Quarterly Contributions: To Delay or Not to Delay. PBGC Premium Savings Either Way

Looking for the silver lining in the clouds hanging over 2020? Through the CARES Act, defined benefit pension plan sponsors have a unique opportunity for significant savings in Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premiums. For plan sponsors who pay a PBGC variable premium based on their defined benefit pension plan’s unfunded liability, there are two options for premium savings – for those who have continued to make quarterly payments for the 2020 plan year, and for plan sponsors who expect to delay all 2020 contributions until December 31, 2020.

Quarterly Contributions: To Delay or Not to Delay. PBGC Premium Savings Either Way

Savings for Continuing Quarterly Contributions

Plan sponsors who have continued their 2020 plan year contributions will earn PBGC premium savings by reassigning the 2020 quarterly contributions to the 2019 plan year. Typically, this reassignment is not permitted unless there is an acceleration of the final 2019 contribution (due September 15, 2020 (calendar year)) to the first quarterly due date of 2020 (April 15, 2020 (calendar year)).

The CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act states that 2020 quarterly contribution funding deadlines for defined benefit pension plans have been extended to December 31, 2020. As a result, once the final 2019 plan year contribution is made, the 2020 quarterly contributions can be reassigned to the 2019 plan year. The savings to the variable rate premium is approximately 4.3 percent of the amount of contributions reassigned to the 2019 plan year.1

On September 21, 2020 the PBGC updated its guidance. Plan sponsors are no longer required to have contributions in the plan at the time of certification. While the usual filing due date of October 15, 2020 still applies (for calendar year plans), once contributions are made after that date, the plan sponsor can amend their filing and apply for a refund.

Updated to reflect PBGC Press Release Number: 
20-04

Savings through Delaying 2020 Contributions

A PBGC premium savings option also is available for plan sponsors who have planned to delay all 2020 contributions until December 31, 2020. Similar to above, the PBGC premium is still due October 15, 2020 (for calendar year plans). However, an amended filing can be prepared to receive a refund after the contributions are made by December 31, 2020.

The savings to the variable rate premium, in this case, would be about 4.3 percent of the amount of contributions reassigned to the 2019 plan year.

Choose a Strategy and Save

For example, assume that a plan sponsor has three required 2020 quarterly payments of $250,000. Implementing one of the strategies could bring nearly $32,000 in PBGC premium savings. There is some administrative work required to take advantage of these opportunities, but it’s not overwhelming and likely worth the effort.

The calculation to determine the amount of actual contributions and credit balance elections is complex and differs for each plan. To learn more about how your company’s defined benefit pension plan’s variable PBGC premium could be affected by either of these strategies, contact Larry Scherer in the form below.

Note: This article refers to dates for a calendar plan year, but the strategies also apply to non-calendar plan years.

1 Although the PBGC variable premium rate for 2020 is 4.5 percent of the unfunded pension plan’s liability, the premium saving is approximately 4.3 percent due to interest discounting of contributions.

Updated September 24, 2020

Print this article

Copyright © 2020 by Findley, Inc. All rights reserved.

Single Employer Defined Benefit Plan CARES Act Guidance Issued by IRS

IRS Notice 2020-61 was issued on August 6, 2020, and provides clarification on the relief the CARES Act provided to single employer defined benefit plans. The CARES Act extended the due date of all 2020 calendar year required pension plan contributions to January 1, 2021, and allows the use of the prior year AFTAP certification to avoid benefit restrictions.

Extended Contribution Deadline

Many plan sponsors are considering taking advantage of the extended due date for the 2020 calendar year required contributions. As this option is considered, plan sponsors should be aware of the potential impact on the administration of the plan. IRS Notice 2020-61 has provided additional details regarding the impact to the plan’s administration.

Single Employer Defined Benefit Plan CARES Act Guidance Issued by IRS

Contribution amounts will be increased as a result of the later payment date. The due dates are extended but as required by §430, interest is added at the plan’s effective interest rate until the date the contribution is paid. The CARES Act has waived the additional 5 percentage point penalty for late contributions until the new due date of January 1, 2021. Any contribution made after January 1, 2021 will start to accrue the additional 5 percentage point interest penalty on January 2, 2021 in addition to the effective interest rate.

An amended Form 5500 filing will be required. The only contributions that are allowed to be included in the 5500 filing are those that have already been contributed to the plan as of the filing date, which is October 15th for calendar-year plans. Consequently, if a plan sponsor opts to delay any 2019 contributions, the 5500 contribution will need to be filed omitting those contributions. Once the contributions are made, the 5500 filing will need to be amended in order to avoid any additional penalties that would be triggered on unpaid contribution requirements.

The audit report may need to be updated once the contributions are made in order to match the amended 5500 filing. This should be discussed with the auditor prior to delaying contributions. Some auditors may choose to footnote the audit report either this year or next year in order while other auditors may choose to update the audit report.

The contribution deadline applies to excess contributions in addition to required contributions. For calendar year plans, any contribution made before January 1, 2021 can be applied to the 2019 plan year even if it is made after September 15, 2020. Plan sponsors therefore have additional time to improve the 2020 funded level of the plan. Note, however, as detailed in our earlier article, contributions made after the filing of the PBGC premium payment for 2020 cannot be included to reduce PBGC premiums.

AFTAP certification for 2020 may be lower because any calendar year plan will need an AFTAP certification by September 30, 2020 but such certification can only include contributions made as of the date of certification. Once the contributions are made, the plan can update their certification if it materially changes the funded percentage of the plan. Alternatively, the CARES Act also allows plan sponsors to use their 2019 AFTAP certification for 2020 which is discussed later.

Prefunding Balance elections are also delayed to January 1, 2021. Plan sponsors have until January 1, 2021 to elect to use the Prefunding Balance towards any contribution requirements or to increase the Prefunding Balance with any excess contributions.

Use of Prior AFTAP Certification

A Plan Sponsor may use the prior year AFTAP certification for any plan year occurring in 2020. This will help keep plans from falling into benefit restrictions as a result of a lower 2020 AFTAP certification.

The election can be used for a 2019 plan year if it ends in 2020. Any plan that has a plan year that ends in 2020, can opt to use the prior year’s AFTAP as long as that prior year ends on or before December 31, 2019.  For example, a July 1, 2019 plan year that ends June 30, 2020 can use the July 1, 2018 AFTAP for 2019. The same AFTAP can also then be used for the plan year beginning July 1, 2020.

Plan Sponsors must make the election by notifying their plan actuary and plan administrator in writing. The process to make such an election is similar to the elections made regarding the plan’s credit balances. The certification is deemed to be made on the day the Plan Sponsor makes the election. An attachment should then be included with the applicable Schedule SB indicating such an election has been made.

Election by the Plan Sponsor is a recertification if the actuary had already certified the AFTAP. Therefore the election would be applicable from the date of the election forward. The actuary cannot certify the AFTAP after an election unless the Plan Sponsor revokes their election in writing.

Presumptive AFTAP for the following year is based on the actual AFTAP instead of the plan sponsor’s election. Therefore for any calendar year plan, the 2021 presumed AFTAP as of April 1, 2021 would be the actual 2020 AFTAP less 10% ignoring the participant’s election to use the 2019 AFTAP for 2020.

There are many administrative hurdles that should be considered before choosing to elect any of the options provided in the CARES Act.  However, for plan sponsors that need the relief, these are several strategies you can employ. For more information regarding this notice and its effects on single employer defined benefit plans, contact Amy Gentile in the form below.

Published August 12, 2020

Print this article

Copyright © 2020 by Findley, Inc. All rights reserved.

Retiree Pension Risk Transfers in THIS Low Interest Rate Environment?

Although interest rates are at all-time historic lows, it doesn’t mean that a retiree pension risk transfer is a bad idea for your defined benefit pension plan. Below is a brief discussion on the pros and cons of considering a pension risk transfer for retirees at this time.

reasons to complete a pension risk transfer

Reasons to Complete a Pension Risk Transfer

PBGC Premium Savings: If your company’s pension plan is at the PBGC variable premium cap, the PBGC savings will be in excess of $644 per retiree in 2021. In a low interest rate environment, it is likely your plan is at or close to the variable premium cap. Focusing on retirees with small benefits will help manage the cost of the pension risk transfer while maximizing savings. For more on current and historical rate information, click to see PBGC Premium Rates.

Economic Savings: Plan sponsors tend to focus on the cost of the annuity premium versus the accounting liability. However, the accounting liability ignores on-going expenses related to running the plan. These expenses include PBGC premiums, administrative costs and investment costs. The “economic cost” of the plan’s liability is the accounting liability plus these additional costs. The annuity premium when compared to the economic cost typically results in overall savings for the plan sponsor even in a low interest rate environment. This is especially true when the plan is at the PBGC premium variable cap.

Competitive Market: There are currently about 10 to 15 insurers actively buying retiree liabilities from pension plans. Based on the size of a particular annuity premium, a plan sponsor can expect to receive quotes from about half of the insurers in the market. Insurance companies can be competitive with their retiree annuity premiums because they have a lot of experience predicting mortality for retirees. In addition, retiree annuities offer a good offset to life insurance risk.

Capacity: Insurance companies currently have capacity to buy retiree annuities. If interest rates rise significantly and many more pension plans start looking to sell annuities, will the insurance companies have capacity to take on a flood of new pension risk transfers? Additionally, with the basic laws of supply and demand, if there is a large supply of plan sponsors wanting to do pension risk transfers, will the annuity premium be as attractive when compared to the economic cost of the retiree liability? We believe a spike in current low interest rates could reduce capacity and pricing competitiveness.

US single premium buyout sales in low interest environment for pension risk transfer

Reasons Against Pension Risk Transfer (But Consider it Anyway)

Higher Minimum Required Contributions: A retiree pension risk transfer is likely to increase the minimum required contribution of a plan due to differences in assumptions used to determine minimum required contributions. Because minimum funding requirements are allowed to use more aggressive assumptions, the difference between the insurance premium paid and the liabilities released creates a loss to the plan. This loss is amortized and paid over the next seven plan years. However, the increased contributions are typically viewed as an acceleration of future contributions. As the minimum required interest rates drop, future contributions will increase if the retirees remain in the plan.

Settlement Accounting: A full retiree pension risk transfer is likely to trigger settlement accounting for a pension plan. This settlement accounting typically results in a one-time charge to the income statement. Depending on the sensitivity of one-time charges for a particular company, this could be an obstacle. However, a settlement is a “below-the-line” cost under ASU 2017-7. This makes settlements less of an issue for many companies. Additionally, even if settlements are an obstacle for your company, performing multiple smaller pension risk transfers with smaller premiums over a number of fiscal years can be a way to avoid settlement costs.

Plan Not 80% Funded: Annuities cannot be purchased for a plan that is not 80% funded on a PPA interest rate relief basis unless the plan sponsor makes some immediate funding to the plan. However, the 80% funded status threshold is determined based on a smoothed interest basis. As a result, the funded status of many plans is more than 80% even in this low interest rate environment.

Interest Rates Will Rise: For years, there has been talk that interest rates must go up. However, they continue to remain low. In a low interest rate environment, it makes sense to monitor interest rates. Plan sponsors should consider being ready to buy annuities by getting their data ready and setting a targeted annuity premium. They can then monitor the impact of changing interest rates. Once the target is met, they will be ready to move quickly with the pension risk transfer.

Pension Risk Transfer Takeaways

With the current market volatility and extreme swings in interest rates, we don’t expect many plan sponsors to move forward with a pension risk transfer for retirees in the near-term. However, if markets stabilize and interest rates begin to rise consistently, insurance companies will likely be eager to close some deals. This could result in attractive pricing.

It’s never too early to start planning for a pension risk transfer. As a first step, we suggest performing a financial analysis to determine the impact of a pension risk transfer for retirees. With this financial information, most plan sponsors can be positioned to move quickly and recognize the right time to buy annuities for retirees even in a low interest rate environment.

To learn more, contact Larry Scherer at 216.875.1920 or Larry.Scherer@findley.com

Published March 25, 2020

Print this article

© 2020 Findley. All Rights Reserved.

Impact of Historic Interest Rate Decline on Defined Benefit Plans

How will defined benefit pension plans be impacted by historic year-to-year interest rate declines? The U.S. has experienced over a 100 basis point decrease on 30-year treasury rates and significant decreases across treasury bonds of all durations from year-to-year. After a slight uptick in rates during the fourth quarter of 2019, interest rates have plummeted in the first quarter of 2020. The low interest rate environment, coupled with recent volatility in the market arising from concerns over the Coronavirus, has pension plan sponsors, CFOs, and actuaries alike, taking an in-depth look at the financial impact.

Historic Interest Rate Decline on Defined Benefit Plans and options to consider.

How Will Your Company be Impacted by Historic Interest Rate Decline?

Under U.S. GAAP and International Accounting Standards, pension liabilities are typically valued using a yield curve of corporate bond rates (which have a high correlation to Treasury bond rates) to discount projected benefit payments. Current analysis shows that the average discount rate has decreased approximately 100 basis points from the prior year using this methodology.

Due to the long-term benefit structure of pension plans, their liabilities produce higher duration values than other debt-like commitments, that are particularly sensitive to movement in long-term interest rates. The general rule of thumb is for each 1% decrease in interest rates, the liability increases by a percentage equal to the duration (and vice versa). The chart below, produced using Findley’s Liability Index, shows the percentage increase in liabilities for plan’s with varying duration values since the beginning of 2019.

Pension Liability Index Results - 2/29/2020

Assuming all other plan assumptions are realized, the larger liability value caused by the decrease in discount rates will drive up the pension expense and cause a significant increase in the company’s other comprehensive income, reflecting negatively on the company’s financial statements.

Considerable Growth in Lump Sum Payment Value and PBGC Liabilities

Additional consequences of low treasury bond rates include growth in the value of lump sum payments and PBGC liabilities. Minimum lump sum amounts must be computed using interest rates prescribed by the IRS in IRC 417(e)(3) which are based on current corporate bond yields. PBGC liabilities are also determined using these rates (standard method) or a 24-month average of those rates (alternative method). For calendar year plans, lump sums paid out during 2020 will likely be 10-20% higher for participants in the 60-65 age group, than those paid out in 2019. For younger participants, the increase will be even more prominent.

In addition, if the plan is using the standard method to determine their PBGC liability, there will be a corresponding increase in the liability used to compute the plan’s PBGC premium. In 2020, there will be a 4.5% fee for each dollar the plan is underfunded on a PBGC basis. Depending on the size and funding level of the plan, the spike in PBGC liability may correspond to a significant increase in the PBGC premium amount.

What If We Want to Terminate our Pension Plan in the Near Future?

For companies that are contemplating defined benefit pension plan termination, there will be a significant increase in the cost of annuity purchases from this time last year. The actual cost difference depends on plan-specific information; however, an increase of 15-25% from this time last year would not be out of line with the current market. This can be particularly problematic for companies who have already started the plan termination process. Due to the current regulatory structure of defined benefit pension plan terminations, companies must begin the process months before the annuity contract is purchased. The decision to terminate is based on estimated annuity prices which could be significantly different than those in effect at the time of purchase.

Actions You Can Take to Mitigate the Financial Impact

Contributions to the plan in excess of the mandatory required amount will help offset rising PBGC premiums since the premium is based on the underfunded amount, not the total liability. Additional contributions would also help offset the increase in pension expense.

The best advice we can offer at this time is to discuss these implications internally and with your service providers. Begin a dialogue with your investment advisors about the potential need to re-evaluate the current strategy due to market conditions. Contact your plan’s actuary to get estimated financial impacts so you can plan and budget accordingly. If your plan has recently begun the plan termination process, you may need to reconvene with decision-makers to make sure this strategy is still economically viable.

Questions? For more information, you can utilize Findley’s Pension Indicator to track the funded status of a variety of plan types each month. To learn more about how this historic interest rate decline may impact your plan specifically contact your Findley consultant, or Adam Russo at adam.russo@findley.com or 724.933.0639.

Published on March 3, 2020

© 2020 Findley. All Rights Reserved.

Print the article

Pension Strategy Driver – 2020 PBGC Premium Rates Announced

For many sponsors of single-employer pension plans, the minimum cash funding requirement is no longer the most important number discussed with their actuaries every year. Instead, pension plan sponsors have shifted their focus to managing their PBGC premiums.

PBGC Premium Rates Chart 2007-2020. Flat-Rate vs. Variable-Rate

PBGC Premiums Defined

The PBGC premium is essentially a tax paid to a government agency to cover required insurance for the plan and the participant benefits in the event that the plan sponsor goes bankrupt. The annual premium is calculated in two parts – the flat-rate premium and the variable-rate premium – and is subject to a premium cap.

The flat-rate premium is calculated as a rate per person.

The PBGC variable-rate premium is an amount that each plan sponsor pays based on the underfunded status of its plan.

The variable-rate premium cap is a maximum amount that a plan sponsor of a significantly underfunded plan has to pay. It is calculated based on the number of participants in the plan. There are other caps that apply for small plans.

2020 Premiums Announced

For 2020, the flat-rate premium amount is $83 per person. This is 168% higher than the rate of $31 per person at the beginning of this decade.

For 2020, the variable-rate premium has jumped to $45 per $1,000 of the underfunded amount. Up until 2013, that rate was $9 per $1,000. That amounts to a 400% increase in just seven years.

The cap for 2020 is $561 per person; which means for a 10,000-life plan, the maximum PBGC variable premium is $5,610,000.

Therefore, the PBGC premium for a 10,000-life plan at the premium cap would total $6,440,000.

More information about various strategies to manage PBGC premiums can be found here: Managing PBGC Premiums: There is More Than One Lever.

More information regarding PBGC’s Current and Historical Premium Rates can be found on the PBGC’s website link above.

Questions? Contact the Findley consultant you normally work with, or contact Colleen Lowmiller at colleen.lowmiller@findley.com, 216.875.1913.

Published October 29, 2019

© 2019 Findley. All Rights Reserved.

Pension Financial Impact of Record Low Treasury Bond Rates

Featured

How will defined benefit pension plans fare as a result of the 30-year U.S. Treasury bond rates falling below 2.00% for the first time in U.S. history? This 100 basis point drop from the beginning of the year and the fact that U.S. Treasury bond rates of all durations are down significantly from the beginning of the year, have pension plan sponsors, CFOs, and actuaries alike, taking an in-depth look at the financial impact.

How Will Record Low Treasury Bond Rates Impact Your Company’s Defined Benefit Plan?

Due to the long-term benefit structure of pension plans, their liabilities produce high duration values that are particularly sensitive to movement in long-term interest rates. For instance, a standard frozen pension plan may have a duration of 12 which indicates that a decrease in the discount rate of 100 basis points would produce a 12% increase in liabilities. 

Under U.S. GAAP and International Accounting Standards, pension liabilities are typically valued using a yield curve of corporate bond rates (which have high correlation to treasury bond rates) to discount projected benefit payments. Current analysis shows that the average discount rate has decreased over 100 basis points from the beginning of the year using this methodology. Assuming all other plan assumptions are realized, the larger liability value caused by the decrease in discount rates will drive up the pension expense and cause a significant increase in the company’s other comprehensive income, reflecting negatively on the company’s financial statements. 

Pension Financial Impact of Record Low Treasury Bond Rates

What If We Want to Terminate our Pension Plan in the Near Future?

For companies that are contemplating defined benefit pension plan termination, there will also be a significant increase in the cost of annuity purchases. The actual cost difference depends on plan-specific information; however, an increase of 10-20% from the beginning of the year would not be out of line with the current market. This can be particularly problematic for companies who have already started the plan termination process. Due to the current regulatory structure of defined benefit pension plan terminations, companies must begin the process months before the annuity contract is purchased. Their decision to terminate is based on estimated annuity prices which could be significantly different than those in effect at the time of purchase.

Consider Growth in Lump Sum Payment Value and PBGC Liabilities

Additional consequences of record low treasury bond rates include growth in the value of lump sum payments and PBGC liabilities. Minimum lump sum amounts must be computed using interest rates prescribed by the IRS in IRC 417(e)(3) which are based on current corporate bond yields. PBGC liabilities are also determined using these rates (standard method) or a 24-month average of those rates (alternative method). If current interest rates hold, lump sums paid out during 2020 will likely be 10-15% higher than those paid out in 2019 for similarly situated participants. In addition, there would be a corresponding increase in the liability used to compute the plan’s PBGC premium. In 2020, there will be an estimated 4.5% fee for each dollar the plan is underfunded on a PBGC basis. Depending on the size and funding level of the plan, the spike in PBGC liability may correspond to a significant increase in the PBGC premium amount.

Actions You Can Take to Mitigate the 2020 Financial Impact

There is potential to help mitigate the financial impact for 2020 by taking action now. Since lump sum payments are projected to increase significantly in 2020, offering a lump sum window to terminated vested or retired participants during 2019 could be a cost effective way to reduce the overall liability of the plan.

Contributions to the plan in excess of the mandatory required amount will help offset rising PBGC premiums since the premium is based on the underfunded amount, not the total liability. Additional contributions would also help offset the increase in pension expense.

The best advice we can offer at this time is to discuss these implications internally and with your service providers. Begin a dialogue with your investment advisors about the potential need to re-evaluate the current strategy due to market conditions. Contact your plan’s actuary to get estimated financial impacts so you can plan and budget accordingly. If your plan has recently begun the plan termination process, you may need to reconvene with decision-makers to make sure this strategy is still economically viable.

Questions? For more information, you can utilize Findley’s Pension Indicator to track the funded status of a variety of plan types each month. To learn more about how falling interest rates may impact your plan specifically contact your Findley consultant or Adam Russo at adam.russo@findley.com or 216-875-1949.

Published on August 22, 2019

© 2019 Findley. All Rights Reserved.

Print the article

IRS Announcement May Allow Lump Sum Window for Retirees

Featured

Pension plan sponsors may have a new tool available to use in de-risking their pension plans – paying lump sums to retirees currently in payment status. As with some other de-risking initiatives, a retiree lump sum window could accomplish the reduction in PBGC headcount premiums as well as reduce the size of the plan liability and therefore reduce the risk to the organization.

Through the release of IRS Notice 2019-18 on March 6, 2019, the IRS officially announced that there will be no amendments to the minimum distribution regulations under IRC 401(a)(9) to address the retiree lump sum window concerns raised under Notice 2015-49. In addition, the IRS says that until further guidance is issued, they will not claim that a plan amendment providing for a retiree lump sum window program causes the plan to violate minimum distribution regulations. However, they will continue to evaluate whether such an amendment would cause concerns in regards to other sections of the IRS Code, namely those sections dealing with non-discrimination, vesting, benefit limits, optional forms of payment, and benefit restriction rules.

While IRS Notice 2019-18 does not make the legality of retiree lump sum windows perfectly clear, and the IRS has stated that it will “continue to study the issue of retiree lump sum windows,” plan sponsors interested in possibly utilizing this de-risking technique should discuss the approach with their ERISA counsel and actuary to get a better understanding not only of the legalities, but the advantages and disadvantages associated with the approach. Some of these are listed below.

Advantages and Disadvantages of a
Retiree Lump Sum Window

Advantages

  • PBGC Premium reduction
    • Plan sponsors will save money annually for each retiree that takes a lump sum.
    • Premiums are based on participant counts and depending on the funded status of the plan, plan sponsors could save between $80 and $600 per person each year.
  • May provide positive balance sheet impact
    • In the current interest rate environment, there are many plans where lump sums may be less expensive than current accounting liabilities.
    • End of year funded status may improve as a result of paying out lump sums.
  • PBGC funded status may improve in the current interest rate environment
    • Variable Rate premiums could be reduced.
    • 4010 filing requirements may no longer be required.
  • One step towards full plan termination
    • Lump sums to retirees would reduce the size of the plan and take the plan sponsor one step closer to full plan termination.
  • Reduced administrative expenses
    • Fewer 1099s will need to be distributed.
    • Payment processing fees will decrease.
  • Reduction in headcount may lead to exemption from certain compliance requirements:
    • Control groups below 500 participants are exempt from at-risk provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
    • PBGC 4010 filing requirements are eliminated if the headcount of the control group falls below 500.
    • A plan audit is no longer required if plan size reduces to less than 100 participants.

Disadvantages

  • Additional pension expense and funding requirements
    • The lump sum window could trigger a one-time additional pension expense in the year lump sums are paid. The amount of expense will depend on the amount of lump sums paid as well as the balance sheet position at the end of the fiscal year.
    • A retiree lump sum window may lower AFTAP funding percentage and lead to increased minimum funding requirements.
  • Increase in volatility
    • Retirees are the most stable group of participants in terms of liability.
    • Removing all or a portion of retirees will make the plan’s liability more unstable and can make it harder for plan sponsors to plan or budget.
  • Plan termination will be more costly
    • Retirees have the least per person cost in an annuity purchase.
    • Annuity providers will charge a higher premium when being offered a plan with a relatively small group of retirees.
    • Many annuity providers will also choose not to bid on plans that have previously offered retirees lump sums.
  • Adverse selection
    • Retirees who opt to take the lump sum are more likely to be in poor health, and more likely to die before their actuarial life expectancy. By taking a lump sum today, they are being paid for future benefits that they might not otherwise survive to receive and therefore the plan could be overpaying this liability.
    • Retirees left in the plan are typically healthier and have a longer payment stream, making the remaining group a more expensive population to fund and later insure.

Another Option

Plan sponsors do not have to offer lump sums to their entire retiree population. This approach allows the plan sponsor to benefit from the advantages described above but also avoids the potential disadvantages. The retiree group can be carefully selected to maximize the results of the window.

Final Thought

Clearly there is a lot to consider and each plan and plan sponsor is different. Therefore it is highly recommended that plan sponsors review their plan with their actuary and ERISA counsel to determine if offering lump sums to retirees is an ideal strategy.

Questions? Contact Wesley Wickenheiser at 502-253-4625, wesley.wickenheiser@findley.com or Amy Gentile at 216-875-1933, amy.gentile@findley.com, or the Findley consultant whom you normally work with.

Posted March 8, 2019

Print the article