Last week I received the Annual Funding Notice for the IBM Personal Pension Plan (which is paying me a pension). Rather than require companies to adequately fund their pension plans Congress instead makes them send all participants annually a report on their plan's financial status. This is pretty pointless as most people won't get much from the disclosure. Pension accounting is inherently complicated and to make matters worse current rules are full of loopholes which can make a plan appear to be in better shape than it actually is. So the report is pretty opaque. And even if your plan is currently in good shape the weak regulations mean it may not stay in good shape. So I expect most people pay little attention to this notice and just hope for the best.
This year I actually tried to understand the report. Although the IBM plan is relatively easy to evaluate because it was frozen some years ago (which means participants are no longer accruing benefits) this proved rather difficult. Besides the notice for this year (2013) I looked at prior year notices, the 2013 IBM annual report and documents on the Department of Labor website for 2012 (the documents for 2013 aren't available yet).
As best I can tell the only numbers in the notice worth paying attention to are in the "Fair Market Value of Assets" section. For IBM this says:
As of December 31, 2013, the fair market value of the Plan's assets was $53,953,692,333. On this same date, the Plan's liabilities were $47,920,350,174.
The key points here are that the valuation date is at year's end (as opposed to 1/1/2013 or earlier elsewhere in the notice) so is relatively recent. The assets are valued at fair market value which is fairly straightforward as opposed to elsewhere in the notice where a bogus accounting value can be used (although IBM does not do this) based on what the assets would have been worth if the plan had achieved its expected rate of return. Valuing the plan liabilities is a bit less straightforward as you have to figure the present value of future obligations which requires choosing a discount rate. This should be determined by looking at the current yields of safe bonds which is not that complicated. However elsewhere in the notice an artificially high discount rate is used which makes the plan liabilities look smaller than they really are. This artificially high rate is a recent loophole created by Congress to allow companies to reduce their contributions to their pension plans while pretending they are adequately funded. The notice for 2012 in the Fair Market Value section using a realistic (or at least more realistic) discount rate valued the plan liabilities at $52,939,309,074 (at 12/31/2012) while the artificially low discount rate used elsewhere in the 2013 notice gave a plan liability value of $40,044,112,196 (at 1/1/2013) which illustrates the magnitude of the loophole. The actual discount rates used in the Fair Market Value section are not stated in the notice. The IBM annual report lists discount rates of 4.5% and 3.6% for year end 2013 and 2012 respectively which may be the rates being used. As best I can tell the present value of future plan administrative costs aren't included in plan liabilities which means they are understated a bit. Still the IBM plan appears to be in reasonable shape. And since it is frozen it less dependent on regular additional funding from IBM than active plans.
IBM assumes an 8% annual return on its US pension fund investments. This is too high in the current environment but doesn't affect the above liability numbers as IBM (as a private company) is not allowed to discount plan liabilities using this rate. In contrast public entity pension plans can and do discount their liabilities using their assumed rate of return (which is typically in the 7% to 8% range) thus grossly understating their actual liabilities. IBM's assumed rate does affect IBM's reported earnings.