As an actuarial matter, for each day an employee labors under a defined benefits pension, you incur some liability in the future. Tech people will recognize this as very similar to stock vesting: irrespective of accounting treatment or payment timing, one day is one day long.
-
Show this thread
-
The dominant way of funding pensions is called "pay-as-you-go": you're required to have cash reserves on hand to meet expected obligations over some relatively short window. But these reserves are not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not the liability.
4 replies 1 retweet 39 likesShow this thread -
The liability grows every day for every current and past employee with a pension, and periodically goes down a little when one passes out of pension coverage, either by quitting before vesting or by passing away.
3 replies 1 retweet 30 likesShow this thread -
This mismatch in reserves and liabilities has caused the "Pension Tsunami", because almost everyone got a rosy report from their actuaries as to what the pension would cost, took the suggested reserve levels those actuaries thought might possibly cover, and *did not* save it.
4 replies 5 retweets 44 likesShow this thread -
The Post Office has relatively unique pension treatment, because it is quasi-governmental and part of the spinoff was Congress deciding that the Post Office should not be able to transfer unfunded pension liability to taxpayers.
1 reply 1 retweet 35 likesShow this thread -
So Congress passed a law saying "You don't get to pay-as-you-go. Instead, you need to model out costs for current and previous employees over a 50 year window from retirement date, and reserve adequately against those projected costs."
1 reply 3 retweets 43 likesShow this thread -
Defenders of the Post Office, 10+ years ago, said that this was unfair, because it is relatively unique treatment. The policy was instituted specifically to avoid transferring $100B+ in pension liability to the taxpayer.
1 reply 6 retweets 41 likesShow this thread -
Here's something I wrote eight years ago:pic.twitter.com/PJcbVqUmAM
4 replies 6 retweets 46 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @patio11 @orthonormalist
This is completely false as regards the minimum requirements for employers. Where did you learn this???
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
It's not even recently false. Prefunding according to a one of a set of reasonable formulas (which have over time been further pared down) has been required federally since 1974.
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes
Thank you for correcting me!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.