Financial analyst sued for calculations on retirement funds

Buck Consulting, the firm that did the financial analysis for Gov. Bobby Jindal’s state retirement system revamp proposals, has been sued by Providence, R.I., for pension savings miscalculations.

Buck has a $600,000 state contract that ends in June.

Louisiana Commissioner of Administration Kristy Nichols said she is not worried about Buck’s work for the state because all the assumptions it used in calculations were made public “for any other actuary to validate at any time.”

That type of transparency makes her confident of Buck’s work, she said.

Nichols said the administration chose Buck Consulting because the legislative auditor has used the firm’s services in the past, “and they’ve been correct and understand Louisiana and our systems.”

“We did reach out to Buck on the lawsuit,” Nichols said. Buck officials said that no one on the Providence team is involved in Louisiana work, she said.

“We are confidant Buck Consultant’s analysis is accurate,” Nichols said.

Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera said his office used Buck in 2010 to analyze a potential defined contribution benefit pension plan. The firm determined there would be a cost, he said.

“I don’t think you can equate the work they did for us with the work they did for them,” Purpera said. “We stressed all the time we are independent.”

The New York-based Buck has been the actuary for the city of Providence since the 1920s.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this week, accuses Buck of miscalculating $700,000 in savings the city expected from pension revamp efforts this year. The mistake amounts to $10.8 million in today’s dollars over the next 28 years, Providence Mayor Angel Taveras said in a statement.

Providence alleges that Buck breached its contract and fiduciary duty as well as negligence and violation of the Rhode Island False Claims Act.

Buck’s contract with the Jindal administration started out at $400,000 but was bumped up to a maximum $600,000 as it continued work on proposals affecting current and future state employees the governor pushed during the 2012 legislative session.

Jindal said the current pension system is “unsustainable.” He noted the unfunded accrued liability of two major statewide retirement systems which demands higher and higher state contributions.

The proposals that would have had current employees pay more, work longer for a reduced pension benefit died. The so-called “cash balance” plan for employees hired after July 1, 2013, cleared the Legislature but is now subject of a court challenge by the Louisiana Retired State Employees Association.

“The scope of the contract has not changed. They continue to advise us on the cash balance plan,” Nichols said.

In Louisiana, Buck’s calculation is at the heart of a lawsuit challenging the way in which the Legislature passed the state’s new 401(k)-type pension system for future employees.

Buck projected no new state costs while the Legislature’s actuary said there would be expenses.

Added expense triggers a two-thirds vote requirement, which was not achieved in the Louisiana House.

A state district judge threw out the law, siding with the Legislature’s actuary and ruling it did not get the constitutionally required vote.

The Jindal administration is sticking by the Buck analysis and appealing the judge’s ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (4)


1) Comment by PLac - 02/03/2013

Please remove the disgusting sub headlines "More from the advocate" section: Bestiality and 9yr old impregnated by father. This is disgusting; and at the bottom of every damned article I read here. Disgusted, plac

2) Comment by RODEO CLOWN - 02/03/2013

The following statement is a perfect example of administrative “double talk” practiced by Jindal and the “JINDANISTA'S”. “Louisiana Commissioner of Administration Kristy Nichols said she is not worried about Buck’s work for the state because all the assumptions it used in calculations were made public 'for any other actuary to validate at any time'.” Please note, Ms. Nichols does not state the actuarial calculations were reexamined nor reevaluated, just that the “calculations were made public 'for any other actuary to validate at any time”. This is a fancy way of saying, we are not going to reexamine the figures. If anyone does not trust them, examine them yourself. From Jindal and Ms. Nichols's standpoint, the state's retirement fund is deserving of “due diligence” only to the extent the administration deems worth. The state's retirement fund is a perfect example of Jindal's approach of “throwing the baby out with the bath water”. It is and example of what I've termed the “P.J. Approach”, ie, “Pre-Jindal” approach, exhibited by Jindal and the “Jindanista's”. The “P.J.” approach dictates any vestige of state government existing prior to Jindal's election is automatically assumed to be “carte blanche” wrong and not worthy of existence. Simply look at Jindal's approach, efforts over the past few years. One will see this best defines Jindal's administration. The truth is that all previous existing vestiges of government are NOT worth of decimation and irradiation. The truth is Jindal is to much of a simpleton to comprehend the complexities of state initiated and maintained organizations. Instead of learning the “how and why” of any given state organization, Jindal approaches their existence from the attitude that the organization simply should not exist as part of the state. It is “privatization or the high way”. It is so pitiful. How could an individual be so so educated and manifest such stupidity?

3) Comment by SuzanneMS - 02/03/2013

Let me get this straight -- they are confident that Buck's numbers are correct because no independent actuary voluntarily re-ran them to make sure there were no errors? Except the Legislature's actuary, of course, but he doesn't count because he didn't validate their findings? And the UAL does not require the state to make "higher and higher contributions." The state's contribution remains the same as it always was -- if the state had bothered to make it, that is. One question on that cash balance plan that is never answered -- why should we believe that the state would make its required contribution to that plan, when it hasn't to the existing plan?

4) Comment by eliassiebens - 02/03/2013

Annabelle. I can see what your saying... Nicole`s blurb is impossible, last week I bought a great new Audi Quattro since getting a cheque for $5902 this-last/5 weeks and-in excess of, $10k last munth. it's by-far the most-comfortable work Ive ever had. I began this 4 months ago and right away started bringing in at least $78... per-hr. I follow instructions here-=-=-=- BIT40.COM -=-=- =-