EMPLOYERS ONCE AGAIN are setting up cash balance pension plans, as we report on page 3, and we think that is a good development.

Plan growth took off in the late 1980s and continued through the 1990s. Reasons for the growth included easier-to-understand benefit formulas compared with more traditional plans and a more rapid buildup of benefits.

But as has been well reported, a cloud settled over the plans. Cash balance pension plans came under a attack as the plaintiffs bar filed a barrage of suits that argued the plan design discriminated against older employees.

Under pressure from a handful of congressmen, federal regulators declined to issue guidance to resolve the discrimination issue.

Finally, the wheel turned a few years ago. Alarmed at how defined benefit plans were shrinking, Congress made clear that new cash balance plans would be protected from age discrimination suits.

At the same time, appeals court after appeals court rejected the age discrimination charge.

With those developments, the plans are beginning to grow again, but there's an important lesson here that we hope regulators learn for the future: Had regulators issued definitive guidance on what plan designs were acceptable and unacceptable when the plans began forming, the litigation and years of legal uncertainty could have been avoided.

We hope the next time an innovative plan design is launched, regulators don't duck and, instead, provide the necessary guidance in a timely fashion.