In the midst of another 5500 filing season (86 to go) but the plan most likely to bring the PBGC (and the entire private pension system) down got their form in early this year.
We had some 5500 history in an earlier blog through 2016. Based on the 2019 filing:
Plan Name: Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Plan
EIN/PN: 36-6044243/001
Total participants @ 12/31/19: 375,199 including:
- Retirees: 194,115
- Separated but entitled to benefits: 123,532
- Still working: 57,552
Asset Value (Market) @ 1/1/19: 13,168,043,720
Value of liabilities using RPA rate (3.06%) @ 1/1/19: $56,790,308,499 including:
- Retirees: $33,126,505,665
- Separated but entitled to benefits: $14,547,398,521
- Still working: $9,116,404,313
Funded ratio: 23.19%
Unfunded Liabilities as of 1/1/19: $43,622,264,779
Asset Value (Market) as of 12/31/19: $12,309,907,060
Contributions 2019 (MB): $741,716,950
Contributions 2019 (H): $554,880,395
Payouts 2019: $2,836,578,310
Expenses 2019: $58,289,201
Historical information going back to 2007 in a spreadsheet:
Burypensions Blog 
Posted by Tough Love on October 10, 2020 at 9:18 pm
Shouldn’t be the Taxpayer’s problem because this pension Plan was solely an arrangement between the Unions and the participating Corporate employers. If if was not sufficiently funded BOTH the Unions and those employers were WELL AWARE of it.
If Plan participants have any legitimate claim, it should be against the remaining participating Corporations.
Posted by A on October 10, 2020 at 9:55 pm
“Those who have been following along with my prior articles, however, might have a guess as to my suggestion on a path forward: we know that there were serious flaws in the basic regulatory structure for multi-employer plans, which followed the single-employer structure regardless of the substantial differences between a plan ultimately sponsored by a union for the benefit of its members and a plan sponsored by a company.”
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
“Which means that, first, rather than framing the discussion in terms of “government bailouts” what we’re really talking about is Congress making restoration payments to certain multi-employer plans to restore them to funding levels they may have had were it not for this past inappropriate legislation.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2018/12/19/suck-it-up-buttercup-no-one-will-be-happy-with-multi-employer-pension-fixes/#6803578e5efd
Government…
Posted by Tough Love on October 10, 2020 at 10:10 pm
Ms Bauer has her opinions and others may disagree.
I disagree BECUASE (as I stated above) the Unions and sponsoring Corporations WATCHED for MANY MANY years as the Plan’s financial position deteriorated. They had MORE than ample warning …. and sufficient time ….. to ramp up funding.
Using the poor funding regulations as an excuse to ignore that and then seek a Gov’t bailout forces the WRONG group (taxpayers) to pay to fix it. The sponsoring Corporations are the Primary ones who should be on the hook here. As should the Union membership who stood aside seeking immediate gratification (raises) instead of demanding proper funding of THEIR pension Plans.
Posted by Dennis t. on October 11, 2020 at 1:29 pm
Then why do the dept of labor and tresuary have control over : our pension; and have Final approval the treSury dept nixed the last deal i would say the govt. Has had its head into our pension for years
Posted by Tough Love on October 11, 2020 at 2:42 pm
Your comment is not clear, but as a point of fact, no Treasury regulation EVER stopped an honest/motivated Multi-Employer-Plan Corporate participating employer from making contributions sufficient to PROPERLY fund the promises made. Those employers abused the MINIMUM funding requirements, KNOWING full well that they were not contributing sufficient funds.
THEY should be held accountable (even to the extent of being forced to turn over all company assets to these underfunded Plans), NOT the taxpayers.who were NOT a party to any of these arrangements.
Posted by A on October 10, 2020 at 10:47 pm
Others may disagree. It is complicated. Her experience is as a pension actuary. She has done considerable research, and written seven articles on this alone. And the final decision will be on Congress… and President Biden.
I have not read all seven, but I agree with at least one of her statements. The proposed bills so far seem to make pensioners whole. It does seem that there should be some shared sacrifice as in the MPRA cases.
But they didn’t ask for my opinion.
Shared sacrifice in public pension bailouts also.I believe Dr. Biggs has a plan for that.
Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 12, 2020 at 11:25 am
It does seem that there should be some shared sacrifice as in the MPRA cases.
No Shit Sherlock ….
But they didn’t ask for my opinion.
Lookslike they are not that dumb after all 😎
Shared sacrifice in public pension bailouts also.
FINALLY, Dougie gets it right. A miracle has occurred.
Posted by Worst Funded ‘Nonendagered’ Multiemployer Plans | Burypensions Blog on October 19, 2020 at 9:00 pm
[…] not yield plan name (possibly on purpose) but it is easy enough to find with the EIN. 36-6044243 is Central States which admits to being in risk category D (Critical and Declining) while the next three reported […]
Posted by Multiemployer Pensions: Will the Recent Bailout Destroy Pensions (in the Long Run)? – Actuarial News on April 6, 2021 at 6:09 am
[…] The real crisis was Central States Teamsters going under. It would have taken down the PBGC. The puny plans like Warehouse Employees Union Local No. 730 Pension Trust (total liability amount: $474,757,777) are drops in the bucket compared with Central States (total liability amount: $56,790,308,499). […]