Pension Risk News & Analysis : Pension Governance, LLC : Pension Risk & Investment

      
                                                                 

When I was a little girl, the spring holidays were a big deal. My sister and I would spend hours in search of hidden jellybeans and chocolate eggs. My favorite flavor was licorice and, once found, I would indulge. One year, to my delight, I found what I thought was a black jellybean. Luckily, upon closer inspection, I realized it was a gift from the cat (and of course I threw it away).

So what's the moral of the story for plan sponsors?

Look closely and act wisely.  What looks like a bonus could be a nasty surprise in disguise.

More specifically, sponsors who only look at the positive impact of short-term market conditions on funding status, without addressing long-term structural issues, miss the mark. What looks like a favored treat (relief from having to do anything now as long as nominal numbers "look good") could turn out to be just the opposite (a situation left untouched until it's too late to take corrective action in a cost-effective manner).

An examination of the short-term versus long-term also begs the question. Should the funding of benefit plans be considered strategic or tactical? Those organizations that address risk management on an enterprise basis are starting to more fully incorporate the cost and design of benefit programs as part of their planning. Unfortunately, there is evidence that things remain in disrepair.

"Corporate Directors May Not Be Providing Sufficiently Robust Enterprise Risk Oversight," published by the Conference Board in conjunction with the McKinsey & Company and KPMG's Audit Committee Institute, states that "Corporate directors could find themselves exposed to liability if they fail to keep pace with evolving best practices in enterprise risk management (ERM)." The study also found that "While 71.8% of directors believe they have the right risk metrics and methodologies in making strategic decisions, 47.6% of directors would like to see more data analysis related to the company's risk profile." Click here to read our prior blog post about Enterprise Risk Management entitled "Enterprise Risk Management in the Boardroom."

Enjoy what April has to offer but don't get lulled into false security.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to CFO.com, the State of California may soon prohibit a company from paying out dividends or buying back shares until all required defined benefit plan payments have been made. AB 2122, introduced by Democrat Johan Klehs, could impact corporate leaders individually as well since it "would make directors and officers of a corporation jointly and severally liable for improper distributions", even if they had no knowledge of the impropriety.

Needless to say that if this bill becomes law, other states would likely follow, creating a cascade of new challenges for chief financial officers everywhere.

Think about it.

Capital structure, securities issuance and debt rating assignments would necessarily change as a function of a company's mix of employee benefits. Modeling a defined benefit plan liability (and related liquidity obligations) would take center stage. Shareholders seeking current dividend income may get an unpleasant surprise if dividend payouts become more volatile, even if a company enjoys steady growth in economic earnings.

Then there is the philosophical issue about the role of government with respect to corporate management. Does the state have the right to micromanage this way? Would shareholders shy away from investing in companies with defined benefit plans, knowing that the state has the right to prevent dividend distributions? Would companies rush to shed defined benefit plans, possibly exacerbating an already pronounced trend towards defined contribution plans? Would companies lobby more aggressively for exemptions from the dividend rule? Would that worsen campaign finance problems? Would D&O insurance costs skyrocket as a result of increased liability exposure for board members? Would federal lawmakers seek to follow suit?

The little bill that could ...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Thanks to Stephen Davis, editor of Global Proxy Watch, for highlighting a recent study about enterprise risk management. The three Conference Board authors - Carolyn Kay Brancato, Matteo Tonello, and Ellen Hexter -- suggest that board members may need to do a lot more work when it comes to (a) recognizing relevant risks and (b) managing them to avoid liability.

According to "Role of the U.S. Corporate Board of Directors in Enterprise Risk Management", there is a big gap between knowledge and action.

"The Conference Board study finds: Although 89.5% of directors say they fully understand the risk implications of the current strategy,

Only 77.4% of directors say they fully understand the risk/return tradeoffs underlying the current strategy.

Only 73.4% of directors say their companies fully manage risk.

Only 59.3% of directors fully understand how business segments interact in the company's overall risk portfolio.

Only 54.0% have clearly defined risk tolerance levels.

Only 47.6% of boards rank key risks.

Only 42% have formal practices and policies in place to address reputational risk.
Directors are, however, sensitive to the need for additional information:

While 71.8% of directors believe they have the right risk metrics and methodologies in making strategic decisions, 47.6% of directors would like to see more data analysis related to the company's risk profile."

So what does this have to with pension plans?

Simply put, a lot...

As more and more companies contemplate the financial and human capital impact of offering employee benefits, it's imperative to remember that pension management cannot be separated from corporate governance responsibilities, embedded in regulations such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX").

Jeffrey D. Mamorsky, Employee Benefits Group Chairman with Greenberg Traurig, states: "What companies sometimes overlook is that this SOX Section 404 Management Assessment of the Adequacy of Internal Control Procedures requirement applies to pension and benefit expenses. This is an issue that cannot be overlooked since SOX includes draconian sanctions of $2 million and up to 10 years imprisonment for non-willful ($5 million/up to 20 years imprisonment for willful) certification of any statement that does not comply with SOX requirements." (See "Today's Retirement Plan Environment Leaves Much for Concern".)

In a speech to business editors, following the passage of SOX, U.S. Department of Labor Assistant Secretary Ann L. Combs sang its praises, adding that: "Some reports have criticized the Sarbanes-Oxley provisions as inadequate response to the problems brought to light by Enron and its progeny. The fact is, they are important provisions and will prevent future instances of corporate officers unloading their stock while workers are trapped in a sinking ship."

My own research in the areas of governance, compliance and litigation suggests an inextricable relationship between corporate and pension governance. Directors simply cannot ignore ERISA when making enterprise-oriented decisions. To do so could invite the possibility of financial loss, litigation, harm to reputation and/or regulatory action.

Author's Note: There are many articles that address the deficiences of SOX and regulation in general. Free marketeers advocate complete industry self-regulation or some variation thereof (and I have written elsewhere about the economic and philosophical merits of best practices versus regulation). However, whatever your opinion about regulations, including SOX, existing law is a reality.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link