Bill would keep state's annuity system in-house

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana House is set to consider legislation that will prevent the state from privatizing one part of public employee and teacher retirement funds.

House Bill 1075 – authored by Rep. Woody Burton, R-Whiteland – tells the Indiana Public Retirement System that it can’t use a third-party vendor to provide annuities to its members, who worked for state and local governments and schools.

The annuity is one of a two-part retirement system. The system includes a defined benefit plan, which is funded by government and schools for its employees, and a savings account that can be funded by employees or employers.

Upon retirement, the worker can take the savings account as a lump sum, roll it into a different retirement account, or convert it to an annuity to spread its benefits over the length of retirement.

Currently, retirees who opt to annuitize their savings can do so with a 7.5-percent interest rate, which is well above market rates and the amount the state is earning off the money that’s invested. The gap – which the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency estimates is $2 million per month – creates an unfunded liability that the Indiana Public Retirement System board of trustees decided was no longer acceptable.

The INPRS board of trustees voted last year to fix the problem by hiring a third-party provider, which would transfer the risk of loss from the pension funds to the provider. That vendor would manage the funds and set the interest rates for the annuities.

However, legislators and public employees were upset that a portion of the retirement money would then go to a private firm, which would charge fees to make a profit.

Lawmakers encouraged the INPRS board last year to reconsider. They suggested that the board keep the annuity system in house, but set more realistic rates of return. INPRS opted to stick with its original plan, which led Burton to file its bill.

HB 1075 prohibits INPRS from using a third-party vendor to handle annuities. But it also requires the board to establish a new rate of return no later than July 1 of each year, basing it on the actual investment rate and the performance of the market.


  • It's your choice
    Paul--It's your choice to be in the "guaranteed fund". Don't be lazy and research the other PERF fund return options and choose one of those if you don't like the .26 return.
  • Good bill
    It's nice to see legislators doing something in the interest of citizens. There's no reason to take a cut of the funds that should go to retirees and give them to a private firm. Next, maybe the legislature can look at requiring PERF to restore a reasonable interest rate for employees who select its Guaranteed Fund instead of the measly 0.26% rate now offered.

Post a comment to this story

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

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

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. In reality, Lilly is maintaining profit by cutting costs such as Indiana/US citizen IT workers by a significant amount with their Tata Indian consulting connection, increasing Indian H1B's at Lillys Indiana locations significantly and offshoring to India high paying Indiana jobs to cut costs and increase profit at the expense of U.S. workers.

  2. I think perhaps there is legal precedence here in that the laws were intended for family farms, not pig processing plants on a huge scale. There has to be a way to squash this judges judgment and overrule her dumb judgement. Perhaps she should be required to live in one of those neighbors houses for a month next to the farm to see how she likes it. She is there to protect the people, not the corporations.

  3. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/03-111.htm Corporate farms are not farms, they are indeed factories on a huge scale. The amount of waste and unhealthy smells are environmentally unsafe. If they want to do this, they should be forced to buy a boundary around their farm at a premium price to the homeowners and landowners that have to eat, sleep, and live in a cesspool of pig smells. Imagine living in a house that smells like a restroom all the time. Does the state really believe they should take the side of these corporate farms and not protect Indiana citizens. Perhaps justifiable they should force all the management of the farms to live on the farm itself and not live probably far away from there. Would be interesting to investigate the housing locations of those working at and managing the corporate farms.

  4. downtown in the same area as O'malia's. 350 E New York. Not sure that another one could survive. I agree a Target is needed d'town. Downtown Philly even had a 3 story Kmart for its downtown residents.

  5. Indy-area residents... most of you have no idea how AMAZING Aurelio's is. South of Chicago was a cool pizza place... but it pales in comparison to the heavenly thin crust Aurelio's pizza. Their deep dish is pretty good too. My waistline is expanding just thinking about this!