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