PBGC Proposes Reduced Reporting Obligations

April 2, 2013 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) has backed off its 2009 proposal to increase reporting requirements by eliminating most reporting waivers.

A new proposal exempts most companies and plans from many reports, and targets requirements to the minority of companies and plans that are at substantial risk of default. Under the new proposal, reporting would be waived for most events currently covered by funding-based waivers if a plan or its sponsor comes within a financial soundness safe harbor based on widely available measures already used in business. Waivers for small plans would be expanded and some other existing waiver provisions would be retained with modifications; other waivers would be eliminated.   

By doing this, PBGC can reduce unnecessary reporting requirements, while at the same time target its resources to plans that are at risk, the agency said. The revised proposal will exempt more than 90% of plans and sponsors from many reporting requirements. Reporting requirements would also be made simpler and more uniform.     

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

The rule would simplify the descriptions of several reportable events and make some event descriptions narrower so that compliance is easier and less burdensome. The rule would also make electronic filing of reportable events notices mandatory.

The PBGC seeks comments answering: 

  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed safe harbor for financially sound plan sponsors?; 
  • What are commenters’ experiences with commercial credit reporting companies that might be relevant to developing a reportable events safe harbor?; 
  • Does the proposal provide an appropriate way to assess financial soundness of plan sponsors?; 
  • Regarding the number and stringency of the criteria for the financially sound company safe harbor, should there be more or fewer criteria than the five proposed in this rule?; 
  • Are there standard, commonly used metrics that could be applied to determine financial soundness that do not rely on third party commercial credit reporting companies (e.g., based on balance sheet or cash-flow ratios, such as current assets to current liabilities, debt to equity, or some form of debt-service to cash-flow ratio)?; 
  • Should PBGC adopt other standards of creditworthiness?; 
  • For the proposed safe harbor via plans, what alternative funding percentage(s) (on a termination basis or premium basis) should be permitted, and why?; 
  • Should PBGC provide other alternative waivers? Should such alternatives be in addition to, or in place of, the proposed financial soundness safe harbors for companies and plans?; and 
  • How can PBGC implement safe harbors, whether based on financial soundness or other factors, in a consistent, transparent, well-defined, and replicable or verifiable way? 

 

Comments must be submitted on or before 60 days after publication in the Federal Register [anticipated publication date is April 3, 2013]. A public hearing will be held on June 18, 2013. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the hearing must be submitted on or before June 4, 2013.

The proposed rule is here. 

Income Projections Encourage Saving

April 2, 2013 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – New research shows providing employees with retirement income projections may lead them to save more.

However, the findings suggest it was not the income projections alone, but the combined effect of providing retirement planning information along with the balance and income projections that encouraged an increase in saving.  

Researchers at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College divided a sample population into four groups—a control group and three treatment groups, with each treatment group receiving one of three brochures. The “planning treatment” brochure provided general information about saving for retirement and a step-by-step guide for signing up or changing contributions to a voluntary retirement plan. The “balance treatment” brochure added age-specific projections of how hypothetical additional contributions would translate into additional balances at retirement. The “income treatment” brochure added age-specific projections of how the additional contributions would increase retirement income. 

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Compared to the control group, individuals in the income group were 1.2 percentage points more likely to change their contributions during the six-month period following receipt of the brochures—5.3% vs. 4.1%. The income group as a whole (including both those who changed contributions and those who did not) increased its retirement saving, on average, by $85 more than the control group; however, considering only the individuals who made a change, those in the “income group” increased their saving by $1,150 more per year than those in the control group.

Relative to the control group, individuals in the other two treatment groups—the “planning group” and “balance group”—were also more likely to change their VRP contributions, but did not show a statistically significant increase in the amount of saving.  

According to a brief about the research findings, the responses show the income projections had a beneficial, and statistically significant, effect on knowledge and confidence. Compared to the control group, the income group reported less difficulty finding information about how much to save for retirement and being better informed about retirement planning than they were six months prior. They also reported being more certain about their expected retirement income and more satisfied with their financial condition. 

However, the report notes, the results show the effect of the income projections on retirement saving was significantly reduced by a difficulty in paying bills, a strong preference for living “pretty much for today,” and a tendency to procrastinate, but was significantly enhanced if the respondent was good at following through. Cognitive ability and financial literacy generally had little effect, and in no case a statistically significant effect.  

The brief can be downloaded from http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/do-income-projections-affect-retirement-saving/.

«