Join Early Retirement Today
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
PBGC cuts reporting for 90% of plans
Old 04-06-2013, 05:13 PM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
imoldernu's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Peru
Posts: 4,652
PBGC cuts reporting for 90% of plans

New PBGC Proposal Would Cut Reporting Requirements for More Than 90 Percent of Companies and Plans

Good? Bad? or non-event?

imoldernu is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 04-06-2013, 06:14 PM   #2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
Given the recurring reports of widespread UNDERfunding of private & muni pensions, I see this as a very,very bad idea. Could be like pulling the pin on a financial grenade. Non-event......for now

ERhoosier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 06:41 PM   #3
samclem's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,931
Seems like a bad idea. From the linked article (emphasis added):
The move will exempt from many requirements all small plans and the more than 70 percent of pension plans whose sponsors are financially sound. Some reporting requirements like bankruptcy filings will be eliminated.
Under the new proposal, many reporting requirements would be eliminated where:
  • Either a company or a plan is financially sound. Some three-fourths of all companies and plans will be exempted on this basis.
  • A plan is small. Since two-thirds of all plans are sponsored by small businesses, this effort will dramatically expand relief from reporting requirements.
  • PBGC can get information from other sources. Through public SEC or bankruptcy filings or filings with other agencies, PBGC can learn about many events without requiring direct reports from the company.
There's not much info out there on the pension plan health of small, non-public companies. The PBGC information can be an important first indicator to employees that their plan is n trouble.

Notice the "or" above. That means the PBGC won't require reporting unless the pension plan is underfunded/weak AND the company itself is in financial trouble.
"One way we encourage companies to keep their pensions is by cutting unnecessary red tape," said PBGC Director Josh Gotbaum. "That's what we're doing here. Not only is it better for businesses and plans, it will let us focus our efforts where they're really needed."

PBGC's change on reportable events is the latest in a continuing effort to preserve plans by making it easier for employers to offer them.
If I'm a worker, especially a young worker, in a company with a shaky pension plan, I want them to stop offering it as soon as possible, give me my credits, and convert to defined contribution so I've got benefits I can count on. That's way better than losing the lion's share of what I thought I had iat some later time.

The PBGC should be working to maintain its own solvency, not turning a blind eye to trouble while "helping" ailing plans to screw over benificiaries in coming years.
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 09:28 AM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,890
If this is actually just cutting unneeded red-tape, then it seems like good thing. I'd like to see some counter-points to that from other groups - is it just red-tape, or is it reducing oversight?

ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.