Pension Conversions Linked to Income Inequality

There is a striking correlation between negative pension changes and income inequality, according to a survey by NCPERS.

Policymakers must pay attention to income inequality and its hidden economic cost to taxpayers. Rather than making changes that diminish defined benefit (DB) pensions, a report by the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems (NCPERS) advises closing tax loopholes.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Data at the national level showed that a trend of converting DB plans into defined contribution (DC) plans exacerbated income inequality in the U.S. At the state level, there is a positive relationship between the number of negative pension changes, such as reductions in benefits, and income inequality. This suggests that as a state makes more negative changes, its rate of income inequality increases and that, in turn, hurts the economy.

“Our study provides important information and insights to help policymakers recognize the connection between diminishing pensions and widening income gaps,” says Hank Kim, Esq., NCPERS executive director and counsel. “Income inequality matters because when the rungs of the economic ladder are too far apart, fewer people can climb it, and that undermines our national prosperity.”

According to the “Income Inequality: Hidden Economic Cost of Prevailing Approaches to Pension Reforms” study, pensions play an important role in the U.S. economy, stimulating local economies and presenting a source of capital. Specifically, DB plans support 6.5 million jobs and $1 trillion in economic output, the National Institute on Retirement Security reports.

Certain pension reforms—including cuts in pension benefits and conversions of pensions into defined contribution plans—increase income inequality. Other initiatives, such as raising employee contributions, also have a negative effect on local economies. On the other hand, the spending of pension checks is a significant contribution to stimulating the economy. 

“Spending by retirees is vital to communities, yet local spending can easily be undermined by short-sighted changes to DB pension plans,” explains Mel Aaronson, NCPERS president.

Further, statistics reveal a negative correlation between economic growth and income inequality: -0.553. A single negative change in public pensions in a state increases income inequality in that state by about 15%.

Two out of three Americans are concerned that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, a Gallup Poll finds. Researchers believe this highlights the need for stakeholders and policymakers to avoid making negative changes, specifically converting DB plans into DC or combination plans. According to the study, 15 million additional workers would currently have DB plans if there had not been a trend over the past 30 years to convert pensions into DC plans.

“Income Inequality: Hidden Economic Cost of Prevailing Approaches to Pension Reforms” examines national developments in pension changes, income inequality and economic growth across the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. It also looks at trends in each of the 50 states from 2000 to 2010. The complete report is available here.


Plan Sponsors Eye Company Stock with Care

The Supreme Court’s decision about company stock investments in retirement plans has some plan sponsors rethinking that option, a survey says.

Last year’s unanimous Supreme Court decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer held that fiduciaries of employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) are subject to the same duty of prudence that applies to fiduciaries in general per Section 1104(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), except that they need not diversify the fund’s assets, per Section 1104(a)(2). 

According to Towers Watson’s recent survey of employers with company stock in their defined contribution (DC) plans, new “stock drop” complaints are still being filed, and several courts have refused to dismiss these suits in light of the Dudenhoeffer decision. In March, for example, an investigation was launched into possible ERISA violations by a multinational pharmaceutical company.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

Many employers are reviewing the status of company stock as an investment option in their DC plans, Towers Watson says. A majority of companies that responded to the survey (76%) have reviewed or plan to review their procedures for monitoring company stock, investment policy statements and plan documents. More than one-third (38%) already have retained or are considering retaining a third party as an independent fiduciary. Slightly more than one-fourth (26%) have initiated or are considering the elimination of company stock.

The ruling is consistent with ERISA’s general approach to evaluating fiduciary decisions based on whether a fiduciary has followed a prudent process, Towers Watson notes. The benefits consulting firm outlines a prudent process as one that usually includes documenting that a plan’s fiduciaries have sought appropriate information, asked pertinent questions and accessed expert opinions when necessary. Towers Watson believes fiduciary committees will benefit from a post-Dudenhoeffer review of their decision to offer company stock as a DC plan investment option.

As a starting point, Towers Watson recommends asking two key questions:

  • Should the plan sponsor maintain company stock as an investment option? If so, should it modify any risk management approaches?
  • If the plan sponsor determines that keeping company stock is no longer an appropriate investment option, how should it best manage elimination of the investment?

The answers to these questions will vary according to the structure of a given ESOP, and the plan sponsor’s underlying goals/reasons for offering an ESOP component to the retirement package. 

Other findings from the report:

  • 74% of companies surveyed have reviewed or plan to review their investment policy statement;
  • 62% have reviewed or plan to review their plan document; and
  • 41% of those that have completed their review of the investment policy statement have revised or plan to revise their statement. 

«