According to "De-Risking Focuses on Business Issues; Retirement Security a Concern, Critics Say" by BNA reporter Florence Olsen (Pension and Benefits Blog, November 2, 2012), the Pension Rights Center in Washington would like plan sponsors to catch their breath before partially or fully transferring its pension liabilities to third parties like insurance companies. Business Insurance editor-at-large Jerry Geisel writes that the Pension Rights Center wants the U.S. Congress to prohibit further pension de-risking transactions until legislators can assess the ramifications of giving some or all plan participants a choice to convert their future expected pension cash flows into a lump sum or having the employer contract with a group annuity provider to write checks instead of the original corporate sponsor. See "Pension Rights Center wants Congress to put moratorium on pension plan de-risking" (October 19, 2012).
In a forthcoming article for CFO Magazine, ERISA attorney Nancy Ross (with McDermott Will & Emery) and Dr. Susan Mangiero (with FTI Consulting) consider pension de-risking within the context of governance and the duty of loyalty to plan participants. They conclude that while there could be distinct advantages that accrue to retirees and workers when a sponsor enters into a pension de-risking transaction, ERISA fiduciary decision-makers may face personal and professional liability in the event that the economics of a deal mostly benefit shareholders.
In a recent announcement, one company that entered into a pension de-risking transaction cited the upside to include the following:
- Enhancing the sponsor's long-term financial position;
- Removing a "volatile" pension liability from the balance sheet;
- Reducing cash flow and income statement volatility; and
- Improving financial flexibility.
It is not known yet whether someone will challenge this kind of rationale as being too shareholder heavy or instead primarily in the best interest of plan participants who are impacted by a particular transaction. One might logically assert that a financially stronger plan sponsor means less risk for those participants who remain exposed to its credit risk and "ability to pay."
The use of an independent fiduciary could help to allay any concerns about issues such as deal terms, fees paid, the selection of the "safest available" annuity provider and the fair market valuation of contributed assets that are deemed "hard to value." Outsourcing or delegating the investment management function to a financial institution - in lieu of a pension transfer - may be another approach to consider.
Only time will tell whether the plaintiff's bar sees a possible "two hat" fiduciary conflict as a reason to file an ERISA lawsuit against corporate officers and/or directors.