ShareThis Page

Cut SERS investment fees

| Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale (Trib photo)
Sidney Davis | Tribune-Review
Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale (Trib photo)

In June, Pennsylvania took an important step regarding its $70 billion-plus in unfunded public pension liabilities — a new law giving new employees 401(k)-style options in addition to traditional plans. Now, Auditor General Eugene DePasquale wants the State Employees' Retirement System to take another important step — further reducing fees paid to outside investment managers.

Discussing a newly completed SERS audit, Mr. DePasquale commended the agency for reducing such fees from $345 million in 2007 to $167 million in 2016. But he urged doing more, suggesting SERS target reducing such fees to $50 million annually, largely by making greater use of passive, index-fund-style investment strategies.

“Every dime going to Wall Street managers is not going into the pension funds that desperately need it, and adds ... stress to Pennsylvania's budget situation,” he said. Further, SERS' 6.5-percent 2016 return on investments lagged both the expected 7.25-percent return and the 12.4-percent national median return, he noted. SERS also needs to reduce investment costs because “if there is a downturn in the stock market any time soon, we are in big, big trouble, which is why every single dime has to go into the pension funds,” he told PennLive.

With SERS' funding level at 58.7 percent and its projected unfunded liability at $19.5 billion this year, every dime does count. Further reducing SERS' investment fees is another step among many needed to ensure public pensions' solvency and sustainability.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.