Organizational Form and Accounting Choice: Are Nonprofit or For-Profit Managers More Aggressive?

2014 ◽  
Vol 89 (5) ◽  
pp. 1867-1893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Vermeer ◽  
Christopher T. Edmonds ◽  
Sharad C. Asthana

ABSTRACT Although recent academic studies on nonprofits have documented aggressive accounting behavior, these studies have primarily examined the sector in isolation and have not reached definitive conclusions regarding the relative aggressiveness of the nonprofit and for-profit sectors. Using actuarial assumptions for defined benefit (DB) pension plans as a proxy for discretionary accounting choices, we examine whether nonprofit managers respond through their actuarial choices to incentives to manage DB pension assumptions, and whether differences exist in the aggressiveness of these assumptions for nonprofits and for-profits. We find evidence consistent with nonprofits managing pension assumptions when incentives and less monitoring exist. Comparing our nonprofits to a sample of for-profits, we find evidence consistent with nonprofits utilizing more aggressive pension assumptions and making stronger responses to incentives to manage these assumptions. Our findings are consistent with the premise that nonprofits are more aggressive than for-profits when using actuarial estimates that deflate pension obligations and inflate performance.

2021 ◽  
pp. 088636872110451
Author(s):  
John G. Kilgour

This article examines the problem of missing and nonresponsive participants and beneficiaries from defined-benefit (DB) and especially defined-contribution (DC) pension plans, mainly in the private (for profit) sector of the United States. It focuses on the current search requirements of the three government agencies involved in finding missing participants and beneficiaries: the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the Department of Labor (DOL) and its Employee Benefit Services Administration (EBSA), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The article also reviews the efforts of the Social Security Administration (SSA) in this area. It then reviews proposed legislation, the Retirement Savings Lost and Found Act of 2020 (now S. 1730; RSLFA). The issue of missing participants and beneficiaries often becomes critical when an employer goes out of business or for some other reason stops sponsoring a pension plan. The missing participants are owed their earned retirement benefits. They, not the employer, own them.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 388-414
Author(s):  
THAD DANIEL CALABRESE ◽  
ELIZABETH A. M. SEARING

AbstractDefined benefit pension plans are an important and unexplored aspect of not-for-profit compensation, covering between 15% and 21% of the estimated national not-for-profit workforce. Here we consider whether pension contributions and actuarial assumptions are mechanisms for achieving not-for-profit financial management objectives such as smoothing consumption, managing reported net earnings, and minimizing pension liabilities. The empirical results indicate a variety of these behaviors. Not-for-profit pension plan sponsors use accumulated net assets to smooth consumption. Further, not-for-profits manage reported profits downwards when they exceed expectations by increasing pension contributions, but both minimize contributions and liberalize actuarial assumptions when they underperform relative to their desired earnings targets.


Author(s):  
Anubhav Gupta ◽  
Thad Calabrese

In 2003, the FASB issued an accounting standard (132R) requiring defined-benefit pension plan sponsors to disclose in the notes the asset allocations of their sponsored pension plans. A motivation for this requirement was to help users evaluate a plan's expected rate of return (ERR) assumption which is supposed to be determined by the allocation of plan assets to risky investments. All else being equal, the higher the assumption, the lower is the pension expense and the higher are reported profits of plan sponsors. We hypothesize that not-for-profits used the ERR to inflate these earnings by reducing pension expenses. Using a dataset of audited financial statements and a difference-in-differences design, we find that not-for-profits significantly decreased their ERRs post-SFAS 132R. The results suggest that opportunistic actuarial assumptions by not-for-profits were reduced following the implementation of SFAS 132R.


2000 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 47-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arun Muralidhar ◽  
Ronald van der Wouden

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document