Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System
Donna Mueller,
Chief Executive Officer
Mission Statement:
To provide cost-effective and sufficient core retirement
benefits and services exclusively to members and beneficiaries
for their care in retirement, to reduce personnel turnover
and to attract competent men and women to public service
in the State of Iowa.
Measures:
IPERS investment return
IPERS investments meet actuarial assumed
returns
IPERS service scores compared to other
public pension systems
IPERS benefits are administered
cost effectively
IPERS Trust Fund is invested cost
effectively
|
 |
-
Performance Plan - How we measure our progress
-
Strategic
Plan - How we plan for progress
-
Performance
Report - How we report our progress
-
Department Home Page - Learn more about this department
|
|
Highlighted Measure:
Percent by which IPERS meets
its total fund portfolio investment
return objective (a passively
managed benchmark comprised of
indexes for each asset class
within the Investment Board's
target allocations). Measurement
is taken twice a year on a rolling
10-year basis.
Data Source: IPERS
Updated 11/8/07 |
 |
|
Why
this is important:
Provide effective investment of the IPERS Trust
Fund to meet payments of current and future pension
payments.
What we're doing about this:
A comprehensive asset/liability study completed in
September 2003 indicated that IPERS' average
annual investment over ten-year periods, both
in absolute terms and relative to its objectives,
could be slightly improved over the return expected
for the next ten years by adopting revisions
to its asset allocation targets. The revised
targets were recommended and adopted by the IPERS
Investment Board on September 25, 2003. Staff
is in the process of moving assets and hiring
additional service contractors in order to reach
those targets, which will be a gradual process
that may take up to two years to complete.The Investment Board reviewed
this asset allocation again in September 2005
and reaffirmed the target asset allocation.
|
|
|
Highlighted Measure:
Percent by which IPERS investment
return, on a rolling 10 year
basis, meets the 7.5% assumed
actuarial annual rate of interest.
Data Source: IPERS
Updated 11/8/07 |
 |
|
Why
this is important:
The actuarial soundness of IPERS fund is very
important as it ultimately describes whether
IPERS has sufficient funds to pay all of the
promised benefits.
What we're doing about this:
IPERS continues to invest its funds in a conservative
yet practical manner in order to provide the
best return for the lowest risk. IPERS also has conducted studies and
reported
to the Legislature that contribution rates must
be increased in order for the system to continue
to remain in actuarial balance over the long
term.
|
|
|
| Highlighted Measure:
IPERS' quality of service score
as ranked against peer public pension
systems within the benchmarking
services compiled by Cost Effectiveness
Measurement, Inc.
Data Source: Cost Effectiveness Measurement, Inc.
Updated 4/8/08 |
 |
|
Why
this is important:
Since IPERS has no peers in state government, it is important
to benchmark services against those provided by other public
employee retirement systems. The CEM benchmarking effort
involves approximately 74 leading pension systems in the
U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia. CEM measures quality
of service delivery in eleven service categories ranging
from communication, counseling, payments, and service to
employers. In ten of the eleven service categories, IPERS'
service measures were greater than the per average. IPERS
uses the benchmarking analysis in each of the measurable
service areas to improve services to employees and employers.
The over all "quality of service" score of 82
exceeded the peer median score of 78. Over the past four
years, IPERS' quality of service scores have shown continued
improvement from a score of 74 in 2002 to the current score
of 82 in 2007.
What we're doing about this:
Results from the preliminary benchmarking study is being used to improve the quality of services and the efficiency of services by applying innovative approaches and best practices.
|
|
|
Highlighted Measure:
Percent by which IPERS benefit
administrative costs are less
than peer median administrative
costs as measured by CEM per
active member and annuitant.
Data Source: IPERS
NOTE: The larger the percentage is that IPERS is away from
the median cost of other
peer public pension funds
the better.
Updated 4/8/08 |
 |
|
Why
this is important:
It is important to strive to control costs but still deliver
the highest level of service possible. For the fourth year
in a row, IPERS succeeded in keeping costs low. IPERS' cost
in 2007 was held to at $35 per active and retired member.
This compares to the peer median cost of $73 per active
and retired member in 2007, which is up from $69 in 2006.
What we're doing about this:
The data clearly show that IPERS has been successful
in this area as we are the lowest cost system
in our CEM peer group of public retirement systems.
|
|
|
Highlighted Measure:
Percent of total fund market
value spent on investment administrative
costs.
Data Source: IPERS
Updated 11/8/07
|
 |
|
Why
this is important:
It is important
to continuously strive to control investment
management costs but still seek the highest
possible return on our investments.
What we're doing about this:
IPERS has established several mechanisms to control
investment management costs including being one
of the very first state agencies to include performance
incentives in money manager contracts. In addition,
the IPERS Investment Board provides close monitoring
of the investment program and annually reviews
and approves an Investment Policy and Goal Statement.
|
|
|
