UPS Braces For $3.8 Billion Charge As Treasury's Pension Benefit Decision Looms

UPS Braces For $3.8 Billion Charge As Treasury's Pension Benefit Decision Looms

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/30/2016 17:45



inShare5
 
As we covered previously, in an effort to remain solvent the Central States Pension Fund has submitted an application to the Treasury for approval to cut member benefits.  While some plan participants could see pension incomes cut in half, the fund projects that it will become insolvent by 2025 if nothing is done.
Treasury is set to decide on the matter by May 7th, and as it turns out, the decision impacts more than just current plan participants...

During its Q1 earnings call, UPS told investors that if Treasury approves the CSPF plan to cut benefits, the company would have to take a charge of approximately $3.2 to $3.8 billion.
 
As part of a collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters when UPS withdrew from the fund in 2007,  the company agreed to provide supplemental benefits to any remaining members in the event that certain benefits were lawfully reduced.

While any income statement impact will be adjusted out by analysts, it will be a significant drain on UPS' cash flow (UPS generated $5 billion in free cash flow in fiscal 2015) as it funds the benefit gap over time.

UPS is just the latest example of what lies ahead and forces the government's hand to provide yet another bailout (and encourage yet more moral hazard over-promising).
As we concluded previously, "This is going to be a national crisis for hundreds of thousands, and eventually millions, of retirees and their families. It's going to open the floodgates for other cuts." said Karen Friedman, executive president of the Pension Rights Center.

 
We can't help but wonder that as more pension funds become insolvent, and more and more participants are forced to take reductions in benefits, whether helicopter money won't soon become a reality for the United States, even before it becomes one in Japan. Especially if it is spun by some opportunistic politicans as the "only hope" for America's workers to preserve some of their retirement savings.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-30/ups-braces-38-billion-charge-treasurys-pension-benefit-decision-looms

Making the news, this is my earthly future as central states is my fund too. I am a active member paying for 5 retired ones. If the Fed's can bailout company's then they can bail out the working man of them. If they don't, I got a bad feeling. I have over $360,000.00 paid in on my behalf for about 20 years so far, hoping for the best. The U.S. Treasury reveals verdict May 7th and if cut, starts as soon as July 1st.

BUSINESS
 
MAY 2, 2016 10:44 AM
[size=35]Kenneth Feinberg: No Teamsters pension decision, yet[/size]

Noted mediator denies a report he has made his decision but kept it undisclosed ahead of Saturday’s deadline.
Feinberg also rejected claims he has given “hints” to others that he will reject the Central States Pension Fund proposal.


[size]
BY MARK DAVIS
mdavis@kcstar.com
[/size]

• 
  
   
  
• [url=https://twitter.com/share?text=Kenneth Feinberg%3a No Teamsters pension decision%2c yet&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.kansascity.com%2fnews%2fbusiness%2farticle75115722.html][/url]
  
   
  
  
   
  
• 
  
  LINKEDIN
  
  GOOGLE+
  
  PINTEREST
  
  REDDIT
  
  PRINT
  
  ORDER REPRINT OF THIS STORY
  
  
  
  
  

[size]

Regardless of what you’ve been told or heard or saw, Kenneth Feinberg has not yet decided the fate of hundreds of thousands of retired Teamsters’ pensions, the noted mediator said Monday.
Feinberg has been charged by the U.S. Treasury to decide whether the Central States Pension Fund has complied with a controversial 2014 law in proposing cuts to retirees’ monthly checks in a bid to prevent the fund’s collapse. Many of the proposed pension cuts are by half or more. His decision is due Saturday.
“No decision has yet been made,” Feinberg said Monday morning. “A decision must be made by law by May 7th.”
Feinberg responded to a claim from an Illinois retiree that someone in Feinberg’s office told him Monday morning that the decision had been made but was not yet public. Charles Gurdette said he “tried to smooth-talk” the decision out of the woman but to no luck.
The noted mediator who handled the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund also rejected “hints” he reportedly gave others that he was going to reject Central States’ proposal.

“There are no hints,” Feinberg said. “There is no anticipated reading of the tea leaves.”
Word of hints from Feinberg surfaced Friday in a talk Mike Walden gave a group of Teamster retirees in Independence. Walden is an Ohio retiree who has spent much of his time in Washington fighting the proposed cuts and the 2014 law.
Feinberg said he has spoken to Walden but rejected the idea he has given hints to Walden or anyone or that any decision has been made.
Others have contended that there will be a delay between Feinberg’s decision and its public release because of documentation and other requirements once the decision is made. Feinberg also rejected this.

“Until all of that documentation and all of that corroboration is prepared, there is no decision,” Feinberg said. “It’s all linked, it’s all one thing.”
Feinberg has said his decision looks only at whether Central States’ proposal meets the requirements set out in the 2014 lawthat makes cuts to existing pension checks possible. The law allows cuts when the fund itself is in critical and declining condition.
Central States has said it will run out of money in about a decade unless the cuts are approved or it is able to gain $11 billion in additional funding. It held $16.1 billion in net assets at the end of December.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article75115722.html#storylink=http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article75115722.html
[/size]

Teamsters

Teamsters Applaud Treasury Decision to Deny CSPF Cuts, Protect Retiree Pensions

Union Will Continue to Move Forward on Legislative Efforts to Repeal MPRA, Protect Pensions
Press Contact



(WASHINGTON) – Today, the [url=https://www.treasury.gov/services/Responses2/Central States Notification Letter.pdf]Department of Treasury announced its decision to deny the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (CSPF) application[/url] to cut the pensions of thousands of Teamsters Union retirees. The union applauds this decision, and will continue to work with members of Congress to find a solution to the pension crisis.

CSPF filed the application for cuts with the Treasury Department in September 2015 as allowed under the Kline-Miller Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA). Treasury appointed Kenneth Feinberg as a Special Master in June 2015 to review all applications submitted by funds under the MPRA. Feinberg determined that the CSPF application did not meet all the requirements set by Congress in the MPRA.

“On behalf of our union and the more than 400,000 retirees and participants in Central States Pension Fund, I would like to thank Mr. Feinberg and the Department of Treasury for denying these massive cuts that would destroy so many lives. We worked with thousands of retirees to educate Treasury and Congress on the devastating impact of the proposed cuts,” said Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa. “This decision means that there won’t be any cuts to retirees’ pensions this July or the foreseeable future. We will find a solution to this problem that will allow members and retirees to continue to retire with dignity.”

The union supports the Pension Accountability Act, which addresses concerns with MPRA, and the Keep Our Pension Promises Act, which would protect workers and retirees from cuts to their earned retirement benefits. The Teamsters will continue its legislative efforts to repeal MPRA and find a viable solution to the pension crisis.

“The MPRA was a horrible piece of legislation that would have never passed through Congress on its own merits,” said Eastern Region International Vice President John Murphy. “It passed in the eleventh hour as a self-executing amendment to a spending bill that had to go through. In the short term, we intend to continue to push through legislative remedies that will fix the negative aspects of the MPRA while fighting to repeal the law in the long term.”

Members of Congress support the retirees’ fight against the cuts. In February, a bipartisan collection of 90 House members signed onto a letter sent to the Treasury asking it to reject Central States application. And 25 senators, both Republicans and Democrats, did the same in a separate letter. Additionally, 46 U.S. Senators signed on to a letter sent to Sec. of Treasury Jacob Lew on April 15, calling on him to carefully consider the impact the cuts could have on the CSPF retirees and ensure that all criteria are thoroughly considered before making a decision on the application. 

“I worked for 31 years with the expectation that when I retired my pension was going to be there to support me through my golden years,” said Mike Walden, a retiree out of Local 24 in Akron, Ohio. “A pension is a promise made by the company to the employee and there is no acceptable reason that the promise should be broken. This was the right decision.”

Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents 1.4 million hardworking men and women throughout the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Visit www.teamster.org for more information. Follow us on Twitter @Teamsters and “like” us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/teamsters.

Drew Angerer/The New York Times Kenneth Feinberg said the application didn't show the fund would avoid insolvency.

It's back to the drawing board for multiemployer pension reform

Teamsters, politicians feeling heat from reform plan denial

By Hazel Bradford | May 16, 2016





The result of the first test of a new multiemployer pension reform law has left trustees of the Central States Teamsters pension fund reeling, other troubled multiemployer pension fund officials uncertain about their options and some politicians feeling the pressure to step in.

Related Content

• Treasury drops a hot potato
  
• Treasury rejects Central States benefit reductions
  
• PBGC calls for higher multiemployer premiums
  
• Innovation could be outcome of multiemployer plan debate
  
• Most multiemployer plans healthy, but half of participants in ‘red-zone’ plans — survey
  
• Multiemployer funds, PBGC face hurdles with partition
  
• Majority of multiemployer plans well funded; 9% ‘critical and declining’ — survey
  
  

The Treasury Department on May 6 denied the benefit suspension application of the $17.8 billion Teamsters Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Rosemont, Ill., citing three unmet criteria of the Kline-Miller Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014, which created the suspension process and put Treasury in charge.

“If there's one good thing that has come out of this, it is that Congress now knows they have to go back and roll up their sleeves. It really is going to define this country,” said Teamsters International Vice President John Murphy in an interview.

Treasury Special Master Kenneth Feinberg, in a press call, said, “We found there were fatal flaws in this submission.”

Treasury officials found that the Teamsters' suspension plan did not distribute benefit cuts equitably and did not provide participants with easily understood notices, but above all, it would not avoid insolvency.

The top reason for that, Mr. Feinberg said in a letter to the pension fund's board of trustees, were the actuarial assumptions used to support the pension fund's claim. The plan's 7.5% rate of investment return and entry age assumptions were too optimistic for a plan that at the time of its September 2015 application was 53% funded, with $35 billion in liabilities and likely insolvency by 2026, Mr. Feinberg said in the letter. For a plan in that shape, he wrote, using a common return assumption of 7.5% over a 50-year time horizon didn't fly because it failed to give enough weight to near-term expected rates of return that would have led to “materially different results,” or to negative cash flow problems likely to reduce asset levels even further, among other reasons.

The demographic assumptions, Treasury officials said, should likewise have been refined to reflect the plan's cash flow and current data.

That could have a chilling effect on other distressed plans considering MPRA.

Scrutinizing assumptions

Treasury's denial of the Central States application “does make clear that they are going to scrutinize the assumptions. That might change the ability for plans to make the case,” said Jean-Pierre Aubry, associate director of state and local research with the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, which identified 100 plans that could be eligible to apply for MPRA reductions, based on 2013 plan data.

Central States Executive Director Thomas Nyhan defended the plan's calculations, which he said were “middle of the road and reasonable,” noting the International Brotherhood of Teamsters called them too optimistic, and a major employer, United Parcel Service Inc., Atlanta, called them too pessimistic.

“Treasury is demanding a measure of actuarial precision that is not available,” Mr. Nyhan said in a press call following the application's denial, which he called “heart- and gut-wrenching.”

As Central States trustees regroup to decide whether to appeal the decision or prepare a new application, the only certainty for plan participants at this point is the money for benefits will run out by 2026 at the latest, he said.

“We hope the people who urged rejection will come forward now and seek solutions,” said Mr. Nyhan, who puts members of Congress at the top of that list. “Now is the moment for them to step to the plate and provide the funds. The time for rhetoric has passed; the moment for action is now.”

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew echoed that call in a letter announcing the decision to leaders of the Senate Finance and Health Education Labor and Pension committees. Since Central States filed the first MPRA application, “many stakeholders, including members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, have recognized the harshness of the cuts needed,” Mr. Lew said, but the law does not allow Treasury to consider alternatives.

With the ball now back in Congress' court, “finding a balanced solution will require painful choices,” said Mr. Lew.

“There's a lesson for Congress here,” agreed Mr. Murphy of the Teamsters. “I know there is a recognition by a lot of members of Congress that the multiemployer pension system is in very serious trouble and there has to be some kind of solution that does not include reducing the income of senior citizens. If we can keep this issue on the front burner ... I think we can come up with some creative solutions.

“For this problem to be solved we have to come up with a new source of funding for financially stressed pension funds,” said Mr. Murphy, who predicted some ideas will come forth in the next few months.

Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a critic of the MPRA, said in a statement supporting the decision by the Treasury that “there are no easy answers here and Congress needs to work harder on a bipartisan basis to develop other solutions.”

MPRA's co-author, House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline, R-Minn., who is retiring this year, has pledged to continue working on legislation to strengthen the multiemployer system. Randy DeFrehn, executive director of the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, Washington, whose multiemployer pension reform ideas led to passage of the MPRA, supports the application process as a way to avoid deeper cuts in the long run for plans without options.

Not betting on Congress

Mr. DeFrehn is not betting on Congress right away. “Congress has had many opportunities to provide assistance (but) they have chosen not to do so and it is unlikely they will,” he said in an e-mail. He is more optimistic about legislation now before Mr. Kline's committee that would revisit withdrawal liability and allow for composite plans with both defined benefit and defined contribution features, which he said has broad bipartisan support.

“Chairman Kline has said that passing this is his top legislative priority. So barring any unforeseen legislative event, this may be one of the few pieces of legislation that can be passed this year,” Mr. DeFrehn said. “We hope that some way can be found to support the multiemployer defined benefit system and those who, through no fault of their own, now face a much less secure retirement than they had been promised.”

Sweeping solutions are not expected in an election year, particularly one that could change the balance of power in Congress. MPRA critics, including the Pension Rights Center in Washington and AARP, realize their victory in the Central States decision is short-lived, as many troubled multiemployer plans head toward insolvency, along with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.'s multiemployer insurance program itself.

Four other plans —the $92 million Iron Workers Local 17 Pension Fund, Cleveland; the $123 million Teamsters Local 469 Pension Plan, Hazlet, N.J.; the $86 million Iron Workers Local Union 16, Towson, Md.; and the $27.8 million Road Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund, Hempstead, N.Y. — also have filed for benefit suspensions. The Pension Rights Center identified 52 multiemployer plans that have notified the Department of Labor of their “critical and declining” status, which allows them to consider applying for MPRA relief.

“It's not a rosy picture at all,” said Mr. Aubry with the Center for Retirement Research, who noted the funding deficits in multiemployer plans are collectively smaller than for public-sector plans, which are short by an estimated $1 trillion, and in the private sector.

If the MPRA is not an option and Congress doesn't find the political will and significant sources of money to rescue ailing multiemployer plans or the PBGC, it will be up to pension fund trustees to figure out which painful steps to take, he said. “That's the conversation that has to be had now. It's a difficult conversation to have.” n

This article originally appeared in the May 16, 2016 print issue as, "It's back to the drawing board".

http://www.pionline.com/article/20160516/PRINT/305169978/its-back-to-the-drawing-board-for-multiemployer-pension-reform