issued a favorable ruling for us. However, that ruling is subject to further appeal. We are working with Indian counsel as to what the best strategy would be to obtain the refund of the amounts deposited with the Revenue authority for potential tax liability. Co-Lead Counsel have also retained APCO Worldwide Inc. to assist in the effort to obtain the refund. Indian counsel continues to press our petitions and the revenue department continues to interpose new arguments. The Delhi High Court held a hearing on January 24, 2018, to consider the various pending petitions. Arguments were not completed at that hearing and the hearing, which had been scheduled to continue on February 15, 2018, has once again been continued. Co-lead counsel are preparing a second distribution as soon as possible with a current plan to conduct a distribution by the end of the second quarter of 2019. 3. Merck & Co., Inc. (VIOXX): The Claims Administrator is now following up with Eligible Claimants who did not cash their checks to determine why the checks were not cashed. All Eligible Claimants who cash their checks in the initial distribution will be eligible to receive a second distribution in July 2019. Case has been resolved and is in the claims payment process. [no changes a/o 4/5/19] 4. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters: The parties have negotiated a term sheet and are working on a settlement document. Case has been resolved and is in the claims payment process. [no changes] 5. IN RE: Canada, Inc. v. Qualcomm et al.: On February 19, 2016, PERS was named lead plaintiff and Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Labaton Sucharow was named co-lead counsel in a securities class action against Qualcomm, Inc., a telecommunications company, and some of its officers. PERS alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to


disclose that the company was experiencing unprecedented overheating issues related to the development and manufacturing of the company’s flagship microprocessor, the Snapdragon 810. As a result of these overheating issues, the Snapdragon 810 was dropped by a number of Qualcomm’s most important customers. PERS filed an Amended Complaint on April 29, 2016 and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 28, 2016. On January 27, 2017, after full briefing and oral argument, the court issued an order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. On March 17, 2017, PERS filed its Second Amended Complaint and on May 8, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On June 30, PERS filed its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and on July 31, Defendants filed their Reply. On October 20, 2017, after oral argument, the court issued an order effectively dismissing the case and, on November 29, 2017, entered a final judgment in favor of Qualcomm. PERS filed a notice of appeal on December 28, 2017. All appellate briefing is complete and the matter submitted to the appellate court. [No changes a/o 4/1/19] 6. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.: On March 4, 2016, PERS, filed a securities class action against Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (Sprouts) in Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court. Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, Sprouts operates a chain of grocery stores that offer a range of products that cater to consumers’ increasing interest in healthy eating and living, including fresh, natural, and organic produce. The action arises out of materially misleading statements and omissions made by Sprouts in offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with a secondary offering conducted by the company from March 6, 2015 to March 10, 2015. The plaintiff alleges that Sprouts misled its investors and failed to disclose a known adverse trend in deflationary pricing that was negatively affecting the Sprout’s revenue and its growth outlook. On March 24, 2016, Defendants filed a notice of removal in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and the case was assigned to United States District Judge Roslyn O. Silver. Judge Silver granted Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. On April 21, 2017, Defendants filed with the Ninth Circuit, a Notice of Appeal of the District Court’s Remand Decision. On May 10, 2017, Defendants also filed with the Arizona Superior Court, a Motion to stay the case, in light of pending appeals on similar issues before the United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit. Judge Brodman upheld Plaintiff’s Section 11 claims, as well as most of the control person claims. On September 28, 2017, Defendants filed their Answer. On December 4, 2017, the parties exchanged initial disclosure statements pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1. On February 7, 2018, the parties filed a joint report and proposed scheduling order with the Court addressing certain issues in the action including the scope of discovery and the case schedule. The Court held a hearing on February 16, 2018, to discuss any outstanding issues contained in the report. On March 3, 2018, PERS filed a protective federal action prior to the statute of repose set forth in the Securities Act of 1933 running in order to preserve the proposed class’ right to recovery in the event of an adverse decision in the Supreme Court case of Cyan v Beaver County. Shortly thereafter, on March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund (“Cyan”) that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Securities Act claims. The decision puts an end to Defendants’ argument that the state court is without jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claim. As a result, PERS voluntarily dismissed the federal action. Moreover, Defendants have informed us that they will drop their appeal of the federal court’s remand of the action to state court. The action is now continuing in state court where it was originally filed. PERS filed its motion for class certification


on April 20, 2018, Defendants’ opposition is due September 6, and PERS’ reply is due October 12. In April, Defendants’ reached out to inquire if PERS was open to settlement. Counsel have met informally on two occasions and engaged in negotiations. The parties held a mediation with Michelle Yoshida on July 20, 2018, however the parties did not initially reach a resolution. Shortly thereafter, the mediator issued a mediator’s proposal that was accepted by both parties. The parties have agreed to a memorandum of understanding and informed the court of the settlement. On December 28, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The Court granted the motion for preliminary approval on January 30, 2019. Lead Plaintiff’s final approval papers in support of the settlement are due April 26, 2019. The Court has scheduled a settlement hearing on May 31, 2019. 7. Banco Bradesco S.A.: On June 3, 2016, a securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Banco Bradesco S.A. (“Banco”) and some of its executives. Banco, which provides banking and financial services, was for years investigated by Brazilian authorities for engaging in a fraudulent tax and bribery scheme. The investigation was allegedly not disclosed in Banco’s financial reporting. When news reports emerged of the investigation, Banco’s stock suffered significant losses. PERS was appointed lead plaintiff on August 15, 2016. On December 23, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, and, on February 3, 2017, PERS filed its Memorandum of Law in Opposition thereto. On September 29, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, whereby the majority of the allegations in the complaint were sustained. On November 22, 2017, the Court issued a case management plan and scheduling order, although a trial date has not yet been set. On January 1, 2018, Defendants filed an Answer effectively denying the allegations in the Complaint. The parties have served initial disclosures and, on February 28, 2018, the Court entered a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order relative to documents produced during discovery. The parties have nearly completed paper/electronic discovery and will begin taking depositions on October 9. The discovery deadline is February 15, 2019. In order to ensure that the class captures all losses associated with Defendants’ fraud, PERS has filed a motion to add an additional class representative, the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, which suffered losses during the class period distinct from PERS. On August 17, 2018, PERS filed a Motion for Class Certification. The motion is fully briefed and the parties await a ruling. Separately, the Court on January 2, 2019 entered a modified case management order setting the following deadlines: fact discovery to be completed by August 15, 2019; expert discovery to be completed by December 20, 2019; summary judgment motions to be filed by January 24, 2020. The Court has also permitted the parties to submit additional briefing on the issue of class certification and ordered an evidentiary hearing to be held on May 14-15 during which the parties’ experts will give testimony. Separately, the parties have agreed to a mediation on April 15, 2019. 8. Stericycle, Inc. et al.: On July 11, 2016, a securities class action was filed against Stericycle, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Stericycle, an international waste management and disposal company, engaged in alleged fraudulent overcharging of its customers, which caused substantial customer attrition that Stericycle allegedly hid from its investors. Stericycle’s alleged fraudulent overcharging and customer attrition ultimately caused significant stock losses. On October 31, 2016, the Court appointed PERS and


the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on February 1, 2017. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 3, 2017 and Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on May 19, 2017. Defendants’ filed their reply brief on June 19, 2017. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 30, 2018, and subsequently filed a proposed revised motion to dismiss briefing schedule, which the Court approved. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 25, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed their response on June 22, 2018, and Defendants filed a reply on July 13, 2018. The parties met for a mediation on April 16, 2018, and ongoing settlement discussions have resulted in a tentative settlement agreement valued at $45 million, which the Court preliminarily approved on March 12, 2019. A final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for July 22, 2019. 9. TreeHouse Foods, Inc.: On November 3, 2016, TreeHouse’s shares fell nearly 20% after TreeHouse lowered its full year adjusted earnings per share forecast to $2.80-$2.85 per share, and disclosed that the ConAgra acquisition failed to generate “incremental sales opportunities at existing accounts.” On November 15, 2016, a securities class action was filed against TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (“TreeHouse”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. TreeHouse, headquartered in Oak Brook, Illinois, is one of the largest U.S. private label food manufacturing companies. That initial complaint alleged that TreeHouse issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning TreeHouse’s acquisition of ConAgra Foods, Inc.’s private brands operations (for $2.7 billion in cash in February 2016). On January 25, 2017, the District Court granted PERS’s Motion for Appointment as sole Lead Plaintiff. On March 24, 2017, PERS filed a consolidated complaint. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which was denied in a court opinion issued on February 12, 2018. The Court entered the parties’ proposed scheduling order and confidentiality stipulation. The parties exchanged initial disclosures on May 25, 2018, and are beginning the discovery process, which is scheduled to be completed in 2019. PERS filed its opening brief on class certification on July 13, 2018. Lorrie Tingle, George Neville, and the expert as to market efficiency and common damages model (Chad Coffman) have been deposed. 10. Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc.: Roadrunner is an asset-light transportation and logistics services company based in Wisconsin. On January 30, 2017, after years of reporting increased revenues attributed to aggressive expansion, Roadrunner announced that it would restate its earnings reports for at least the prior three years due to “accounting errors.” Roadrunner also announced that it would investigate its accounting discrepancies and reassess its internal controls over financial reporting and compliance. On March 31, 2017, PERS filed a securities class action against Roadrunner in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging that Roadrunner had fraudulently overstated its earnings during the class period, causing losses to PERS totaling $796,029 for the class period of May 2, 2013 through January 30, 2017. On April 3, 2017, PERS moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and to consolidate two prior-filed actions alleging the same securities fraud (but during a smaller class period). On May 19, 2017, the court consolidated the actions, appointed PERS as lead plaintiff, and approved Barrack Rodos as lead counsel. On October 12, 2017, the Court ordered that, in the event Roadrunner issues its financial restatement on or before February 28, 2018, PERS will have 60 days to file its amended complaint. If Roadrunner does not issue its restatement by February 28, 2018, the order provides that the parties will meet and confer to discuss the timing for filing PERS’ amended complaint.


On November 1, 2017, PERS entered into a tolling agreement with Deloitte & Touche, suspending the statute of limitations applicable to any claims that could be brought against Deloitte concerning its work on Roadrunner’s reported financial results. On January 31, 2018, Roadrunner issued its financial restatement, and PERS filed its Amended Complaint on March 12, 2018. On July 23, 2018, the Defendants each filed separate motions to dismiss. PERS filed its responses on September 21, 2018. The parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement—contingent on court approval of settlements in two shareholder derivative actions against the company—which provides that Roadrunner will pay $20 million to the class and implement various corporate governance reforms. Counsel for all parties have executed a stipulation of settlement, and the parties expect to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement during the first week of April 2019. 11. Endo International, PLC: On February 28, 2017, PERS filed a securities class action against Endo International plc (Endo) in the Court of Common Pleas for Chester County, Pennsylvania. With U.S. headquarters in Malvern, Pennsylvania, Endo develops, manufactures, and distributes pharmaceutical products and devices worldwide. The action arises out of materially misleading statements and omissions made by Endo in offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with a secondary offering conducted by the company from June 5, 2015 to June 10, 2015. The plaintiff alleges that Endo misled its investors and failed to disclose known adverse trends facing the hydrocodone-based drugs in its generic drug division, which were an important revenue driver for the company. On March 31, 2017, Defendants filed a notice of removal in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the case was assigned to United States District Judge Paul S. Diamond. On May 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court. Defendants’ opposition was filed on May 15, 2017, and Plaintiff filed a reply on May 22, 2017. On May 30, 2017, Defendants filed a letter with the Court and submitted a recent amicus brief filed by the United States Office of the Solicitor General in relation to a petition for certiorari pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. On June 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ letter. On July 25, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for a pretrial conference concerning the implications of the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund (“Cyan”) on Plaintiff’s pending remand motion, stay the action pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of Cyan, or deny the motion to remand without prejudice to their ability to renew the motion after the issuance of the decision in Cyan. On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ motion. On August 28, 2017, the Court granted remand to state court. Upon return to state court, Plaintiff served discovery on Defendants. On October 9, 2017, Defendants moved for a partial stay pending the Supreme Court’s decision on Cyan. On October 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion to stay, and Defendants replied in further support of their motion on November 1, 2017, the Court stayed the litigation, except to allow briefing of Defendants’ preliminary objections. On November 1, 2017, the Court stayed the litigation, except to allow briefing of Defendants’ preliminary objections. Defendants filed objections on December 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed its opposition on January 26, 2018, and Defendants filed their reply on February 15, 2018. On March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Cyan that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Securities Act claims. The Cyan decision puts an end to Defendants’ argument that the state court is without jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claim. Defendants filed their answers on May 25, 2018, and the action proceeded into


discovery. Plaintiff filed preliminary objections to Defendants’ answers on June 14, 2018. Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s preliminary objections on July 20, 2018, and the Court rejected Plaintiff’s Preliminary objections on August 3, 2018. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on July 27, 2018. In November 2018, prior to Defendants’ deadline for the opposing class certification, the parties agreed to pause the litigation pending a mediation to take place on February 4, 2019. Though the action did not resolve at the mediation, the Parties continue to discuss settlement. In light of this, the parties have agreed to an amended schedule providing an additional month in the litigation schedule to allow discussions to continue. Under the new schedule, document production must be complete by May 13, 2019 and Defendants’ opposition to class certification will be due on May 20, 2019. 12. Signet Jewelers Limited: Suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging Signet and certain of its senior executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the period from August 29, 2013 to February 27, 2017. On July 5, 2017, PERS moved for appointment as lead plaintiff. On July 27, 2017, the Court appointed PERS as lead plaintiff. The Third Amended Complaint was filed on September 29, 2017. Among other things, it extended the Class Period to run from August 29, 2013 to May 24, 2017. Defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on December 1, 2017. After Defendants filed their motion to Dismiss, Lead Plaintiff filed its Fourth Amended Complaint on December 22, 2017, which, among other things, again extended the Class Period through December 1, 2017. Defendants moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint on January 26, 2018. Lead Plaintiff filed its Opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss on February 23, 2018, and Defendants filed a Reply to Lead Plaintiff’s Opposition by March 9, 2018. On March 14, 2018, while Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint was still pending, Signet announced that it would sell the subprime portion of its credit portfolio for just 72% of par value, demonstrating that the portfolio was overvalued by more than $113 million. Signet’s stock price fell more than 20% on this news. On March 16, 2018, Lead Plaintiff moved for leave to file an amended complaint to include allegations concerning the subprime portfolio sale and to extend the class period, which Defendants opposed. On March 20, 2018, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a further amended complaint. On March 22, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed its Fifth Amended Complaint, which extended the Class Period through March 13, 2018 and added allegations concerning Signet’s March 14, 2018 disclosure. Pursuant to the Court’s March 20, 2018 order, Defendants moved to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint on March 30, 2018. Lead Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion on April 9, 2018, and Defendants filed their reply to Lead Plaintiff’s opposition on April 13, 2018. On May 23, 2018, the case was reassigned to Chief Judge Colleen McMahon. On November 26, 2018, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On February 6, 2019, the Court entered a case management order with the following deadlines: motion for class certification due by March 15, response by April 26, and reply by May 17, 2019; document discovery substantially completed by May 24, 2019; pleadings may not be amended after August 16, 2019; fact discovery completed by September 13, 2019; expert discovery completed by December 6, 2019; summary judgment motions by December 19, 2019, responses by January 31, 2020 and replies by February 14, 2020;


and joint pretrial order submitted by March 18, 2020. A trial date has not yet been set. Lead Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification on March 15, 2019. Discovery is ongoing. 13. Valeant Pharmaceuticals Int’l. On September 28, 2017, PERS filed a direct action against Valeant, certain of Valeant’s current and former senior executives, and Valeant’s external auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges: (1) claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) claims for violations of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. As the complaint alleges in greater detail, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturer giant Valeant implemented a growth by acquisition model through which it massively increased the prices of newly-acquired pharmaceutical products. Unbeknownst to investors, Valeant’s sales of these products following their price-hikes, and its publicly reported revenue growth, depended upon a secret network of captive pharmacies and a number of deceptive business practices. Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations inflated the price of the common stock and debt securities in which Mississippi PERS invested. When the truth was revealed through a series of disclosures that first began in late September and early October 2015, the value of Valeant securities plummeted, causing Mississippi PERS to suffer substantial investment losses. On October 19, 2017, the Court sua sponte issued an Order to Show Cause asking the parties to brief whether all civil actions against Valeant should be stayed pending the resolution of a related criminal action. On October 27, 2017, in response to the Order, Defendants filed identical motions in the class action and all individual actions asking the Court to stay all civil proceedings until the resolution of the criminal action. All plaintiffs opposed the motion on November 3, 2017. Defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion on November 8, 2017. The Court scheduled oral argument on the motions for November 29, 2017. The day before the hearing, the parties reached an agreement and submitted it to Judge Shipp, who cancelled the hearing and so ordered the parties stipulation. The parties agreed that PERS and the other direct actions will continue to brief the motions to dismiss. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss on December 6, 2017, and Plaintiffs filed an omnibus opposition on February 5, 2018. Defendants filed their replies on March 15, 2018. The Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss PERS’ complaint in full on July 31, 2018. Defendants have produced to the Class and the direct action plaintiffs the documents that they previously produced in numerous government investigations. PERS and the other direct action plaintiffs have also been coordinating to obtain documents that the class has received from third parties. The cases were stayed, pending the outcome of the criminal case, USA v. Tanner. On May 22, 2018, Defendants in the criminal case, Andrew Davenport, the former CEO of Philidor Rx Services LLC, and Gary Tanner, a former Valeant executive, were each found guilty of four charges, including wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering, and the court lifted the stay. On September 20, 2018, Lead Plaintiff in the class action filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint that named additional defendants, and those defendants moved to dismiss on October 31, 2018. On November 13, 2018, the parties to the class action stipulated to a stay of proceedings pending the court’s ruling on that motion. In the same stipulation, the direct action plaintiffs stipulated to a stay of proceedings in their actions that will end on the earlier of (i) 90 days from the court’s entry of the stipulation, or (ii) the court’s resolution of the motion to dismiss the class’ First Amended Consolidated Complaint. On March 27, 2019, Judge Shipp held a telephonic status


conference, and informed the parties that he intended to appoint Peter C. Harvey as a special master to oversee the litigations. Judge Shipp also indicated that he would decide the outstanding motions by Friday, April 5, 2019. We expect that the stay of discovery will be lifted shortly after. On Friday, March 29, 2019, Defendants filed a letter informing the court of potential conflicts that Mr. Harvey would have through his firm. On Tuesday, April 2, 2019, PERS filed a letter informing the court of conflicts Mr. Harvey had through his representation of Johnson & Johnson in a suit brought against the company by the Attorney General. In the letter, PERS opposed the appointment. 14. Volkswagen AG (Germany). On September 19, 2016, prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations for securities fraud claims in Germany, TILP Litigation (“TILP”) filed a complaint on behalf of PERS seeking to recover investment losses stemming from revelations about Volkswagen’s improper use of defeat devices to mask diesel emissions. PERS’ action falls under the German Capital Markets Model Case Act (the “KapMuG”), which has some similarities to a U.S. class action. Within the KapMuG, the model case format is used in which one case with a model plaintiff is selected to proceed, while other pending (and subsequently filed) claims are stayed, including PERS’ action. The decisions made in that model case are then binding on those other actions to the extent they have similar issues and name the same defendant. On March 8, 2017, the Braunschweig Appellate Court appointed Deka Investment GmbH as model plaintiff; Deka is represented by PERS’ counsel TILP. The model case proceedings are now under way with the first round of written pleadings. The model plaintiff filed its initial brief in August 2017. Thereafter, defendant Volkswagen filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s brief. The Court granted an extension to December 15, 2017. Volkswagen subsequently requested a further extension, and the Court granted a delay until February 28, 2018. Volkswagen filed its response at the end of February, and counsel is in the process of analyzing Volkswagen’s brief. Volkswagen’s main argument is that only a handful of junior engineers secretly built and used the defeat device, which could not be detected by any compliance systems before September 2015. Plaintiff’s counsel is confident that this argument can be rebutted because Volkswagen was required to have compliance systems in place that could detect a fraud of this magnitude. Plaintiff’s counsel will also cite the facts that former Chairman of the Board, Martin Winterkorn, knew of the fraud since May 2014 and that the scheme began in 2006 or 2007, making it unlikely that Volkswagen knew nothing about it for nearly a decade. On June 15, 2018, the Court included Porsche as a second defendant in this KapMuG action. The implications for the Volkswagen claims should be limited; however, the inclusion of Porsche may further extend the length of the proceeding.

The initial hearings in the model case against Volkswagen and Porsche began on September 10, 2018 at the Braunschweig Appellate Court. More than 50 lawyers were in attendance at the hearing, as well as members of the press. The judges used these initial hearings to deliver their preliminary opinion on (most) procedural and substantive issues of the case. The Court decided to extend the deadline for commentary to February 21, 2019, to give Porsche time to submit a brief. The Court has not set any further dates for submission; however, the issues for further briefing are clear, and parties are free to submit briefs as appropriate.

The Court’s preliminary views on a majority of issues explored to date have been clearly plaintiff friendly. This includes the Court’s analysis with respect to the statute of limitations and a rejection


of Volkswagen’s assertion that knowledge was a prerequisite for the obligation to publish inside information. Thus, Volkswagen will now have the burden to prove that its board (and arguably its senior management) was unaware of the emissions cheating.

During the hearing on November 26, 2018, the Court presented its preliminary analysis of the loss causation issue, assuming Volkswagen breached its obligations. The Court confirmed the general approach of plaintiffs’ expert, including the two-day price drop across September 21 and 22, 2015 (which had been heavily disputed), as a starting point for calculating losses, though the Court may make adjustments to the expert’s method. In accordance with German practice, the Court may appoint an expert to determine the details of the appropriate methodology.

The Court has determined that damages can be calculated for each account an investor holds; there is no need to merge all of the transactions across multiple accounts. The Court has not decided how to determine which shares are eligible for damages; the parties have been invited to address this issue in the next round of briefing.

Hearings resumed on March 25, 2019, and are scheduled to continue through September 2019; at that time, the Court will present its preliminary views on the issue of attribution of knowledge. 15. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. On August 25, 2017, a securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (“Dr. Reddy’s”). Dr. Reddy’s, an Indian pharmaceutical manufacturer, misled investors about having sufficiently robust quality processes and systems in place at its manufacturing facilities. Dr. Reddy’s shares dropped after a series of disclosures that revealed that conditions at three key Indian manufacturing facilities violated FDA regulations. On November 21, 2017, the court appointed the PERS as Lead Plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow as Lead Counsel in the action. On March 5, 2018, PERS filed its Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”). Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on May 9, 2018. On June 25, 2018, PERS filed its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and on July 25, 2018 Defendants filed their reply. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held on August 8, 2018. On March 21, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. On the merits, the Court sustained the allegations but dismissed certain misstatements for lack of standing. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Arpert, who has scheduled a case management teleconference for May 14, 2019. 16. Acuity Brands, Inc. On January 3 and February 20, 2018, securities fraud class actions were filed against Acuity Brands, Inc. (“Acuity”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The actions, brought under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, allege that Acuity, a provider of lighting and building management solutions, intentionally misled investors about the strength of its growth prospects, concealed known risks that negatively impacted sales, and used deceptive and unsustainable inventory management practices to artificially inflate sales figures. The lawsuits allege two class periods: June 29, 2016 through April 3, 2017; and October 15, 2015 through April 3, 2017. On March 5, 2018, PERS filed a motion to appoint it as lead plaintiff and to consolidate the actions under the longer class period. As of March 19, 2018, all competing movants for lead plaintiff have withdrawn their motions, leaving PERS positioned to be appointed as lead. Separately, Acuity filed a motion to transfer venue from


Delaware to the Northern District of Georgia which the court granted on April 30, 2018. The matter has now been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Mark Cohen presiding. Local counsel in Atlanta, Caplan Cobb, has been retained to assist. On August 13, 2018, the Court appointed PERS as lead plaintiff. PERS filed an amended complaint on October 5, 2018, and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 30, 2018. PERS filed its opposition brief on January 25, 2019, and Defendants filed their reply brief on February 25, 2019. Oral argument on the motion is set for April 18, 2019. 17. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. On February 6, 2018, a securities fraud class action was filed against Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (“AAP”) and certain AAP executives in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that AAP intentionally misled investors about the strength of its business and growth prospects by reporting sales growth and operating margins projections that the company knew were unattainable based on its own internal data. On April 9, 2018, PERS moved for appointment as lead plaintiff. On April 23, 2018, PERS and two competing lead plaintiff movants filed opposition briefs. On September 20, 2018, the case was reassigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. On November 2, 2018, the court appointed PERS as lead plaintiff, and has issued a scheduling order with the following deadlines: the amended complaint is due by January 25, 2019; motion to dismiss by March 26; response to motion to dismiss by May 28; and reply in support of motion to dismiss by July 1. PERS filed its amended complaint on January 25, 2019 and, on February 27, the Court issued the following new deadlines: motion to dismiss due by April 12; response due by June 14; and reply due by July 19, 2019. 18. WageWorks, Inc. On March 9, 2018 a securities fraud class action was filed against WageWorks, Inc. (“WAGE”) and certain WAGE executives in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that WAGE (an administrator of public and private employee benefit plans) and its executives issued false financial statements and engaged in insider trading. On May 8, 2018, PERS, with the Public Employees’ Retirement Association of New Mexico (“PERA”) and the Government Employees’ Retirement System of the Virgin Islands (GERS), filed a joint motion for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs. On August 7, 2018 the Court appointed PERS, PERA and GERS (collectively “Lead Plaintiffs”) as co-lead plaintiffs. On February 22, 2019, the Court ordered that Lead Plaintiffs will have 45 days from the date upon which WAGE issues its financial restatement to file an amended complaint. Defendants will then have 60 days from the date the amended complaint is filed to answer or otherwise respond. As of April 1, 2019, WAGE has still not filed its financial restatement. 19. Facebook, Inc. This is a securities fraud class action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Facebook and certain of its top executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, for violations of sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that, during the class period (February 3, 2017 through July 25, 2018), Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions to investors regarding Facebook’s privacy and data protection practices, sharing of its users’ data, compliance with a consent decree entered into with the FTC in 2012 and serious risks to Facebook’s business arising from Defendants’ privacy-related misconduct. In particular, the


complaint alleges, among other things, that Defendants had failed to notify users that their user data had been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica and affiliates and had not taken steps to adequately ensure that the improperly shared data was destroyed; Facebook user data had been shared and used for purposes and in ways that violated Facebook’s privacy policies and terms of use; Defendants violated the terms of Facebook’s consent decree with the FTC, and by concealing these realities from users and investors, Defendants misled the market and concealed the most critical aspect of Facebook’s business – i.e., its reputation as a trustworthy platform where users could share and control their personal information. On May 21, 2018, PERS and other parties moved for appointment as lead plaintiff. On August 3, 2018, PERS stipulated and the Court ordered that PERS would be named a co-lead plaintiff with Amalgamated Bank (collectively “Lead Plaintiffs”). On October 15, 2018, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. On December 14, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Lead Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition on February 12, 2019, and Defendants filed their reply on March 25, 2019. A hearing on the motion to dismiss and a case management conference are scheduled for April 25, 2019. 20. Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. On July 3, 2018, PERS filed a stockholder class action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against former officers and directors of Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. (“CPG”) for breaches of fiduciary duty and against CPG’s acquirer, TransCanada Corporation, for aiding and abetting those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Complaint generally alleges that, contrary to the best interests of PERS and other stockholders, certain former officers and directors of CPG breached their fiduciary duties by perpetrating a scheme to force a sale of CPG to TransCanada in order to trigger lucrative change-in-control benefits worth more than $40 million to CPG’s officers and directors. On July 6, 2018, PERS moved to intervene in a related appraisal action arising from TransCanada’s acquisition of TPG, for the limited purpose of securing access to the full confidential discovery record in that action. The Court did not rule on that motion and instead effectively stayed the fiduciary duty litigation pending the outcome of the appraisal case. The appraisal case was tried over four days in October 2018. We attended this trial which went exceptionally well. The fiduciary action is currently in post-trial briefing. We expect a decision over the next several months. 21. Nielsen Holdings plc. On August 8, 2018, a securities fraud class action was filed against Nielsen Holdings plc (“Nielsen” or the “Company”) and certain of its executives in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that Nielsen, a global marketing services company, offered false assurances that its Buy Segment business was steady and that new data privacy regulations had no negative impact on the Company’s business. The true state of Nielsen’s business was revealed on July 26, 2018, when Nielsen attributed poor results to new privacy policies restricting access to third-party data, and continued decline in Buy Segment sales. On October 9, 2018, PERS filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, along with three competing movants. Subsequently, all three competing movants either withdrew their motion or filed a notice of non-opposition in recognition of the fact that PERS has the largest financial interest in the action. Accordingly, PERS’ motion for lead plaintiff appointment is currently unopposed. Once appointed, PERS will have 60 days to file the amended complaint.


FIRMS INVOLVED IN PERS SECURITIES MONITORING AND LITIGATION

Barrack Rodos & Bacine Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Radnor, Pennsylvania

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP New York, New York Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein San Francisco, California

Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. New York, New York Labaton Sucharow LLP New York, New York

Wolf Popper LLP New York, New York Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Washington, D.C. Berger & Montague Philadelphia, PA

Zimmerman Reed Minneapolis, Minnesota Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP New York, New York

RECOVERIES FROM SECURITIES CLASS ACTION CASES (FY2019)

DATE AMOUNT RECEIVED SECURITY/CORPORATION RECEIVED 12/07/2018 Credit Suisse Securities $,3129,218.60 TOTAL RECOVERIES $3,129,218.60

@ pro-rata of remaining funds * reimbursement of administrative costs

SECURITIES-RELATED CASES IN WHICH PERS IS A DEFENDANT

1. In Re: Tribune Company (Noteholders Action and Fitzsimons Action) – Certain unsecured creditors and noteholders filed multiple suits against selling shareholders of Tribune Company, including PERS, seeking to recover funds received through a leveraged buyout (LBO) of the company. PERS, along with a group of other public pension plans retained Ice Miller as outside counsel to represent it in this matter. In a September 23, 2013, decision, the Court dismissed the Noteholder cases which asserted state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims against


former Tribune shareholders. The Noteholder appealed this decision and on March 24, 2016, the Second Circuit issued its Opinion affirming the lower court and holding that the state law fraudulent conveyance claims asserted in Tribune were preempted by section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In January 2017, the intentional fraudulent conveyance claims (Fitzsimons Action) were dismissed by the district court. However, no final appealable order was entered because motions to dismiss other claims against other defendants are still pending. On January 17, 2018, the plaintiffs in both actions issued a proposal offering to settle all claims in both the FitzSimons and Noteholder Actions for those shareholders that received up to $10MM in the Tribune LBO. Plaintiffs have offered to settle all claims for 27.5% of all Shareholder Payments received from Step One of the Tribune LBO, and 55% of all Shareholder Payments received from Step Two. PERS received $3,814,834.00 during LBO. The offer to settle terminates upon the earlier of (1) a ruling from the S. Ct. in Merit Mgt., or (2) April 17, 2018. The PERS Board rejected this officer. On February 22, 2018, U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the Merit Mgt. appeal, affirming the 7th Circuit’s decision. This decision limits the application of the 546(e) safe harbor in Tribune, the Noteholder Plaintiffs, whose case was previously dismissed. Plaintiffs may be able to revive their constructive fraudulent conveyance action and the Litigation Trustee in FitzSimons may be granted leave to amend his complaint to include a constructive fraudulent conveyance claim. On April 3, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court the Supreme Court issued the attached “Statement” regarding the Tribune Noteholder’s long pending Cert petition. The Statement states that consideration of the petition will continue to be deferred, because they don’t have a quorum, but invites the Second Circuit or the District Court to take some action on the Noteholder’s appeal in light of its decision in Merit Management. For the moment; however, all of the shareholders remain dismissed from the FitzSimons litigation, but there remains a possibility the shareholders could be brought back into the litigation. Plaintiffs have since issued a new settlement offer with a much higher cost than the previous offer. Plaintiffs have offered to settle all claims for 35% of all Shareholder Payments received from Step One of the Tribune LBO, and 70% of all Shareholder Payments received from Step Two. Since March 1, 2012, PERS has paid $27,987.32 in attorneys’ fees related to this matter.

PERS of Mississippi Report to the Board of Trustees

ALL MONTHLY TOTALS BY RETIREMENT TYPE AND BENEFIT AMOUNT SUMMARY

SYSTEMS SERV DISAB SURV TOTAL

MONTH YEAR # $ # $ # $ # $

JULY 2018 97,275 $157,827,484.06 7,539 $9,284,606.86 3,771 $3,147,811.42 108,585 $170,259,902.34

AUGUST 2018 97,962 $159,415,508.13 7,535 $9,286,485.29 3,771 $3,144,553.48 109,268 $171,846,546.90

SEPTEMBER 2018 98,175 $159,865,043.63 7,557 $9,323,349.65 3,771 $3,153,137.50 109,503 $172,341,530.78

OCTOBER 2018 98,226 $160,001,850.21 7,564 $9,340,182.91 3,768 $3,154,147.71 109,558 $172,496,180.83

NOVEMBER 2018 98,268 $160,066,937.35 7,555 $9,338,880.92 3,735 $3,138,425.56 109,558 $172,544,243.83

DECEMBER 2018 98,313 $160,163,583.68 7,553 $9,348,293.38 3,743 $3,139,714.69 109,609 $172,651,591.75

DEC. 15 2018 0 $609,508,147.46

JANUARY 2019 98,563 $160,923,335.57 7,558 $9,367,384.93 3,749 $3,138,604.41 109,870 $173,429,324.91

FEBRUARY 2019 98,606 $161,145,749.60 7,563 $9,375,035.14 3,755 $3,139,238.40 109,924 $173,660,023.14

MARCH 2019 98,630 $161,248,365.57 7,573 $9,371,402.36 3,763 $3,146,130.96 109,966 $173,765,898.89

APRIL 2019 98,604 $161,331,737.54 7,558 $9,349,110.58 3,769 $3,152,736.09 109,931 $173,833,584.21

MAY 2019 0 $0.00

JUNE 2019 0 $0.00

YTD 98,604 $1,601,989,595.34 7,558 93,384,732.02$ 3,769 31,454,500.22$ 109,931 $2,336,336,975.04

Page 1


ALL SUMMARY

SYSTEMS

MONTH YEAR # $ # $ # $ # $ # $

JULY 2018 105,945 $165,756,187.02 207 $86,931.28 733 $1,938,435.64 1,700 $2,478,348.40 108,585 $170,259,902.34

AUGUST 2018 106,625 $167,309,214.06 207 $86,931.28 739 $1,976,110.88 1,697 $2,474,290.68 109,268 $171,846,546.90

SEPTEMBER 2018 106,862 $167,800,025.31 207 $85,746.96 740 $1,982,540.82 1,694 $2,473,217.69 109,503 $172,341,530.78

OCTOBER 2018 106,923 $167,960,805.85 208 $86,475.08 739 $1,982,160.58 1,688 $2,466,739.32 109,558 $172,496,180.83

NOVEMBER 2018 106,931 $168,019,069.96 208 $86,780.47 739 $1,982,499.54 1,680 $2,455,893.86 109,558 $172,544,243.83

DECEMBER 2018 106,985 $168,128,614.14 209 $86,957.29 737 $1,980,324.48 1,678 $2,455,695.79 109,609 $172,651,591.70

DEC. 15 2018 - $609,508,147.46

JANUARY 2019 107,243 $168,879,563.42 209 $86,957.29 744 $1,999,854.25 1,674 $2,462,949.95 109,870 $173,429,324.91

FEBRUARY 2019 107,309 $169,125,633.81 209 $86,948.81 742 $1,993,780.30 1,664 $2,453,660.22 109,924 $173,660,023.14

MARCH 2019 107,360 $169,241,658.62 208 $86,089.55 742 $1,994,384.83 1,656 $2,443,765.89 109,966 $173,765,898.89

APRIL 2019 107,331 $169,313,856.89 210 $87,270.95 741 $1,994,311.91 1,649 $2,438,144.46 109,931 $173,833,584.21

MAY 2019 - $0.00

JUNE 2019 - $0.00

YTD 107,331 $1,681,534,629.08 210 $867,088.96 741 19,824,403.23$ 1,649 24,602,706.26$ 109,931 $2,336,336,974.99

TOTAL

MONTHLY TOTALS BY RETIREMENT PLAN AND BENEFIT AMOUNT

PERS SLRP MHSP MRS

Page 2


ALL

SYSTEMS

MONTH YEAR YTD Added Removed Total YTD Added Removed Total YTD Added Removed Total YTD Added Removed Total YTD Added Removed Total

JULY 2018 105,074 1,117 247 105,944 730 4 1 733 207 1 1 207 1,706 4 10 1,700 107,717 1,126 259 108,584

AUGUST 2018 105,944 1,016 335 106,625 733 9 3 739 207 1 1 207 1,700 8 11 1,697 108,584 1,034 350 109,268

SEPTEMBER 2018 106,625 502 265 106,862 739 3 2 740 207 1 1 207 1,697 2 5 1,694 109,268 508 273 109,503

OCTOBER 2018 106,862 328 267 106,923 740 - 1 739 207 1 - 208 1,694 3 9 1,688 109,503 332 277 109,558

NOVEMBER 2018 106,923 358 350 106,931 739 - - 739 208 1 1 208 1,688 1 9 1,680 109,558 360 360 109,558

DECEMBER 2018 106,931 300 246 106,985 739 - 2 737 208 1 - 209 1,680 3 5 1,678 109,558 304 253 109,609

JANUARY 2019 106,985 536 278 107,243 737 7 - 744 209 - - 209 1,678 3 7 1,674 109,609 546 285 109,870

FEBRUARY 2019 107,243 423 357 107,309 744 3 5 742 209 1 1 209 1,674 2 12 1,664 109,870 429 375 109,924

MARCH 2019 107,309 304 253 107,360 742 4 4 742 209 1 2 208 1,664 2 10 1,656 109,924 311 269 109,966

APRIL 2019 107,360 344 373 107,331 742 2 3 741 208 2 - 210 1,656 3 10 1,649 109,966 351 386 109,931

MAY 2019 - - - - -

JUNE 2019 - - - - -

RECIPIENTS ADDED AND REMOVED FROM PAYROLL BY PLAN

PERS MHSP SLRP MRS TOTAL

Page 3


ALL

SYSTEMSPartial Lump Sum Benefits Refunds Totals

MONTH YEAR $ $ $ $

JULY 2018 $50,652,020.34 $2,668,172.30 $10,056,756.00 $63,376,948.64

AUGUST 2018 $4,490,520.12 $1,046,119.52 $11,753,097.42 $17,289,737.06

SEPTEMBER 2018 $2,021,786.64 $511,334.23 $9,047,369.17 $11,580,490.04

OCTOBER 2018 $3,383,552.71 $644,700.80 $9,973,432.12 $14,001,685.63

NOVEMBER 2018 $2,415,716.52 $455,239.03 $7,827,370.21 $10,698,325.76

DECEMBER 2018 $1,815,960.12 -$537,218.99 $6,869,431.88 $8,148,173.01

JANUARY 2019 $16,649,424.99 $686,382.06 $9,542,332.47 $26,878,139.52

FEBRUARY 2019 $3,844,374.14 $279,140.27 $7,554,983.67 $11,678,498.08

MARCH 2019 $2,550,793.30 $225,857.00 $7,031,238.79 $9,807,889.09

APRIL 2019 $0.00

MAY 2019 $0.00

JUNE 2019 $0.00

YTD $87,824,148.88 $5,979,726.22 $79,656,011.73 $173,459,886.83

DAILY PAYROLL TOTALS BY PAYMENT TYPE

Page 4


ALL

SYSTEMS DAILY PAYROLL** MONTHLY PAYROLL PAYROLL TOTALS

MONTH YEAR $ $ $

JULY 2018 $53,320,192.64 $170,259,902.34 $223,580,094.98

AUGUST 2018 $5,536,639.64 $171,846,546.90 $177,383,186.54

SEPTEMBER 2018 $2,533,120.87 $172,341,530.78 $174,874,651.65

OCTOBER 2018 $4,028,253.51 $172,496,180.83 $176,524,434.34

NOVEMBER 2018 $2,870,955.55 $172,544,243.83 $175,415,199.38

DECEMBER 2018 $1,278,741.13 $172,651,591.75 $173,930,332.88

DECEMBER 15th 2018 $0.00 $609,508,147.46 $609,508,147.46

JANUARY 2019 $17,335,807.05 $173,429,324.91 $190,765,131.96

FEBRUARY 2019 $4,123,514.41 $173,660,023.14 $177,783,537.55

MARCH 2019 $2,776,650.30 $173,765,898.89 $176,542,549.19

APRIL 2019 $0.00 $173,833,584.21 $173,833,584.21

MAY 2019 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

JUNE 2019 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

YTD $93,803,875.10 $2,336,336,975.04 $2,430,140,850.14

COMBINED DAILY AND MONTHLY RETIREE PAYROLL TOTALS

**Note: This information does not include the Refunds only Retiree Payroll (PLSO and Benefits)

Page 5

Documents

Board of Trustees Meeting Agenda Meeting Docs... · 2020-06-10 · Board of Trustees Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 23, 2019 . 1:00 P.M. I. Call to Order (Mr. Kelly Breland). A. Invocation