PBGC Proposes Updating Valuation Assumptions

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has published proposed changes to the interest rates, mortality tables and administrative expenses used to calculate “the present value of benefits for a single-employer pension plan ending in a distress or involuntary termination.”

The proposal explains that the PBGC tries to keep its actuarial assumptions in line with the assumptions and pricing used by private sector insurers. The proposal would update the PBGC’s mortality table to be more current, update interest rate assumptions to better reflect current market conditions and simplify the administrative expense calculation.

The PBGC is seeking public comment on the proposals. The comment period will close 60 days after the proposal is entered into the Federal Register.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news. 

Mortality Calculations

Bruce Cadenhead, a partner in and the global chief actuary in wealth at Mercer, says the PBGC is currently using a mortality table based on data from 1994 and is projecting into the future using a scale that is also outdated.

Under the proposal, the PBGC would update the table to one relying on data from 2012 and using “generational mortality improvement.” A generational improvement is a “more modern structure,” Cadenhead explains, which projects mortality based on the year the participant was born. The PBGC currently uses “static projection,” an “approximation of a generational table” which is less accurate because it projects mortality into the future using a fixed rate of improvement.

Cadenhead says a generational table is “more complex from a calculation standard,” because it means each participant must be calculated separately using a variable rate of mortality improvement from year to year, “but that’s become pretty standard.”

John Lowell, a partner in retirement and benefits consultant October Three, says the PBGC has not updated its mortality rules in almost 30 years. “Mortality had been based on a 1994 mortality table, while many tables have been published since then,” Lowell says, adding that the proposal would make the PBGC methods “more current.”

Interest Assumptions

Interest rates are the “most significant assumption” in calculating present value for pension funding, according to Cadenhead. Under current regulations, the PBGC surveys insurers on their pricing and uses the results in the quarter after the rate is calculated. As a result, the PBGC interest rate assumption can be “six months out of date,” and “sometimes this aligns well with the current market, and sometimes it doesn’t,” Cadenhead says.

Cadenhead explains that the rates used by insurers are closely related to yields on corporate and Treasury bonds such that they can be used instead of insurer rates in the valuing of pension assets. Better yet, those rates are available sooner and can be used to update interest assumptions monthly, rather than quarterly.

By taking a weighted average of corporate and Treasury bonds, modified with an “adjustment factor,” the PBGC can obtain a figure that closely approximates the data it would have obtained from its surveys, but in a timelier fashion. That “adjustment factor” will be obtained from the insurer surveys used under the current regulations, Cadenhead says, because those surveys are still useful in measuring the gap between the insurers’ assumptions and actual bond yields.

Lowell adds that since interest assumptions were last updated, “technology has made the use of full yield curves possible, which are more precise and far more practical.”

Administrative Expenses

When calculating present value, the PBGC also accounts for the administrative expenses involved if it had to take over a terminated plan. Currently, the PBGC uses a two-step calculation which accounts for the number of participants and the total plan assets. To simplify this process, it will instead only consider the number of participants. The administrative expense formula under the proposal would be $400 per participant for the first 200 participants and $250 for every additional participant.

Tags: actuarial valuation, bond yields, Mortality, PBGC

Exciting price appreciation and big dividend yields seldom go together. Growth stocks, typically from the technology sector, often pay small or no dividends. Companies with generous payouts tend to be large-cap, mature players in such areas as consumer staples. Lately, many of the best dividend payers have seen their prices suffer.

As of last week, the 101 stocks in the S&P 500 that have no dividends were up an average 20.7% for the year, while the prices for the 100 with the highest yields were down 3.2%, according to research firm Bespoke Investment Group. What’s more, those with a yield of 5% or more were off 8.4%.

As the Bespoke report noted, the leading players’ “5%-plus dividend yields are being more than erased by falling share prices.”

The S&P 500 has had a good record in 2023, although it has ebbed some since late July. As of Wednesday, it had a total return of 15.9%, consisting of a 14.7% price increase and a 1.2% dividend yield.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news. 

The stock with the largest yield, that of Marlboro maker Altria, at 8.5%, is barely in the black this year, with its total return (price plus dividends) ahead a mere 1%. Altria, like other cigarette purveyors, has been on a long-term downtrend as cigarette sales shrink. The company has maintained its earnings through price hikes.

Verizon (8.0% yield) and AT&T (7.8%) are in worse shape, with their total returns in negative territory: minus 13.1% and 19.3%, respectively.

Part of these losses stem from revelations about the lead in the telecoms companies’ cable sheathings, installed decades ago—which saddles them with making costly replacements for those wires. The larger challenge is that they are in a more competitive U.S. wireless market, with the likes of T-Mobile grabbing market share for cell phones. Both Verizon and AT&T logged disappointing earnings in their latest quarters.

Smaller banks also have had a tough time of late, with KeyCorp (6.9% yield) last month reporting a bigger-than-expected 50% fall in quarterly earnings. The yearly return is down 29.2%. Like other regional lenders, KeyCorp has had to increase reserves for loan losses, as high borrowing costs threaten small banks. Adding to reserves has sapped earnings. After the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and two other small lenders, regional banks in general have seen share prices drop.

With a 6.5% yield and a tiny 2023 return of 1.4%, pipeline and terminal operator Kinder Morgan also recently posted lower-than-expected second-quarter revenue due to lower oil and natural gas prices. Another factor: China’s underwhelming post-lockdown recovery has dented fuel demand.

How times have changed. The Bespoke study pointed out that, in August 2020, the S&P 500’s dividend yield of 1.79% was less than half a percentage point (0.46) higher than the highest yield on the Treasury curve: the 30-year, at 1.33%. As of last week, in contrast, the index’s 12-month yield of 1.55% was 2.6 percentage points lower than the lowest point on the Treasury curve, the 10-year, at 4.15%.