Pension benefits will not be offered to any employees hired after the merger.
That's the third big plan this month. This could end up being the worst year ever for defined benefit plans.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Alcoa closing its plan to new members
Alcoa announced that beginning March 1 it will close its pension plan to new entrants. IBM started by closing its plan to new members last year and followed this up by freezing its plan altogether. I would say the probability of Alcoa likewise freezing its plan in the next couple of years is high. This is shaping up to be a bad year for defined benefit plans.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Medicare a mess out of the gate
The Medicare prescription drug plan is two weeks old, and the going has been rocky especially for the nation's sickest and poorest elderly and disabled. The general consensus is the government has botched the start-up of the program. If it could go wrong, it probably has. No one seems to have definitive answers to questions. Patients are being turned away or overcharged at pharmacies. At least 20 states have stepped in to say they will cover the drug costs of low-income people who have been turned away because of federal foul-ups. On Friday, the intervention of the states led the federal government to tell insurers they must provide a 30-day supply of any drug that a beneficiary was previously taking. The government also stressed that poor people may not be charged more than $5 for a covered drug.
Sources: The Washington Post and The New York Times
Friday, January 06, 2006
IBM Freezing Pension Plan
IBM is freezing its defined benefit (pension) plan effective 12/31/2007 to save money. (It had previously closed the plan to new participants.)
Sources: NYT and AJC
Statistical Notes:
1. In 1979 around 62% of active workers were covered by DB plans. Today, around 18% of active workers are covered.
2. From 1986 to 2004, over 100,000 single-employer plans with about 7.5 million participants were terminated.
Sources: NYT and AJC
Statistical Notes:
1. In 1979 around 62% of active workers were covered by DB plans. Today, around 18% of active workers are covered.
2. From 1986 to 2004, over 100,000 single-employer plans with about 7.5 million participants were terminated.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
More Changes in HR Outsourcing Landscape?
A group of private equity firms including Texas Pacific Group, Bain Capital and Blackstone Group is reportedly looking to buy Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) for about $8 billion.
Hang on, it's going to be a bumpy 2006 in the outsourcing industry.
Hang on, it's going to be a bumpy 2006 in the outsourcing industry.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
More on Delta and Northwest
The three Delta plans, which cover about 106,000 people, have $6.9 billion in assets and $17.5 billion in liabilities, according to PBGC estimates. Based on preliminary estimates, the PBGC says it would have to guarantee $8.4 billion of the $10.6 billion benefits funding shortfall. The PBGC itself has a $23.3 billion deficit. If those estimates hold up, a PBGC termination of Delta's plans would exceed the $6.6 billion loss (by far its largest) absorbed through its takeover of United Airlines' pension plans.
This is slightly misleading for a couple of reasons. First, use of the word "deficit" makes it sound like that's an annual shortfall in revenues against outflows, which is not correct. The $23.3 billion figure is the sum total of the PBGC's unfunded liabilities. Further, the PBGC includes in its estimates of its liabilities an allowance for "probable" plan terminations. So some portion of the Delta shortfall is already reflected in that $23.3 billion unfunded liability.
Additionally, the PBGC also would be hit with a huge loss if Northwest Airlines, which also filed for bankruptcy on Wednesday, terminates its pension plans. The three Northwest plans, have $5.8 billion in assets and liabilities of $11.5 billion, according to PBGC preliminary estimates. Of the $5.7 billion funding shortfall, the PBGC estimates it would be liable for $2.8 billion.
Source: Business Insurance
This is slightly misleading for a couple of reasons. First, use of the word "deficit" makes it sound like that's an annual shortfall in revenues against outflows, which is not correct. The $23.3 billion figure is the sum total of the PBGC's unfunded liabilities. Further, the PBGC includes in its estimates of its liabilities an allowance for "probable" plan terminations. So some portion of the Delta shortfall is already reflected in that $23.3 billion unfunded liability.
Additionally, the PBGC also would be hit with a huge loss if Northwest Airlines, which also filed for bankruptcy on Wednesday, terminates its pension plans. The three Northwest plans, have $5.8 billion in assets and liabilities of $11.5 billion, according to PBGC preliminary estimates. Of the $5.7 billion funding shortfall, the PBGC estimates it would be liable for $2.8 billion.
Source: Business Insurance
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Delta and Northwest file for bankruptcy
Both companies are plagued by high operating and legacy costs, and both companies will likely want to terminate their defined benefit pension plans and dump their unfunded liabilities on the PBGC. If Delta and Northwest dump their pension plans on the agency, it would add an estimated $12.4 billion in new unfunded liabilities.
[DUH! Fixed embarrassing typo in post title.]
[DUH! Fixed embarrassing typo in post title.]
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Sunday, August 07, 2005
The New E&E System
I want to go on record as opposing the new Education & Examination system. So when the SOA announces that their system is an utter failure and needs to be replaced again in 3-5 years, I can give them a big collective "Told you so!"
VEE
My original objection to VEE was that it would weed career changers out of the profession before they even start. I had a math degree, but I had never taken 6 courses (Macro Econ, Micro Econ, Intro Finance, Corp Finance, Time Series, Regression). If I had had to go back to school to take courses to get credit for this stuff, I would have never entered the career. I know many who feel the same way.
It now seems that they have solved this problem, but introduced a different one. One of the options for getting VEE credit is through NEAS coursework. However, here's one student's opinion on a NEAS course: I just sat for VEE Regression and Time Series through NEAS, and thought the finals were an insult to the actuarial profession. I appreciate that it's the easiest path to completing the VEE requirements but at the same time if we are just looking for the "easiest" method, then why bother? If material is important enough for us to know it, put it back in the test. If it's not important enough, then leave it out of the mix completely and give me a "recommended reading" list.
At least one board member has already acknowledged that, "PD was just one failed element of the 2000 restructuring. It was well-intentioned but turned out to be something of a joke in practice." And now it looks like they are making the same mistake with VEE. I can see the assessment now ... "VEE was just one failed element of the 2005 restructuring. It was well-intentioned but turned out to be something of a joke in practice."
Modules
In the first place, replacing Exams 5 + 6 with eight modules doesn't seem like a fair trade at this point, especially with two large exams (instead of just one) to come after the modules.
More ominously, board members are already warning us that the modules were more work than anyone anticipated, and it will be a challenge to have everything in place in time. So, we are probably going to be treated to a half-baked system that will be tweaked, prodded, improved and otherwise messed with for a couple of years.
At the end of a couple of years of tinkering, they will leave us with a system that is as much a joke as PD turned out to be and VEE is already proving itself to be.
VEE
My original objection to VEE was that it would weed career changers out of the profession before they even start. I had a math degree, but I had never taken 6 courses (Macro Econ, Micro Econ, Intro Finance, Corp Finance, Time Series, Regression). If I had had to go back to school to take courses to get credit for this stuff, I would have never entered the career. I know many who feel the same way.
It now seems that they have solved this problem, but introduced a different one. One of the options for getting VEE credit is through NEAS coursework. However, here's one student's opinion on a NEAS course: I just sat for VEE Regression and Time Series through NEAS, and thought the finals were an insult to the actuarial profession. I appreciate that it's the easiest path to completing the VEE requirements but at the same time if we are just looking for the "easiest" method, then why bother? If material is important enough for us to know it, put it back in the test. If it's not important enough, then leave it out of the mix completely and give me a "recommended reading" list.
At least one board member has already acknowledged that, "PD was just one failed element of the 2000 restructuring. It was well-intentioned but turned out to be something of a joke in practice." And now it looks like they are making the same mistake with VEE. I can see the assessment now ... "VEE was just one failed element of the 2005 restructuring. It was well-intentioned but turned out to be something of a joke in practice."
Modules
In the first place, replacing Exams 5 + 6 with eight modules doesn't seem like a fair trade at this point, especially with two large exams (instead of just one) to come after the modules.
More ominously, board members are already warning us that the modules were more work than anyone anticipated, and it will be a challenge to have everything in place in time. So, we are probably going to be treated to a half-baked system that will be tweaked, prodded, improved and otherwise messed with for a couple of years.
At the end of a couple of years of tinkering, they will leave us with a system that is as much a joke as PD turned out to be and VEE is already proving itself to be.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Almost half of employees cash out 401(k) at termination
Despite the growing need for employees to save for retirement, a significant number of workers participating in 401(k) plans cash out of them once they leave their company. A study of nearly 200,000 workers who participate in their 401(k) plans found that 45% elected to take a cash distribution once they left their jobs. The remainder either kept their savings in their current employer's plan (32%) or rolled the money over to a qualified IRA or other retirement plan (23%).
The highest incidence of cash distributions was among young employees (66%) age 20-29. Employees who were older and more tenured were more likely to preserve their retirement wealth, either keeping their assets in their current employer's plan or rolling it over. Still, more than 42% of workers age 40-49 elected to cash out of their plans upon leaving their jobs.
Balance was a factor when it came to workers' tendencies to cash out of their plans. Nearly three-quarters (72.5%) of workers with balances under $10,000 took a cash distribution. When plan balances were between $10,000 and $20,000 at termination, cash-out rates were much lower. Still, nearly a third (31%) of these employees elected to take their distribution in cash.
Source: Hewitt Associates
The highest incidence of cash distributions was among young employees (66%) age 20-29. Employees who were older and more tenured were more likely to preserve their retirement wealth, either keeping their assets in their current employer's plan or rolling it over. Still, more than 42% of workers age 40-49 elected to cash out of their plans upon leaving their jobs.
Balance was a factor when it came to workers' tendencies to cash out of their plans. Nearly three-quarters (72.5%) of workers with balances under $10,000 took a cash distribution. When plan balances were between $10,000 and $20,000 at termination, cash-out rates were much lower. Still, nearly a third (31%) of these employees elected to take their distribution in cash.
Source: Hewitt Associates
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Québec Health Care
The Supreme Court of Canada declares that unreasonable wait times for health care violates the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Pension Plan Funding Discussion
In the wake of the PBGC taking over United's seriously underfunded plan, a discussion arose on the Actuarial Outpost regarding pension plan funding requirements. Check it out here.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Feedback on my most recent PBGC post
Comments from an actuarial colleague have brought to my attention that my flippant comment about "bad for John Q. Taxpayer" may have left readers with an incorrect impression. To clarify the situation, I have reproduced his comments (with which I agree) here.
PBGC has never received any money from the US government (i.e., tax revenue). It is funded entirely from premiums, investment income, assets from trusteed plans and amounts recovered through bankruptcy proceedings.
There has been talk, especially from labor unions and some Democrats, about a taxpayer bailout of the PBGC. This is *extremely* unlikely, perhaps impossible, so long as Republicans control the Congress. Here's why:
Only ~25% of American workers enjoy defined benefit plans. By "coincidence," they tend to be in industries that are unionized. I cannot imagine a Republican administration or Congress agreeing to tax 100% of American workers to bail out 25% of American workers who enjoy better retirement benefits and are Democrats to boot. It just isn't going to happen.
If you've been following the Administration's pension funding proposal, they are proposing increases in the flat dollar premium and significant modifications to the variable rate premium (creating a risk-based premium, eliminating the credit balance when calculating whether a plan qualifies for the full funding limit exemption, etc.).
One last thought. If you pay close attention, you'll notice that the PBGC changed its logo last year. (Look for a copy of a premium payment package or a premium form.) The fine print under the logo used to read "U.S. Government Agency" but now it reads "Protecting America's Pensions." (The image in the logo was also changed to look sleeker.) Rumor has it that the language was changed to eliminate the suggestion that the PBGC is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government. It certainly seems plausible.
PBGC has never received any money from the US government (i.e., tax revenue). It is funded entirely from premiums, investment income, assets from trusteed plans and amounts recovered through bankruptcy proceedings.
There has been talk, especially from labor unions and some Democrats, about a taxpayer bailout of the PBGC. This is *extremely* unlikely, perhaps impossible, so long as Republicans control the Congress. Here's why:
Only ~25% of American workers enjoy defined benefit plans. By "coincidence," they tend to be in industries that are unionized. I cannot imagine a Republican administration or Congress agreeing to tax 100% of American workers to bail out 25% of American workers who enjoy better retirement benefits and are Democrats to boot. It just isn't going to happen.
If you've been following the Administration's pension funding proposal, they are proposing increases in the flat dollar premium and significant modifications to the variable rate premium (creating a risk-based premium, eliminating the credit balance when calculating whether a plan qualifies for the full funding limit exemption, etc.).
One last thought. If you pay close attention, you'll notice that the PBGC changed its logo last year. (Look for a copy of a premium payment package or a premium form.) The fine print under the logo used to read "U.S. Government Agency" but now it reads "Protecting America's Pensions." (The image in the logo was also changed to look sleeker.) Rumor has it that the language was changed to eliminate the suggestion that the PBGC is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government. It certainly seems plausible.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
PBGC Takes Over United Pension Plans
United Airlines and the PBGC announced a settlement that would allow the airline to hand over its four underfunded pension plans to the government in the largest corporate-pension default in US history. While the move needs approval by a bankruptcy-court judge and is being contested by some of the airline's unions(*), the shedding of $9.8 billion of retirement obligations would represent a huge step in UAL's efforts to lower its costs and attract funding to exit from Chapter 11 this fall. Giving up the plans would save the company $645 million a year for the next five years.
Good for United, bad for the PBGC and John Q. Taxpayer, since the PBGC is already running a $23.3 billion unfunded liability.
(*) The Association of Flight Attendants has already announced its intention to fight this in court. AFA has also voted to let the union call a strike if its contract is abrogated by the bankruptcy judge, a step that has no legal precedent and one that United says would be illegal.
The surprise UAL settlement, reached Friday during a regularly scheduled hearing in bankruptcy court in Chicago, would cancel objections raised by the PBGC to UAL's intentions to jettison its retirement plans. Terms of the agreement are expected to be filed with the court tomorrow, and Judge Eugene Wedoff scheduled a May 4 hearing on the matter. UAL said the agreement would keep it on track to step out of court protection as "a sustainable, competitive enterprise for the long term" and would narrow the number of issues to come to the bankruptcy court at a trial on May 11. Erasing that liability could force other unprofitable airlines with heavy pension obligations to seek bankruptcy protection specifically to turn over their own underfunded plans onto the government. If UAL succeeds in eliminating its pension liabilities that would substantially worsen the situation for competitors that don't have this relief. Then the rest of the big airlines that offer such costly defined-benefit retirement plans will probably follow suit since they couldn't possibly survive with these costs intact.
This could very well create a domino effect that destroys the PBGC.
The PBGC last month asked a federal judge to let it unilaterally take over a pension plan covering 36,000 active and retired mechanics and ramp workers, and in December made the same move toward the plan covering 13,500 active and retired United pilots. The agency wanted to assume those funds before further benefits accrued, to its financial detriment. The PBGC was hoping at least one or two of the other United plans could be retained. But the agency was hit by an adverse legal ruling last month in federal court in Delaware in a pension-termination case involving Kaiser Aluminum Corp. The court rejected the agency's position that each pension plan sponsored by a company should be looked at individually. On Friday, the PBGC said the settlement agreement provides a better recovery than it would have received as an unsecured creditor in UAL's bankruptcy case. The PBGC said it will guarantee payments to plan participants totaling $6.6 billion, meaning the workers and retirees would be shorted by $3.2 billion in the form of benefit reductions(*).
(*) What the article doesn't explain is that these shortages affect mostly the recipients of the largest benefits. Rank-and-file participant benefits are seldom affected in a PBGC takeover.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Good for United, bad for the PBGC and John Q. Taxpayer, since the PBGC is already running a $23.3 billion unfunded liability.
(*) The Association of Flight Attendants has already announced its intention to fight this in court. AFA has also voted to let the union call a strike if its contract is abrogated by the bankruptcy judge, a step that has no legal precedent and one that United says would be illegal.
The surprise UAL settlement, reached Friday during a regularly scheduled hearing in bankruptcy court in Chicago, would cancel objections raised by the PBGC to UAL's intentions to jettison its retirement plans. Terms of the agreement are expected to be filed with the court tomorrow, and Judge Eugene Wedoff scheduled a May 4 hearing on the matter. UAL said the agreement would keep it on track to step out of court protection as "a sustainable, competitive enterprise for the long term" and would narrow the number of issues to come to the bankruptcy court at a trial on May 11. Erasing that liability could force other unprofitable airlines with heavy pension obligations to seek bankruptcy protection specifically to turn over their own underfunded plans onto the government. If UAL succeeds in eliminating its pension liabilities that would substantially worsen the situation for competitors that don't have this relief. Then the rest of the big airlines that offer such costly defined-benefit retirement plans will probably follow suit since they couldn't possibly survive with these costs intact.
This could very well create a domino effect that destroys the PBGC.
The PBGC last month asked a federal judge to let it unilaterally take over a pension plan covering 36,000 active and retired mechanics and ramp workers, and in December made the same move toward the plan covering 13,500 active and retired United pilots. The agency wanted to assume those funds before further benefits accrued, to its financial detriment. The PBGC was hoping at least one or two of the other United plans could be retained. But the agency was hit by an adverse legal ruling last month in federal court in Delaware in a pension-termination case involving Kaiser Aluminum Corp. The court rejected the agency's position that each pension plan sponsored by a company should be looked at individually. On Friday, the PBGC said the settlement agreement provides a better recovery than it would have received as an unsecured creditor in UAL's bankruptcy case. The PBGC said it will guarantee payments to plan participants totaling $6.6 billion, meaning the workers and retirees would be shorted by $3.2 billion in the form of benefit reductions(*).
(*) What the article doesn't explain is that these shortages affect mostly the recipients of the largest benefits. Rank-and-file participant benefits are seldom affected in a PBGC takeover.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Morris Review
A review of the actuarial profession in the UK.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/morris_review/review_morris_index.cfm
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/morris_review/review_morris_index.cfm
ACS Acquiring Mellon HR
ACS announced today that it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire the human resources consulting and outsourcing businesses of Mellon Financial Corporation for approximately $445 million. For the year ended December 31, 2004, the HR Business recorded revenues of approximately $660 million. The transaction is scheduled to close by the end of the fourth quarter of ACS' fiscal year 2005 (Apr-Jun 2005).
Mellon Financial yesterday said it has agreed to sell its human resources consulting and outsourcing businesses to Affiliated Computer Services for $445 million in cash. The deal is scheduled to close by the end of the second quarter, subject to regulatory approval. Gerard Cassidy, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, said the price was lower than he expected. "We were thinking from the combination of historical transaction prices of these types of companies that the price was going to be closer to $500 million, and it came in obviously below that. It points to the fact that the business was wounded, hurt, and Mellon was unable to receive top dollar for this business."
Mellon Financial yesterday said it has agreed to sell its human resources consulting and outsourcing businesses to Affiliated Computer Services for $445 million in cash. The deal is scheduled to close by the end of the second quarter, subject to regulatory approval. Gerard Cassidy, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, said the price was lower than he expected. "We were thinking from the combination of historical transaction prices of these types of companies that the price was going to be closer to $500 million, and it came in obviously below that. It points to the fact that the business was wounded, hurt, and Mellon was unable to receive top dollar for this business."
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Actuaries do not predict age at death
Despite what you may have seen on Las Vegas last night (and on any other show that has ever depicted an actuary), actuaries do NOT have, use or create models that predict the age at which an individual will die. What (life insurance) actuaries do basically boils down to using the law of large numbers to determine how many people in a large group are going to die this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
