1 / 20

Business Enterprises and Governmental Entities: Fundamental and Actuarial Differences

Business Enterprises and Governmental Entities: Fundamental and Actuarial Differences. Graham Schmidt, ASA Vice President, EFI Actuaries. Overview. Fundamental Differences Purposes Revenue Budget obligations Longevity Actuarial Differences Private sector requirements (FASB / PBGC / IRS)

cullen
Download Presentation

Business Enterprises and Governmental Entities: Fundamental and Actuarial Differences

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. Business Enterprises and Governmental Entities: Fundamental and Actuarial Differences Graham Schmidt, ASA Vice President, EFI Actuaries

  2. Overview • Fundamental Differences • Purposes • Revenue • Budget obligations • Longevity • Actuarial Differences • Private sector requirements (FASB / PBGC / IRS) • Governmental approaches (level cost, transfers, funding rules) • Public vs. private

  3. Fundamental Differences “Why Governmental Accounting and Financial Reporting is – and should be – different” – GASB White Paper

  4. Fundamental Differences • Purpose • For-Profit Business Enterprise: Generate a financial return on investment • Government: “Focus on providing services and goods to constituents in an efficient, effective, economical and sustainable manner.” • Revenue • For Taxpayer, amount of taxes paid does NOT bear direct relationship to services received • Budget Obligations

  5. Fundamental Differences • Longevity • Number of municipal bankruptcy filings 0.02% of business filings • Long-term outlook leads to focus on “trends in operations, rather than on short-term fluctuations, such as in fair values of certain assets and liabilities.” • Short-term fluctuations result in less “decision-useful” measurements • For businesses, short-term more important because of current value of equity

  6. Actuarial Differences Methods, Measurements and Other Issues

  7. Private Sector Actuarial Requirements • Accounting • Governed by FASB (FAS 87, 106, 132 & 158) • Measure Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO) • Based on Projected Unit Credit actuarial funding method • Prescribed to improve comparability, but mismatch between accounting/funding • Rate used to discount liabilities based on “settlement rates” • based on annuity rates or high-quality fixed income • average ~ 5.5–6.0% in FY 05 • can be quite variable from year-to-year

  8. Private Sector Actuarial Requirements • Accounting Continued • Use different rate for “expected return on assets” • used to calculate reported pension expense • average ~ 8.0-8.5% in FY 05 • may change due to future FASB projects • Amortization / Smoothing • Most elements amortized over average remaining service of current actives • Only have to amortize portion of g/l • Max smoothing period for assets is 5 years

  9. Private Sector Actuarial Requirements • Funding • Basis • Companies offer “qualified” plans to obtain tax advantages • IRS makes rules to ensure funding status (protect PBGC and participants) and ensure “fairness” (non-discrimination, etc) • Rules define minimum / maximum contributions • Pension Protection Act (PPA) changed rules significantly

  10. Private Sector Actuarial Requirements • Funding (new rules) • PPA defines “Funding Target” – 100% of PV of accrued benefits (was 90%) [using Unit Credit method] • Unfunded liability must be amortized over 7 years • Discounting based on yield curve (different rates for different payment durations) • Mortality rates dictated by IRS (very large plans can use own experience)

  11. Private Sector Actuarial Requirements • Funding • Max asset smoothing is 24 months, with 10% corridor • Plans with low funding levels (“At-Risk Plans”) subject to additional restrictions / requirements: • Contributions • Benefit improvements / changes • Forms of payment (no lump sums) • PPA also increased maximum contribution limits • Changes to multi-employer rules not as significant

  12. Governmental Approaches • Not one-size-fits-all • Governmental plans not subject to most of ERISA rules • More difficult for IRS to enforce through tax policy • No Federal restrictions on funding (occurs at State or Local level) • GASB defines accounting standards (GASB 25, 27, 43, 45) - contain more flexibility than FASB (funding methods, amortization, etc)

  13. Governmental Approaches • General Actuarial Characteristics • Funding Methods • Most pre-fund • Cost methods split cost into past costs (accrued liability), current year’s cost (normal/service cost), future normal costs • Most common method is Entry Age Normal • Goal is to determine level normal cost needed to fund each individual’s benefit • GASB allows 6 methods • Proposed GASB change: if use Aggregate method, must show funding ratio using EAN

  14. Governmental Approaches • General Actuarial Characteristics • Amortization / Smoothing • Most amortize unfunded accrued liability (UAL) • Again, no federal rules, but GASB has some restrictions • Max period 30 years, level $ or % of pay, open or closed period • With long period and level % of pay, current payment may be less than interest on UAL • Assets generally smoothed • Most common to use 3-5 years (CalPERS using 15) • Discount Rate • Generally use expected return on assets • Most common: 8.0% in ‘05 (NASRA survey)

  15. Public vs. Private • Private sector moving towards discounting liabilities at market rates (yield curve) • Influenced by “Financial Economics” • Price of liability is asset consisting of matching cashflows (use yield curve) • “Mark-to-Market” liabilities • $1 of bond = $1 of stock: why would value of liabilities be different? • Discounting of liabilities at 8% anticipates “risk premium” -> transfers risk to future generations • Existence of PBGC has introduced moral hazard – encouraging investment in overly-risky portfolios

  16. Public vs. Private • Why important for Private Sector? • Value of equity/debt important (companies bought & sold) • Earnings and contributions (accounting and funding) directly impacted by fluctuations in interest rates because of FASB / IRS rules • Large penalties for missing earning targets • Liability-Driven Investing (LDI) attempts to reduce volatility due to interest rate risk by taking into account payment structure of liabilities • Generally results in increased allocation to long-duration bonds

  17. Public vs. Private • Why could be different for governments? • GASB: “Information on fair values of capital assets is of limited value” (less likelihood of bankruptcy / termination) • In current practice (accounting & funding), fluctuations in interest rates do NOT impact government plans • Do you measure it? • Does measurement matter? • Assuming plans invest in “risky” assets, current practice does better job determining level contributions

  18. Public vs. Private • Issues with current practice for governments • Discounting at expected rate of return (8%) does not reflect risk of investing • Could measure/contribute using risk-free rate and invest in “matching” portfolio • However, certainty has cost! • Remember purpose: “providing services and goods to constituents in an efficient, effective, economical and sustainable manner” • Alternatively, could project future asset returns / cashflows (including impact of uncertain inflation) using simulation or other methods • Shifts emphasis from liabilities to range of future costs

  19. Public vs. Private • Smoothing / Amortization • Financial Economics approach says smoothing disguises volatility: • “When followed by a corporate bankruptcy, this policy of ignoring economic reality and failing to make needed contributions can lead to devastating losses of retirement income for long-serving employees” – Bradley Belt • With reduced likelihood of bankruptcy / termination in public sector, does argument against still hold? • May cause some shifts in cost between generations, but overall contribution level does not change and is more stable

  20. Public vs. Private • Likelihood of Change? • If government plans forced to measure interest rate volatility (and measurement matters), then changes to investments may result • Important users of financial statements (bond-rating agencies) are not currently demanding changes • Ability to meet cashflow future requirements more important than consideration of “economic” value of plan • Series of high-profile municipal bankruptcies could prompt demand for funding rules (PBGC-type entity?)

More Related