GASB 68 a Wake Up Call for Local Governments

Researchers found that for 92 cities, the unfunded liability as a percentage of revenue rises from 37% before GASB 68 pension accounting standards to 70% after.

Researchers for the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College conclude that new accounting standards forcing cities to recognize their share of a state’s unfunded pension plan liability may lead them to take more interest in having these liabilities paid off.

A report, “GASB 68: How Will State Unfunded Liabilities Affect Big Cities?” notes that to increase the visibility of pension commitments, GASB Statement 68 makes two changes. First, it moves pension funding information from the footnotes to the balance sheets of employers. Second, it requires employers that participate in so-called “cost-sharing” plans to provide information regarding their share of the “net pension liability” on their books. 

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

According to the researchers, no information currently appears for employers participating in cost-sharing plans, so the new provisions require determining each employer’s share of the net pension liability and including that amount on the balance sheet. They contend that local governments—now saddled with a portion of the state plan’s unfunded liabilities on their books—may be more interested in seeing the unfunded liability decline over time.

The researchers looked at a sample of 173 cities and towns, which includes cities that administer their own local plans, cities that participate only in state plans, and cities that have some combination of the two. The key metric was a city’s contribution to a given state plan as a percentage of the plan’s total annual required contribution (ARC). If ARC information was not available, the apportionment was based on the ratio of a city’s actual contributions to the state plan’s total actual contributions.

NEXT: Greater potential impact on small cities

Ninety-two of the cities in the sample participate in cost-sharing state plans and are affected by GASB 68. The measure of the impact in the analysis is the change in the unfunded liability relative to a city’s own-source revenue (to standardize for city size). For the 92 cities affected, the unfunded liability as a percentage of revenue rises from 37% before GASB 68 to 70% after. Because GASB 68 simply shifts the recognition of these liabilities from the states to the cities, the unfunded liability for the states drops by a corresponding amount (in dollar terms).

According to the report, the aggregate numbers hide much variation. Thirty-seven percent of the 92 cities have their unfunded liability as a percentage of revenue increase by less than 20 percentage points. However, about one-third of the affected cities in the sample experience increases of more than 60 percentage points.

However, while the overall impact of GASB 68 on the 92 affected cities within the sample is large, the impact on the total 173 cities is much smaller—about 9 percentage points (a 12% increase). The reason is that the 92 cities are small; they make up only about one-quarter of the total revenue in the sample cities.

The report may be downloaded from here.

Overfunded Status Makes Case Against DB Sponsor Moot

DB plan participants alleged misconduct from 2007 to 2010 that caused the plan to become underfunded and at risk of insolvency.

A lawsuit filed by participants in U.S. Bank’s defined benefit (DB) retirement plan has been dismissed as moot because the plan is now overfunded. 

Plaintiffs in the case challenged U.S. Bank’s management of its DB plan from September 30, 2007, to December 31, 2010. They challenged the bank’s adoption of a risky strategy of investing plan assets exclusively in equities and its continued pursuit of that strategy in the face of a deteriorating stock market, the bank’s investment of plan assets in the bank subsidiary FAF Advisors, and FAF Advisors’ actions with regard to a securities lending portfolio. The plaintiffs seek to recover plan losses, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and/or other relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). 

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota previously dismissed the 100% equities strategy allegations and granted summary judgment for U.S. Bank on the securities lending program claims, but held that the affiliated funds allegations survived in part. The court found that these allegations adequately alleged an injury in fact: that as measured by ERISA’s minimum funding requirements, “the plan lacked a surplus large enough to absorb the losses at issue.” 

However, in the current court opinion, U.S. District Judge Joan N. Ericksen, noted that the plan is now overfunded by ERISA measures, and citing other court cases, she determined that the case is moot because the issues presented are no longer “live” and the plaintiffs lack a legally cognizable interest in any outcome. In addition, she found it is impossible to grant any effectual relief now that the plan is overfunded. 

NEXT: No expectation for misconduct to continue

Ericksen cited a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said allowing participants in an overfunded plan to pursue their claims "would not advance ERISA's primary purpose of protecting individual pension rights, because the pension rights of such plaintiffs are fully protected, and would if anything be adversely affected by subjecting the plan and its fiduciaries to costly litigation."

However, Ericksen noted that where the defendant initiates an event or events that might moot a case, the defendant bears a burden under what is called the "voluntary cessation" exception to mootness of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. Since the case was filed, U.S. Bank abandoned its 100% equities investment strategy and "meaningfully began to diversify into asset classes other than equities," the opinion said. In addition, the bank sold FAF Advisors in 2010 and "ceased to use parties in interest to manage a significant portion of the plan's assets."

Ericksen found that the plaintiffs offered nothing but speculation that the alleged misconduct will resume, and concluded their concerns about U.S. Bank’s potential future misconduct are "too conjectural or hypothetical to present an actual controversy" and cannot save the case from mootness now that the plan is overfunded.

«