Private Pensions
Publicly Available Reports Provide Useful but Limited Information on Plans' Financial Condition Gao ID: GAO-04-395 March 31, 2004Information about the financial condition of defined benefit pension plans is provided in two sources: regulatory reports to the government and corporate financial statements. The two sources can often appear to provide contradictory information. For example, when pension asset values declined for most large companies between 2000 and 2002, these companies all continued to report positive returns on pension assets in their financial statement calculations of pension expense. This apparent inconsistency, coupled with disclosures about corporate accounting scandals and news of failing pension plans, has raised questions about the accuracy and transparency of available information about pension plans. GAO was asked to explain and describe (1) key differences between the two publicly available sources of information; (2) the limitations of information about the financial condition of defined benefit plans from these two sources; and (3) recent or proposed changes to pension reporting, including selected approaches to pension reporting used in other countries.
Information about defined benefit pension plans in regulatory reports and pension information in corporate financial statements serve different purposes and provide different information. The regulatory report focuses, in part, on the funding needs of each pension plan. In contrast, corporate financial statements show the aggregate effect of all of a company's pension plans on its overall financial position and performance. The two sources may also differ in the rates assumed for investment returns on pension assets and in how these rates are used. As a result of these differences, the information available from the two sources can appear to be inconsistent or contradictory. Both sources of information have limitations in the extent to which they meet certain needs of their users. Under current reporting requirements, regulatory reports are not timely and do not provide information about whether benefits would all be paid were the plan to be terminated. Financial statements can supplement regulatory report data because they are timelier and provide insights into the probability of a company meeting its future pension obligations. However, through December 2003, financial statements have lacked two disclosures important to investors--allocation of pension assets and estimates of future contributions to plans. There is also debate about whether current methods for calculating pension expense accurately represent the effect of pension plans on a company's operations. Several changes have been made or proposed to provide further information. In July 2003, the administration called for public disclosure of more information about the sufficiency of a plan's assets. However, no further steps have yet been taken. For financial statements, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued a revised standard in December 2003 requiring enhanced pension disclosures, such as pension asset allocation and expected contributions to plans. Internationally, accounting standards boards have considered proposals to change the methodology for calculating pension expense. We have previously recommended changes to improve the transparency of plan financial information, but other challenges remain. Plan participants and regulators continue to need more timely information, including measures of plan funding in the event of plan termination.
GAO-04-395, Private Pensions: Publicly Available Reports Provide Useful but Limited Information on Plans' Financial Condition
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-395
entitled 'Private Pensions: Publicly Available Reports Provide Useful
but Limited Information on Plans' Financial Condition' which was
released on March 31, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Education and the
Workforce, House of Representatives:
GAO:
March 2004:
PRIVATE PENSIONS:
Publicly Available Reports Provide Useful but Limited Information on
Plans' Financial Condition:
GAO-04-395:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-395, a report to the Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Information about the financial condition of defined benefit pension
plans is provided in two sources: regulatory reports to the government
and corporate financial statements. The two sources can often appear to
provide contradictory information. For example, when pension asset
values declined for most large companies between 2000 and 2002, these
companies all continued to report positive returns on pension assets in
their financial statement calculations of pension expense. This
apparent inconsistency, coupled with disclosures about corporate
accounting scandals and news of failing pension plans, has raised
questions about the accuracy and transparency of available information
about pension plans. GAO was asked to explain and describe (1) key
differences between the two publicly available sources of information;
(2) the limitations of information about the financial condition of
defined benefit plans from these two sources; and (3) recent or
proposed changes to pension reporting, including selected approaches to
pension reporting used in other countries.
What GAO Found:
Information about defined benefit pension plans in regulatory reports
and pension information in corporate financial statements serve
different purposes and provide different information. The regulatory
report focuses, in part, on the funding needs of each pension plan. In
contrast, corporate financial statements show the aggregate effect of
all of a company‘s pension plans on its overall financial position and
performance. The two sources may also differ in the rates assumed for
investment returns on pension assets and in how these rates are used.
As a result of these differences, the information available from the
two sources can appear to be inconsistent or contradictory, as
evidenced by the graph below.
Both sources of information have limitations in the extent to which
they meet certain needs of their users. Under current reporting
requirements, regulatory reports are not timely and do not provide
information about whether benefits would all be paid were the plan to
be terminated. Financial statements can supplement regulatory report
data because they are timelier and provide insights into the
probability of a company meeting its future pension obligations.
However, through December 2003, financial statements have lacked two
disclosures important to investors”allocation of pension assets and
estimates of future contributions to plans. There is also debate about
whether current methods for calculating pension expense accurately
represent the effect of pension plans on a company‘s operations.
Several changes have been made or proposed to provide further
information. In July 2003, the administration called for public
disclosure of more information about the sufficiency of a plan‘s
assets. However, no further steps have yet been taken. For financial
statements, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued a revised
standard in December 2003 requiring enhanced pension disclosures, such
as pension asset allocation and expected contributions to plans.
Internationally, accounting standards boards have considered proposals
to change the methodology for calculating pension expense. We have
previously recommended changes to improve the transparency of plan
financial information, but other challenges remain. Plan participants
and regulators continue to need more timely information, including
measures of plan funding in the event of plan termination.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-395.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Barbara Bovbjerg at
(202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Form 5500 Reports and Corporate Financial Statements Differ in Key
Respects:
Both Reports Provide Complementary Pension Information but Do Not Fully
Satisfy Users:
Changes to Pension Accounting and Regulatory Reporting Have Been
Implemented or Proposed:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Expected and Actual Returns in Financial Statements:
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Differences in Measures of Pension Assets and Liabilities in
Reports:
Table 2: Comparison of Pension Assets with Liabilities for a Fortune
500 Company:
Table 3: Use of Expected Rate of Return in Form 5500 Schedule B and
Corporate Financial Statements:
Table 4: Average Expected and Actual Rates of Return on Pension Assets
from 1994 to 2002 for a Sample of Fortune 500 Companies:
Table 5: Corporate Financial Statement Example--Elements of Pension
Footnote and Statement of Operations for Company X for Different
Expected Rates of Return:
Table 6: Definitions of Pension Footnote Items in Table 5:
Figure:
Figure 1: Comparison of Average Expected Rates of Return Reported in
Form 5500 Schedule B and Corporate Financial Statements for a Sample of
Fortune 500 Companies:
Abbreviations:
DOL: Department of Labor:
EDGAR: Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval System:
EIN: employer identification number:
ERISA: Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974:
FASB: Financial Accounting Standards Board:
IASB: International Accounting Standards Board:
IRS: Internal Revenue Service:
PBGC: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation:
SEC: Securities and Exchange Commission:
S&P: Standard and Poor's:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 31, 2004:
The Honorable George Miller:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
Dear Congressman Miller:
Since the stock market decline of 2000 through 2002, policy makers and
pension plan participants have raised concerns about where they can
obtain clear and timely information about the financial condition of
defined benefit pension plans. Defined benefit plans, which promise
their participants a steady retirement income, usually based on years
of service and salary, tend to invest most of their assets in the stock
market. These plans cover some 44 million workers and retirees,
concentrated in industries such as automotive, airline, steel,
telecommunications, and manufacturing. The companies that sponsor
defined benefit plans bear the risks of investing these assets, and may
be required to contribute money to the plans if the plans' asset values
are less than certain measurements of the benefits promised to plan
participants as defined by law. When several of these plans reported
funding problems or were terminated in the wake of the stock market's
decline, policy makers, pension participants, investors, and financial
analysts alike began taking a closer look at the health of defined
benefit pension plans. The information they found often appeared
contradictory. For example, while the stock market was falling and some
information indicated that the value of companies' pension assets was
declining, other information implied that these same assets were
increasing in value. In fact, publicly reported values of pension plan
assets and liabilities were routinely contradictory. Coupled with news
of corporate accounting scandals, these apparent contradictions have
raised questions about the accuracy and transparency of available
information about pension plans.
As you requested, this report examines the two main sources of
financial information about defined benefit pension plans and analyzes
why these sources generate different measures of the financial
condition of these plans. The first source is a report, commonly
referred to as the Form 5500, which plan sponsors are required to file
each year with the agencies that administer federal pension laws. Part
of the Form 5500 report, called Schedule B, provides actuarial and
other information about a pension plan's assets, liabilities, actuarial
assumptions, and employer contributions.[Footnote 1] The second source
is a company's annual financial statements, which among other
information provide pension-related data as they pertain to a company's
overall financial position, performance, and cash flows. This report
explains and describes:
* key differences between the two publicly available sources of
information, including their methodologies and assumptions;
* certain limitations of the information about the financial condition
of defined benefit plans in these two information sources; and:
* recent or proposed changes to pension reporting, including selected
approaches to pension reporting in other countries.
For our analysis of how information in the Form 5500 is used, we
reviewed the laws that require the filing of regulatory reports on
pensions and interviewed pension actuaries and officials from federal
agencies that use this information. As a basis for our analyses of the
information about pension plans presented in corporate financial
statements, we reviewed relevant accounting standards from the
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which establishes
standards of financial accounting and reporting for nongovernmental
entities, and interviewed board officials. We also interviewed expert
users of pension information in financial statements, including
financial analysts, credit rating agency officials, pension actuaries,
and federal officials. These experts described and shared documentation
about how they use financial statements to understand the financial
position of pension plans and the impact of pension plans on companies'
financial performance and cash flows. To identify approaches used in
other countries and proposals for pension reporting in this country, we
relied extensively on statements provided by officials at the
International Accounting Standards Board and the Financial Accounting
Standards Board. Our work also included analysis of Form 5500 filings
and corporate financial statements for a systematic random sample of 97
publicly traded Fortune 500 companies with defined benefit pension
plans. Appendix I explains the scope and methodology of our work in
greater detail. We conducted our work between January 2003 and January
2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
The information in a pension plan's Form 5500 report serves a
substantially different purpose from the pension information disclosed
in a corporate financial statement; therefore, these two reports do not
provide the same measures of pension funding. As required by law, the
Form 5500 requires, among other things, plan financial information
including measures of assets, liabilities, and an estimated rate of
return on plan assets. One purpose of this information is to determine
whether plans are funded in accordance with statutory requirements. In
contrast, as required by financial accounting standards, the pension
information in corporate financial statements is intended to explain
how a company's pension plans, in aggregate, affect its overall
financial position, performance, and cash flows, and is not intended to
measure pension funding needs. The different purposes and reporting
requirements lead to differences in how the pension information is
developed and presented. Basic methodological steps--such as whether
calculations are based on values at the beginning or the end of the
year--can vary substantially between the two sources. For example, one
company in our sample based its Form 5500 filing on plan assets valued
on June 30, 2001, while its financial statement was based on values for
December 31 of the same year, contributing to a difference of almost
$600 million in reported assets. Additionally, both sources use a rate-
of-return estimate, but they apply this estimate differently. As a
result of the different purposes and reporting requirements, the
information available from the two sources can appear to be
inconsistent or contradictory.
Under current reporting requirements, information in both the Form 5500
and corporate financial statements has limitations in the extent to
which it meets certain needs of regulators, plan participants, and
investors. The Form 5500 provides detailed information about individual
defined benefit plans, but this information is limited in two main
ways. The first limitation is timeliness: Pension funding data are 1 to
2 years old by the time the Form 5500 is filed with cognizant federal
agencies. However, current statutory reporting requirements provide
little flexibility to improve the timeliness of Form 5500 reporting.
The second limitation is that the form does not require information
about whether plans have sufficient assets to meet their obligations in
the event of the plan's termination. The information in corporate
financial statements can help regulators and others supplement
available Form 5500 data because it is more timely and can provide
insights into whether a company is likely to meet its future pension
obligations. According to financial analysts we spoke with, corporate
financial statements have heretofore lacked two important disclosures-
-the composition of pension assets and an estimate of the amount a
company is likely to contribute to its pensions for the coming year. In
addition, some analysts are concerned that accounting methods designed
to smooth out asset values' year-to-year fluctuations in favor of
reporting longer-term trends do not really reflect the effect that
significant fluctuations may have on the operations of the plan
sponsor. However, others argue that current pension accounting
standards are appropriate for reflecting the long-term nature of
pension obligations.
Several changes have been made or proposed to provide additional
information about the financial condition of defined benefit plans. In
an effort to improve the transparency of pension plan information, the
administration proposed in July 2003 that additional information be
made available to the public about plans' financial condition. This
information, which until now has been available only to government
regulators under certain conditions, includes computations that provide
a more accurate picture of a plan's ability to meet its obligations if
it were to be terminated, as well as more detailed information about
plans when companies' pensions are collectively underfunded by at least
$50 million. As of March 2004, no action has yet been taken on the
administration's proposal. For financial statements, the Financial
Accounting Standards Board in December 2003 issued a revised accounting
standard requiring disclosure of more information, such as the
allocation of plan assets and the company's expected pension plan
contributions in the upcoming year. Outside the United States,
accounting standards boards have been considering proposals that would
change the methodology for calculating pension cost. We have previously
recommended changes to improve the transparency of plan financial
information, but other challenges remain. Plan participants,
regulators, policy makers, and investors continue to need more timely
information, including measures of plan funding in the event of plan
termination.
Background:
Once the most prevalent type of pension plan, defined benefit plans no
longer predominate, but they still constitute a significant part of the
nation's retirement landscape. They usually base retirement income on
salary and years of service (for example, a benefit of 1.5 percent of
an employee's highest annual salary multiplied by the number of years
of service) and are one of two pension types. The other type of
pension, called a defined contribution plan, bases benefits on
contributions to, and investment returns on, individual investment
accounts. Among workers covered by pensions in 1998, about 56 percent
were covered only by defined contribution plans (including
401(k)[Footnote 2] plans), compared with about 14 percent who were
covered only by defined benefit plans, and about 30 percent who were
covered by both types of plans.[Footnote 3]
Under a defined benefit plan, the employer is responsible for funding
the benefit, investing and managing plan assets, and bearing the
investment risk.[Footnote 4] To fund their defined benefit pension
plans, companies set up dedicated trust funds from which they cannot
remove assets without incurring significant tax penalties. To promote
the security of participants' benefits, the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), among other requirements, sets minimum
pension funding standards. These funding standards establish the
minimum amounts that defined benefit plan sponsors must contribute in
each year to help ensure that their plans have sufficient assets to pay
benefits when due. If plan asset values fall below the minimum funding
targets, employers may have to make additional contributions.
The financial stability of defined benefit pension plans is of interest
not only to workers whose retirement incomes depend on the plan, but
also to the cognizant federal agencies and to investors in the
companies that sponsor the plans. Federal policy encourages employers
to establish and maintain pension plans for their employees by
providing preferential tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code
for plans that meet applicable requirements. ERISA established a
federally chartered organization, the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation (PBGC), to insure private sector defined benefit pension
plans, subject to certain limits, in the event that a plan sponsor
cannot meet its pension obligations.[Footnote 5] As part of its role as
an insurer, PBGC monitors the financial solvency of those plans and
plan sponsors that may present a risk of loss to plan participants and
the PBGC. We recently designated PBGC's single-employer insurance
program as high-risk because of its current financial
weaknesses,[Footnote 6] as well as the serious, long-term risks to the
program's future viability.[Footnote 7] Investors' interest in pension
plans is prompted by the fact that a company's pension plans represent
a claim on its current and future resources--and therefore potentially
on its ability to pay dividends or invest in production and business
growth. Thus, all three groups--regulators, participants, and
investors--need information about these plans.
To meet the information needs of the federal agencies that administer
federal pension laws, ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code require the
filing of an annual report, which includes financial and actuarial
information about each plan.[Footnote 8] The PBGC, the Department of
Labor, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) jointly develop the Form
5500, Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan, to be used by plan
administrators to meet their annual reporting obligations under ERISA
and the Internal Revenue Code.[Footnote 9] Plan administrators of
private sector pension and welfare plans are generally required to file
a Form 5500 each year.[Footnote 10] The filing includes a short
document for identification purposes and general information, plus a
series of separate statements and schedules (attachments) that are
filed as they pertain to each type of benefit plan. This form and its
statements and schedules are used to collect detailed plan information
about assets, liabilities, insurance, and financial transactions, plus
financial statements audited by an independent qualified public
accountant, and for defined benefit plans, an actuarial
statement.[Footnote 11] More than 1 million of the forms are filed
annually, of which approximately 32,000 represent defined benefit
pension plans insured by PBGC. The information on the form is made
available to plan participants upon request and serves as the basis for
a summary annual report provided to plan participants and their
beneficiaries.
One part of the Form 5500 filing, called Schedule B, includes
information about a defined benefit pension plan's assets, liabilities,
actuarial assumptions, and employer contributions. The various measures
of plan assets and liabilities are required by ERISA and the Internal
Revenue Code to determine whether plans are funded according to the
statutory requirements. Specifically, under Schedule B, IRS requires,
among other things, the disclosure of assets and liabilities and an
expected rate of return, which is called the valuation liability
interest rate. IRS reviews this information to ensure compliance with
the minimum funding requirements for pension plans. In addition,
according to PBGC officials, PBGC may use Schedule B information to
help them identify plans that may be in financial distress and thus
represent a risk to the insurance program and plan participants. Some
plan sponsors also use information in the Schedule B to calculate
certain insurance premiums they pay to PBGC.
In addition to the annual reporting requirement, PBGC has authority to
require plans to provide the agency with detailed financial
information. Specifically, if a company's pension plans reach a certain
level of underfunding in aggregate, ERISA requires the company to
provide information to PBGC in what is called a 4010 filing. The 4010
filing includes proprietary information about the plan sponsor, its
total pension assets, and its total benefit obligations were the
company to terminate its pension plans immediately. However, under
current law, PBGC is not permitted to disclose this information to the
public.
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires publicly traded
corporations to annually file a 10-K report, which is often referred to
as the corporate financial statement, with shareholders and the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC uses 10-K reports to
ensure that companies are meeting disclosure requirements so that
investors can make informed investment decisions. The 10-K report
describes the business, finances, and management of a corporation. For
companies whose defined benefit pension plans are material to their
financial statements, accounting standards require a footnote to the
financial statements that details the cost, cash flows, assets, and
liabilities associated with these plans. Footnote disclosures provide
more detailed information about data presented in the company's
financial statements.[Footnote 12] Standards for reporting this
information are set by the Financial Accounting Standards
Board.[Footnote 13]
Actuaries estimate the present value of pension liabilities using
economic and demographic assumptions. These assumptions are needed to
estimate the amount of money required now and in the future to meet a
pension plan's future benefit obligation. Economic assumptions include
rates of inflation, returns on investments, and salary growth rates.
Demographic assumptions include changes in the workforce from
retirement, death, and other service terminations. Most actuarial
assumptions for measuring pension plan funding are not specifically
prescribed by law or subject to advance approval from the IRS or any
other government agency. However, ERISA requires the plan actuary to
select assumptions that are individually reasonable and represent the
actuary's "best estimate of anticipated experience under the
plan."[Footnote 14]
Form 5500 Reports and Corporate Financial Statements Differ in Key
Respects:
The pension plan financial information reported in Form 5500 Schedule B
serves a different purpose from the pension information disclosed in
corporate financial statements. The information in each source is
subject to different reporting requirements; therefore, measurements of
pension funding are unlikely to be the same in the two reports.
Government regulators and others use Form 5500 information for many
purposes, including to determine whether plans are meeting minimum
funding requirements and required contributions for each defined
benefit plan that a company sponsors, while financial analysts and
investors use pension information in corporate financial statements to
determine how the company's plans in aggregate affect its overall
financial position, performance, and cash flows. Because of their
different purposes and reporting requirements, these two sources use
different measures and assumptions to generate information. For
example, in providing information about the values of their pension
assets and the present value of their future pension obligations, the
Form 5500 and the corporate financial statements often base their
valuations at different points in time and use different methods of
calculation. Both of these reports also include an assumption about
rates of return on the investment of pension assets. However, these
rates may differ, and this assumption serves a different purpose in
each report. As a result of such differences, information in the two
reports is generally not similar, and because the two sources of
information use similar terminology--for example, both refer to asset
values and investment returns--the results can appear contradictory.
Form 5500 Reports and Corporate Financial Statements Serve Different
Purposes:
One objective of the Form 5500 is to provide financial and other
information about the operations of an individual employee benefit
plan. For defined benefit pension plans, the Form 5500 Schedule B
provides measures of plan assets and liabilities; actuarial
information, such as economic assumptions and demographic assumptions
about plan participants; and information about how much the plan
sponsor is contributing to meet ERISA funding requirements. If a
company sponsors more than one plan, it must file a Form 5500 for each
plan. While analysts and investors may use this information, it is
primarily used by federal regulators to measure plan funding and ensure
compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
The pension information in a company's financial statement, by
contrast, primarily serves a different purpose. The financial statement
is intended to provide financial and other information about a
company's consolidated operational performance as measured primarily by
earnings. In this context, pension information is mostly provided in a
footnote to give financial statement users information about the status
of an employer's pension plans and the plans' effect on the employer's
financial position and profitability. For example, certain details
about the company's annual cost of providing pension benefits are
presented in the pension footnote disclosure because this cost, or
expense, affects the company's profitability. The users of corporate
financial statements are primarily financial analysts and investors who
are trying to assess the company's financial condition, profitability,
and cash flows, and whose concern is not so much the financial
condition of individual pension plans but the effect that the company's
pension obligations may have on its future cash flows and
profitability.
Measures of Pension Assets and Liabilities Differ in Form 5500 Reports
and Corporate Financial Statements:
Even where the Form 5500 and corporate financial statements provide
similar types of information, such as pension assets and liabilities,
their values usually differ. Among the key reasons for this are
different dates of measurement, different definitions of reporting
entity, different methodologies for determining costs of benefits, and
different methods of measuring assets and liabilities. Table 1
summarizes some of the differences.
Table 1: Differences in Measures of Pension Assets and Liabilities in
Reports:
Measurement dates;
Form 5500 Schedule B: May be any day during the plan year. Large
companies typically use the first day of the plan year, while many
small companies use the last day. Plan years normally run concurrently
with the company's fiscal year;
Corporate financial statement: The last day of the plan sponsor's
fiscal year or, if used consistently, a date not more than 3 months
prior to the end of the fiscal year;
Significance: The use of different dates generally results in
different asset and liability values as asset prices fluctuate and,
with the passage of time, additional liabilities accrue.
Number of plans covered in report;
Form 5500 Schedule B: One form is filed for each qualifying plan
sponsored by a company;
Corporate financial statement: Regardless of number of plans sponsored
by a company, total pension assets and liabilities are generally
reported in aggregate for all plans, including those not required to
file a Form 5500 (e.g., plans for employees overseas);
Significance: A company may sponsor multiple plans that have different
benefit provisions and are funded at different levels. These potential
differences may be masked by the aggregation of data.
Method of determining annual cost of benefits;
Form 5500 Schedule B: ERISA allows companies to choose one of six
different methods;
Corporate financial statement: Accounting standards mandate a single
method of measuring the annual cost of benefits earned. This method is
one of the six allowed in Form 5500;
Significance: Methods for spreading out the cost of benefits over the
working life of employees may differ, resulting in different measures
of cost and obligations each year.
Method of calculating asset and liability values;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Assets are valued on an actuarial basis, and
liabilities are reported two ways: (1) actuarial liability, calculated
using an interest rate selected by the plan actuary, and (2) current
liability, based on an interest rate prescribed by law.[A];
Corporate financial statement: Assets are reported at their fair value
and liabilities are calculated using an interest rate that is typically
equal to the rate for long- term investment in corporate bonds - this
rate is typically different from the interest rates used in Form 5500.
[B];
Significance: Actuarial asset values represent average asset values
over some time period while fair values reflect asset values at a
specific time. Using different interest rates to calculate present
values of plan liabilities will yield different results.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] In calculating current liability for purposes of the funding rules,
the Internal Revenue Code requires plans to use an interest rate from
within a permissible range of rates. See 26 U.S.C. 412(b)(5)(B). Plan
sponsors may select a rate within 90 to 105 percent of the weighted
average interest rate on 30-year Treasury bond securities during the 4-
year period ending on the last day before the beginning of the plan
year. The top of the permissible range was increased to 120 percent of
the weighted average rate for 2002 and 2003. The Department of the
Treasury does not currently issue 30-year securities. As of March 2002,
the IRS publishes the average yield on the 30-year Treasury bond
maturing in February 2031 as a substitute.
[B] The interest rate used to calculate pension liabilities in
corporate financial statements should reflect the rate at which the
benefits could be effectively settled by purchasing a group annuity for
plan participants. The interest rates used to determine the current
prices of annuity contracts and the rates of return on high-quality
long-term corporate bonds should be considered in developing this
discount rate assumption.
[End of table]
These differences in asset and liability measurements can result in
significantly divergent results for the Form 5500 and the corporate
financial statements. As an example, table 2 shows the different asset
and liability values presented in a plan's Form 5500 filing and in the
plan sponsor's corporate financial statements for a Fortune 500 company
in 1999-2001 and the resulting effects on the reported pension funding
ratios (pension assets divided by pension liabilities).
Table 2: Comparison of Pension Assets with Liabilities for a Fortune
500 Company:
Year: 1999;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial asset value: $18.081;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial liability: $11.822;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial asset value: $18.081;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Current liability: $13.883;
Corporate financial statement: Fair value of company‘s pension assets:
$21.861;
Corporate financial statement: Projected benefit obligation: $17.719.
Year: Funding ratio;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial asset value: 152.9 percent;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial asset value: 130.2 percent;
Corporate financial statement: Fair value of company‘s pension assets:
123.4 percent;
Year: 2000;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial asset value: $18.505;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial liability: $11.008;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial asset value: $18.505;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Current liability: $13.862;
Corporate financial statement: Fair value of company‘s pension assets:
$20.314;
Corporate financial statement: Projected benefit obligation: $17.763.
Year: Funding ratio;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial asset value: 168.1 percent;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial asset value: 133.5 percent;
Corporate financial statement: Fair value of company‘s pension assets:
114.4 percent;
Year: 2001;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial asset value: $17.324;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial liability: $11.151;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial asset value: $17.324;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Current liability: $14.159;
Corporate financial statement: Fair value of company‘s pension assets:
$17.923;
Corporate financial statement: Projected benefit obligation: $18.769.
Year: Funding ratio;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial asset value: 155.4 percent;
Form 5500 Schedule B: Actuarial asset value: 122.4 percent;
Corporate financial statement: Fair value of company‘s pension assets:
95.5 percent;
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: Asset and liability values are in billions of dollars. Funding
ratios in italics are calculated by dividing assets by liabilities.
[End of table]
One reason for the significant differences in measures of assets and
liabilities between the Form 5500 and corporate financial statement
filings in table 2 is that the company sponsors more than one pension
plan. When companies sponsor multiple pension plans, the details of
specific plans are generally aggregated in corporate financial
statements to show their net effect on the plan sponsor and are not
intended to provide details about the funding of each plan. Thus, the
pension information of a sponsor with both underfunded and overfunded
plans may show little or no funding deficiencies, although the
consequences to participants in the underfunded plans could be quite
severe in the event of plan termination.
Form 5500 Reports and Corporate Financial Statements Use Expected Rates
of Return Differently:
One of the most confusing aspects of these two information sources is
their difference with regard to the expected rate of return on pension
assets. The expected rate of return is the anticipated long-term
average investment return on pension assets. The Form 5500 Schedule B
and the corporate financial statements both use an expected rate of
return in calculating financial information about pension plans. In
this regard, the expected rate of return is one of many assumptions,
such as inflation and mortality rates, that affect a key pension
reporting measure. In theory, the expected rates of return reported in
each source should be similar because the assumption is derived from
similar, or even the very same, assets. However, between these two
sources there are differences in the rate's purpose, selection, and
method of application that may, in fact, contribute to differences
between the assumed rates of return used in the two sources. Key
differences in expected rates of return between the reports are shown
in table 3.
Table 3: Use of Expected Rate of Return in Form 5500 Schedule B and
Corporate Financial Statements:
Purpose of expected rate of return;
Form 5500 Schedule B: To calculate pension funding;
Corporate financial statement: To calculate pension expense.[A].
How is the rate applied?
Form 5500 Schedule B: Serves as the interest rate used to measure the
present value of plan liabilities;
Corporate financial statement: Multiplied by the "market-related" value
of pension assets to obtain a dollar value for the expected return on
pension assets for the year.[B].
To which plan/plans does the rate apply?
Form 5500 Schedule B: For each individual pension plan a rate of return
is selected. For companies with multiple plans, the rate may differ
from plan to plan because of different plan provisions and investments;
Corporate financial statement: A rate is determined for each plan.
However, only a single weighted-average rate is reported, regardless of
the number of plans.
Who selects rate?
Form 5500 Schedule B: Plan actuary, in consultation with company
management;
Corporate financial statement: Company management.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] Pension expense refers to net periodic pension cost or net periodic
pension expense, which is a calculated value. We heretofore refer to
net periodic pension cost or net periodic pension expense as pension
expense.
[B] Market-related value is either the fair value of pension assets or
an average value of pension assets over a period not exceeding 5 years.
[End of table]
In Form 5500 Schedule B, the expected rate of return is used to
calculate pension funding--that is, the measurements of pension assets
and liabilities, which determine whether, and in fact, what amount the
company needs to contribute to its pension plan to meet the statutory
minimum funding requirements.[Footnote 15] The expected rate of return
is usually derived from the pension plan's investment experience and
assumptions about long-term rates of return on the different classes of
assets held by the plan.[Footnote 16] Actuaries calculate a present
value of plan liabilities using the expected rate of return, which is
called the valuation liability interest rate on the Form 5500 Schedule
B. If plan liabilities exceed assets, the resulting difference is used,
in part, to determine the amount the company may have to contribute to
the pension plan for that year. The amount of contributions required
under the minimum funding rules of the Internal Revenue Code is
generally the amount needed to fund benefits earned during that year
plus that year's portion of other liabilities that are amortized over a
period of years.[Footnote 17] Amendments to ERISA in 1987 and 1994 made
significant changes to the funding rules, including the establishment
of a deficit reduction contribution requirement if plan funding is
inadequate.[Footnote 18] The 1987 amendments to ERISA established the
current liability measure, which is based on a mandated interest rate
rather than a rate selected at the discretion of the plan actuary.
For financial statements, the expected rate of return is used to
calculate the annual expected investment return on pension assets,
which factors into the measurement of pension expense. Pension expense
represents the company's cost of benefits for the year and generally
includes (1) service cost--benefits earned by plan participants for a
period of service; (2) interest cost--increases in the benefit
obligation because of the passage of time;[Footnote 19] (3) expected
returns on pension assets, which offset some or all of the net benefit
costs; (4) amortization of prior service cost resulting from plan
amendments; and (5) amortization of gains or losses, if any, that may
result from changes in assumptions or actual experience that differs
from assumptions. To calculate a dollar amount for the expected return,
the expected rate of return is multiplied by the value of pension
assets.[Footnote 20] This expected return is used instead of the actual
return on pension assets in the calculation of pension expense, which
has the effect of smoothing out the volatility of investment returns
from year to year. Furthermore, if the expected return on plan assets
is high enough, a company may report a negative pension expense--or
pension income.
Form 5500 reports and, until recently, corporate financial statements
have not provided specific information about how expected rates of
return are selected.[Footnote 21] Actuaries told us that they estimate
rates of return on the basis of several economic forecasting measures
and also take into account how asset allocations may change in the
future based on the demographics of plan participants. In contrast,
financial analysts and actuaries told us that many companies select
their expected rates of return on the basis of their pension asset
returns in past years.[Footnote 22] However, in December 2002 a
Securities and Exchange Commission staff member publicly stated that
the SEC would likely review expected rates of return higher than 9
percent if the rate was not clearly justified in the company's
financial statement. The SEC determined the 9 percent rate on the basis
of studies on the historical returns on large-company domestic stocks
and corporate bonds between 1926 and the first three quarters of 2002.
According to actuaries and financial analysts we spoke with, this
statement by the SEC has been a primary factor in the selection of
lower rates of return in 2002.
Figure 1 shows the average expected rates of return reported for 1993
to 2002 by the companies and their pension plans in our sample.
Figure 1: Comparison of Average Expected Rates of Return Reported in
Form 5500 Schedule B and Corporate Financial Statements for a Sample of
Fortune 500 Companies:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Companies in this sample were all listed in the 2003 Fortune 500.
Data from Form 5500 reports for 2002 were not fully available at the
time of this analysis. PBGC analysis of its entire Form 5500 dataset
shows that the average expected rate of return for plans with at least
10,000 participants ranged from 8.371 percent in 1994 to 8.473 percent
in 2001 before falling to 8.408 percent in 2002 for the 80 percent of
plans with data available. The number of observations per year for
corporate financial statements and Form 5500 ranged from 63 to 89 and
61 to 84, respectively. See appendix I for further description of the
methodology.
[End of figure]
Both Reports Provide Complementary Pension Information but Do Not Fully
Satisfy Users:
Both the Form 5500 Schedule B and corporate financial statements have
limitations in the extent to which their required information meets
certain needs of regulators, plan participants, and some investors. The
Form 5500 takes considerable time for companies to prepare and for
federal agencies to process, so it is not available to pension plan
participants and others on a timely basis. The required asset and
liability measures in the Form 5500 Schedule B are used by regulators
to monitor compliance with statutory funding requirements. However,
these funding measures are not intended to indicate whether plans have
sufficient assets to cover all benefit obligations in the event of plan
termination. In addition to using the Form 5500, regulators can also
use corporate financial statements to try to determine whether a plan
sponsor will be able to meet its obligations to its pension plans.
However, some investors have concerns about whether corporate financial
statements accurately reflect the effect of pensions on plan sponsors.
According to financial analysts we spoke with, the pension information
in corporate financial statements is also limited because it has not,
until recently, included key disclosures, and the methodology used to
calculate pension expense does not reflect the potential impact of
actual investment returns on a company's future cash flows and
profitability. However, others argue that the current accounting for
pension expense is appropriate for reflecting the long-term nature of
pension obligations and their effect on the plan sponsor.
Form 5500 Information Is Untimely but Statutory Reporting Requirements
Limit Opportunities to Improve Timeliness:
Information in the Form 5500 is plan-specific and identifies the value
of assets a plan must have to comply with ERISA funding requirements.
However, this information is at least 1 to 2 years old by the time it
is fully available, making it an unreliable tool for determining a
plan's current financial condition. The value of plan assets can
significantly change over this period of time, and the value of plan
liabilities may also change because of changes in interest rates, plan
amendments, layoffs, early retirements, and other factors. For plans
that experience a rapid deterioration in their financial condition, the
funding measures required in Form 5500 may not reveal the true extent
of a plan's financial distress to plan participants and the cognizant
federal agencies.
The Form 5500 Schedule B information is not timely for three main
reasons. First, the plan's assets and liabilities can be measured at
the beginning of the plan fiscal year instead of the end of the year,
resulting in information that is over a year old when the Form 5500 is
filed. In 2001, of the 61 companies in our sample with both Form 5500
and corporate financial statement data, at least 48 used the beginning
of the plan sponsor's fiscal year for the plan's measurement
date.[Footnote 23] Second, ERISA allows plan sponsors 210 days, plus a
2½ month extension, from the end of the plan fiscal year to file their
Form 5500. According to PBGC officials and actuaries we spoke with,
most plans file at the extension deadline, almost 10 months after the
end of the fiscal year, and almost 2 years from the measurement date if
it is the beginning of the fiscal year. Third, according to Department
of Labor officials, it has taken an average of 6½ months to process
Form 5500 filings, though actuaries and PBGC officials told us that
recently, some processing has been completed within 1 to 2 months of
receiving the forms. Even with this improvement in processing time,
most large companies' 2003 pension data in Form 5500 will be based on
valuations as of January 1, 2003, and will not be available to the
public until January 2005.[Footnote 24]
There are several difficulties in making the filing of Form 5500
reports more timely. According to actuaries we spoke with, collecting
and preparing the necessary information is time-consuming and resource-
intensive for plan sponsors. Large companies' human resource data are
often not well organized for this purpose, according to two pension
experts we spoke with. Common problems include merging information from
different databases, dealing with retiree data that may not be
computerized, and identifying vested participants who have left the
company.[Footnote 25] The data collection and analysis becomes much
more complicated when companies go through mergers, acquisitions, or
divestitures. According to one senior pension actuary we spoke with,
data preparation efforts can consume as much as 75 percent of the time
involved in preparing the Form 5500 filing. Other issues include
scheduling the work of auditors and actuaries who must review and work
with the information once it has been assembled.
Once the forms are completed and submitted to the Department of Labor,
speeding up the processing also has complications. While the process is
significantly faster now than it used to be, it depends on paper rather
than electronic filing and is slowed because the Form 5500 is also used
for defined contribution and welfare benefit plans. Only about 32,000
of the more than 1 million Form 5500 filings pertain to PBGC-insured
defined benefit plans, and the filings for defined benefit plans are
not readily identifiable in order to receive priority when the
Department of Labor processes these forms. Additionally, if errors in
the Form 5500 filing are identified, the filing is returned to the plan
sponsor with a 30-day deadline for making corrections and refiling. If
errors are not properly corrected in the first response, the
administrator is notified and given an additional 30 days to correct
the amended filing.
ERISA Does Not Require Reporting of Plan Termination Funding in Form
5500:
A second limitation in Form 5500 is that it is not required to furnish
information about the ability of a plan to meet its obligations to
participants if it were to be terminated.[Footnote 26] Compliance with
ERISA funding rules, as reported in Form 5500, is often based on the
plan's current liability, which is the sum of all liabilities to
employees and their beneficiaries under the plan. In theory, keeping a
pension plan funded up to its current liability will ensure that the
plan has assets to meet its benefit obligations to plan participants as
long as the plan sponsor remains in business. However, if a plan is
suddenly terminated because of its sponsor's financial distress, the
plan liabilities are likely to increase and plan assets are less likely
to cover the cost of all benefit obligations. Therefore, Form 5500
information often does not accurately indicate the ability of the plan
to meet its benefit obligations to plan participants in the event that
the plan sponsor goes bankrupt. A different measure, called the
termination liability, comes closer to expressing the pension plan's
cost of discharging the promised benefits to participants in a distress
termination. The termination liability, which is usually higher than
current liability, reflects the cost to a company of paying an insurer
to assume its pension obligations were the plan to be
terminated.[Footnote 27] PBGC has found no simple relationship between
measures of current and termination liability, and therefore a fixed
set of factors cannot be applied to the plan's current liability
funding level (or its components) to estimate termination liability.
For plans whose vested benefits are underfunded by at least $50
million, PBGC receives a termination liability measure in a separate
filing called a Section 4010 filing (named after the ERISA section that
requires companies to submit such reports). However, this information
is available only to PBGC and by law may not be publicly disclosed.
The differences in the two types of liability measures are substantial
enough that a plan can appear in reasonable condition under the current
liability measure that serves as the basis for the minimum funding
standard, but not have sufficient resources to settle plan termination
liabilities. For example, Bethlehem Steel's pension plan was 97 percent
funded on a current liability basis in its 1999 Form 5500 filing.
However, when the plan was terminated, in December 2002, it was funded
at only 45 percent on a termination liability basis.[Footnote 28] Plan
terminations often result from a plan's sponsor entering bankruptcy,
which, according to PBGC officials, cannot usually be predicted more
than a few months in advance. Some of the reasons that a plan can have
a reasonable ratio of assets to liabilities under the current liability
measure but a less than adequate ratio under the termination liability
include:
* Different retirement ages. When companies shut down, many long-time
employees retire and begin collecting pension benefits at an earlier
age.
* Different discount rates. Termination liability discount rates have
usually been lower than for current liability in recent years, making
the present value of termination liability larger.
* Different plan provisions. Terminations may coincide with factory
shutdowns, which often trigger provisions that increase retirement
benefits.
Corporate Financial Statement Information Can Supplement Form 5500
Data:
While the information about pensions in corporate financial statements
does not serve the same purpose as the information in Form 5500, it can
also be useful to the PBGC. This information is useful in two primary
ways:
* Its overall measures of the company's financial condition provide
indications about the company's ability to meet its pension
obligations. According to PBGC officials, most large plans that were
terminated by PBGC were sponsored by companies whose debt was rated
below investment grade for a number of years prior to plan
termination.[Footnote 29] Though plan asset-to-liability ratios are not
dependent on the health of the plan sponsor, participants in
underfunded pension plans at financially distressed companies face the
risk that the plan sponsor will lack the cash resources to meet the
ERISA funding requirements. In contrast, a company in a strong
financial position is much more likely to be able to make up funding
shortfalls.
* It provides the timeliest public data about pension plans, which may
be useful if the company sponsors only one pension plan. Within 60 to
90 days from the end of their fiscal years, publicly traded companies
must file their financial statements, which provide data based on
measurements on the last day of a company's fiscal year.[Footnote 30]
Pension Accounting Disclosures and Methods Have Been Subjects of
Debate:
Some primary users of corporate financial statements have expressed
concerns about the extent to which these reports show how pension plans
affect a company's profitability, cash flow, and financial position.
This information is particularly important for companies with large
pension plans because the greater the value of a company's pension
assets relative to the company's market value, the more sensitive its
cash flows and profits will be to changes in pension asset values.
According to analysis by Standard and Poor's (S&P), a leading corporate
debt rating agency, defined benefit pension plans significantly affect
the earnings of about half of the companies in the S&P 500 index. As
conveyed to us by financial analysts, investors' concerns about
financial reporting on pensions have been twofold: First, financial
statements have heretofore lacked adequate disclosures about how
pension plans affect the sponsoring companies' cash flow and overall
risk. Second, some investors believe that current standards for
measuring pension expense do not adequately recognize the financial
condition of pension plans and distort measures of company earnings.
However, others argue that these standards provide a more appropriate
accounting of a company's annual pension costs over the long term.
Disclosure concerns, to date, have been of two main types:
* First, according to financial analysts we spoke with, it has been
difficult to reasonably estimate a pension plan's claims on a company's
cash resources in the coming year and near future. Contributions are
determined primarily by ERISA funding requirements, but the plan
funding status reported in the Form 5500 is not current enough to be
used by financial analysts and investors. Large required contributions
to pension plans can reduce the cash available to companies to apply to
shareholder dividends or invest in their business so that profits may
continue to grow. For industries in which investors are concerned
primarily with a company's cash flow, estimates of such future
contributions would be critically important, but have been unavailable
to date.[Footnote 31]
* Second, to date it has been difficult to accurately evaluate the risk
that pension investments pose to the plan sponsor. The allocation of
pension assets can pose additional risk to the company's cash flow and
profitability, especially for companies with very large pension plans.
Investments in more volatile assets, such as equities, are likely to
create a wider range of potential cash contributions for the company in
the future, as companies may need to make contributions to meet
statutory funding requirements following negative returns on pension
assets.
In addition to raising these disclosure concerns, some financial
analysts and investors have also expressed opposition to current
accounting standards for measuring pension expense, while others
support these standards.[Footnote 32] Pension expense is included in
the calculation of corporate earnings, which investors use to track a
company's performance, in comparison both with other firms and with a
company's own past performance. In order to reduce the potential
volatile effect of pension plans on their sponsors' earnings, the
accounting standards call for three main smoothing mechanisms to
calculate pension expense: (1) expected return is used instead of
actual return on pension assets, (2) the expected return may be based
on an average value of pension assets rather than their current fair
value,[Footnote 33] and (3) differences between actual experience and
assumptions are recognized systematically and gradually over many years
rather than immediately when they arise. Therefore, when the expected
return on pension assets significantly differs from the actual return,
this difference does not immediately affect a company's reported
pension cost or earnings.
As actual experience differs from assumptions on such things as
expected rates of return, inflation rates, and plan participant
mortality rates, the differences are added to or subtracted from an
account for unrecognized gains or losses.[Footnote 34] When
unrecognized gains or losses exceed 10 percent of either the market-
related value of pension assets or the projected benefit obligation,
whichever is greater, the company must factor a fraction of the excess
unrecognized gain or loss (difference between the total gain or loss
and the 10 percent threshold) into its calculation of pension
expense.[Footnote 35] For example, a company may experience 3 years of
unusually high gains on its pension assets, and at the end of year 3,
the cumulative difference between expected and actual returns on
pension assets surpasses the minimum threshold for recognition of the
difference. The company must record part of its unrecognized cumulative
gain in its calculation of pension expense, thereby decreasing the
pension expense for the year.
Although actual and expected rates of return may differ sharply in any
given year, or even over 2 to 3 years, the variance between them should
decrease over the longer term, provided that expected rates of return
are reasonably accurate. Table 4 shows the results of our comparison of
expected and actual rates of return for 52 companies from our sample of
Fortune 500 companies that had data available over the 9 years from
1994 through 2002. During this period the average expected rate of
return used in the financial statements was 9.29 percent, while the
average actual rate of return was 7.56 percent and ranged from a low of
-8.85 percent to a high of 22.36 percent in any given year.
Table 4: Average Expected and Actual Rates of Return on Pension Assets
from 1994 to 2002 for a Sample of Fortune 500 Companies:
Year: 1994;
Average expected rate of return (percent): 9.19;
Average actual rate of return (percent): 0.52;
Average difference (actual minus expected): -8.67.
Year: 1995;
Average expected rate of return (percent): 9.26;
Average actual rate of return (percent): 22.36;
Average difference (actual minus expected): 13.10.
Year: 1996;
Average expected rate of return (percent): 9.26;
Average actual rate of return (percent): 14.21;
Average difference (actual minus expected): 4.95.
Year: 1997;
Average expected rate of return (percent): 9.33;
Average actual rate of return (percent): 19.04;
Average difference (actual minus expected): 9.71.
Year: 1998;
Average expected rate of return (percent): 9.32;
Average actual rate of return (percent): 12.55;
Average difference (actual minus expected): 3.23.
Year: 1999;
Average expected rate of return (percent): 9.35;
Average actual rate of return (percent): 14.26;
Average difference (actual minus expected): 4.91.
Year: 2000;
Average expected rate of return (percent): 9.45;
Average actual rate of return (percent): 5.07;
Average difference (actual minus expected): -4.38.
Year: 2001;
Average expected rate of return (percent): 9.45;
Average actual rate of return (percent): -6.45;
Average difference (actual minus expected): -15.90.
Year: 2002;
Average expected rate of return (percent): 8.98;
Average actual rate of return (percent): -8.85;
Average difference (actual minus expected): -17.83.
Year: 1997-1999 average;
Average expected rate of return (percent): 9.33;
Average actual rate of return (percent): 15.25;
Average difference (actual minus expected): 5.92.
Year: 2000-2002 average;
Average expected rate of return (percent): 9.29;
Average actual rate of return (percent): -3.59;
Average difference (actual minus expected): -12.88.
Year: Nine-year average;
Average expected rate of return (percent): 9.29;
Average actual rate of return (percent): 7.56;
Average difference (actual minus expected): -1.73.
Source: GAO analysis of pension footnotes in corporate financial
statements.
Note: The average rates of return for multiyear periods in table 4 are
geometric means, which are used to calculate the compound average, or
the average annual return that would yield the same total change in
asset values over a multiyear period. 52 companies in our sample had
data available for this entire 9-year period.
[End of table]
In comparison with the results of our analysis, a study by one
investment bank revealed an average actual return on pension assets of
greater than 12 percent between 1985 and 1998.[Footnote 36] Therefore,
average actual rates of return will vary according to the time period
being measured. For example, for the companies in our sample, the
average actual return on pension assets was 15.25 percent from 1997
through 1999 and -3.59 percent from 2000 through 2002.
Opponents of current methods of accounting for pension expense argue
that the smoothing mechanisms lack transparency because reported
pension expense (1) does not reflect the current financial condition of
pension plans and (2) distorts measures of corporate earnings. Under
the current methodology for calculating pension expense, the cumulative
net effect of pension asset gains or losses may not be reflected in
reported pension expense for a few years, if at all. While alternating
years of gains and losses may keep reported pension expense relatively
smooth from year to year, consecutive years of gains or losses can
eventually result in significant changes in reported pension expense.
Many companies that reported pension income in 2001 and 2002, while
their pension assets were in fact decreasing in value, benefited from
the use of the market-related value of pension assets (the average
asset values over not more than the previous 5 years) rather than the
lower actual value of these assets. For example, of the 97 companies in
our sample, 26 reported net pension income in 2002, but only one of
these companies saw an increase in the value of its pension assets.
Conversely, it is likely that many of these companies will report net
pension expenses in the next few years, even if their pension asset
values rise, because their market-related values of pension assets will
reflect, in part, the decline in the stock market between 2000 and
2002.
In contrast, employer contributions, which are only indirectly related
to pension expense, may better reflect the current financial condition
of pension plans. Employer contributions to pension plans are
determined by a complex set of factors, including the tax deductibility
of contributions, minimum funding requirements, the employer's expected
cash flows, and PBGC premiums. In 2002, when most large companies saw
declines in their pension asset values, many were required to make
contributions to their pension plans to meet the statutory funding
requirements. The 93 Fortune 500 companies in our sample with available
financial statement data reported aggregate contributions to pension
plans of $10.1 billion in 2002, while their aggregate pension expense
totaled $622.6 million. Financial analysts pay close attention to
companies' cash contributions to pension plans because large
contributions to plans represent resources that companies will not have
available to use for other purposes, such as expanding their
businesses.
Investors have also been concerned about the extent to which defined
benefit pensions contribute to a company's total profits. According to
one investment bank study, 150 of the 356 Fortune 500 companies with
defined benefit plans reported net pension income (negative expense) in
their financial statements in 2001.[Footnote 37] However, the value of
pension assets for 313 of these companies actually declined in 2001. To
try to address these apparent inconsistencies in the financial
reporting on pensions, many financial analysts and investors try to
strip out the effects of pensions to determine a "true" measure of a
company's earnings that reflects its performance from ongoing
operations. For example, Standard and Poor's issued a proposal in 2002
to standardize measures of corporate earnings that excludes several
items from the earnings calculation, including investment returns on
pension assets.
Proponents of current pension accounting standards argue that the
smoothing mechanisms are beneficial because (1) pension obligations are
long-term liabilities that do not have to be funded all at once and (2)
sponsoring pension plans and investing plan assets are not the primary
business activities of plan sponsors. Pension obligations are normally
paid out over a long period of time; therefore, pension assets have a
similar time period to meet those obligations. The smoothing mechanisms
allow plan sponsors to gradually and systematically attribute portions
of the long-term cost of pension plans to each year. Without smoothing
mechanisms, companies would potentially face year-to-year fluctuations
in their reported pension expense that some investors may also consider
misleading given that unexpected losses on pension assets in one time
period may be offset by unexpected gains in another.
The Financial Accounting Standards Board adopted the smoothing
mechanisms in part to reduce the volatility of reported earnings caused
by investment returns on pension assets. Because investing pension plan
assets is not the primary business activity of plan sponsors, FASB
determined that earnings volatility caused by immediately recognizing
all changes in the value of plan assets and liabilities as they occur
would be misleading to investors. Furthermore, such volatility could
make comparisons of earnings more difficult when looking at different
firms, some of which may not sponsor defined benefit plans.
Changes to Pension Accounting and Regulatory Reporting Have Been
Implemented or Proposed:
Both in this country and abroad, changes have been proposed--and in a
few cases, implemented--to make information about defined benefit plans
more transparent or complete. These changes relate to information
associated with both Form 5500 and corporate financial statements. The
administration has proposed augmenting current Form 5500 information by
making available certain data that currently are not made public, such
as measurements of termination liabilities. The Financial Accounting
Standards Board has recently amended one of its accounting standards to
require, among other things, that companies provide more information
about the composition and market risk of their pension plan assets and
their anticipated contributions to plans in the upcoming year. Outside
the United States, proposals are being discussed that would move toward
eliminating or reducing the use of smoothing mechanisms in calculating
pension expense.
The Administration Has Proposed Making Additional Information Available
Relating to Pension Risk:
In July 2003 the Department of the Treasury announced "The
Administration Proposal to Improve the Accuracy and Transparency of
Pension Information." The proposal presented four areas of change, and
one of them would broaden the public's access to pension information
currently available only to PBGC.[Footnote 38] The proposal would
expand the public's access to pension information in two main ways:
* Reporting termination liability. Under the proposal, information
about a plan's termination liability would be included in ERISA-
required summary annual reports to workers and retirees. The annual
reports, which are based on data from the Form 5500 reports, now report
the plan's financial condition based on the plan's current liability.
Termination liability information is reported to PBGC by companies
whose plans are collectively underfunded by more than $50 million.
* Public disclosure of underfunding of at least $50 million. Section
4010 of ERISA requires companies with more than $50 million in
aggregate plan underfunding to file annual financial and actuarial
information with the PBGC. This information is reported separately from
Form 5500 information and must generally be filed no later than 105
days after the end of the company's fiscal year. PBGC uses this
information to monitor plans that may be at greater risk of failure,
but under current law, PBGC cannot make the information public.
According to the administration, the information is more timely and
better in quality than publicly available data. Under the proposal, the
market value of assets, termination liability, and termination funding
ratios contained in these reports would all be publicly disclosed.
* Since the announcement of the administration's proposal, no further
action has been taken by either the administration or Congress to
implement these proposals.
FASB Has Changed U.S. Pension Disclosure Standards; Other Changes Being
Considered Abroad:
In regard to corporate financial statements, one change designed to
address users' concerns about pension-related information has recently
been enacted. In December 2003 FASB issued a revision to its accounting
standard on pension disclosures.[Footnote 39] The revised standard
incorporates all of the disclosures required by the prior standard and
requires more informative pension disclosures.[Footnote 40] FASB added
the new disclosures because users of financial statements, such as
financial analysts, requested additional information that would assist
them to evaluate, among other things, the composition and market risk
of the pension plan's investment portfolio and the expected long-term
rate of return used to determine net pension costs. As a result, some
of the new disclosure requirements include listing the percentage of
pension assets invested in major asset classes such as equity
securities, debt securities, real estate, and other assets. Companies
must also provide a narrative description of the basis used to
determine the overall expected rate of return on assets assumption. The
FASB believed that this new information would allow users to better
understand a company's exposure to investment risk from its pension
plans and the expected rate of return assumption. Another required
disclosure is the employer's estimated contribution to pension plans in
the following year. However, the revised standard does not change the
general approach used in the financial statements of aggregating this
information across all pension plans.
Outside the United States, other standard-setting boards have been
addressing issues related to the use of smoothing techniques designed
to smooth out the volatility of reported pension expense. One of these
boards is the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), an
independent accounting standard-setting organization. Many countries
require publicly traded companies to prepare their financial statements
in accordance with IASB's financial reporting standards. IASB's current
pension accounting standard is very similar to the current standard
promulgated by FASB, in that both allow a smoothing mechanism to reduce
the volatility of pension expense. However, IASB is considering a
revision to its current standard to allow companies to calculate
pension expense using actual investment returns instead of expected
returns, on a voluntary basis. According to the IASB manager in charge
of the project, the exposure draft will be issued in 2004, and a final
standard is expected in March 2005. Separately from the IASB action,
the United Kingdom's Accounting Standards Board has already issued its
own accounting standard that would require companies to report the
differences between actual and expected returns on pension assets in
their financial statements.[Footnote 41] Full adoption of this standard
has been delayed out of concern that the changes made by firms to
comply with the Accounting Standards Board standard might need to be
modified again in subsequent years to meet a potentially different IASB
standard.
Concluding Observations:
Form 5500 reports and corporate financial statements both provide key
pension financial data, but they serve different purposes and, as a
result, provide significantly different information. To date, neither
report in isolation provides sufficient information for certain users
to fully determine the current financial condition of an individual
pension plan or how pension obligations could affect the financial
health of the plan sponsor. While particular concerns have been raised
about differences between expected and actual pension asset rates of
return reported on corporate financial statements, expected rates of
return do not have a significant effect on the actual financial
condition of plans.
Continued concerns about the financial condition of plans and how this
information is disclosed have been highlighted by the administration's
proposal to provide information about funding in the event of plan
termination to plan participants and regulators. We have previously
reported that an essential element of pension disclosure should include
requiring plans to calculate liabilities on a termination basis and
disclosing this information to all participants annually. Likewise, we
recommended that Congress consider requiring that all participants
receive information about plan investments and the minimum benefit
amount that PBGC guarantees should their plan be terminated.[Footnote
42] While such new requirements could help improve the transparency of
pension plans' financial condition, there are other challenges to be
addressed as well. For example, plan participants and regulators
continue to need more timely information. However, there appear to be
few opportunities to improve the timeliness of Form 5500 information
under the current statutory reporting requirements. One challenge to
improving the timeliness of this information on pensions will be to
find a solution that does not impose undue burdens on plan sponsors.
Resolving this challenge will prove crucial to providing policy makers,
plan participants, and investors with more timely and transparent
information on the financial condition of defined benefit plans.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report the Department of the Treasury, the
Department of Labor, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Financial Accounting
Standards Board. We received technical comments from each agency that
we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, the
Secretary of the Treasury, the Executive Director of the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Chairman of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards
Board, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested
parties. We will also make copies available to others on request. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site
at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions concerning this report please contact me at
(202) 512-7215 or George Scott at (202) 512-5932. Other contacts and
acknowledgments are listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Barbara D. Bovbjerg:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To explain the two sources of pension financial information, we
interviewed federal agency officials from the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation (PBGC) and the Department of Labor (DOL). These federal
agencies use Form 5500 information in performing their oversight and
monitoring responsibilities. In addition, we reviewed the Form 5500
instructions, form, and schedules to understand the information they
provide. For the financial statements, we reviewed relevant accounting
standards from the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which sets
standards for financial statements, and spoke with board officials. We
also reviewed many financial statements of large domestic companies.
Our work also included analyses of a sample of corporate financial
statements of Fortune 500 companies and the corresponding Form 5500
filings for those companies with available data. We chose to sample
from the universe of publicly owned Fortune 500 companies with defined
benefit plans because (1) the pension plans sponsored by these firms
represent a large percentage of the total private defined benefit
pension plan participants, assets, and liabilities in the United
States; (2) these firms tend to have the largest defined benefit plans,
and if these plans fail they would create the largest burdens for PBGC
and possibly the government; and (3) most of these firms are publicly
traded, so their corporate financial statements are publicly available.
We drew a systematic random sample of 100 of the 2003 Fortune 500
companies with defined benefit plans, after excluding government-
sponsored entities. The sampling process accounted for the companies'
revenues in 2002 and the distribution of expected rates of return on
pension assets. This distribution was available in a Compustat database
for approximately 290 of the 329 companies in the population. From the
initial sample of 100 companies, 3 companies were removed because one
is not publicly traded, another is European and filed its financial
statements in euros, and the third changed its end-of-fiscal-year date
in 2001, which made it more difficult to compare with other firms. For
the 97 remaining companies, we obtained as much as 10 years of pension
data from these companies' corporate financial statements using the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Electronic Data Gathering,
Analysis, and Retrieval System (EDGAR), depending on data availability.
Data were available from 1993 through 2002 for 68 companies. However,
others did not have 10 years of data available because, for example,
they were formed, or only began to publicly trade their stock, at some
time between 1993 and 2002. Nine companies in our sample reported more
than one expected rate of return for their pension plans and a weighted
average could not be determined accurately. Most of these companies
sponsor pension plans for employees outside the United States and
provide separate assumptions for domestic and international plans.
These companies did not report the weighted average expected rate of
return that was used to calculate their expected return on pension
assets.
We also obtained the corresponding Form 5500 filings for the companies
in our sample from PBGC for plan years 1993 through 2001.[Footnote 43]
To identify these filings, we matched the sample of 97 Fortune 500
companies to their pension plans on the basis of their employer
identification number (EIN). An EIN, known as a federal tax
identification number, is a nine-digit number that the IRS assigns to
organizations. We developed a list of EINs reported on the companies'
financial statements and provided this list to the PBGC. PBGC matched
the EINs to their Form 5500 database and provided information to us.
However, in several cases, PBGC did not find matches to our list of
EINs, either for all 10 years or for just some of the years. Based on
the number of companies with data available in any of the 10 years, we
decided on a threshold of 7 years' worth of data in order to achieve a
sample size that would allow us to compare data over most of the 10-
year period. In other words, to be included in this analysis, a company
must have at least 7 years of Form 5500 data. One hundred and fifty
plans had at least 7 years of Form 5500 data.[Footnote 44] The years in
which data were missing were spread sporadically among the 10-year
period covered in this analysis.
Before deciding to use the Form 5500 data, we investigated its
reliability. Prior to plan year 1999, the Internal Revenue Service was
responsible for keypunching Form 5500 information into a database, and
DOL officials explained that some of the data contained errors. DOL
officials explained that since plan year 1999, Form 5500 data have been
recorded with optical scanning devices and have been subject to edit
and validity tests. In 1999, some Form 5500 filings were not captured
because many plan administrators did not send forms on the correct
paper and the scanner could not capture some information. However, DOL
officials explained that this problem has not occurred since. We
obtained the Form 5500 data from PBGC's Corporate Policy and Research
Department. PBGC officials explained that as errors surface in their
use of the Form 5500 data, corrections are made to PBGC's database. In
the past hard copies of original Form 5500 filings were obtained for
making corrections. Today PBGC can view electronic images of the actual
plan filings. As PBGC receives the data on Form 5500 Schedule B, it
screens the data for errors, particularly in the asset and liability
fields. Information we received from pension actuaries corroborates the
data we used from Form 5500 filings and the data on expected rates of
return, as presented in figure 1, show consistency from year to year.
Taking all these factors into consideration, we feel that the data we
used were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of differentiating
between expected rates of return reported in Form 5500 filings and
corporate financial statements.
In obtaining financial information for the sample companies, we had to
account for companies that had merged with another company during the
10-year period under review. In the event of a merger between a company
with a defined benefit pension plan and a company without a defined
benefit plan, we selected the company with the defined benefit plan. In
the case of a merger between two companies that both had defined
benefit plans prior to the merger, we selected the company indicated by
the EDGAR database as the predecessor company.
While our sample is designed to represent our population for calendar
year 2002, it is not representative of any population in prior years.
The makeup of the Fortune 500 changes from year to year, and our method
of tracking the same companies across several years precludes us from
making specific statements about any larger population prior to 2002.
Thus, while we believe that the trends identified in our sample could
be indicative of trends in the population of large firms with defined
benefit plans and that this supposition is supported by other studies,
we do not claim these trends are representative of past populations of
Fortune 500 companies.
To explain the usefulness and limitations of the information from the
two information sources, we interviewed expert users of pension
information in Form 5500 reports and corporate financial statements,
including federal officials from DOL, PBGC, and SEC; pension actuaries;
corporate debt rating agency officials; financial analysts; and
Financial Accounting Standards Board officials. Some experts explained
the uses of information available in the Form 5500 reports and
limitations of these reports. Other experts described and shared
documentation about how they analyze financial statements to understand
the impact of pension plans on the plan sponsors' financial statements.
Some experts explained the need for additional pension information in
companies' financial statements. As part of our review of pension
information in corporate financial statements, we used several research
reports published by different investment banks. We reviewed the
methods used in these studies and found them to be sufficiently
reliable for the purpose of corroborating our own data analysis and
illustrating trends in pension accounting.
To explain the recent and proposed changes to the current information
sources, we interviewed officials from the International Accounting
Standards Board and the Financial Accounting Standards Board. These
boards set standards for financial statements for international
companies and United States companies, respectively. We also reviewed
the recently revised accounting standards issued by the Financial
Accounting Standards Board. We also reviewed congressional testimony
regarding the administration's proposal for more transparency of
pension data.
We conducted our work between January 2003 and January 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Expected and Actual Returns in Financial Statements:
This appendix shows two things: (1) how a company may experience an
actual loss on its pension assets while reporting income from its
pension plans in the same year and (2) how a change in the expected
rate of return affects other items in the financial statement. The
information is based on numbers taken from the corporate financial
statement of a real company from its 2002 fiscal year.
Company X's pension assets lost $512 million in value during its fiscal
year, yet Company X still reported pension income of $90 million. This
apparent inconsistency is possible because the expected return on
assets is used in place of actual returns to calculate net periodic
pension cost.
The second column of table 5 shows the effect of changing the expected
long-term rate of return on pension assets from 9.8 percent to 8.5
percent. The figures affected by this change are in bold text. All of
the changes caused by the change in the expected rate of return are
related to measurements of Company X's pension expense and measures of
overall profitability. The change has no impact at all on measures of
pension assets and liabilities.
Table 5: Corporate Financial Statement Example--Elements of Pension
Footnote and Statement of Operations for Company X for Different
Expected Rates of Return:
Dollars in millions except earnings per share.
Change in benefit obligation:
A;
Key pension footnote elements: Benefit obligation at beginning of
year;
2002: $7,382;
2002: $7,382.
B;
Key pension footnote elements: Service cost;
2002: 115;
2002: 115.
C;
Key pension footnote elements: Interest cost;
2002: 529;
2002: 529.
D;
Key pension footnote elements: Plan amendments;
2002: 0;
2002: 0.
E;
Key pension footnote elements: Actuarial losses;
2002: 395;
2002: 395.
F;
Key pension footnote elements: Benefits paid;
2002: (611);
2002: (611).
G;
Key pension footnote elements: Benefit obligation at end of year;
2002: $7,810;
2002: $7,810.
Change in plan assets:
H;
Key pension footnote elements: Fair value of plan assets at beginning
of year;
2002: $7,431;
2002: $7,431.
I;
Key pension footnote elements: Actual return on plan assets;
2002: (512);
2002: (512).
J;
Key pension footnote elements: Employer contributions;
2002: 135;
2002: 135.
K;
Key pension footnote elements: Participant contributions;
2002: 0;
2002: 0.
L;
Key pension footnote elements: Benefits paid;
2002: (611);
2002: (611).
M;
Key pension footnote elements: Fair value of plan assets at end of
year;
2002: $6,443;
2002: $6,443.
Key pension footnote elements:
N;
Key pension footnote elements: Expected long-term rate of return on
plan assets;
2002: 9.8%;
2002: 8.5%.
O;
Key pension footnote elements: Discount rate;
2002: 7.0%;
2002: 7.0%.
P;
Key pension footnote elements: Expected rate of compensation increase;
2002: 4.0%;
2002: 4.0%.
Components of net periodic cost of defined benefit plans:
Q;
Key pension footnote elements: Service cost;
2002: $115;
2002: $115.
R;
Key pension footnote elements: Interest cost;
2002: 529;
2002: 529.
S;
Key pension footnote elements: Expected return on plan assets;
2002: (783);
2002: (679).
T;
Key pension footnote elements: Amortization of prior service cost;
2002: 50;
2002: 50.
U;
Key pension footnote elements: Amortization of net actuarial (gain)
loss;
2002: (1);
2002: (1).
V;
Key pension footnote elements: Total (benefit) cost included in results
of operations;
2002: $(90);
2002: $14.
Not reported in pension footnote:
W;
Key pension footnote elements: Market-related value of plan assets;
2002: $ 7,990;
2002: $ 7,990.
X;
Key pension footnote elements: Total sales and revenues;
2002: $20,152;
2002: $20,152.
Y;
Key pension footnote elements: Total operating costs;
2002: 18,833;
2002: 18,947.
Z;
Key pension footnote elements: Operating profit;
2002: 1,319;
2002: 1,205.
AA;
Key pension footnote elements: Consolidated profit before taxes;
2002: 1,114;
2002: 1,000.
BB;
Key pension footnote elements: Provision for income taxes;
2002: 312;
2002: 280.
CC;
Key pension footnote elements: Net profit;
2002: 802;
2002: 720.
DD;
Key pension footnote elements: Earnings per share;
2002: $2.33;
2002: $2.09.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
An explanation of the pension elements in table 5 follows in table 6.
Table 6: Definitions of Pension Footnote Items in Table 5:
Item: A;
Definition: The projected benefit obligation is the present value of
all future retirement benefits earned and not yet paid to date,
including estimates of salary growth over time. Measurements of the
projected benefit obligation are provided for both the beginning and
the end of the year.
Item: B;
Definition: The service cost represents the actuarial value of benefits
earned by employees during the year. It is used to show the change in
benefit obligation from the beginning to the end of the year and in the
calculation of net periodic pension cost.
Item: C;
Definition: The interest cost represents the increase in the company's
projected benefit obligation as a result of the passage of time. The
deferred compensation arrangement of pension plans entails a time value
of money aspect. It is used to show the change in benefit obligation
from the beginning to the end of the year and in the calculation of net
periodic pension cost.
Item: D;
Definition: Plan amendments include the initiation of new plans and
provisions that grant increased benefits based on services rendered in
prior periods.
Item: E;
Definition: Actuarial losses (gains) reflect changes to any assumption
that increase (decrease) the value of the projected benefit obligation.
Assumptions include the discount rate, salary inflation, mortality,
retirement age, and other factors.
Item: F;
Definition: Benefits paid represent the amount of cash payments from
the pension plan to retired plan participants. These payments are cash
outflows primarily from the pension plan(s). Benefits paid reduce the
outstanding value of total pension obligations to plan participants.
Item: G;
Definition: See Item A.
Item: H;
Definition: The fair value of assets is the market value of the stocks,
bonds, real estate, and other assets held by the company's pension
plan(s) on the measurement date. Values of pension assets are provided
for both the beginning and the end of the company's fiscal year.
Item: I;
Definition: The actual return on plan assets is the change in the value
of pension assets from changes in market prices on the assets held by
the plan(s). The actual return includes dividends and interest income.
Company X's pension plans lost $512 million.
Item: J;
Definition: Employer contributions are the total contributions (usually
cash) made by the company to its pension plan(s). Employer
contributions are not the same as the net cost to the company
sponsoring the pension plans.
Item: K;
Definition: Participant contributions are the total amount of cash paid
into the pensions plan(s) by employees. The employees of Company X did
not contribute to their defined benefit pension plans in this year.
Item: L;
Definition: Benefits paid--this is generally the same as in Item F.
Benefits paid reduce the value of assets held by the company's pension
plan(s).
Item: M;
Definition: See Item H.
Item: N;
Definition: The expected long-term rate of return on plan assets is the
company's assumption about the long-term average rate of return on its
pension plan assets. The rate disclosed in the current year is used to
calculate the expected return on plan assets (Item S) in the components
of net periodic cost of defined benefit plans.
Item: O;
Definition: The discount rate should reflect the interest rate on high-
quality corporate bonds. It is used to the measure the present value of
the projected benefit obligation in the current year and will be used
to calculate the service cost and interest cost in the following year.
Item: P;
Definition: The expected rate of compensation increase is used to
calculate the projected benefit obligation and service cost when
benefits take future salary into account.
Item: Q;
Definition: See Item B.
Item: R;
Definition: See Item C.
Item: S;
Definition: The expected return on plan assets is an estimate of what
the company expects to earn from the investment of pension plan assets;
it reduces the company's periodic pension expense and is used to keep
this expense relatively smooth over many years. It is calculated by
multiplying the expected rate of return (Item N) by the "market-
related" value of plan assets (Item W). The expected return is reported
as a negative number because it reduces the overall periodic pension
cost.
Item: T;
Definition: The amortization of prior service cost is the periodic cost
recognized by the company for pension benefits credited to employees
for service prior to their enrollment in a pension plan.
Item: U;
Definition: Amortization of net actuarial (gain) loss is used when the
cumulative difference between actual experience and assumptions reaches
a threshold of 10 percent of either the market- related value of total
pension assets or obligations, whichever is greater. Company X is
recognizing $1 million in this year for past actual gains that exceeded
expected gains. This amortization reduces its pension cost by $1
million for this year.
Item: V;
Definition: The total (benefit) cost included in results of operations
is the total of Items Q - U and may also be called the net periodic
pension cost. It is the amount included in the company's labor costs,
which are reported in the consolidated statement of operations (income
statement).
Item: W;
Definition: The market-related value of plan assets is not required to
appear anywhere in the financial statement but is used to calculate the
expected return on plan assets (Item S). The market- related value of
plan assets can either be the fair market value of plan assets or an
average value of the assets over a period not exceeding 5 years. It is
possible to closely estimate the market- related value of plan assets
by dividing the expected return on plan assets by the expected long-
term rate of return on plan assets.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
A company's total operating costs include its labor costs, which
include the net periodic pension cost. Therefore the net periodic
pension cost is factored into the calculation of total operating costs,
which affects operating profit, consolidated profit before taxes, the
calculation of tax to be paid, and net profit (Items Y--CC in table 5).
Changing the expected rate of return on plan assets from 9.8 percent to
8.5 percent has the following effects:
In the components of net periodic cost of defined benefit plans, the
expected return on plan assets (Item S) falls from $783 million to $679
million.[Footnote 45] This increases the total periodic pension cost by
$114 million, which is enough to turn Company X's periodic pension
income of $90 million into a cost of $14 million.
The increase in net periodic pension cost of $114 million increases the
companies total operating costs (Item Y) and decreases the operating
profit (Item Z) and consolidated profit before taxes (Item AA) by the
same amount. Because taxable income is reduced, Company X pays less in
corporate income tax (Item BB). Last, net profits (Item CC) decline
from $802 million to $720 million, which for Company X's shareholders
of approximately 344 million shares of common stock would have meant a
drop of about 24 cents in earnings per share (Item DD).
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contacts:
George A. Scott, Assistant Director (202) 512-5932 Richard L. Harada,
Analyst-in-Charge (206) 287-4841:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Joseph Applebaum, Kenneth Bombara,
Richard Burkard, David Eisenstadt, Elizabeth Fan, Michael Maslowski,
Scott McNulty, Stan Stenerson, Roger Thomas, and Shana Wallace made
important contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] References to pension plan asset and liability values in Form 5500
throughout this report reflect information provided in Schedule B.
[2] A 401(k) plan generally allows participants to make contributions
that are not taxed until the funds are used. Earnings on these
contributions likewise accumulate tax-free until the funds are used.
[3] Private Pension Plan Bulletin: Abstract of 1998 Form 5500 Annual
Reports, U.S. Department of Labor Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration, Number 11 (Washington, D.C.: Winter 2001-2002).
[4] In contrast, under a defined contribution plan, the employee bears
the investment risk. Hybrid plans, such as cash balance plans, are
defined benefit plans, which combine some of the characteristics of
defined contribution plans. The characteristics of these various types
of plans are explained more fully in our publication Answers to Key
Questions about Private Pension Plans, GAO-02-745SP (Washington, D.C.:
September 2002), pp. 22-24.
[5] PBGC receives no direct federal tax dollars to support this
insurance program; rather it is funded by premiums paid by the
corporate sponsors of defined benefit plans insured by PBGC. The
program receives the assets of terminated underfunded plans and any of
the sponsor's assets that PBGC recovers during bankruptcy proceedings.
PBGC finances the unfunded liabilities of terminated plans with (1)
premiums paid by plan sponsors and (2) income earned from the
investment of program assets.
[6] On January 15, 2004, PBGC released its fiscal year 2003 financial
results and reported a current deficit of $11.2 billion for the single-
employer insurance program.
[7] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation Single-Employer Insurance Program: Long-Term
Vulnerabilities Warrant "High-Risk" Designation, GAO-03-1050SP
(Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2003).
[8] ERISA sections 103 and 104 of Title I and Internal Revenue Code
sections 6057, 6058, and 6059 provide the statutory authority for the
filing of an annual return/report, which includes financial information
pertaining to the plan.
[9] The Internal Revenue Service enforces standards that relate to such
matters as how employees become eligible to participate in benefit
plans, how they become eligible to earn rights to benefits, and how
much, at a minimum, employers must contribute. The Department of Labor
enforces ERISA's reporting and disclosure provisions and fiduciary
responsibility standards, which among other things concern the type and
extent of information provided to the federal government and plan
participants and how pension plans are operated in the interests of
plan participants.
[10] The Department of Labor has issued regulations exempting certain
pension and welfare plans from the requirement to file a Form 5500
based on size and type of plan. Welfare plans provide participants and
their beneficiaries various nonpension benefits such as for health
care, unemployment, disability, training programs, and legal services.
Welfare plans are not subject to the same funding requirements as
pension plans.
[11] For plans with fewer than 100 participants the agencies have
developed simplified reporting requirements that do not include audited
financial statements.
[12] The statement of earnings and comprehensive income measures
profitability of the company by showing the income earned and expenses
incurred during the year. Comprehensive income would include accounting
adjustments and holding gains and losses for certain securities and
investments. The statement of financial position provides information
about a company's assets, liabilities, and equity and their
relationships to one another at the end of the company's fiscal year.
The statement of cash flows reflects a company's major sources of cash
receipts and its major uses of cash. The statement of stockholder's
equity reflects the company's transactions during the year related to
capital contributions and distributions to company stockholders.
[13] FASB's mission is to establish and improve standards of financial
accounting and reporting for the guidance and education of the public,
including issuers, auditors, and users of financial information. FASB,
which is part of a structure that is independent of all other business
and professional organizations, develops broad accounting concepts,
standards for financial reporting, and guidance on how to implement the
standards.
[14] ERISA Section 103(a)(4)(B).
[15] There are additional measures of pension funding required by ERISA
and the Internal Revenue Code, but this measure of pension funding is
the first one used to determine compliance with pension funding
requirements.
[16] A class of assets is composed of assets that share similar
characteristics, such as risks and expected rates of return. Examples
include equities, corporate bonds, government bonds, and real estate.
[17] Minimum funding rules permit certain plan liabilities, such as
past service liabilities, to be amortized over specified time periods.
See 26 U.S.C. 412(b)(2)(B). Past service liabilities occur when
benefits are granted for service before the plan was established or
when benefit increases after establishment of the plan are made
retroactive.
[18] See the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, (P.L. 100-203,
Dec. 22, 1987) and Retirement Protection Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-465,
Dec. 8, 1994).
[19] For each additional period of employment (for example, 1 year),
active plan participants normally earn additional pension benefits,
which increase a company's pension costs. Furthermore, as employees get
closer to retirement with each passing year, the present value of the
company's benefit obligation increases because there is less time
available to invest pension assets and earn interest on them.
[20] Financial analysts told us that most large companies substitute a
"market-related" value of pension assets for the reported market value
for the purpose of this calculation. See example in appendix II.
[21] In December 2003 FASB revised its pension disclosure standard,
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 132, to require a
narrative description of the basis used to determine the overall long-
term expected rate of return on assets assumption.
[22] For a Form 5500 filing, ERISA requires an enrolled actuary to
certify that all assumptions used are individually reasonable and
represent the actuary's "best estimate of anticipated experience under
the plan." For corporate financial statements, actuaries told us that
they provide companies an actuarial report, which states whether the
actuary believes the rate of return assumption used by company
management falls within a reasonable range. The company's independent
auditor must separately evaluate the reasonableness of all significant
assumptions.
[23] Actuaries for small pension plans told us that they normally use
end-of-year data because it is not difficult to assemble information
about all plan participants and their clients usually prefer to have
contributions to the plan in synchronization with the benefits earned
during the year.
[24] In practice, PBGC has taken steps to allow for timelier monitoring
of those plans that may pose a financial risk to the single-employer
pension insurance program. In 1993 PBGC established the Form 5500
intercept program, which has speeded up the process for obtaining
information on the largest and most underfunded plans. For about 2,100
plans on the intercept list, the Department of Labor mails copies of
their Form 5500 filings to PBGC before it begins to process them.
[25] A vested participant has earned the nonforfeitable right to his or
her accrued benefit. There are certain rules that private plan sponsors
must follow regarding the length of time that participants must work in
order to be fully vested in their accrued benefits. Participants are
100 percent vested in any contributions they make to a qualified plan,
but may have to work for a certain period of time before earning a
right to their employer's contributions.
[26] Terminating an underfunded plan is termed a distress termination
if the plan sponsor requests the termination or an involuntary
termination if PBGC initiates the termination. PBGC assumes
responsibility for terminated underfunded plans and pays the pension
obligations to plan participants up to the amount guaranteed under
Title IV of ERISA. PBGC also makes a claim on the employer's assets in
bankruptcy proceedings as an unsecured creditor. However, PBGC
officials told us that the agency's claims usually amount to only a few
cents per dollar claimed.
[27] Termination liability is calculated by using a PBGC interest
factor, which is based on a survey of insurance companies and, along
with a specified mortality table, reflects group annuity purchase
rates.
[28] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation: Single-Employer Pension Insurance Program Faces
Significant Long-Term Risks, GAO-04-90 (Washington, D.C.: October
2003), pp. 17-19, for further discussion of the failure of the
Bethlehem Steel pension plan.
[29] Corporate debt rated below investment grade by the main debt
rating agencies (Standard & Poor's, Moody's, Fitch Ratings) pays a
higher interest rate to bondholders and is more expensive for companies
than if their debt is rated investment grade. A below-investment-grade
rating indicates a significant risk that the company will not be able
to repay its debt to bondholders. This risk is usually derived from a
combination of a company's profitability, cash flow, total debt, and
other factors that are reported in corporate financial statements.
[30] In 2002, the SEC adopted accelerated filing dates for 10-K reports
for companies with a market capitalization of at least $75 million.
Under these rules these companies must file their 10-K reports within
75 days for fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2003, and
within 60 days for fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2004.
[31] In December 2003 FASB revised its pension disclosure standard (FAS
132) to require disclosure of the employer's best estimate of
contributions expected to be paid during the next fiscal year. In
addition, companies must disclose each major category of pension plan
assets.
[32] See appendix II for an example of how pension expense is
calculated in a corporate financial statement.
[33] Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 87, Employers'
Accounting for Pensions, requires companies to determine the expected
return on plan assets based on the expected long-term rate of return on
plan assets and the market-related value of plan assets. The market-
related value of plan assets is defined as "either fair value or a
calculated value that recognizes changes in fair value in a systematic
and rational manner over not more than five years."
[34] The unrecognized gains or losses account appears in the pension
footnote to the corporate financial statement but is not recognized on
the plan sponsor's balance sheet.
[35] The excess amount is amortized over the average remaining working
years of active plan participants or average remaining life expectancy
of retired plan participants if all or most participants are inactive.
[36] Goldman Sachs, Global Economics Weekly, "US: Pension Costs--
Another Hit to Cash Flow," November 13, 2002.
[37] Credit Suisse First Boston, The Magic of Pension Accounting,
September 27, 2002.
[38] The four areas to improve pension security for Americans were (1)
the accuracy of the pension liability discount rate, (2) the
transparency of pension plan information, (3) safeguards against
pension underfunding, and (4) comprehensive funding reforms.
[39] See Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 132 (revised
2003), Employers' Disclosures about Pensions and Other Postretirement
Benefits.
[40] In GAO's response to the FASB's exposure draft for new pension
disclosures, we supported the initiative to enhance disclosures for
pension and other postretirement benefits. We believe that improved
transparency in plan funding and funded status, investment strategies,
and market risk could reduce the risks to the federal government's
pension insurance programs and promote the retirement security of
workers and retirees.
[41] The United Kingdom's Accounting Standards Board issued Financial
Reporting Standard 17, Retirement Benefits, in November 2000, and it
was amended in 2002.
[42] See GAO-04-90.
[43] Because of the filing requirements of Form 5500, no data were
available for 2002 during the course of our study.
[44] Some of the 97 companies in our sample sponsor more than one
pension plan.
[45] The expected return on plan assets of $679 million was calculated
by multiplying the market-related value of plan assets (Item W) by the
new expected long-term rate of return on plan assets (Item N) of 8.5
percent.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
