GAO on PBGC

The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a 684-page report that “identifies government operations with greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or the need for transformation to address economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges.”

The section on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) covered ten pages with these highlights that included one rather curious recommendation:

We designated the single-employer program as high risk in July 2003 and added the multiemployer program in January 2009. Since fiscal year 2013, PGBC’s financial deficits have more than doubled. At the end of fiscal year 2016, PBGC’s net accumulated financial deficit was over $79 billion—an increase of about $44 billion since 2013. At the same time, PBGC estimated that its exposure to future losses for underfunded plans was nearly $243 billion. The single-employer program, composed of about 22,200 plans, accounted for $20.6 billion of PBGC’s overall deficit. The multiemployer program, composed of only about 1,400 plans, accounted for about $59 billion. According to PBGC, these dramatic increases were attributable to broad economic factors and financial conditions of the plans PBGC insures.

PBGC continues to face long-standing funding challenges for its single-employer insurance program as well, due to an overall decline in the defined benefit pension system. While tens of thousands of companies continue to offer traditional defined benefit plans, the total number of plans has declined significantly, as has participation in those plans. Since 1985, there has been a 79 percent decline in the number of plans insured by PBGC to 23,769 plans in 2014 and more than 11 million fewer workers are actively participating in these plans. As a result, PBGC’s premium base has been eroding over time as fewer sponsors are paying premiums for fewer participants.

Although Congress and PBGC have taken significant and positive steps to strengthen the agency over the past 3 years, concerns persist related to the multiemployer program and challenges related to PBGC’s overall funding structure and governance. While changes were made with passage of MPRA, PBGC officials believe there is a 50 percent chance that the multiemployer program will be insolvent by the year 2025, and after that, the risk of insolvency rises rapidly—reaching 90 percent by 2032. Further, the premium structure for PBGC ’s single-employer program continues to result in rates that do not align with the risk the agency insures against and the effectiveness of PBGC ’s board remains hampered by its size and composition.

Proactive Monitoring of Multiemployer Plans. To implement better and more effective oversight practices, we recommended that PBGC develop a more proactive approach to monitoring multiemployer plans, such as assigning case managers to work with the plans that pose the greatest risk to the agency and providing non-financial assistance to troubled plans on an ongoing basis before the plans became insolvent.

Here is a government agency that the GAO believes is very soon headed for insolvency for a variety of reasons that the GAO also believes should be dispensing non-financial assistance on how to avoid insolvency.

7 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by skip3house on February 21, 2017 at 11:48 am

    “… dispensing non-financial assistance on how to avoid insolvency….’ Notice nothing specific?

    Try ‘defined contributions’, and all that includes such as just benefits based on each year’s funding total, interest too. We have had computers for awhile now that can keep track of individuals, and funding funding values every year of participation. I say this as evident plans were created before such automation power, maybe before hand posted ledger cards even? Or, were those people plain deliberately creating burdens for future taxpayers?

    In English,…retro all pensions now to the likes of 401K results would have been, instantly putting all plans solvent, though many retirees will find unfunded benefits were not worth the lower prices politically promised at the expense of ‘now’.

    NJ would benefit from this tough sane solution, then start fresh from lesson learned.

    Medicare for all, as mostly elsewhere, not here in U.S., takes care of variety of health plans. Should have been done by Hillary i……. n 1990s, and Obama, but sunk by big business Congress. Refer to the Wendell Potter story.

    We have to have more power to protect safety nets such as Social Security,….., as only means for the many of us victims of concentration of wealth by the few. Tax all incomes beyond present low ceiling. Tax stock trades, but eliminate taxes on corporate/business profits, as passed to shareholders/owners to pay.

    Ike kept high tax rates of WWII because he figured correctly once a very high ( to his sensibilities) income/wealth is achieved, why is it needed to keep over 10% of any beyond?

    Reply

    • Posted by skip3house on February 21, 2017 at 1:46 pm

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarotta/2013/02/28/dwight-d-eisenhower-on-tax-cuts-and-a-balanced-budget/#32954f9a1319

      But I believe, and I think this can be demonstrated as fact by economists, both on the basis of history and on their theoretical and abstract reasoning, that until the deficit is eliminated from our budget, there is no hope of keeping our money stable. It is bound to continue to be cheapened, and if it is cheapened, then the necessary expenses of government each year cost more because the money is worth less. Therefore, there is no end to the inflation; there is finally no end to taxation; and the eventual result would, of course, be catastrophe.
      So, whether we are ready to face the job this minute or any other time, the fact is there must be balanced budgets before we ……..

      Reply

  2. Posted by Whirled Peas on February 22, 2017 at 8:39 am

    The world’s biggest lie. “I’m here from the government and I am here to help you.”

    Get the PBGC out of the business of “insuring” pensions. Real insurance companies will do a much better job.

    Reply

  3. Posted by boscoe on February 22, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    “Real insurance companies” would have laid waste to pension plan insurance, and then they would have abandoned the market.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on February 22, 2017 at 1:46 pm

      We already know how “for the people” insurance companies are, just take a look at how health care premiums have skyrocketed! And by the way they were going up expotentially prior to the ACA so don’t point the finger at Obama.

      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: