scholarly journals Cash Balance Pension Plans: Good News or Bad News?

2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arundhati Rao ◽  
Leslee Higgins ◽  
Sandra Taylor

<span>Modification of defined benefit plans and conversion of defined contribution plans into Cash Balance Pension Plans (CBPs) has attracted a lot of attention recently.  A comparison of the three plans and an examination of 10 companies reveal a significant financial incentive in favor of CBPs.  The “good news” for a younger employee is level accrual of benefits and plan portability, and for stockholders, a smaller impact on net income.  CBPs bear “bad news” for older and/or less mobile employees and the stockholders when the plan assets perform poorly. </span>

2004 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT L. CLARK ◽  
SYLVESTER J. SCHIEBER

Over the past 15 to 20 years, many companies have converted their traditional defined benefit plans to cash balance or pension equity plans. In a cash balance plan, the worker's ‘account’ is based on an annual contribution rate for each year of employment, plus accumulating interest on annual contributions. A pension equity plan defines the benefit as a percentage of final average earnings for each year of service under the plan. Both types of plans specify the benefit as a lump sum payable at termination. In contrast, traditional defined benefit plans specify benefits in terms of an annuity payable at retirement. From the employees' perspective, cash balance and pension equity plans look somewhat like defined contribution plans. However, they are funded, administered, and regulated as defined benefit plans.


2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 451
Author(s):  
John J. Lucas

Cash Balance Pension Plans are a defined benefit plan where employees have a hypothetical account that increases annually, as a result of compensation credit as well as interest credit. In essence, cash balance pension plans combine elements of both a traditional defined benefit plan and a defined contribution plan (Lucas, 2007). This paper examines the recent trends and legal ruling regarding cash balance pension plans. The paper also provides an examination of the role of the Pension Protection Act (PPA) of 2006 and its impact on cash balance pension plans. An evaluation will also be presented to determine if cash balance pension plans are a viable retirement program option in corporate America.


Author(s):  
Martin A. Goldberg ◽  
Robert E. Wnek ◽  
Michael J. Rolleri

Employers have moved from traditional pension plans to cash balance and other alternative defined benefit plans. However, it may be that the best approach lies beyond defined benefit plans completely. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) was enacted to protect workers. Its focus was on the defined benefit plan, which at that time meant a traditional pension plan that provided lifetime income to retired workers. Over the years traditional pension plans have declined in number, often due to their increasing costs. Many of these plans have been replaced by the 401(k) plan, a profit-sharing plan partly or wholly funded by employee contributions. There has also been a rise in hybrid plans, plans that have features of both defined benefit and defined contribution plans. Recent developments highlight the weaknesses in traditional pension plans. Replacing a traditional pension plan with a cash balance plan, a hybrid plan that qualifies as a defined benefit plan, does not fully address all the problems. It may be that there is limited advantage to the continued emphasis on defined benefit plans. Instead, defined contribution plans that contain some features of defined benefit plans may better address the current retirement-plan issues.


2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 558-586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael DeArmond ◽  
Dan Goldhaber

In this article we focus on two questions: How well do teachers understand their current pension plans, and what do they think about alternative plan structures? The data come from administrative records and a 2006 survey of teachers in Washington State. The results suggest that Washington's teachers are fairly knowledgeable about their pensions, although new entrants and mid-career teachers appear to be less knowledgeable than veterans. As for teachers' preferences for plan structure, the survey suggests that when it comes to investing additional retirement savings, a plurality of teachers favor defined contribution plans that offer more portability and choice but also more risk than traditional defined benefit plans. Again, perhaps unsurprisingly, the findings suggest that, all else equal, teachers newer to the profession are more likely than veterans to favor a defined contribution structure.


2005 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-157
Author(s):  
Douglas E. Hyatt ◽  
James E. Pesando

The "textbook " description is that members of defined benefit pension plans bear no investment risk, in sharp contrast to members of defined contribution plans. Yet formal or informal bargaining may focus on the size of required employer contributions to a defined benefit plan. If at least some of the costs of such employer contributions are shifted back to workers, then members of defined benefit plans do bear investment risk. We utilize three sources of empirical evidence (a survey of pension specialists, econometric analysis, and case studies) to support the proposition that employees do bear at least some of the investment risk associated with pension fund performance. Poor fund performance leads to larger employer contributions to maintain the defined benefit obligation and this in turn leads to lower levels of other forms of compensation. We conclude that riskshifting does occur, in at least some plans, and that the textbook distinction is overstated.


2021 ◽  
pp. 088636872110052
Author(s):  
John G. Kilgour

It is widely recognized that there has been a massive shift from defined-benefit (DB) to defined-contribution pension plans. However, the full extent of that shift from fully functioning DB plans is generally understated. This article measures and relates the extent of that understatement and its importance for retirement income. It then discusses the increasing importance of cash balance and pension equity plans and their legality. It then conducts an in-depth discussion of large (Fortune 500) employers, small- and medium-sized employers, and then very small employers (25 or fewer active participants). It concludes that retirement income plans in the United States are far from static. Indeed, they have evolved throughout the era and will continue to do so in the future.


1998 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 25-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold W. Burlingame ◽  
Michael J. Gulotta

The potential for using a cash balance pension plan as a restructuring tool is one reason it is gaining favor throughout corporate America. Another reason is that it can give employees a better understanding and appreciation of their retirement benefits. Both reasons are important at a time when companies are changing rapidly and sometimes downsizing and when employees are less likely to stay in one place long enough to anticipate reaping the rewards of a defined bene-fit plan. Cash balance plans combine some of the best features of defined contribution (DC) and defined benefit (DB) plans. For employers, they provide more flexibility than traditional DB plans and help companies achieve their strategic objectives. For employees, they better meet the needs of a changing workforce by delivering portable, easily understood benefits. Since 1985, more than 200 companies have replaced their DB pension plans with a cash bal-ance design. One of the newest and most enthu-siastic proponents is AT&T, which, with the help of consulting firm ASA, Inc., designed a cash bal-. ance plan to help meet its restructuring goals.


2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 621 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia D’Souza ◽  
John Jacob, (Deceased) ◽  
Barbara Lougee

In recent years, many corporations have replaced their traditional defined benefit (DB) pension plans with cash balance (CB) plans, which share many of the characteristics of defined contribution plans. This study provides empirical evidence on the characteristics of CB converters and the behavior of pension costs and obligations pre- and post-conversion. We find that CB converters are larger than firms that retain traditional DB plans as well as those that terminate DB plans. They are less profitable than the former, but more profitable than the latter. CB conversions are not associated with proxies for greater labor mobility (e.g., firm-specific employee turnover rate). They are associated with a workforce that is closer to retirement, on average, lending credence to the breach of implicit contract rather than the labor market hypothesis as a motivator of CB conversions. Consistent with this intuition, we document that CB converters recognize a reduction of unrecognized prior service costs in the year of conversion, consistent with a negative plan amendment. Unlike pre-conversion, pension costs and obligations are significantly lower for CB firms post-conversion than for a matched sample of firms retaining traditional DB plans. CB conversions are more popular than DB plan terminations among firms with overfunded pension plans in periods when expected return on plan assets is likely to be high, with a consequent positive effect on reported income.


2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID McCARTHY

This paper employs a lifecycle model from the consumption–savings literature to examine the tradeoffs between defined benefit and defined contribution pension plans. We examine the effects of varying risk aversion, varying initial income and financial wealth, and varying wage processes (that may be correlated with returns on the risky asset).Results indicate that wage-indexed claims are not an optimal vehicle for retirement policy if the decision to participate is made early in life, because individuals hold most of their wealth in their human capital and would not wish to increase their exposure to income shocks. Later in life, after most of a worker's human capital has been converted to financial assets, defined benefit pension plans help increase diversification by reducing exposure to financial market risk. The access that defined benefit plans provide to annuities markets and possible guaranteed rates of return over the risk-free rate increase the value of defined benefit plans to workers. The model also predicts that wage-indexed claims will be more valuable when equity markets provide low expected returns or are highly variable and when annuity markets are inefficient.The model illustrates two economic functions performed by defined benefit plans. Firstly, DB plans pool individual wage risks. This allows older workers to buy a wage-linked security that increases their exposure to wage risks. Secondly, they create a group annuities market that reduces the cost of adverse selection.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document