U.S. Pensions' Funded Ratio Unchanged in October

The aggregate funded ratio of U.S. corporate pension plans was relatively unchanged in October.

According to Wilshire Consulting, the aggregate funded ratio for U.S. corporate pension plans fell slightly to 85% for the month of October. The decrease in funding was the result of a greater increase in liability value versus a smaller increase in asset value.

“We estimate that overall, the asset value increased by 1.4% due to positive returns for most asset classes, while the liability value increased by 1.7% during the month due to falling corporate bond yields,” says Jeff Leonard, managing director, Wilshire Associates, and head of the Actuarial Services Group of Wilshire Consulting.

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

“Year-to-date, the funded ratio for the sample plan has decreased by 4.8%, from 89.8% to 85%. This decrease was driven by the larger increase in liability value of 11.4% versus the 5.3% increase in asset value,” Leonard adds. The funded ratio in October 2013 was 91.2%.

The aggregate figures represent an estimate of the combined assets and liabilities of corporate pension plans sponsored by S&P 500 companies with a duration in-line with the Citi Group Pension Liability Index – Intermediate. The Funded Ratio is based on the CPLI – Intermediate liability, with service cost, benefit payments and contributions in-line with Wilshire’s 2014 corporate funding study. The most current month end liability growth is estimated using the Barclays Long Aa+ U.S. Corporate Index. The assumed asset allocation is 33% in U.S. equities, 22% non-U.S. equities, 17% core fixed income, 26% long-duration fixed income and 2% real estate.

Retirement Plans Need to Be Considered in M&As

All too often, a firm conducting a merger or acquisition (M&A) fails to weigh the options for each organization’s retirement plan.

Human resources, the chief financial officer and a Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) attorney need to assess the costs and benefits of the respective retirement plans of both the buyer and the seller to determine if the plans should remain separate, be combined or if one of the plans should be terminated. Failure to do so until after the M&A deal closes results in very few options, and typically forces the seller to foot the bill for both plans.

That was the overriding message of a webinar titled “The Impact of Mergers and Acquisitions on Retirement Plans” hosted by AHA Solutions, a subsidiary of the American Hospital Association, and sponsored by Transamerica Retirement Solutions. The webinar highlighted the results of a recent, 90-question survey of 104 hospital administrators conducted by Transamerica.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Mergers and acquisitions in the health care market are quite frequent, according to the survey; nearly one in four (37%) respondents said their organization had undergone a merger or acquisition. And 42% of the retirement plans in an acquired organization are served by a retirement plan adviser, the survey found.

When conducting an M&A, it is “critical that the impact to the employee program is understood so that unanticipated costs, and administrative and legislative complexities are understood,” said Lynette Jeffrey, vice president of client compliance and consulting at Transamerica.

There are three primary types of business transactions resulting from M&As, Jeffrey said. “The first is a stock sale, where the buyer acquires the seller,” she said. “Generally, the acquired company will cease to exist. In this case, there are four options: maintain the seller’s plan, merge the buyer’s and seller’s plans, terminate the seller’s plan or freeze the seller’s plan.”
The second type of M&A is as asset sale, whereby “the seller will continue to exist as a separate entity,” Jeffrey said. In this case, “the buyer is not responsible for the seller’s retirement plan.” However, if they are interested in consolidating benefits, that can be negotiated, she said.

The third type of M&A transaction is a “disposition or spin-off.” In this case, the retirement plan covering the people in the portion of the business being sold is transferred to the buyer, who has the option of leaving it as a standalone plan or merging it into its own retirement plan, she said.

Only “like” plans can be merged or consolidated, Jeffrey said. In addition, it is important to note that non-for-profit entities can sponsor both 403(b) and 401(k) plans, but for-profit entities cannot sponsor 403(b) or 457 plans, Jeffrey said. As well, non-ERISA plans can be converted to ERISA plans, but the reverse is not true: generally, ERISA plans cannot be converted to non-ERISA plans.

In the event of a merger, retirement professionals, consultants and advisers have an excellent opportunity to help the buyer assess and compare its retirement plan with that of the seller, and can do so by signing a confidentiality agreement, Jeffrey noted. “Mergers are complex, and as there are many moving pieces, you need the expertise of people with diverse backgrounds,” she said.

The adviser must be sure to “understand the nature of the transaction and the potential impact to the organization’s overall structure.” Next, they must “request copies of plan-related documents—that means all plan documents and amendments, the trust document, the loan policy document, all determination or opinion letters, the required legal notices that have been distributed, administrative manuals, 5500 testing results, service agreements and contracts, inquiries from the IRS or DOL, and current employer-level reports detailing the assets of the plan.”

The adviser must then do a thorough due-diligence compliance review of both plans. “Such discipline will enable you to gain insights into costs, and prevent the tainting of plan assets or taxable distribution of plan assets,” she said.

“Next, it is important to determine the transition period, to look at similarities and differences in the plans, to identify which benefits must be protected,” and in the event of any change, “to request projections to determine cost impacts and nondiscrimination testing for the plan sponsor,” she said.

“Review investment contracts as well,” Jeffrey continued. “Identify contract terms and surrender penalties, provider and investment fees. Are there investments suitable for holding as retirement assets? Do they comply with IRS regulations? How much notice is needed for termination, and must it be in writing?”

Undoubtedly, the two plans will have different recordkeepers, so advisers need to help the sponsors of the plans select the recordkeeper with the most robust services and lowest fees, Jeffrey noted. “Advisers can help with these decisions to ensure the chosen solution is the best fit for participants,” she said.

If a change is being made, “legal notices must be distributed in a timely manner to participants,” she said. “If there is a blackout period greater than three days, the employer must send out a notice.”

Lastly—and most important, from the participants’ point of view—individual balances being transferred to a new plan must be equivalent to the fair market value of the previous plan. Once participants learn of a merger and process that information, they will have questions about their retirement plan and the impact to them, Jeffrey said.

«