Unlocking
The Mysteries of Defined Benefit Plans
By
Stephen J. Butler |
Archives |
Nathaniel West, author of the book "Day
of the Locust," also wrote a short story entitled "The Dream
World of Balzo Snell." It was the tale of a man who managed to
do movie deals in Hollywood, but as a consequence of each completed
deal, he would lose an appendage. By the end of the story, Balzo
was nothing more than a trunk. His plight somehow reminds me of
our struggle to make defined benefit pension plans answer the
retirement needs of American workers. Every time we think these
sophisticated plans have met our expectations, they leave us without
a leg to stand on.
A defined benefit
retirement plan is one that promises a specific retirement benefit
--- $20 per month, say, for each year of employment. Someone who
works for the same company for thirty years would get a retirement
benefit of $600 per month that would start when they reached age
65. Another typical benefit is to receive half your average monthly
salary based on the average monthly salary for the last five years
of employment. These plans typically have vesting schedules that
require that you work for the company for several years before
you earn a right to your full scheduled benefit.
To fund these
promises, companies deposit money into a pension account where
it accumulates tax-free like 401(k) money. The tough question
for companies is always, "How much should we deposit to meet that
future obligation?"
To best understand
how such a plan works, we look at the start of the benefit payments.
These payments are funded by something called an annuity. An annuity
is a financial product that guarantees an amount of income for
the rest of one's life. While life insurance offers protection
if you die too soon, an annuity protects you if you live too long.
An annuity guaranteeing one dollar of monthly income ($12 per
year) for the rest of your life costs about $135. If you live
to 105, it is a terrific deal. If you die next month, you just
blew $134, and you've helped to support the people who lived long
lives. Defined Benefit plans don't actually buy annuities, but
they use the concept to determine how much their retirement obligation
is expected to cost.
Designing, operating
and computing these complex promises is called "actuarial science"
and the practitioners are, of course, actuaries. The cost of the
future promise is influenced by many events over time. The turnover
of employees, for starters, determines how many people actually
get to the finish line with any meaningful benefit. When the average
length of employment is only about seven years, the number of
people benefiting is not as large as we would think. Future salary
increases must also be taken into consideration when determining
what the ultimate funding requirement might be.
Defined benefit
plans, then, require enough deposits and investment earnings to
be able to buy that $135 annuity to support each dollar of monthly
income that they have promised to a retiring employee. By comparison,
a 401(k) plan offers no promises. Whatever you see at retirement
is what you will get.
While defined
benefit plans offer security and a predictable benefit guaranteed
by both the employer and the U.S. Government, they also can wreak
havoc with corporate cash flow. Thanks to very fortunate stock
market performance throughout the nineties, many pension plans
required little or no contributions from employers. In many cases,
the excess earnings from the pension plans were credited back
to the sponsoring companies where they appeared as earnings on
the income statement.
Now, it is a
far different story. Warren Buffett, in FORTUNE's latest cover
article, warns of the emerging liability that these plans represent
and the impact that funding obligations will have on corporate
earnings. This is just the beginning of the problem. The Pension
Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) is a government agency that
guarantees with government money any pension shortfalls in companies
that are bankrupt. Remember the $6 billion bailout loan we taxpayers
made to Chrysler in the Lee Iacocca era? What escaped notice at
the time was that the Chrysler pension plan was exactly $6 billion
under water. If we hadn't made the loan, Chrysler would have gone
under and we would have had to spend $6 billion of the PBGC fund.
Another abuse
of these plans occurred during the merger and acquisition heyday
of the 1980's. Many plans had excess funding which meant they
had more money than was needed to fund future benefits. Corporate
raiders were able to "repatriate" and use these excess funds to
Our Strategy - Why Buy and Hold
|