MPRA-N/A?

If the Department of the Treasury will not approve benefit suspensions under the Multitemployer Pension Reform Act  (MPRA) for participants in the Central States Pension Fund (CSPF) then how will  other multiemployer plans lined up for approvals fare?

Data from the CSPF 5500 filing for 2014  (the latest available) shows:

Plan Name: Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Plan

EIN/PN: 36-6044243/001

Total participants @ 12/31/14: 397,492 including:

  • Retirees: 204,151
  • Separated but entitled to benefits: 128,814
  • Still working: 64,527

Asset Value (Market) @ 1/1/14: 18,740,758,554

Value of liabilities using RPA rate (3.64%) @ 1/1/14: $53,728,073,336 including:

  • Retirees: $31,828,345,983
  • Separated but entitled to benefits: $12,368,993,891
  • Still working: $9,530,733,462

Funded ratio: 34.88%

Unfunded Liabilities as of 1/1/14: $34,987,314,782

Asset Value (Market) as of 12/31/14: $17,863,105,558

Contributions 2014 (MB): $817,323,193

Contributions 2014 (H): $582,298,523

Payouts 2014: $2,822,248,296

Expenses 2014: $84,723,972

Here are the latest 5500 forms for all five plans in the pipeline:

  1. CSPF9/25/15
  2. Iron Workers Local 17 Pension Fund12/23/15
  3. Teamsters Local 469 Pension Plan – 12/28/15
  4. Road Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund3/15/16
  5. Ironworkers Local 16 Pension Fund3/26/16
  6. Teamsters Local 469 Pension Plan (second application)  – 3/31/16

A spreadsheet comparison shows all the plans similarly situated as to depletion dates except for one particularly low-flying plan that might only be able to make a few months of payouts.  We will examine that plan in detail in the next blog.

7 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by MJ on May 22, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    So how will these pensions be paid? It’s like being in Ground Hog Day!

    Reply

  2. Posted by Whirled Peas on May 23, 2016 at 10:18 am

    The Labor Unions have been trying to get the Federal Pension Benefits Guarantee Corp. to bail them out using “insurance” premiums paid into it by solvent, well funded private pensions, e.g., my AT&T pension. But the Labor Union run multi-employer pension funds have become so depleted that this could not be done without creating a major outcry.

    Reply

    • Posted by dentss dunnigan on May 23, 2016 at 1:31 pm

      Always thought AT&T pension ws well funded …didn’t they sell it to some fund as a annuity

      Reply

    • Posted by Ashes2Ashes on May 23, 2016 at 3:15 pm

      Under current law (ERISA section 4005), the PBGC insurance fund for single employer plans cannot be used to pay for benefits under insolvent multi-employer plans – and vice versa. Multi-employer insolvencies are insured under a separate fund than single employer plans.

      Reply

  3. Posted by George on May 23, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    The motto is “Bail out or Bust”

    Reply

  4. Posted by Jim Palermo on May 24, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    Two things are striking to me: how woefully underfunded even the retiree portion of the liabilities are, and horrible ratio of active to inactive participants.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: