Pension and annuity retirement policies were first implemented as a means to encourage older workers in employment to look for another jobs. Retirement has become a norm, the expected life of the stage, which has an institutionalized part of most modern societies. Workers expect to retire actively choose to withdraw from workforce as quickly as they are financially feasible. Once they are retired, they are expected to enjoy their life and get satisfaction with their lives. (more…)

Once the investment objectives are set, the next decision involves distribution of the plan’s assets. This process is twofold: selecting the types of assets to be used and then determining the amount to be invested in each type.

In the United States, the preponderance of pension plans is invested in familiar financial assets such as bonds, stocks, and cash equivalents. However, investment is growing in other types of financial instruments, such as guaranteed investment contracts, private placements, venture capital investments and options. (more…)

The treatment of investment risk in corporate pension plans probably is the least satisfactory area in the establishment of investment objectives. In spite of all the work published on risk in the investment literature of the past several years, risk tolerance often is not specified in setting investment objectives. Sometimes, statements of risk are made in general terms (e.g., the fund should not suffer a loss in any designated period) or a maximum tolerable decline in asset value is specified. Such specifications of risk are very difficult for an investment manager to deal with. (more…)

There are two traditional ways to value pension plan assets, i.e., market value and book value (cost). The actuary has always been skeptical about using market value due to the frequency of large short-term swings in security prices. In order to use market value properly, the actuary should value the liabilities at market also, which implies changing the interest rate assumption each year to meet the changing condition of the securities marketplace. This approach is, in fact, what is encouraged by FASB No. 35, which requires market value of assets to be used for disclosure purposes. There is an illusion of accuracy connected with market values because of the assumption that securities could be converted to cash at published prices. In fact, it is questionable whether any large fund could be liquidated with rapidity and if many tried to do so simultaneously, the entire securities market would collapse. (more…)

The conventional approach to pension asset management and asset allocation in retirement assumes that one pool of invested pension assets should be regarded as a single portfolio (although possibly with multiple investment managers) having a single level of risk tolerance and acting as an offset to a single pool of pension liabilities. However, the estimated magnitude of the pension liabilities is something less than precise and establishing investment objectives to meet such an uncertain target is not easy. Some corporations have met this problem by making distinctions among the liabilities and offsetting each pool of liabilities with a separate portfolio with appropriate risk and return objectives. (more…)

In December 2002, the U.S. Treasury Department issued some long-awaited guidance to employers about cash balance plans. These proposed regulations, issued under Internal Revenue Code Section 411 (b)(1)(H), prohibit age discrimination employment in benefit accruals and are fairly comprehensive in nature. Although a public hearing on the regulations was held in April 2003, the rules are not yet final as this article goes to press.

In essence, the regulations generally indicate that a company cannot directly or indirectly affect a participant’s benefit accrual based on age. (more…)

Employer-sponsored defined benefit pension plans in which the benefit is defined by account value rather than monthly lifetime retirement income. Cash balance plans are often referred to as “hybrids” because they have some of the characteristics of traditional “defined benefit” (DB) pension plans and some of the characteristics of “defined contribution” (DC) plans, such as 401(k). In general, traditional defined benefit plans promise qualified employees an income benefit for life (or some other period) starting at “normal retirement age,” without regard to how much (or little) the employer must contribute to the plan to fund the benefit. Defined contribution plans, on the other hand, promise only how much the employer will contribute to a qualified employee’s account from time to time until the employee retires but they make no promises with regard to investment earnings or results, let alone a monthly income benefit for life. (more…)

A company may terminate an employee benefit plan. However, a plan qualified for favorable tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code must provide that, in effect, each affected participant becomes fully vested in his accrued benefit at the time of termination. ERISA also provides that, for defined benefit plans, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) must be notified. (more…)

Benefit payments may be in the form of a lump sum, an annuity payable over the life of the participant or the participant and his beneficiary, or in installments for a specific time.

In a defined benefit plan, the benefit ordinarily is defined in terms of earnings, either as a flat percent of earnings or as a percent of earnings times the number of years of service. (more…)

Because gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people can still be legally discriminated against in employment in most of the country, and because gay couples are not treated equally under Social Security, pension income is an important policy issue affecting gay elders. Contrary to a widely held stereotype of gay affluence, gay men and lesbians earn no more than heterosexual men and women. In fact, gay men earn about 15% to 20% less than heterosexual men. Lesbians earn the same as heterosexual women, but because women on average earn less than men, lesbian couple households earn significantly less than heterosexual couple households (Klawitter and Flatt 1998). (more…)