A new report provides a comprehensive overview of the many aspects of public sector hybrid retirement plan designs. The report finds that some shifts to hybrid designs were made without a proper evaluation of the long-term implications of the plan changes. In contrast, other hybrids are well-thought-out and more likely to provide retirement security to employees, enabling public employers to recruit and retain a qualified workforce.
A hybrid is not one particular plan design, but instead is an umbrella term capturing a wide range of different plan designs. Some hybrids are defined benefit (DB) pensions with risk-sharing provisions, while others blend attributes of DB and defined contribution (DC) plans. Each of these plan designs offers tradeoffs in terms of retirement benefits, risks, and costs.
Author(s): Dan Doonan, Elizabeth Wiley
Publication Date: 10 May 2021
Publication Site: National Institute on Retirement Security
Contribution Requirements. Callan expects that higher discount rates and longer periods for shortfall amortization probably will reduce pension plan sponsors’ contribution requirements. Further, they expect that effect to be greatest for plans with smaller normal costs and/or larger funding shortfalls. Callan continues that if smoothing is ever fully phased out, they anticipate contribution requirements would increase as discount rates “finally decline from historical highs to match market conditions,” but they also add that the longer amortization period “does provide a permanent reduction in annual cash requirements.”
The changes to the minimum funding requirements, Cheiron says, will result in lower minimum funding requirements. They will not affect segment rates used for other purposes such as calculation of lump sum benefits and the maximum deductible limit.