Can You Invest Your Way to Plan Termination?

Some interesting dynamics have been developing in the retirement industry with respect to defined benefit pension plans.  Most plan sponsors that have maintained these plan types have either suspended or frozen them.  This has been an effort to reduce/control their liabilities and funding obligations and to better respond to a younger workforce by replacing defined benefit plans with defined contribution plans.

For many sponsors, the strategy was to simply look to positive investment returns to “close the gap,” expecting that assets would grow faster than liabilities, creating a positive scenario that would reduce the cash contribution requirements and lead to eventual plan termination.  Unfortunately, this has not happened.

The Financial Burden of Defined Benefit Plans

Defined benefit plans were the predominant retirement plan at the time the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was introduced in 1974. Many hospitals and other healthcare provider organizations in New York State had defined benefit pension plans. In a defined benefit plan, the total financial obligation falls strictly on the sponsor. The amount of benefit is stipulated and the funding of that benefit is the responsibility of the sponsor. As time went on, defined benefit plans became more onerous to maintain, more difficult to sponsor, and more expensive.

The Revenue Act of 1978 included a provision under which employees were not taxed on the portion of income they elect to receive as deferred compensation rather than as direct cash payments, thus making 401(k) plans possible. The emergence of defined contribution plans began a transition away from the plan sponsor offering and managing the retirement benefits, to participants having the ability to directly manage their retirement savings.