Multiemployer Pension Plans: Current Status and Future Trends

A. Munnell, J. Aubry, C. Crawford
{"title":"Multiemployer Pension Plans: Current Status and Future Trends","authors":"A. Munnell, J. Aubry, C. Crawford","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3122634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Multiemployer pension plans, like other employer plans, have been challenged by two financial crises since 2000. The majority of multiemployer plans are returning to financial health, but a substantial minority face serious funding problems that are exacerbated by unique structural challenges in the multiemployer sector. These challenges include a high ratio of inactive to total participants, high rates of negative cash flow, and inadequate withdrawal penalties so that exiting companies do not cover the costs they leave behind. The Multiemployer Pension Reform Act (MPRA) of 2014 has not proved to be a cure-all for the multiemployer crisis. As of November 2017, the U.S. Treasury Department has approved four of the 15 benefit-cut requests submitted by these plans. Of the remainder, one application remains under review, five applications have been denied, and five have been withdrawn. So, while the ultimate effectiveness of MPRA still remains to be seen, it is clear that other solutions must also be explored to alleviate the multiemployer burden. At this stage, the majority of proposed solutions to the multiemployer challenge fall into two categories: alleviating the burden of orphaned members – workers left behind when employers exit – and providing subsidized loans – either through direct government lending or government guarantees on private sector loans. Whatever the ultimate solution, a case can be made for a package that involves contributions from employers (tailored not to sink already fragile plans), from plan participants, and from taxpayers. Any solution to the multiemployer problem must be comprehensive, helping not only those in serious trouble today but also staving off future problems. Early action might stabilize other plans heading for trouble. One clear warning sign for plans is a negative cash flow rate in excess of negative 10 percent.","PeriodicalId":207642,"journal":{"name":"SIRN: Pension Type (Defined Benefit/Defined Contribution) (Sub-Topic)","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SIRN: Pension Type (Defined Benefit/Defined Contribution) (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3122634","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Multiemployer pension plans, like other employer plans, have been challenged by two financial crises since 2000. The majority of multiemployer plans are returning to financial health, but a substantial minority face serious funding problems that are exacerbated by unique structural challenges in the multiemployer sector. These challenges include a high ratio of inactive to total participants, high rates of negative cash flow, and inadequate withdrawal penalties so that exiting companies do not cover the costs they leave behind. The Multiemployer Pension Reform Act (MPRA) of 2014 has not proved to be a cure-all for the multiemployer crisis. As of November 2017, the U.S. Treasury Department has approved four of the 15 benefit-cut requests submitted by these plans. Of the remainder, one application remains under review, five applications have been denied, and five have been withdrawn. So, while the ultimate effectiveness of MPRA still remains to be seen, it is clear that other solutions must also be explored to alleviate the multiemployer burden. At this stage, the majority of proposed solutions to the multiemployer challenge fall into two categories: alleviating the burden of orphaned members – workers left behind when employers exit – and providing subsidized loans – either through direct government lending or government guarantees on private sector loans. Whatever the ultimate solution, a case can be made for a package that involves contributions from employers (tailored not to sink already fragile plans), from plan participants, and from taxpayers. Any solution to the multiemployer problem must be comprehensive, helping not only those in serious trouble today but also staving off future problems. Early action might stabilize other plans heading for trouble. One clear warning sign for plans is a negative cash flow rate in excess of negative 10 percent.
多雇主养老金计划:现状和未来趋势
自2000年以来,与其他雇主计划一样,多雇主养老金计划也受到了两次金融危机的挑战。多数多雇主计划的财务状况正在恢复健康,但为数不少的少数人面临严重的资金问题,多雇主部门独特的结构性挑战加剧了这种问题。这些挑战包括不活跃的参与者占总参与者的比例高,负现金流率高,以及退出惩罚不足,因此退出的公司无法支付他们留下的成本。2014年的《多雇主养老金改革法案》(MPRA)并没有被证明是解决多雇主危机的万灵药。截至2017年11月,美国财政部已经批准了这些计划提交的15项福利削减请求中的4项。其余的一项申请仍在审查中,五项申请被拒绝,五项申请被撤回。因此,虽然MPRA的最终有效性仍有待观察,但很明显,还必须探索其他解决方案来减轻多雇主负担。在这个阶段,针对多雇主挑战提出的大多数解决方案分为两类:减轻孤儿成员(雇主离开后留下的工人)的负担,以及提供补贴贷款——要么通过政府直接贷款,要么通过政府对私营部门贷款的担保。无论最终的解决方案是什么,我们都有理由提出一个方案,其中包括雇主(为不破坏本已脆弱的计划而量身定制的)、计划参与者和纳税人的捐款。任何针对多雇主问题的解决方案都必须是全面的,不仅要帮助那些目前陷入严重困境的人,还要避免未来的问题。早期行动可能会稳定其他陷入困境的计划。一个明确的警告信号是,现金流率超过负10%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信