If you've been following MPS news, you're aware that MPRA is a law that would permit our plan trustees to apply to the Department of Treasury to slash our pension benefits (read more here). Since it was enacted in 2014, eighteen pension funds have applied to the United States Treasury under MPRA. But through the end of 2016, not a single one of those applications had been approved—five had been denied outright, and five had withdrawn. Notably, the application of the Central States Teamsters, which involved over $20 billion of unfunded pension liability, was denied. 

Unfortunately, things have changed in 2017. Three applications for MPRA have recently been approved by the United States Treasury, including those from the NY Teamsters and United Furniture Workers Unions in the last three weeks alone. It is of concern that the Department has not denied an application since the inauguration of President Trump.

Comparing the AFM's Two Pension Funds: 

Our AFM-EPF vs. Musicians' Pension Fund of Canada

While researching the dramatic deterioration of our pension fund, Musicians for Pension Security (MPS) continues to be deeply troubled by how, compared to other pension funds in our industry, ours is performing so poorly. Our trustees cite declining demographics, unsatisfactory industry dynamics and changing mortality tables. But a peer AFM musicians’ pension fund, Musicians' Pension Fund of Canada (MPF Canada), is quite healthy, despite the fact that it is subject to the exact same factors cited by AFM-EPF trustees.

MPS Response to Lawsuit

A class action lawsuit was recently filed against the trustees of the AFM- EPF. The central allegation is that Fund trustees failed to properly oversee the investment functions of our plan. In particular, it claims they directed too much plan money into emerging market
stocks, and as a result, the investment returns were lower than if they were invested in US stocks.


MPS responds to President Ray Hair's July 2017 International Musician article

Ray Hair attempts to “bust the myths” related to our pension fund’s crisis in this month’s International Musician, which was copied verbatim from the AFM-EPF June newsletter (that message can be found here and here). President Hair’s message actually raises more questions than it answers.


You may have seen the latest AFM-EPF newsletter, stating, "Our trustees take seriously the commitment to more frequent, comprehensive communication." Last month, Musicians for Pension Security requested a series of documents. We also asked specific questions concerning investments, expenses, lobbying costs and other subjects of vital importance. Not one of these requests for information was honored. In response, Executive Director Maureen Kilkelly simply referred MPS to the disclosure document inventory list on the AFM-EPF website. This list includes several years of actuarial and investment management information, and the copying cost to receive these documents. This information, as required by federal law, must be posted to their website. For our remaining requests, Ms. Kilkelly’s response speaks for itself, “We are not responding to the remaining requests.* ”

MPS Response to 5/19 Funding Status Update from the AFM-EPF

Dear Plan Participants,

By now, many of you received an email from the AFM-EPF stating that our fund earned better-than-expected returns in 2016, and we will not be entering critical and declining status for the next fiscal year (read that email here). Avoiding critical and declining status means that our trustees will not be able to file an application to the U.S. Treasury to cut our hard-earned pension benefits. Under the law, the cuts could be up to 70% of accrued benefits (use this calculating tool to see the maximum reduction you could face).