The Time has come to Revisit Solvency Funding Rules
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.11575/sppp.v11i0.43034Résumé
Canadians are not fond of hearing news about people losing their hard-earned pensions because their employer misused the money. The thought of some Working Joe or Jane being deprived of a pension, after a lifetime of working for a company, is naturally repugnant. That is why regulations around defined-benefit pension plans are designed to force employers to keep their pension funds sufficiently solvent. But there are many ways to achieve that end and, while the rules that Canadian companies must follow might serve to help preserve pension savings, they also be very expensive — to employers and regulators — compared to other policies that can do the same thing. In fact, more flexibility in the rules might even make it easier for companies to offer richer pension benefits to employees than they already do.
Some of Canada’s outdated pension-funding rules have created the opposite problem: There are now pension plans that are actually overfunded if one assumes the company and the plan will continue. That means money the sponsoring companies could be using to hire more workers, to offer employees better pay and benefits, or to invest, is tied up in pension coffers. The problem lies in the divergence between a “going-concern” valuation — which assumes that the plan continues indefinitely — with the more prescriptive “solvency” valuation that is central to Canadian regulations. It examines funding adequaciy if one assumes the employer is going to go out of business (even if the vast majority of large employers are at any given time at no risk of that). In the days when fixed-income returns were lucrative, companies relied on pension fund investments to top up the funds, reducing sponsor contributions to unsafe levels. The solvency rules required plans that were reaping higher returns in the stock market to continue making some contributions to their plans. Back then, the gap between a going-concern valuation and a solvency valuation was small, and so the rules were not an unacceptable burden.
Those rich returns are gone. Now, that gap between valuations has grown dramatically. In B.C., for example, a recent analysis found that when using a going-concern evaluation, 75 per cent of 143 defined-benefit plans registered in the province in 2015 had at least 100-per-cent funding, while the median funding ratio was 124 per cent. Using a solvency model, the median funding ratio was instead estimated to be a much lower 85 per cent. Closing that gap would require onerous pension contributions. More importantly, the contributions it triggers might never be needed to cover benefits.
Quebec is the first province to recognize that pension-funding rules need to be revisited and made more responsive, with new rules coming in that will reduce the unnecessary burden on employers while also adapting to changes in the economic environment. Ontario is showing signs that it will take steps in the same direction. Regulators everywhere should be revisiting pension rules to: remove the solvency-valuation requirement for well-funded plans, while allowing the regulator to assume a worst-case scenario in the uncommon case where they believe it to be warranted; to develop a method to rate the credit risk of a plan; to be less stringent and more realistic about plan liabilities (by allowing some types of liabilities to use a longer amortization period); but still restricting plan changes for underfunded plans. The result would not only reduce the cost and work of over-regulating well-funded, well-run plans, while freeing up cash . By reducing pressure on the cash flow for sponsors, and adding more flexibility, the policymakers will ultimately make defined-benefit pension plans more sustainable. They might even see defined-benefit plans making a comeback among employers who found heavy contributions enough to drive them out of the DB world.
Téléchargements
Fichiers supplémentaires
Publié-e
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
The following is the copyright statement of SPPP.
Copyright © <Author name> <year>. This is an open-access paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC 4.0, which allows non-commercial sharing and redistribution so long as the original author and publisher are credited.
Publication Copyright and Licensing
The following guidelines and information, provided in six sections, are intended for authors (the “Author”) who are invited to write a paper (the “Work”) for The School of Public Policy Publications (the “Publisher”). The rights and responsibilities conveyed in the SPP Author Agreement will only apply once your paper is accepted for publication. At that point in the publication process, you will be asked to download the form and return a signed copy via e-mail to spppublications@ucalgary.ca. Please review the below information to ensure agreement with SPPP policies.
Section 1: Author’s Grant of Rights
In consideration of the Publisher’s agreeing to publish the Work in The School of Public Policy Publications, the Author hereby grants to the Publisher the following:
1.1 The irrevocable, royalty-free right to publish, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform and distribute the Work in perpetuity throughout the world in all means of expression by any method or media now known or hereafter developed, including electronic format;
1.2 The irrevocable, royalty-free right to use the Author’s name and likeness in association with the Work in published form and in advertising and promotional materials related to the Work; and
1.3 The irrevocable, royalty-free right to license others to do any or all of the above.
Section 2: Prior Publication & Publication by Others
2.1 The Author agrees not to publish the Work, or authorize any third party to publish the Work, either in print or electronically, prior to publication of the Work by the Publisher.
2.2 The Author agrees not to publish the Work in any publication outlet which is substantially similar to The School of Public Policy Publications for a period of six (6) months after publication of the Work in The School of Public Policy Publications. Substantially similar is defined as a non-subscription, open-access publication outlet with a similar mandate/vision and intended audience.
2.3 Should the Author publish or distribute the Work elsewhere at any time or in any alternate format, the Author agrees to contact The School of Public Policy Publications to inform them of the subsequent publication.
2.4 Should the Author publish or distribute the Work elsewhere at any time or in any alternate format, the Author agrees to make reasonable efforts to ensure that any such additional publication cites the publication in The School of Public Policy Publications by author, title, and publisher, through a tagline, author bibliography, or similar means. A sample acknowledgement would be:
“Reprinted with permission from the author. Originally published in the The School of Public Policy Publications, http://www.policyschool.ca/publications/.”
Section 3: Editing and Formatting
The Author authorizes the Publisher to edit the Work and to make such modifications as are technically necessary or desirable to exercise the rights in Section 1 in differing media and formats. The Publisher will make no material modification to the content of the Work without the Author’s consent.
Section 4: Author’s Ownership of Copyright and Reservation of Rights
4.1 Nothing in this agreement constitutes a transfer of the copyright by the Author, and the copyright in the Work is subject to the rights granted by this agreement.
4.2 The Author retains the following rights, including but not limited to, the right:
4.2.1 To reproduce and distribute the Work, and to authorize others to reproduce and distribute the Work, in any format;
4.2.2 To post a version of the Work in an institutional repository or the Author’s personal or departmental web page so long as The School of Public Policy Publications is cited as the source of first publication of the Work (see sample acknowledgement above).
4.2.3 To include the Work, in whole or in part, in another work, subject to Section 2 above and provided that The School of Public Policy Publications is cited as the source of first publication of the Work (see sample acknowledgement above).
4.3 The Editors and Editorial Board of The School of Public Policy Publications requires authors to publish the Work under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license allows others to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the Work for noncommercial purposes, and ensures the Author is credited for the original creation. This onward licensing is subject to section 2.4 of this agreement, which further ensures that the original publisher is credited.
Section 5: Author’s Warranties and Undertakings
The Author warrants that:
5.1 The Author is the sole author of the Work, or if a joint author, the Author has identified within the Work the other authors, and holds the copyright, either solely or jointly, and has the power to convey the rights granted in this agreement.
5.2 The Work has not previously been published, in whole or in part, except as follows:
5.3 Any textual, graphic or multimedia material included in the Work that is the property or work of another is either explicitly identified by source and cited in the Work or is otherwise identified as follows:
5.4 To the best of the Author’s knowledge, the Work does not contain matter that is obscene, libelous, or defamatory; it does not violate another’s civil right, right of privacy, right of publicity, or other legal right; and it is otherwise not unlawful.
5.5 To the best of the Author’s knowledge, the Work does not infringe the copyright or other intellectual property or literary rights of another.
5.6 The Author will indemnify and hold Publisher harmless against loss, damages, expenses, awards, and judgments arising from breach of any such warranties.
Section 6: The Reuse of Third-Party Works
The Publisher requires that the Author determine, prior to publication, whether it is necessary to obtain permissions from any third party who holds rights with respect to any photographs, illustrations, drawings, text, or any other material (“third-party work”) to be published with or in connection with your Work. Copyright permission will not be necessary if the use is determined to be fair dealing, if the work is in the public domain, or if the rights-holder has granted a Creative Commons or other licence. If either the Author or Publisher determines for any reason that permission is required to include any thirdparty work, the Author will obtain written permission from the rightsholder.
