Monday, January 27, 2003

Losses may mean fewer pension funds
Problems threaten to accelerate move away from plans

By PAUL NYHAN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Corporate pensions are swimming in red ink, but the tens of billions
of dollars in losses may mask another problem: that the shortfalls
could alter, and possibly erode, retirement benefits.

Over the last three years, many corporate pension plans came up
short as sagging financial markets and low interest rates conspired
to strip money from funds.

The potential losses are staggering, on paper. General Motors
Corp.'s defined-pension plan could have lost up to $16.8 billion
last year, IBM's plan may have shed $13.95 billion and The Boeing
Co. could have lost nearly $8 billion, according to estimates that
Credit Suisse/First Boston prepared in September. But the real
impact may come in the reaction to the losses as companies, Congress
and regulators debate changes.

The problems already threaten to accelerate the movement of
companies away from defined-benefit plans, which promise set
payments in retirement, to 401(k) and other defined-contribution
plans, according to University of Washington business school
professor Jonathan Karpoff.

"My impression is that many firms are actually trying to get out of
the business of (being) long-term providers of guaranteed incomes to
their employees," Karpoff said.

The losses simply give companies one more reason to stop offering
defined-benefit pensions. Complaints that pension rules are too
strict and complex may lead some companies to stop offering
voluntary defined pensions, according to Watson Wyatt Worldwide.
Companies may also invest in lower-yielding instruments, Watson
added.

A recurring complaint among businesses is that companies are forced
to replenish underfunded pensions too quickly, while hitting limits
on contributions when plans are flush, pension experts say.

"The bottom line is that if employers aren't given more flexibility
in terms of when they can or can't make pension-plan contributions,
they won't sponsor these plans," Kevin Wagner, a retirement practice
director at Watson Wyatt, reported last November. "And ultimately,
this hurts employees most."

And executives may bring their complaints to Congress and the White
House. This year, lawmakers should consider the less controversial
move of stretching out payments to underfunded plans, said David
Foster, an official with the United Steelworkers of America.

Otherwise, the rule "is going to break the backs of dozens of
companies," he added.

Others worry business lobbyists may push too hard.

"The business community is going to use this opportunity as
significant leverage to loosen regulations, to free up the ability
to move into plans that really result in fewer benefits for people,"
warns John Hotz, deputy director of the Pension Rights Center in
Washington, D.C.

Pension plans suffered along with the rest of Wall Street in recent
years as retirement funds fell along with stock prices.

The plans are also struggling with low interest rates, which may
reward homeowners but force corporations to keep more money in the
bank to meet future obligations. Simply put, low interest rates mean
actuaries assume assets will grow slowly, forcing companies to
maintain higher balances.

"You have company after company with pension underfunding issues,"
said Foster. "They are having to come up with huge amounts of cash
in a downturn."

The underfunding is creating headaches, but not a crisis, in
corporate America, experts say. For the first time in a decade, some
companies are contributing to pension funds, while others record
billions of dollars in charges tied to the plummeting value of the
accounts.

"This is sort of a normal cycle that the market is going through,"
said Hotz. "It is certainly not a time to go running and jumping
ship."

For example, Credit Suisse may predict Boeing's defined-pension plan
could be $6.8 billion underfunded in 2002, but the company isn't in
danger of halting retirement checks, said Stan Sorscher, a labor
representative at the Society of Professional Engineering Employees
in Aerospace.

In October, Boeing expected to take up to $4 billion in non-cash
charges in the fourth quarter tied to its pension plan, though those
charges won't affect reported earnings.

"I think Boeing can meet the obligation as far into the future as I
can see," said Sorscher, who tracks pension issues for the
second-largest union at Boeing. "What you are really counting on is
future performance of the investments."

As legislators, regulators and companies debate any changes, Jim
Isbell, a Seattle-based actuary, has a relatively straightforward
suggestion: clear away the tangle of regulations that discourage
firms from offering the voluntary plans. Since 1985 the number of
federally backed pension plans sank from 114,000 to 35,000,
according to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

"Lots more employers would be willing to provide pension benefits if
the administrative costs of doing so were lower," said Isbell, a
pension expert for Watson Wyatt.

Workers can check on their pension plans in annual statements,
Isbell said. But the information is nearly a year old, he added.
They can also check with their human resources departments.

Perhaps the most immediate threat to pension plans is at firms
pushed to the edge of extinction.

Union workers at Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp., for example,
stand to lose nearly $4,800 a year in retirement benefits if the
embattled company hands its pensions over to the federal government.
The company promised steelworkers an extra $400 a month if smelters
closed for more than two years, but the government wouldn't make
those retirement payments, union officials say.

Kaiser already skipped a $15.5 million pension payment for its
salaried employees last week. But the company has made no decisions
about placing its pensions with government trustees, according to
Kaiser spokesman Scott Lamb.

So, Kaiser worker Bob Marsden is left to wonder if he will ever get
that $4,800 to enhance his modest $12,000 pension.

"After 35 years of your working life you assume the company is going
to meet its commitments to you," he said.

P-I reporter Paul Nyhan can be reached at 206-448-8145 or
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to