1 / 8

Firms' Pension Accounting Choices Impact on Liability Curtailment Decisions

This research paper analyzes the association between firms' pension accounting choices and decisions to curtail pension liabilities, exploring the implications of adopting marked-to-market approaches and the potential for increased volatility in corporate earnings. The study also discusses the effects of plan design changes and pension asset allocation adjustments on reducing volatility. Key findings highlight the relationship between updating ERR assumptions and curtailment tendencies, with firms adopting marked-to-market assumptions showing lower propensity to curtail pension liabilities. Suggestions for further analysis include examining plan size, hard freezes, single vs. multiple DB plans, and the impact of unionization on curtailment decisions. Additional insight is provided on explanatory variables for switch firms and maintainers in the analysis.

dotty
Télécharger la présentation

Firms' Pension Accounting Choices Impact on Liability Curtailment Decisions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Association between Firms’ Pension Accounting Choices and Pension Liability Curtailment Decision Authors: Paul Klumpes, Yong Li, and Mark Whittington Discussant: Youngkyun (Young) Park August 7, 2007

  2. Comments • Timely research • FASB in the 2nd phase may adopt a marked-to-market approach, instead of maintaining ‘smoothing’ • lead to significant volatility in corporate earnings from non-operating activities, • cause some firms to consider significant changes in plan design (e.g., closing or freezing DB plans) and pension asset mix to reduce volatility (e.g., increasing allocation to fixed-income investments). • A recent Employee Benefit Research Institute/Mercer survey shows DB sponsors’ concerns about FASB's Phase II accounting changes (VanDerhei, 2007).

  3. Purpose of the paper Pension accounting policy choices (1997-99) ERR assumptions: voluntary updating vs. using ‘sticky’ Pension curtailments (2000-02) Closing DB plans to new hires or freezing DB plans for all member Inter- relationship Risk Management Hypothesis Firms voluntarily updating their ERR assumptions exhibit less propensity to curtail their DB plans than firms using ‘sticky’ assumptions.

  4. Main findings • Firms adopting marked-to-market ERR assumptions are less likely to curtail their pension liabilities than firms using ‘sticky (only updating in every third year)’ ERR assumptions. • Through univariate analysis, curtailers exhibit significantly lower funding ratios, higher rates of undertaking new investments, and higher pension expenses than maintainers .

  5. Suggestions • Tables 3 and 4 (curtailers vs. maintainers) The following variables may be considered: • Plan size (in terms of # of participants) Small plans were more likely to be hard-frozen than larger plans, according to a report of the PBGC (2005) on PBGC-insured single-employer plans that had a hard freeze in place in 2003. • Hard freeze: No participant accrues any new benefits under the plan.

  6. Suggestions (cont’d) • Tables 3 and 4 (curtailers vs. maintainers) • Single vs. multiple DB plans (PBGC, 2005) Companies sponsoring multiple plans were more likely to have hard-frozen at least one of their plans than were companies that sponsor only one plan. • Unionization A firm’s decision to close or freeze its DB plans may be affected by the existence of a union. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, “An Analysis of Frozen Defined Benefit Plans,” Washington, DC: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, December 21, 2005.

  7. Suggestions (cont’d) • Explanatory variables for switch firms • Explanatory variables for curtailers in the SWITCH sample are measured at year-3 relative to year 0 (year of curtailment). • Assumes no change in the explanatory variables (e.g., SFUND) for the three years. • However, switch firms frequently update ERR assumptions. Therefore, curtailment decisions of the switch firms may be affected more directly by the values in “year-1” than “year-3”.

  8. Question • Explanatory variables for maintainers in Table 4 At what year are the explanatory variables for maintainers measured?

More Related