By: Emily Feeny, ASA
ASOP 51: Assessment and Disclosure of Risk Associated with Measuring Pension Obligations and Determining Pension Plan Contributions
Risk has always been present and discussed in actuarial
work. Now pension actuaries must
disclose that risk in actuarial publications.
Actuarial Standard of Practice #51 (“ASOP 51”) was adopted by the Actuarial
Standards Board (“ASB”) in September of 2017 for actuarial work
products with a measurement date on or after November 1, 2018. ASOP 51 has three main components as it
relates to actuarial valuations: Assessment of Risk, Disclosure of Maturity
Measures and Disclosure of Historical Information.
ASOP 51 defines risk as “the potential of actual future measurements deviating from expected future measurements resulting from actual future experience deviating from actuarially assumed experience.” Actuaries should assess and disclose relevant risk in valuations. Two examples of risks are investment risk (the potential that investment returns will differ from expected) and longevity risk (the potential that mortality experience will be different from expected).
Actuaries should also list maturity measures in valuations,
such as the ratio of retired actuarial liability to total actuarial liability.
As a plan matures, the percentage of the liability associated with inactive
participants grows and the plan becomes more dependent on investment return
than on contributions for asset growth. Other maturity measures include
the ratio of market value of assets to active participant payroll and the ratio
of benefit payments to contributions.
Finally, ASOP 51 calls for disclosure of historical actuarial measurements such as funded status, normal cost and plan participant count. This historical information can be helpful in identifying trends so that corrective action can be taken where necessary.
The McKeogh Company
and ASOP 51
The McKeogh Company’s valuations with measurement dates of November 1, 2018 or later will include a section entitled “Risk Assessment and Disclosure”. This section will first list risks that a plan faces with respect to the actuarial assumptions and illustrate how deviations from expectations could affect assets and liabilities. Next, there will be a discussion of plan maturity measures to help illustrate risks associated with a maturing plan. The McKeogh Company valuations have always included historical actuarial measurements but will now use this new section to summarize the variance of such historical values and cite the sections in which more information can be found within the report.
The ASB and The McKeogh Company recognize the difficulty that Defined Benefit Pension Plans face during uncertain times. Plan sponsors will be better prepared for the future if they are more aware of the risks, maturity measurements and historical trends associated with their plans.
Mandy Notaristefano, was appointed to the professionals committee for multiemployer plans for the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans. The IFEBP is a nonprofit organization, dedicated to providing the diverse employee benefits community with objective, solution-oriented education, research and information.
Applying for a suspension under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act (MPRA) is a lengthy and complicated process. This article describes the steps one pension fund went through to apply for benefit suspensions.
Michael Reilly, ASA, published this article in the May 2019 issue of Benefits Magazine.
Boris Vaynblat presented at the Annual Conference of Consulting Actuaries Meeting in October 2018 in Colorado Springs. He led a session on the Multiemployer Pension Act of 2014 (MPRA). Boris related his experiences obtaining approval from the US Treasury Department for benefit suspensions for a Pension Fund heading for insolvency, thereby giving the Fund a chance to survive for future generations.
Both Jim McKeogh, president of The McKeogh Company, and Michael Reilly presented at the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP) in New Orleans in October. Michael co-lead a discussion entitled “How to Make Your Client’s MPRA Applications Successful”. His presentation focused on the application process including assumptions and common pitfalls. Jim sat on a panel of industry experts in the “Ask the Professionals” session as the multiemployer plan expert.
Mandy Notaristefano traveled to Aruba to speak at the Contractors Association of Eastern PA’s 2019 Winter Conference in February 2019. Mandy’s talk focused on Rehabilitation Plans. She ran a simulation of a plan that had newly entered critical status and walked the attendees through the development and monitoring of a rehabilitation plan.
On January 9, 2019, Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA) introduced the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act into Congress.
This bill seeks to help ailing
multiemployer pension plans by establishing a new agency within the Treasury
Department called the Pension Rehabilitation Administration (PRA).
This agency would be authorized to issue bonds in order to raise capital.
The capital would then be used to issue loans to critical and declining status
plans and some already-insolvent plans that are currently receiving financial
assistance from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).
The loan would be interest-only for 30 years with principal due at end of 30th year and in an amount needed to fund pensions for current retirees only. The pension fund would be required to purchase a commercial annuity contract with the loan proceeds, or set the funds aside in a separate pool and invest in a bond portfolio which has cash flows that mimic the expected pension payouts. In certain situations, a loan could be combined with financial assistance from the PBGC in order to prevent plan insolvency.
Loan applications would need to demonstrate that the loan will enable the plan to avoid insolvency during the 30-year period and that plan would be reasonably expected to pay the loan back with interest. The plan would not be allowed to reduce benefits during the loan term and could not accept a CBA with lower contribution rates.
US Life Expectancy Dropped Again in 2017 – Deaths from Unintentional Injuries Largest Increase
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) released its 2017 Mortality in the United States study. The average US life expectancy dropped again in 2017 (for the third consecutive year) from 78.7 years from birth to 78.6. Death rates increased significantly for those in age groups 25-34, 35-44 and 85 and over from 2016-2017. However, the death rate for those between ages 45 and 54 dropped significantly.
The top three causes of death continue to be heart disease, cancer and unintentional injuries. While seven of the top ten leading causes of death had increases from 2016 to 2017, deaths from unintentional injuries made up the largest increase. Deaths from drug overdoses fall in this category. Using data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), the CDC found that adults age 25-54 had higher rates of drug overdose deaths than those aged 15-24 and 55 and over. West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington DC had the highest age-adjusted drug overdose deaths in 2017. Deaths from drug overdoses has climbed from 6.1 per 100,000 standard population in 1999 to 21.7 in 2017.
The Facts & Figures page has been updated to include the employee benefit plan limits for 2018.
Download a PDF of data from 2014-2018 HERE
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published Notice 2018-06 which provides an extension of the deadlines for 2017 ACA annual reporting requirements. The deadline for providing individuals with Forms 1095-B and 1095-C has been extended from January 31, 2018 to March 2, 2018. The deadline to file Forms 1094-B, 1094-C, 1095-B and 1095-C with the IRS remains unchanged and is February 28, 2018 for paper filings and April 2, 2018 for electronic filings.
These extensions are automatic and replace any extension requests that have been submitted. There will be no further extensions available. The IRS has continued the interim good faith compliance standard. Therefore, no penalties will be assessed for incomplete or inaccurate information on the forms filed provided the filer can show it completed the forms in good faith. This relief is only available if the forms were filed on time.
There has been a lot of chatter as of late about possible legislation and efforts on the Hill to provide relief to failing multiemployer pension plans. On Thursday, November 16th, House Democrats introduced a bill that would allow multiemployer pension plans to receive loans from Treasury.
While the language of the bill is not yet available, according to congress.gov, the bill is intended to create a Pension Rehabilitation Trust Fund and to establish a Pension Rehabilitation Administration (PRA) within the Department of the Treasury to make loans to multiemployer defined benefit plans, and for other purposes. The PRA would allow pension plans to take out loans at low interest rates, in order for the plans to remain solvent and continue providing full retirement benefits for current and future retirees. The money for the loans would come from the sale of Treasury-issued bonds to financial institutions. There will likely be some reporting requirements and other restrictions for plans that take out such loans, to ensure that the plans can pay back the taxpayers.
This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. The bill is now assigned to three House committees for review and consideration. If approved, it will then be sent to the House or Senate as a whole. A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate in identical form and then be signed by the President to become law.
On June 16, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued FAQ 38 implementing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as it relates to the Mental Health Parity Act and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) and the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act). The DOL is requesting comments on a draft model form for participants to use when requesting information about nonquantitative treatment limitations as well as confirming that benefits for eating disorders must comply with the MHPAEA.
The MHPAEA requires that financial requirements such as coinsurance and copayments and treatment limitations such as visit or day limits for mental health and substance use disorder benefits are no more restrictive than those placed on medical and surgical benefits. The regulations also state that a non-quantitative treatment limitation must be comparable.
The Cures Act requires that benefits for eating disorders are consistent with the requirements of MHPAEA. The DOL in this FAQ clarifies that the MHPAEA applies to any benefits a plan may offer for treatment of an eating disorder. Plans should review their plan information to ensure compliance with these regulations and guidance.
All comments regarding disclosures and eating disorders must be submitted by September 13, 2017.