What's In It For Me?

Posted on
What’s in it for me?

That’s a reasonable question for members to ask after reading announcements about MOSERS receiving recognition for achievements in the areas of customer service and investment return.  Is this just MOSERS filling up a trophy case or is there something in it for me as a member?

The reality is that awards are not the objective. On the customer service side, awards are a product of MOSERS’ ongoing efforts to assure that our members have readily accessible information and a clear understanding of the retirement, life insurance, long-term disability and deferred compensation benefits afforded state employees who are members of the system.  On the investment program side, they are a product of our initiatives to keep taxpayer costs down by assuring that as much of the money needed to finance benefits as responsibly as possible will come from professionally generating return on invested assets. Every dollar of investment income earned is a dollar that does not have to come from the state’s limited resources.

When I’m the customer, I hate getting stuck on an automated attendant treadmill when I want to talk to a real person who can answer my questions without me being transferred to seven different people.  If I take time from my schedule to visit an organization, I don’t want to discover that the person I’ve been waiting to see has to send me to someone else.  If I decide to gather information late in the evening, I think I should be able to do it then. My assessment of the quality of customer service is fairly simple – how easy was it for me to get what I wanted when I wanted it?  I think that is a reasonable test for all to apply when they are the customer.

At MOSERS, we use an independent benchmarking service to assess how we are doing in regard to the delivery of high quality customer service at a reasonable price. This allows us to make strategic decisions regarding where we need to focus our attention in our ongoing efforts to improve on what we do for you, the members.

From the most recent report received, if we were average at benefit administration, our staff would be 65% larger and our annual cost per member for administration would be 1/3 higher. By attracting and retaining the right people, there is a much higher probability that when you contact someone here they will be able to help you; accordingly, low staff turnover is important.  It also means we have to spend less time training than would be the case if we did have high turnover so it makes us that much more productive.

My reports regarding our measured achievements are to let you know that we are focused on service and cost. The numbers look good but the acid test is your impression. I want to hear from you regarding the good and any bad experiences you have with us. (While I like hearing about good experiences, I’m actually more interested in learning of any bad experiences because that is where adjustments can result in improvements.)

On the investment side, every dollar earned through our program goes to support the benefits provided and is a dollar that does not have to come from state contributions. From there it naturally follows that the lower we can keep the cost to the state (the taxpayers) the more the state has for other programs and priorities throughout state government.

As I’m sure you know, managing billions of dollars since the turn of the century has been a real challenge.  For the ten-year period ended June 30, 2011, we were recently cited by an independent source as having the highest investment return during that period of all statewide retirement plans in the nation.  Despite the impact of the credit crisis of 2008, our net of fees annualized return for the ten-year period ended June 30, 2012 was 8.07%.

So, what does that mean to you, the members?  The sustainability of the program and the benefit security you enjoy will be a direct function of keeping the cost of the plan down while accumulating the assets required to pay benefits, both of which are directly tied to the success of the investment program. My reports on the investment part of our program are intended to simply let you know how we are performing in that regard.

If you find yourself asking, “What’s in it for me?” my hope is that you will now be well positioned to knowingly say, “A lot!”

Gary Findlay is the Executive Director of MOSERS

Print Friendly and PDF

Friday Top Five

Posted on
The Friday Top Five: A collection of the top five news articles, blog posts, or other retirement related information from the past week.

From Ady Dewey at PensionDialog: Defined Benefit Criticisms are Based on a Misinterpretation of Funding

PD welcomes this guest post by Victoria Hubbell of the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Fund. In it, Hubbell discusses the complexities of public pension plan funding.

From the New York Times: Our Ridiculous Approach to Retirement

Teresa Ghilarducci, author of the book When I'm Sixty-Four: The Plot Against Pensions and the Plan to Save Them, writes in this New York Times opinion piece of her ad hoc conversations with her friends about their retirement plans. She laments the fact that these conversations are often difficult and leave her and her friends with a sense of dread. She offers a plan to move us out of what she calls "the coming retirement income security crisis."

From the American Academy of Actuaries: A Letter to Senator Orrin Hatch Regarding State and Local Government Defined Benefit Pension Plans

I know what you're thinking: The American Society of Actuaries made our FTF? Indeed! This letter, penned by the Academy's Pension Practice Council and sent to U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, is commentary on a report issued by the senator's congressional committee titled “State and Local Government Defined Benefit Pension Plans: The Pension Debt Crisis that Threatens America.”

From aiCIO, a magazine for institutional chief investment officers: CalPERS Pushes Back Against Media Firestorm

CalPERS comes out swinging. From the article: "In a letter addressing the Sonoma County Press Democrat, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) blasted the paper’s editorial about the fund’s most recent annual return as demonstrating 'a severe misunderstanding of CalPERS’ pension fund investment strategy.' It also accused the paper of mischaracterizing 'how a single-year return will actually impact public agencies.'"

From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal: The Most-Overlooked Financial Planning Tool That's Free to Everyone

Your Social Security benefit statement is available online and is a powerful tool you can use to plan for your retirement and to help you make decisions regarding retirement saving, estate planning, and disability decisions.

The views expressed by the writers of these pieces are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of MOSERS. Print Friendly and PDF

Pensionomics 2012: Measuring the Economic Impact of DB PensionExpenditures

Posted on
From the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS):

A new economic analysis study finds that pension benefit expenditures provide critical economic stimulus to the Missouri economy, including $4.9 billion  in total economic output. Pensionomics 2012: Measuring the Economic Impact of Defined Benefit Pension Expenditures, reports the national economic impacts of public and private pension plans, as well as the impact of state and local plans on a state-by-state basis.

The study calculates that pension expenditures supported some  38,518 jobs in Missouri that paid $1.6 billion in income.  Pension benefits accounted for some $4.9 billion in total economic output and $2.8 billion in value added in  Missouri. These expenditures  also supported some $640.1 million in tax revenue at the local, state,  and federal levels.

In 2009, Missouri’s unemployment rate was 9.3%. The study finds  that the 38,518 jobs supported by pension     expenditures is significant, as it represents 1.3 percentage points in the state labor force in that year. “Missouri  retirees   don’t put their pension checks in a drawer and forget about them,” said  Ilana Boivie, report author and NIRS economist.  “They use it for daily living  expenses, and to pay taxes. The money goes right back into the economy, which means   financial stability for the retiree and economic growth for Missouri.”

“Understanding the economic impact of pension spending is critical as our economy struggles to recover and create jobs,” said Diane Oakley, NIRS executive director. “The secure monthly income provided by pensions can act as an  ‘automatic stabilizer.’ Missouri retirees with a reliable pension check can continue spending on food, housing, and medicine even during tough economic times.”

Oakley continued, “That isn’t necessarily the case for retirees relying on 401(k)-­type plans, who in 2009 experienced big losses to their nest egg. These Americans are often forced to retreat from spending just when the  economy needs stimulus.”

The study also finds that expenditures made from public pension benefits in 2009:

• Paid $3.3 billion in pension benefits to 149,001 retirees and beneficiaries in Missouri.

• Had large multiplier effects. Each taxpayer dollar invested in Missouri’s public pensions supported $5.43 in total    economic activity, while each dollar  paid out in benefits supported $1.49 in economic activity.

• Impacted every industry in Missouri. A detailed Missouri economic impact fact sheet, and the full economic impact study, are available at www.nirsonline.org.

Nationally, the study finds that more than $1 trillion in total economic output and $553 billion in value added in the United States was attributable to private and  public pension benefits. These pension expenditures supported some 6.5 million American jobs that paid nearly $315 billion in income to other Americans in 2009. The analysis was conducted using data from the U.S. Census Bureau and IMPLAN, an input - output modeling software widely used by industry and governments.

ABOUT NIRS

NIRS is a non - profit,  non - partisan organization established to contribute to informed policy making by fostering a deep understanding of the value of retirement security to employees, employers, and the economy as a whole. Located in Washington,D.C., NIRS’ diverse membership includes financial services firms, employee benefit plans, agencies that manage retirement plans, trade associations, and other retirement service providers. Print Friendly and PDF

MOSERS Benefits are Secure

Posted on
For the first time I became alarmed about the solidarity of MOSERS. In a recent Rumor Central response to a question, you used "weasel words" of it is "unlikely" MOSERS benefits would be affected by the recent turn of events. Could you please explain why you chose that word when you have consistently indicated that we retirees have nothing to worry about with our benefits.
It was not our intention to alarm you with our recent Rumor Central post. And in fact, there is no reason for you to be alarmed. The benefits provided to each member and each member’s spouse, beneficiary, or former spouse are obligations of the State of Missouri. The law further stipulates that no alteration, amendment, or repeal of the MOSERS law shall affect the then-existing rights of members and beneficiaries. Regardless of investment returns and what happens in the stock market, your benefit is secure.

Print Friendly and PDF

Deferred Comp Match Inquiries

Posted on
With regard to the Deferred Comp reinstatement question, would it be best for state employees to email their State Rep or the Governor?
We generally direct people to contact either their representatives and/or the governor’s office, since they together determine what the match will be, if anything, as part of the annual budget process.

Print Friendly and PDF

Why Are Funds Divided in Deferred Comp Accounts?

Posted on
When I enrolled in the deferred comp-457 plan, I selected the lowest interest bearing account. Since then, The State took [it] upon themselves to divide the 457 into a 401k. I did not agree to, nor does the State contribute any funds to. How could this be legal when it's not their money, nor their original disclosure.
The money in your deferred compensation account has always been divided by source. The 457 portion of your account is the money you have directly contributed to the account from you paycheck and any associated investment earnings on that money. The 401(a) portion of your account is any money your employer has contributed and associated investment earnings on those funds. An example of an employer contribution would be the state match that was in effect prior to March 2010. A 401(a) account may also contain rollovers from other 401(a) plans, 401(k)s and 403(b)s. These sources are divided because there are different IRS tax laws governing each.

In an effort to increase transparency to Plan participants, if you have money in both the 401(a) and 457 sources, you should expect to receive 3 separate quarterly statements: one statement showing a combined view of both sources, and two other statements that display your 401(a) and 457 accounts separately.

Again, the reason for the separation of sources is because the IRS treats money your employer has contributed to your account differently than it does the money you have contributed to your retirement account.


Print Friendly and PDF

Friday Top Five

Posted on
The Friday Top Five: A collection of the top five news articles, blog posts, or other retirement related information from the past week.

From Ady Dewey at PensionDialog: Retirees’ Pensions in Kentucky

This blog post includes a six-minute video of Kentucky House Speaker Greg Stumbo discussing funding issues faced by some public pension systems, specifically Kentucky's. The interviewer suggests four ways to mitigate the issues (including reducing benefits, raising taxes, cutting other vital government services, or selling bonds) and Speaker Stumbo interjects that he favors restructuring Kentucky's plan as a "blend" in which benefits might be reduced for "existing retirees." PD thinks he means "hybrid," and points out that while some states have recently adopted hybrid plans (a combination of defined benefit and defined contribution), none has affected existing retiree benefits.

From Smart Money's Encore Blog: Pensions Facing More Changes Than You Think

Alicia Munnell, the director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, tells a story of how benefit promises have developed in the public sector in the wake of the financial crisis. Her key point is that the diminution of benefits is happening more than people are aware and that "plan sponsors need to be able to cut future benefits for current employees." Do you agree?

From our own quarterly newsletter for active members, PensionsPlus: Challenges Facing Women in Retirement Planning

MOSERS writer and editor Jade Elwess developed this piece, its intent being to suggest, accurately, that women face a unique set of challenges when it comes to retirement, and it would behoove them to consider those challenges, alone or with their spouses. It also conveys a variety of useful resources women can rely upon for accurate retirement-related information.

From The Huffington Post: Pensions Under Attack in America?

Leo Kolivakis, publisher of the Pension Pulse blog, comments further on an article posted on this blog in last Friday's Top Five, regarding a new law that will allow private companies to drastically reduce the amount of money they are required to put into their pension funds. Kolivakis goes on to discuss the state of state pension funds, saying "Cutting public pensions and shifting everyone to 'low-cost' defined-contribution plans isn't a solution to the pension crisis. It's actually stupid public policy because it will drastically raise social welfare costs, imposing a heavy tax bill on future generations."


From aiCIO, a magazine for institutional chief investment officers: I Don’t Care What CalPERS Returned This Year

In this self-described rant, aiCIO Editor-in-Chief Kip McDaniel is disgusted with the press and others who wrongly focus on one-year investment returns rather than the long-term results strategies that are key to successful public fund investing.

The views expressed by the writers of these pieces are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of MOSERS. Print Friendly and PDF

Not Your Average Pension Fund

Posted on
We've said it before, and we'll say it again. MOSERS is not your average public pension fund. With the FY13 Missouri state budget just recently begun, we thought it would be a good opportunity to graphically show how much of the total state budget is allocated to MOSERS and demonstrate the system's public value.

As the graphic demonstrates, only 1.14%, or $273.6 million, is allocated to MOSERS in FY13, out of a $24 billion budget.

So why should you care? Missouri gets a lot of public value from its investment in MOSERS. The ability for the state as an employer to offer employees a solid, secure, defined benefit pension plan, like MOSERS, helps the state recruit and retain valuable and dedicated employees. Our defined benefit plan provides a benefit based on career employees' service to the state of Missouri, and their skills and value to their agencies. After a career in public service, members receive a modest benefit for life, assisting, along with personal savings and social security, our members in maintaining a relatively stable standard of living during a dignified retirement. This lessons the burden on the cost of social assistance programs, and most of our members remain in Missouri during retirement, spending their dollars here, helping to support the state and local economies.

MOSERS is not experiencing the problems in funding, liabilities, or credibility some other states are experiencing. The State of Missouri, without exception, has always funded the annually required contribution (ARC) at 100%. In other words, the view that this pension system should never sustain a shortfall in actuarially determined contributions has been systematically endorsed at all levels of authority over the years. The decisions made over the years by the MOSERS Board, the governor, the legislators, and MOSERS staff, have put MOSERS in a strong financial position. Our long-term investment strategies are designed to keep the plan affordable to the state and to keep promised benefits secure.

Finally, as the graphic illustrates, the majority of MOSERS' funding is not from taxpayers, but rather our better than average, long-term investment returns. To highlight this most recently, a study by Cliffwater of 69 state pension plans, placed MOSERS at the top in terms of state funds earning the highest reported returns, with a 7.1% annualized return over 10 years ending June 30th. MOSERS returns for that period were the "best-performing" of the entire group.


Print Friendly and PDF

Are MOSERS Members Likely to Lose Benefits?

Posted on
After hearing of all the cutbacks, especially the town where their paycheck was cut to minimum wage, how likely are we to be to lose some of our benefits? And, I saw where the investment part didn't do so well this past year so will that change the 'bonus' employees of MOSERS receives? Just wondering.
With regard to your comment about the town whose city workers' pay was cut to minimum wage, we assume you’re referring to Scranton, PA, where the mayor there did reduce the pay of those public workers. While that obviously has nothing to do with MOSERS or even the state of Missouri, we can certainly understand why this might cause some alarm.

To answer your question, it is very unlikely that members of MOSERS would lose pension benefits. In 2010, the Missouri Legislature made changes to the law regarding the retirement benefits for newly hired employees. These changes result in a lower cost to the state for employees first hired after 2010. These changes were made, in part, in order to preserve the retirement plan for future members of MOSERS.

Investment returns are in large part reflective of the financial markets. The MOSERS’ investment returns were 5.4% for 1 year ended March 31, 2012, which exceeded the returns available from the financial markets (MOSERS’ “policy benchmark”) by 1.1%.  That 1.1% over the market return amounts to approximately $85.7 million for the year over and above the amount that would have been earned if the MOSERS trust fund had been invested passively without the decisions made by the staff.  Also, recently MOSERS’ 10 year investment returns were called “Best Performing” by Cliffwater, an alternative investments consulting firm. MOSERS was the best performing state pension plan for the 10 years ended June 30, 2011, with a 7.1% annualized return.

Eligibility for compensation incentives will be determined based on the 1-, and 5-year period investment performance ending June 30, 2012.  

Print Friendly and PDF

Will Deferred Comp Match Resume?

Posted on
Question: Since the state financial health has improved and took in more than expected/projected in the budget; Has MOSERS lobbied the state for re-instituting the state-match monies with employee contributions?
While we certainly support the reinstatement of the match to participants in the State of Missouri Deferred Compensation Plan, the decision to reinstate this incentive is ultimately determined by the Missouri General Assembly and the Governor as part of the annual budget process. We have no way to determine when funding for the incentive may resume.

Print Friendly and PDF

MOSERS Temporary Benefit and Early Social Security

Posted on
Is there any effort/movement by the state or lobbying by MOSERS to change the Temporary Benefit age 62 ending date to age 65? Most of the state employees now cannot get Social Security until age 65 now, and more like age 67 or 69. When will this MOSERS benefit catch up to the new reality?
To our knowledge there is no effort to change the age at which the temporary benefit ends in the MSEP2000 from 62 to 65. The federal law that gradually raised the age to receive full Social Security benefits went into effect with the 1983 Social Security amendments, but the age for early Social Security eligibility remained at age 62. The MOSERS temporary benefit became law on 7/1/2000 and was designed to serve as a bridge between your MOSERS retirement and your eligibility for early Social Security benefits. At age 62 the temporary benefit stops and Social Security benefits, if you choose to take them, replace the temporary benefit.
The benefit was not designed as a bridge between your MOSERS retirement eligibility and your eligibility for full social security benefits. Extending the temporary benefit to age 65, or to the eligibility age for full Social Security benefits would increase the cost of the plan and any action that increases the cost of the plan seems unlikely in the current environment.

Print Friendly and PDF

Friday Top Five

Posted on
The Friday Top Five: A collection of the top five news articles, blog posts, or other retirement related information from the past week - Expanded this week to more than 5, since there are a few on the new GASB rules...

From The Huffington Post: 5 Myths About Public Employee Pensions

Harold Schaitberger, general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, and former lobbyist for the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems, offers five oft-peddled myths about public pensions followed by the facts.

From USA Today: New Law to Give Companies a Break on Pensions

MOSERS members are fortunate to be members of a defined benefit (DB) pension plan.  The president recently signed a law allowing corporate pension contributions to be reduced.

From the article: "Only 15% of private-sector workers participate in defined benefit plans, which guarantee company-paid monthly retirement payments, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. That 2008 figure was down from 38% in 1979."

Regarding new pension accounting rules from the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB)

On June 25, 2012, GASB approved a plan to change the way state and local public pension plans account for pensions in their financial statements. The new rules take effect in 2013 and 2014.



From Bloomberg News: Social Security's Coming Crisis Quantified

Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff suggests that a 2012 report released by the Social Security Administration's trustees shows a $20.5 trillion fiscal gap separating Social Security's liabilities and assets and proposes a plan he says will fix it. Print Friendly and PDF

Moves to DC Really About Cutting Retirees' Benefits

Posted on
The mantra of advocates of the switch to defined contribution (DC) plans from defined benefit (DB) is loud and consistent: “These changes need to be made to cut the cost of retirement benefits.”

Truth be told, these initiatives are not really about cutting cost — they are about cutting benefits, with lower cost being a byproduct.

Consider the following basic retirement benefit financing formula:

Benefits = Contributions + Investment Income - Expenses

This formula of B = C + I - E is equally applicable to defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans.

Now assume that individually managed asset accounts in DC plans can consistently earn the same return and for the same fees as professionally managed large pools of DB plan assets. Next, assume the administrative expenses associated with individually managed DC plan accounts are the same as the administrative expenses per person for large numbers of participants in DB plans. While these assumptions are unrealistic, they will facilitate understanding what happens when the “cost” of the plan is reduced by switching to a DC plan from a DB plan. Cost is represented by “contributions” in the formula above.

If:

1) investment income net of fees (I) does not change,

2) administrative expenses (E) remain constant and

3) contributions (or costs) (C) decline,

4) the only remaining variable, benefits (B), has to be smaller.

In reality, net investment rates of return on individual DC accounts would logically be expected to be lower than the return on professionally managed DB plan large asset pools. Furthermore, administrative expenses for individual account plans would logically be expected to be higher per person than administrative expenses for DB plans. Even if the cost (contributions) remained the same after the switch to a DC plan, both of these realities would result in benefits being lower. If contributions (costs) are also lowered in connection with the switch, benefits become just that much smaller.

So, when you hear someone say they want to reduce costs by switching to a DC plan from a DB plan, just understand that what is really being said is that they want to reduce benefits and convert pooled risk to individual risk.

If the goal were to keep benefits approximately the same, it would be necessary to increase cost in connection with a switch to a DC plan from a DB plan.

It is certainly possible to over complicate this matter with bells and whistles and smoke and mirrors but, in the final analysis, it really is this simple.

Epilogue: It's probably worth noting that there are some who do stand to gain from a switch to DC plans:

Administrative service providers and asset managers will likely make more money; Corporations won't have to put up with those pesky DB plans that vote their proxies; and the federal government will collect much more in premature distribution taxes.

These might not be intended consequences but they are consequences just the same. Print Friendly and PDF

Friday Top Five

Posted on
Note: We missed posting last week and most of this week due to vacations, the 4th, etc. But we're back on track now, and here's your Friday Top Five!

The Friday Top Five: A collection of the top five news articles, blog posts, or other retirement related information from the past week.

From Ady Dewey at PensionDialog: Long Time Frame of Investment Return Assumptions

A strong post advocating that "public pension-fund financing uses nothing less than honest accounting.  To say otherwise reflects either a lack of understanding of how these plans work or a separate agenda."

From Reuters: U.S. Public Pension Investment Earnings at Record High

U.S. public pensions had the largest investment earnings on record in the first quarter of 2012, $179.2 billion, the U.S. Census said on Thursday, offering some hope to the retirement systems for state and local governments that were battered during the financial crisis. Keith Brainard, from NASRA, is quoted, and we always like seeing that.

See also this related story from Pensions and Investments, showcasing MOSERS. In a study of 69 state pension plans, MOSERS was at the top, with a 7.1% annualized return over 10 years ending June 30th.

From The Los Angeles Daily News: It's time to find a reasonable retirement-income solution for all Americans

An opinion piece by Daniel Borenstein suggesting that traditional pension plans should be offered in both the public and private sector and that there is a way to shield both employers and taxpayers from risk by implementing conservative investment projections. Straight Talk readers, what do you think?

From the AARP Blog: A Cruel, Cool Summer

As we watch the thermometer creep up to temperatures that make us perspire just thinking about them, this summer could end up as a particularly cruel, burdensome one for seniors and others who have trouble when it comes to paying for cooling and other energy costs.

From The Best Life blog at US News & World Report: 10 Must-Have Retirement Needs

Here, culled from research studies and retirement experts, are 10 essentials for a successful retirement. Print Friendly and PDF

Interest Accruals on Contributions in the 2011 Plan

Posted on
I am a fairly new State employee so I am under the 2011 plan. I was checking on my contributions and noticed the following statement

Interest accruals occur on June 30th each year based on the account balance as of the previous July 1. Interest credits stop if you terminate employment and are not vested.

I started after July 1, 2011. The way I read this, I will not see any interest credit in my account until June 30th , 2013. By my calculations, I am losing interest credits on my money for the time it sat in my account from the day I was hired to June 30, 2012. That lost interest credit will not be compounded going forward for every year I am in MOSERS.

Am I correct? And since I'm not getting that interest credit, where is the interest going?
You are correct in your understanding of interest credits on employee accounts under the 2011 plan.  The System’s income from investments is earmarked for the payment of benefits to those who retire and for interest credits on individual member accounts of 2011 Plan members as stipulated by law.  The individual member account is not intended to be a savings account but rather is the member financed portion of the retirement benefit eventually received.  The plan itself is intended to serve as an incentive for employees to remain in service with the state and not a means of earning interest.  In fact, the vast majority of employees who do retire will receive substantially more in retirement benefits than the amounts in their individual accounts at retirement, with or without interest.

Print Friendly and PDF

Information in PreRetirement Seminars... Why 8 Hours?

Posted on
Why does it take eight (8) hours to present a retirement seminar? It is not convenient for those of us who work the night shift. Is all the information is writing? If, so where is it found?
MOSERS does offer four evening PreRetirement sessions during the year that focus only on MOSERS benefits and last 3 ½ hours rather than the normal 7 ½ should that work for you. You can see the schedule on our website.
Certainly there is information concerning your MOSERS benefit located on our website under the “Members” tab at the top. And you are welcome to visit in person or on the phone with a benefit counselor at any time during our business hours, no appointment necessary.  Simply walk in, or call 573-632-6100 ext. 4, at your convenience. For your convenience, here are links to the websites of the other participating programs in our seminars


Print Friendly and PDF

Contacting Other Missouri State Retirees

Posted on
Is there any way to contact other retirees. Thx.
There are several ways you can contact other Missouri State retirees. The Association of Retired Missouri State Employees (ARMSE) has a website which lists chapters and their locations throughout the state.

Additionally, MOSERS hosts Retiree Connection, a small group of retirees representing regions all across Missouri that meets quarterly in Jefferson City, as well as post-retirement Coffee Breaks, in association with Retiree Connection, which are hosted throughout the state.


Print Friendly and PDF

Removing Yourself from Our Email Lists

Posted on
Please take me off this email list. I am no longer a state employee or have state employee benefits. Thanks.
In order to not receive Rumor Central emails from MOSERS you will need to log in to the Secure Member Area of the website (www.mosers.org) and change your email preferences. Once logged in, go to “Email Options” under the “Update Personal Information” heading. Be sure that the items for which you do not wish to be electronically notified are unchecked.

Print Friendly and PDF