Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

OPINION: Pension plan changes are creative but discouraging

Reprints

We have mixed feelings about the wave of changes taking place in the defined benefit pension plan universe.

Hardly a week goes by without an announcement from an employer — typically a very large one — about programs they are putting in place to “de-risk” their pension plans.

Many employers are freezing their pension plans, which stops the accrual of new benefit obligations.

Others are offering plan participants who have terminated employment but are not yet eligible to receive a benefit the opportunity to convert their future monthly annuity into an immediate cash lump-sum benefit.

And some are purchasing group annuities from insurers, who then will be responsible for the administration and payment of benefits to participants.

On the positive side, we are impressed with the creativity and ingenuity of employers and their consultants and service providers in finding new ways to manage these risks.

But what all these approaches are bringing home is that, bit by bit, the nation's employment-based defined benefit plan system is withering away, as the actions being taken by these employers are a way to better manage benefits already promised — not an expansion of additional or new obligations.

There are many understandable reasons for the demise of defined benefit plans. Increased life expectancies, for example, have significantly increased the cost of providing benefits, while low interest rates have inflated the value of liabilities, requiring employers to contribute more than may be necessary to fund obligations.

On the other hand, government regulators and lawmakers bear responsibility as well. For example, Congress passed legislation in 2006 that removed many legal uncertainties associated with cash balance plans, once the fastest-growing defined benefit plan.

Now, six years later, the Internal Revenue Service has yet to issue final rules clarifying all the approaches employers can take in crediting interest to participants' account balances.

And as for Congress, we are hard-pressed to think of a single step lawmakers have taken to encourage the maintenance of defined benefit plans, aside from its action on cash balance plans.

We hope the new Congress takes such an examination while there are still such plans left.