Data and Research March 3, 2015

Largest Pensions Troubled By Longer Lifespans

The United States’ 19 largest pension funds hold roughly 40% of the nation’s pension obligations, according to Russell Investments, so it’s no big surprise they are struggling with longevity trends.
Reported by

An assessment of Russell Investments’ “$20 Billion Club,” an index tracking the largest private U.S. pension funds, finds “actuarial losses” had the most significant impact on pension performance during the last year.

Russell defines actuarial losses as those pinned to interest rates and mortality assumptions, among other factors. Since early 2014, both interest rate declines and updated mortality assumptions have seriously dampened mega-plan funded status, Russell says.

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

Russell’s $20 Billion Club comprises the 19 largest corporate defined benefit (DB) plans that together represent roughly 40% of the pension assets and liabilities of all U.S. publicly listed corporations. New Russell data shows these corporate DB plans have seen a ballooning projected benefit obligation hit their balance sheets in the past year, largely underpinned by the adoption of updated mortality assumptions for accounting/actuarial purposes.

These lackluster results come after a resurgent 2013 for large pensions. At the start of financial year 2014, Russell says, these mega-pensions faced a combined deficit of $114 billion, the lowest it had been since 2007.

“However, by the end of 2014, that figure had risen to $183 billion, hit by a double blow of an unexpected decline in interest rates and updated assumptions about how long retirees are expected to live,” Russell’s analysis explains. 

Russell says the impact of investment returns has actually been neutral or positive in every year for the past decade or so, discounting 2008’s meltdown. “Plan sponsor contributions outpaced new benefit accruals and hence had a steady positive impact over this period,” Russell adds. “The big headwind has come in the shape of ‘actuarial losses.’”

As explained by Russell’s Bob Collie, chief research strategist, Americas Institutional, yearly actuarial gains and losses can be traced largely to changes in interest rates. Falling rates lead to higher values being put on the liabilities, while rising rates lead to lower liability values. 

In 2014, the median discount rate used for U.S. plans fell by 0.83%, to 4.02%, pushing liabilities up and hurting funded status. In an added twist, this fairly sizable and largely unpredicted drop in interest rates came during the same year as significant changes in commonly used mortality tables that help plans make assumptions about life expectancy.

“The widespread adoption of newly published mortality tables added some $29 billion to the combined liabilities [of the $20 Billion Club], turning an already negative year into a significant setback,” Russell says.

Industry experts have noted that pension plans should expect more frequent mortality assumption updates—likely leading to additional funding stress. However, the Russell analysis goes on to suggest liabilities are about as high today as they will ever be, though knowing exactly when liability values may peak is tough.

“When interest rates rose in 2013, we concluded that liabilities most likely had indeed peaked and that they would never regain the high of 2012,” Collie says. “But that conclusion reckoned without the combined impact of a fairly sharp fall in interest rates and the speedy adoption of the new mortality tables. Together, those effects have led to a 2014 liability value that is even higher than 2012: against the odds, pension liabilities have re-peaked.”

Given this turn of events, Collie says Russell currently “offers no predictions as to whether 2014 now represents peak pension liabilities or whether liability values will go higher still.” The main source of uncertainty is actuarial gains/losses: the combined effect of the other variables (service cost, benefits, interest cost, and others) is relatively stable and can be expected to tamp down the combined liability value by perhaps $5 billion to $10 billion, or more if there is substantial pension risk transfer activity in 2015.

The $20 Billion Club was launched in 2011 and at the time represented 16 U.S. pensions meeting the minimum asset hurdle. Additional information and analysis is here. 

Ask the Experts March 3, 2015

(b)lines Ask the Experts – ACP Testing After a Spin-Off

“I read your recent Q&A regarding post-merger ACP testing with great interest, as our hospital has an ACP testing issue as well.
Reported by

“However, it is the opposite of the issue you discussed in the previous article. Up until 2015, we were part of a two-hospital system, but effective 1/1/2015, the partnership was ended and we were spun off into a separate entity that is no longer part of the controlled group of the prior entity . Previously, we participated in a 403(b) matching plan with the other hospital; now, we have our own 403(b) matching plan that was established 1/1/2015. The plan covers the same employees of our hospital that it did previously, only under a new plan.     

“My question is related to the prior year average contribution percentage (ACP) for non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs) that we would use for 2015 testing, as our new plan uses the prior year testing method. I read somewhere that you can use an assumed ACP of 3% in the first year of a new plan. If this is true, this would be helpful since the ACP of the NHCEs in the prior plan for 2014 is only 2%. Or would we need to use the ACP of only the NHCEs of our hospital from the prior plan results? Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated!” 

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Michael A. Webb, vice president, Cammack Retirement Group, answers:

Well, you’ve come to the right place! First of all, let’s answer the easiest portion of your question first. Since all of employees in your new 403(b) plan participated in the 403(b) plan of the prior entity, your new 403(b) is considered what is called a “successor” plan to that 403(b) plan. Successor plans are ineligible to use the first-year testing rule that would assume a 3% ACP for NHCEs.

Now, the hard part. The rules that govern such situations are contained in Treas. Reg. §1.401(k)-2(c)(4), and if you’re interested in some light reading material, the Experts would certainly not suggest it! Even most of the examples, which are often an excellent method of clarifying complicated regulation, are quite complex as well. However, if you scroll to the end, there is a fairly straightforward example that would appear to apply to your situation, as follows:

Example 4. (i) Employer C maintains a calendar year plan, Plan Q, which includes a cash or deferred arrangement that uses the prior year testing method. Plan Q covers employees of Division A and Division B. In 2005, Plan Q had 500 eligible employees who were NHCEs, and the ADP for those NHCEs for 2005 was 2%. Effective January 1, 2006, Employer C amends the eligibility provisions under Plan Q to exclude employees of Division B effective January 1, 2006. In addition, effective on that same date, Employer C establishes a new calendar year plan, Plan R, which includes a cash or deferred arrangement that uses the prior year testing method. The only eligible employees under Plan R are the 100 employees of Division B who were eligible employees under Plan Q.

(ii) Plan R is a successor plan, within the meaning of paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section (because all of the employees were eligible employees under Plan Q in the prior year). Therefore, Plan R cannot use the first plan year rule set forth in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section.

(iii) The amendment to the eligibility provisions of Plan Q and the establishment of Plan R are plan coverage changes within the meaning of paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(A) of this section for Plan Q and Plan R. Accordingly, each plan must determine the NHCE ADP for the 2006 plan year under the rules set forth in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.

(iv) The prior year ADP for NHCEs under Plan Q is the weighted average of the ADPs for the prior year subgroups. Plan Q has only one prior year subgroup (because the only NHCEs who would have been eligible employees under Plan Q for the 2005 plan year if the amendment to the Plan Q eligibility provisions had occurred as of the first day of that plan year were eligible employees under Plan Q). Therefore, for purposes of the 2006 plan year under Plan Q, the ADP for NHCEs for the prior year is the weighted average of the ADPs for the prior year subgroups, or 2%, the same as if the plan amendment had not occurred.

(v) Similarly, Plan R has only one prior year subgroup (because the only NHCEs who would have been eligible employees under Plan R for the 2005 plan year if the plan were established as of the first day of that plan year were eligible employees under Plan Q). Therefore, for purposes of the 2006 testing year under Plan R, the ADP for NHCEs for the prior year is the weighted average of the ADPs for the prior year subgroups, or 2%, the same as that of Plan Q.

 

The boldface text would appear to be the most relevant to your situation, and it states that you should essentially use the prior year ACP (it says ADP, but ACP testing works the same way) for all of the NHCEs in the prior plan, which, in your case, is 2%.However, you should consult with outside benefits counsel well versed in such matter to confirm that your fact pattern matches the fact pattern in the example from the regulations.

Thank you reading the column, and for your question!

 

NOTE: This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice.
Tags
Reported by
Reprints
To place your order, please e-mail Reprints.

«