Do DB plans have an implicit claim on the employer in the amount of the unfunded actuarial liability?. In 2013 Comprehensive Revision of the NIPAs Wealth of DB plan participants is
Trang 1Actuarial Measures of
Defined Benefit Pension Plans for the National
Accounts
Marshall Reinsdorf
BEA Advisory Committee Meeting
Trang 2Preview of Questions
Tables in this presentation are illustrative, and are intended to facilitate discussion of questions, including:
Should the NIPAs leave DB pension plans in the personal sector or put them in their own sector?
Do DB plans have an implicit claim on the employer in the amount
of the unfunded actuarial liability?
Do employers pay imputed interest on this claim? If so, can they receive imputed interest if the plan is over-funded?
Should government plans be measured on an ABO basis or a PBO basis? (For Federal plans, PBO is a more practical option.)
Trang 3Treating DB Plans like DC Plans
In a defined contribution (DC) pension plan, the benefit level depends on the value of the assets in the participant’s account
assets, and we measure the corresponding income flow by
employers’ contributions + property income on plan assets
In a defined benefit (DB) plan a formula that typically depends
on years of service and final pay determines the benefit level
Currently we account for DB plans in the same way as DC
plans
Trang 4In 2013 Comprehensive Revision of the NIPAs
Wealth of DB plan participants is the actuarial value of their
claims to future benefits, and their compensation income is the value of the benefit claims accrued by working
Treating plan assets as pension wealth and employer
contributions as compensation is cash accounting approach to measuring DB pension plans
Plan is to use actuarial estimates of accrued claims to benefits
Will reduce volatility of compensation of employees covered by private plans;
Will give more accurate measures of saving by persons and by employers (but will have no effect on national saving)
Trang 5Contributions aren’t always a good approximation for benefits accrued through covered employment
Unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) is the difference between the
actuarial value of benefit entitlements of current and former
employees and the value of the assets held by the pension plan
Private DB plans are supposed to be fully funded (UAL = 0) (and indeed, aggregate UAL for these plans is often not far from 0)
Holding gains and losses can leave plans under- or over-funded
Employer contributions respond to investment gains and losses
as needed to move the UAL towards zero Employers also tend
to under-contribute when their cash flows are weak
contributions just to maintain plan solvency
Trang 6New Treatment of DB Pensions in 2008 SNA
Besides providing better information about the economy, the change in treatment of DB plans is called for in the new SNA
Household DB pension wealth and income in the 2008 SNA:
Household wealth = value of participants’ benefit entitlement as measured using actuarial techniques
Employer imputed contributions = benefit entitlements accrued during the time period – actual contributions
Households’ imputed interest income = (interest rate) × (the
actuarial value of the benefit entitlements)
Even though DB plans pay imputed interest, they don’t receive any imputed interest They are included with financial corporations
Trang 7Proposed Treatment
For an underfunded pension plan, proposal is to impute a
claim on the employer equal to the unfunded actuarial
liability and to impute payments of interest on this claim
Rationale:
When an employer puts off making an actuarially required contribution, the plan is deprived of the opportunity to invest the contribution and earn property income
Both the contribution and the property income that it would have earned are needed for the plan to be able to pay the
benefits that are due
Failing to pay a contribution that is due creates an implicit
loan from the pension plan to the employer
Trang 8Basic Concepts for a DB Plan
Benefit entitlement of plan participants = plan’s Actuarial Liability
Current change in benefit entitlement = benefits accrued through service to employer + interest on ben entitlement – benefits paid
Current change in plan assets = employer & employee contributions + investment income on assets – benefits paid – administrative exp
Not included in national accounts definition of saving:
Change in benefit entitlement due to actuarial gains & losses,
assumption changes and plan amendments; and
Change in assets from holding gains & losses and capital transfers
Private and state & local government plans attempt to fund much of their benefit expense from holding gains
Trang 9Implications of Holding Gains
Multiplying interest rate assumed in actuarial calculations by the value of plan assets typically predicts a higher value for the plan’s property income than it actually receives
For a typical plan with a positive UAL (or unfunded benefit
entitlement):
interest accruing on the benefit entitlement
= interest cost of UAL + predicted property income from assets
Predicted property income from assets =
expected holding gains + actual property income from assets
With DB plans in their own sector, plans’ dissaving equals
(expected holding gains on assets – plan’s actual property income from assets)
Trang 10Cash and SNA 2008 Measures of Households
Measurement Concept Current Cash Measure Accrual Measure of SNA 2008
Compensation income Employer contributions
Benefits entitlements accrued through service to employer net
of employee contributions + plan administrative expenses
Household property
income Property income on plan assets
Interest accruing on benefit entitlement
Household saving
Employer contributions + income from plan assets – administrative expenses
Net benefits accrued through service to employer + interest
on benefit entitlement
Trang 11Receipts & Expenditures for Private Plans
2000 2001 2002
Receipts 122.9 131.3 144.1
Employer contributions 73.1 77.0 81.9 Actual 32.8 48.6 99.8
Imputed 40.3 28.4 -17.9
Employee contributions 0.8 0.7 1.1 Property income from assets 63.3 58.0 49.1 Imputed interest on claim on employer for unfunded liability -14.3 -4.4 12.0
Expenditures 180.3 188.4 200.3
Benefit entitlements accrued through covered employment 66.6 70.5 76.1 Interest on benefit entitlements 106.4 110.7 117.3 Administrative expenses 7.3 7.2 6.9
Saving (property income – interest_rate × Assets) -57.4 -57.1 -56.2
Current change in assets -28.6 -24.4 8.3 Current change in claim on employer for UAL (4+7) 26.0 24.0 -5.9 LESS: Current change in household benefit entitlement 54.8 56.7 58.6
Household income from participation in DB plans (8-5) 179.5 187.7 199.2 Employer expenses (2+7) 58.8 72.6 93.9
Trang 12Effect on Estimates for Private Plans
(billions or percent)
2000 2001 2002
Revision to employer saving -26.0 -24.0 5.9 Revision to household saving 83.4 81.1 50.3 Pension plans' saving (new concept) -57.4 -57.1 -56.2 Revision to national saving 0.0 0.0 0.0
Revision to employer saving if employers don't benefit from
plan overfunding -40.3 -28.4 5.9 Corporate profits with IVA and CCAdj 819.2 784.2 872.2
Revision to employer saving as a percent of corporate profits -3.2 -3.1 0.7
Revision to employer saving if employers don’t benefit from
overfunding -4.9 -3.6 0.7 Revision to personal saving rate 1.1 1.1 0.6
Trang 13Receipts & Expenditures, State & local
Government Plans (billions)
2007 2008 2009
Receipts 332.5 332.1 378.8
Employer contributions 193.7 202.2 201.2 Actual 75.2 82.5 84.2
Imputed 118.5 119.7 117.0
Employee contributions 35.5 38.1 39.9 Property income from assets 93.0 77.4 62.2 Imputed interest on claim on employer for unfunded liability 10.3 14.5 75.5
Expenditures 413.1 436.1 449.4
Benefit entitlements accrued through covered employment 213.9 226.5 230.7 Interest on benefit entitlements 183.9 195.8 208.3 Administrative expenses 15.3 13.8 10.5
Saving (property income – interest_rate× Assets) -80.6 -104.0 -70.6
Current change in assets 14.4 -2.0 -24.5 Current change in claim on employer for UAL (4+7) 128.8 134.2 192.5 LESS: Current change in household benefit entitlement 223.8 236.2 238.7
Household income from participation in DB plans (8-5) 377.6 398.0 409.5
Employer expenses (2+7) 204.0 216.6 276.7
Trang 14Effect on Estimates for State & Local Government Plans (billions or percent)
2000 2001 2002
Revision to employer saving -128.8 -134.2 -192.5
Revision to household saving 209.4 238.1 263.1
Revision to pension plans' saving -80.6 -104.0 -70.6
State & local government saving (official) 12.2 -72.2 -78.0
State & local government saving Revised -116.6 -206.4 -270.5
Pension plan saving as percent of DPI -0.8 -0.9 -0.7
Trang 15Receipts & Expenditures, Federal
Government Plans (billions)
2007 2008 2009
Receipts 194.8 200.1 204.5
Employer contributions 42.6 46.1 49.8 Actual 98.1 106.1 115.6
Imputed -55.5 -60.0 -65.8 Employee contributions 4.3 4.3 4.2 Property income from assets 50.0 51.3 45.7 Imputed interest on claim on employer for unfunded liability 97.9 98.4 104.8
Expenditures 194.8 200.1 204.5
Benefit entitlements accrued through covered employment 46.8 50.3 53.9 Interest on benefit entitlements 147.9 149.7 150.5 Administrative expenses 0.1 0.1 0.1
Saving 0.0 0.0 0.0
Current change in assets 47.7 52.4 48.6 Current change in claim on employer for UAL (4+7) 42.4 38.4 39.0 LESS: Current change in household benefit entitlement 90.1 90.8 87.6
Household income from participation in DB plans (8-5) 190.5 195.8 200.3 Employer expenses (2+7) 140.5 144.5 154.6
Trang 16Effect on Estimates for Federal Plans
(billions or percent)
Revision to employer saving -40.9 -36.7 -36.0
Revision to household saving 40.9 36.7 36.0
Federal government saving (official) -245.2 -613.5 -1217.9
State & local government saving Revised -286.1 -650.2 -1253.9
Trang 17Receipts & Expenditures, All Plans, 2007
Household income from participation in DB plans (8-5) 792.7
Trang 18Effect on Estimates for All Plans
(billions or percent)
2000 2006 2007 2008
Revision to employer saving -118.7 -173.0 -181.5 -170.9
Revision to household saving 232.6 301.9 322.7 274.8
Pension plan saving (new concept) -113.9 -128.9 -141.2 -104.0
Revision to saving rate if plans in personal sector 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7
Trang 19Questions for the Committee
Should the NIPAs include the detailed data on DB pension plans shown
in the illustrative Receipts & Expenditures tables of this presentation? Should the NIPAs leave DB pension plans in the personal sector or put them in their own sector (where plans will typically have negative saving equal to the difference between their actual property income and the property income implied by the interest rate assumption)?
Do DB plans have an implicit claim on the employer in the amount of the unfunded actuarial liability (so that the plans’ net worth is zero)?
Do employers pay imputed interest on this claim, and can they receive imputed interest if the plan is over-funded?
Should government plans be measured on an ABO basis or a PBO basis? (For Federal plans, PBO is a more practical option.)
Trang 20Concluding Th0ughts
economic picture significantly
Based on the illustrative numbers in this presentation, under one
of the accrual options, estimates personal saving would be
revised up by over 3 percent points in 2007 (over 2 points from state & local government plans, 0.7 from private plans, and 0.3 from Federal government)
Allowing DB pension plans to have non-zero saving will require a modification of the breakdown by sector of national income