Transcript Changes_in_measurement_of_pensions

Changes in the Measurement
of Pensions in the US National
Income and Product Accounts
Brent Moulton
Group of Experts on National Accounts – UNECE
Geneva
May 7, 2014
www.bea.gov
Overview
▪ SNA 2008 introduced major changes in the
treatment of defined-benefit pensions
▪ In 2013 US national accounts implemented these
changes
 Joint implementation by Bureau of Economic Analysis
(production, income and saving) and Federal Reserve
Board (financial account, assets and liabilities)
▪ Paper covers:




www.bea.gov
Overview of institutional setting in the US
SNA 1993 treatment (not covered in these slides)
SNA 2008 treatment
Conceptual and practical issues in implementation
2
SNA 2008 – new conceptual framework
▪ “The 2008 SNA recognizes that employment-related
pension entitlements are contractual engagements, that are
expected or likely to be enforceable. They should be
recognized as liabilities towards households, irrespectively
of whether the necessary assets exist in segregated schemes
or not.” (A3.127)
▪ The level of the employer’s contribution and the liability of
the pension fund to the employee are based on actuarial
calculations of the net present value of future benefits.
▪ Any excess of the liabilities of the pension fund over the
available assets may represent a claim on the sponsor.
www.bea.gov
3
Employment-based pensions in the US
▪ In private industry, defined-benefit plans are in
decline




49% of private workers participate in a pension plan
Only 16% participate in a defined-benefit plan
Regulated by federal government
Growing use of defined-contribution plans
▪ Public-sector plans – state & local government
 85% of workers participate in a retirement plan
 78% in a defined-benefit plan
▪ Federal government
 Military and civilian plans cover almost all workers
 Funds hold only special Treasury securities
www.bea.gov
4
SNA 2008 – compensation of employees
▪ Defined-benefit plan promises to pay future benefits
according to a formula based on level of pay and time
in service
▪ Pension component of compensation of employees is
based on future benefits accrued through service
 Claims to benefits accrued through service (or “normal cost”)
 Add service charge (for expenses of administering fund) and
subtract employees’ actual contributions to get total
employers’ pension contributions
▪ Employers’ imputed pension contributions
 Subtract employers’ actual pension contributions from total
employers’ pension contributions
www.bea.gov
5
SNA 2008 – property income
▪ Under SNA 1993, property income earned by
pension fund was shown flowing to households
 Property income attributable to policyholders
 Flow from pension fund to households in allocation of
primary income account
▪ Under SNA 2008, property income payable to
households is based on “unwinding” of the
discount rate for the pension entitlement
 Property income payable on pension entitlements
 Increase in pension entitlement coming from past
service
www.bea.gov
6
SNA 2008 – claim of pension fund on pension sponsor
▪ If pension plan sponsor (usually the employer) is
responsible for meeting the liabilities of the
pension fund in case of any shortfall:
 Any excess of pension entitlements over assets held by
fund is a liability of the sponsor and asset of the pension
fund
 Any excess of assets over pension entitlements is an
asset of the sponsor and liability of the pension fund
 Net worth of the pension fund exactly zero at all times
www.bea.gov
7
Conceptual issue – interest on claim on sponsor
▪ SNA 2008 doesn’t give much guidance on transactions
or other changes in assets required to keep net worth
of pension fund exactly zero
▪ If fund is persistently underfunded, unwinding of the
discount rate also affects claim of pension fund on
pension sponsor
▪ Consistent with general SNA principles to treat the
unwinding of the discount rate as property income
▪ US national accounts have added Imputed interest
on plans’ claim on sponsor
 Calculated applying same discount rate used in actuarial
calculations to claims of pension funds on pension sponsors
 Payable by sponsor to pension fund
www.bea.gov
8
Conceptual issue – Expected holding gains
▪ Most pension funds invest in diversified portfolios that
include equity shares
▪ Because pension funds expect part of their return on
investment to come in the form of holding gains, able
to assume a discount rate that is larger than the rate of
return in the form of property income
▪ Consequently, under SNA 2008 recommendations,
pension funds show persistent negative saving
 In US data, about 1% of GDP per year
▪ Does it make sense for pension funds, which have net
worth of zero, to have persistent dissaving?
 In US accounts, property income paid to households = fund’s
property income (including interest on claim on sponsor)
 Pension fund saving = 0
www.bea.gov
9
Source data and methods
▪ Private plans – annual reports show actuarial data
 Accumulated benefit obligation (ABO) method
 Convert to common interest rate (AAA bond rate)
▪ State & local government plans – large sample of
actuarial reports
 BEA converted from projected benefit obligation (PBO)
to ABO method
 Used same interest rate as used for private plans
▪ Federal government plans
 Actuarial reports prepared by government
 Maintained PBO method and interest rates used by
actuaries
www.bea.gov
10
Results for United States
▪ In 2012, employers’ imputed pension contributions
about –0.4% of GDP
 Negative for private and federal government plans
 Positive for state & local government
▪ Imputed property income on plans’ claims on
sponsors
 0.1% of GDP for private plans in 2012
 0.5% for state & local government
 0.6% for federal government
▪ Claims on sponsors (unfunded pension entitlements)
 2.7% of GDP for private plans in 2012
 9.1% for state & local government
 11.0% for federal government
www.bea.gov
11
Shares of US DB plans funded by assets
www.bea.gov
12