The Pension Insurance Data Book 1999 was developed by the Corporate Policy and

Research Department under project manager William James, and produced by the

Communications and Public Affairs Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

NUMBER 4, SUMMER 2000
Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

Overview ................................................................................................................. 1

PBGC’s Guarantee Limits .................................................................................................. 2

APPENDIX S: SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES

S-1 Net Financial Position of PBGC’s Single-Employer Program (1980-1999) ..... 17

S-2 PBGC Premium Revenue, Benefit Payments and Expenses (1980-1999) ..... 18

S-3 PBGC Benefit Payments, Payees and Deferred Payees (1980-1999) ........... 19

S-4 PBGC Payees and Benefit Payments by Industry (1999) ............................... 20

S-5 PBGC Payees and Benefit Payments by Gender and Age (1999) .................. 21

S-6 PBGC Payees and Benefit Payments by Size of Payment (1999) .................. 22

S-7 PBGC Payees and Benefit Payments by Date of Plan Termination (1999) .... 23

S-8 PBGC Payees and Benefit Payments by Size of Trusteed Plan (1999).......... 24

S-9 Bankruptcies and Underfunding Among Publicly Traded Firms (1980-1998) .. 25

S-10 PBGC Terminations and Claims (1975-1999) ................................................. 26

S-11 PBGC Claims (1975-1999) .............................................................................. 27

S-12 Top 10 Firms Presenting Claims (1975-1999) ................................................. 28

S-13 PBGC Claims by Plan Funding Ratio at Termination (1975-1999) .................. 29

S-14 Average Claim per Vested Participant by Plan Size (1975-1999) ................... 30

S-15 PBGC Claims by Industry (1975-1999) ........................................................... 31

S-16 PBGC-Covered Plan Participants (1980-1999) ............................................... 32

S-17 PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1999) .................................................................. 33

S-18 PBGC-Insured Plans, Participants and Premiums by Industry (1999) ............ 34

S-19 PBGC-Covered Plan Participants by Participant Status (1980-1997) ............. 35

S-20 PBGC-Insured Plans and Participants by Total Premium Paid (1999) ............ 36

S-21 PBGC Premium Receipts by Size of Plan and Type of Premium (1999) ........ 37

S-22 PBGC-Insured Plans and Participants by

Variable Rate Premium Status (1992-1999) .................................................... 38

S-23 Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1997) ................................................ 39

S-24 Funding of Underfunded PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1997) ........................... 40

S-25 Funding of Overfunded PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1997) ............................. 41

S-26 Concentration of Underfunding in PBGC-Insured Plans (1990-1997) ............. 42

S-27 Participants and Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans by Funding Ratio (1997) ... 43

S-28 Various Measures of Underfunding in PBGC-Insured Plans (1990-1999) ...... 44

S-29 Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans by Industry (1997) ....................................... 45

S-30 Pension Funding Data for PBGC-Insured Plans by State (1997) .................... 46

S-31 PBGC Pension Data by State and Region ...................................................... 48

S-32 PBGC Maximum Guaranteed Benefits (1988-2000) ....................................... 50

S-33 PBGC’s Historic Premium Rates ..................................................................... 51

PAGE
APPENDIX M: MULTIEMPLOYER DATA TABLES

M-1 Net Financial Position of PBGC’s Multiemployer Program (1980-1999) ......... 55

M-2 PBGC Premium Revenue, Benefit Payments and Expenses (1980-1999) ..... 56

M-3 PBGC Payees and Benefit Payments (1980-1999) ........................................ 57

M-4 PBGC-Covered Plan Participants (1980-1999) ............................................... 58

M-5 PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1999) .................................................................. 59

M-6 PBGC-Insured Plans and Participants by Industry (1999) .............................. 60

M-7 PBGC-Covered Plan Participants by Participant Status (1980-1997) ............. 61

M-8 Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1997) ................................................ 62

M-9 Funding of Underfunded PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1997)........................... 63

M-10 Funding of Overfunded PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1997)............................. 64

M-11 Concentration of Underfunding in PBGC-Insured Plans (1990-1997)............. 65

M-12 Participants and Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans by Funding Ratio (1997)... 66

PAGE
PENSION INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1999 SECTION OVERVIEW 1 1

Overview

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) was established by the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure that participants in defined

benefit plans receive their pensions even if their plans terminate without sufficient assets

to pay promised benefits. Separate insurance programs protect participants in singleemployer and multiemployer plans.

PBGC has published the Pension Insurance Data Book annually since 1996 to present

detailed statistics on PBGC program operations and benefit protection.

In addition to tabular presentations of current and historical data on PBGC’s singleemployer and multiemployer pension insurance programs, this edition features an

analysis of the PBGC guarantee limits and the benefits received by participants in singleemployer plans trusteed by PBGC.
2 PBGC’S GUARANTEE LIMITS PENSION INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1999

PBGC’s Guarantee Limits

An Analysis of Benefits Received by Participants

in Selected PBGC-Trusteed Plans

Executive Summary

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) pays participants in the singleemployer plans it administers (trustees) the benefits they would have received from their

plan, subject to certain constraints set by law and regulation. This chapter reports on our

analysis of the impact of these limitations on participant benefits using a nonrandom

sample of some of the largest plans PBGC has trusteed since December 1987.

Our preliminary findings show that the limitations:

• affected the benefits of relatively few participants (less than 6 percent of all

participants in our sample);

• reduced benefits for at least one participant in more than 75 percent of the plans in

our sample; and,

• on average, reduced the benefits of affected participants by 16 percent.

Of the constraints, the maximum insurance limitation had the greatest impact in

terms of both the number of participants affected and the total amount benefits were

reduced. This limitation restricts the monthly benefits PBGC will pay to participants,

unless either the plan has assets sufficient to fund plan benefits above this cap or PBGC

receives sufficient recoveries from employers to cover unfunded plan liabilities. This

limitation affected almost 4,100 of the more than 90,000 participants in our sample and,

on average, reduced their benefits by 17 percent. The other limitations affected fewer

than 500 participants each.

We used a nonrandom process to select the companies whose pension plans we

included in our sample. The plans of these companies were responsible for 45 percent

of the claims against PBGC and 29 percent of the new participants from 1988 to 1996.

However, they are not fully representative of the industries whose plans PBGC trusteed

over this period. While we cannot generalize our results to either the plans PBGC has

already trusteed or those plans it currently insures, the results confirm our long-held

belief that these statutory limitations affect a relatively small proportion of the participants in the plans PBGC trustees. Although relatively few participants are affected by

them, the limitations can significantly reduce benefits for a few of the participants who

are affected.
PENSION INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1999 PBGC’S GUARANTEE LIMITS 3

1

 Guaranteed benefits include all of a participant’s nonforfeitable (vested) benefits, subject to the limitations that

are the subject of this chapter.

2

 Except in unusual situations (i.e., where the trusteed plan’s unfunded nonguaranteed benefits are $20 million or

more), PBGC is “deemed” to recover a set percentage of the unfunded liabilities from the plan’s sponsor. This

percentage, known as the Small Plan Average Recovery Ratio (SPARR), is usually the average recovery ratio from all

terminated plans’ corporate sponsors during the preceding 5 years.

3

 We use the term “sponsor” in a broad sense. Responsibility for the plan’s unfunded liabilities lies with the

contributing sponsor and, if applicable, other members of its controlled group.

4 The participants’ share of the asset recovery or deemed recovery is the ratio of unfunded nonguaranteed plan

benefits to total unfunded plan benefits.

I. Introduction

When PBGC trustees a plan, it determines the value of the plan’s assets and liabilities

as of the date of plan termination. It allocates the plan’s assets in sequence across six

benefit priority categories until the assets run out. PBGC then uses its own resources to

fund any remaining unfunded guaranteed benefits.1 After a plan terminates, PBGC often

recovers, or is deemed to recover,2

 additional resources to cover a portion of the plan’s

unfunded liabilities from the plan’s corporate sponsor.3

 PBGC shares these asset recoveries with the plan’s participants, using the participants’ portion to fund benefits beyond

the PBGC guarantee limits.4

The first two benefit priority categories include voluntary and mandatory employee

contributions to the plan. Few private defined-benefit plans are contributory, and asset

allocations usually begin in the third priority category. This category includes the benefits of participants who either were receiving benefits three years prior to the plan’s

termination date or were eligible to receive benefits at that time. In many trusteed plans,

all Category 3 benefits fall within PBGC’s guarantees. In others, a portion of the Category 3 benefits will exceed the guarantees. If there are sufficient plan assets, these

additional Category 3 benefits will be funded before any subsequent categories of benefits are funded. If the plan’s assets are insufficient to cover all these additional benefits,

these additional Category 3 benefits will have a first priority claim for the plan participants’ share of any recoveries from the plan’s sponsor.

Category 4 includes all PBGC-guaranteed benefits that are not included in Category

3. Category 5 includes nonguaranteed vested benefits, while Category 6 contains

nonvested and contingent benefits. PBGC pays benefits in Categories 5 and then 6 only

when the plan has sufficient assets to pay for these benefits or the participants’ share of

PBGC recoveries is sufficient to pay benefits beyond Category 3. Participants in PBGCtrusteed plans often receive very little or none of their Category 5 and 6 benefits due to

the poor financial conditions of both their plan and their plan’s sponsor.
4 PBGC’S GUARANTEE LIMITS PENSION INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1999

Three statutory limitations constrain the level of PBGC’s guaranteed benefits. These

three limitations are the “Maximum Insurance” limitation, the “Accrued-at-Normal”

limitation, and the “Phase-In” limitation.5 The first limitation places a dollar limit on the

size of the monthly benefit PBGC will guarantee a participant. The second ensures that

the monthly benefit PBGC pays a participant will be no greater than the monthly

straight life annuity benefit the participant would have received had he or she commenced the annuity at the plan’s normal retirement age. The third limits the amount of

recent benefit enhancements PBGC will pay to participants.

The Issues

Until now, PBGC has not used trusteed plan data to estimate the effects of these

three limitation provisions. It generally assumed that these limitations reduced the

benefits of 10 to 15 percent of the participants in its trusteed plans. To better measure

the impact of these three limitations on PBGC’s trusteed participants, we selected a

nonrandom sample of trusteed plans to determine:

• what percentage of plans had participants who lost some of their plan benefits

because of these limitations;

• what percentage of participants in these plans had their benefits reduced by each of

the three limitations;

• what percentage of vested plan benefits did affected participants actually receive; and

• what was the total amount, in present value terms, of the benefits PBGC did not pay

its participants because of these limitations.

These limitations can affect different types of participants—active workers, retirees,

and separated vested workers (workers who earned a nonforfeitable right to a pension

benefit but left the plan sponsor’s employ without commencing a pension benefit)—in

different ways. For this reason, we also looked at how the limitations affected each type

of participant.

Methodology

To determine the answers to the four questions listed above, we calculated, in present

value terms, the reduction in benefit payments caused by each limitation. PBGC’s

internal valuation records describe which guarantee limitations apply to each participant’s

5

 In application, the accrued-at-normal limitation is applied first, then the maximum insurance limitation, and

finally the phase-in limitation. Our ordering follows the size of the limitations’ impact, from greatest to smallest.
PENSION INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1999 PBGC’S GUARANTEE LIMITS 5

benefit. We calculated the estimated present value of the vested plan benefits the participant would have received over his or her lifetime without any reductions and then

estimated the present value of the benefits after we applied each individual limitation.6

From the difference in these calculations, we determined the number and percentage of

participants who lost benefits due to each limitation, the average percentage of benefits

lost, and the number and percentage of plans that had at least one participant whose

benefits were reduced.

We selected a nonrandom sample of ten large companies whose pension plans terminated after the passage of the Pension Protection Act of 1987 (PPA).7

 We chose the

sponsors in the study based on whether PBGC’s actuarial valuation was complete and on

the total amount of their plans’ unfunded liabilities. Some large companies whose plans

had high levels of underfunding were not included in our sample because PBGC had not

completed the actuarial valuation for their plans when we selected our sample. Our

sample included 22 pension plans with 90,448 participants—26,607 retirees, 34,806

separated vested workers, and 29,035 active vested workers. These 22 plans were responsible for 45 percent of the claims against PBGC from 1988 through 1996 and contained

29 percent of the participants in PBGC-trusteed plans that terminated over this period.

The results of our study support our long-held belief that these three limitations

affect relatively few participants in the plans PBGC trustees. However, our sample is

nonrandom. It is limited to plans of large companies. The benefits of participants in the

small plans PBGC trustees are less likely to be affected by the benefit limitations we are

studying. Also, the distribution of plans by industry in our sample is not typical of the

distribution of plans PBGC either currently insures or has trusteed since PPA was enacted. While our results apply only to this sample of plans and not to either the universe

of plans PBGC has already trusteed or the universe of ongoing plans it may trustee in the

future, they still allow us to draw preliminary conclusions about the impacts of these

limitations.8

The current sample overrepresents airline plans and underrepresents plans in the

manufacturing sector. As a result (and as discussed below), we believe the current

sample:

6

 The benefits calculated and reported include both PBGC-guaranteed benefits and any nonguaranteed benefits

that were funded by plan assets or recoveries.

7 We limited our study to post-PPA terminations because of the fundamental changes in the termination rules

PPA made. Among other things, PPA modified the conditions under which a plan could be terminated, the extent of

an employer’s responsibility for unfunded plan liabilities, and the allocation of any post-termination recoveries.

8 This is an ongoing study. In phase two we will expand the sample to include PBGC-trusteed plans of additional

large companies in economic sectors underrepresented in our current sample. While the expanded sample will

continue to be nonrandom, it will be more representative of the large post-PPA plans we have trusteed and should

provide a more accurate measure of the impact of these limitations.
6 PBGC’S GUARANTEE LIMITS PENSION INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1999

• establishes an upper bound of the impact of the maximum insurance limitation, and

• establishes a lower bound on the impact of the accrued-at-normal and phase-in

limitations.

Because of the emphasis on airline plans in our sample, we believe a greater proportion of participants in our sample were affected by the maximum insurance limitation

than would occur in a randomly drawn sample.9

 About five in six of the participants in

our sample worked in the air transportation industry. Participants in this industry

account for 25 percent of the participants in the plans PBGC has trusteed since PPA was

enacted in 1987 but only 2 percent of those in the ongoing plans it insures. Some airline

plans, such as those for pilots, provide large benefits. As a result, the maximum insurance limitation is likely to affect the benefits of participants in these plans.

On the other hand, some plans in the manufacturing sector, especially those in the

steel and automobile industries, often provide large supplemental benefits to participants

who retire before becoming eligible for Social Security benefits. Therefore, we believe a

random sample of plans would find a greater proportion of participant benefits subject to

the accrued-at-normal limitation than we found in this study. Participants from plans in

the manufacturing sector account for about half the participants in both the plans PBGC

insures and those it trusteed post-PPA but only about 15 percent of the participants in

our sample. Participants from plans sponsored by companies in all other non-air transportation industries are also underrepresented in our sample.

Similarly, we suspect a random sample of plans in our post-PPA trusteed universe

would show more plans and more participants affected by the phase-in limitation than

this study suggests. PBGC-trusteed plans whose benefits were subject to collective

bargaining agreements are underrepresented in our sample. Benefits in collectively

bargained plans usually are determined by multiplying years of service by a fixed dollar

amount. This fixed dollar amount increases by amounts specified in the collective

bargaining agreement.10 Often, a portion of the cumulative increase is made effective

each year over the life of the agreement. Thus, we suspect that many more PBGCtrusteed collectively bargained plans had recent benefit enhancements than did the plans

in our sample.

9 The average present value of future benefits for participants in our sample is about two-thirds larger than the

average for the participants in all post-PPA trusteed plans.

10 In defined benefit plans that pay a benefit based on some measure of compensation times years of service,

normal salary increases serve a function similar to the annual increase in the fixed dollar amount in collectively

bargained plans, but salary increases are not subject to the phase-in limitation.
PENSION INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1999 PBGC’S GUARANTEE LIMITS 7

II. Impact of the Maximum Insurance Limitation

The maximum insurance limitation restricts the level of benefits PBGC will pay to

participants when plan assets and recoveries from plan sponsors are insufficient to cover

promised benefits in full. The participants affected by the maximum insurance limitation tend to be those with high salaries, long tenure, or both, those whose plans provide

relatively high benefits for a given tenure period and salary history, and those whose plans

provided unreduced retirement benefits at a relatively young age.11

The maximum benefit that PBGC will guarantee depends on the calendar year in

which the underfunded plan terminates. The maximum benefit guarantee increases

yearly.12 For a plan terminating in 2000, the maximum benefit guarantee is $3,221.59

per month, or $38,659 per year, for a participant who commences benefits at age 65.

This $3,221.59 per month is the maximum benefit payable by PBGC whether the

participant was aged 65 in 2000 when the plan terminated or first begins drawing

benefits at age 65 in 2010. The guarantee is reduced for those who start receiving their

pension benefits before attaining age 65.

Table 1 shows the impact of the maximum insurance limitation. This limitation

reduced the benefits of 4,096 participants in eight of the ten companies and 15 of the 20

plans sponsored by these eight companies. This is the greatest number of participants in

our study affected by any of the three limitations. These 4,096 participants represent

9 percent of the 45,288 participants in these 15 plans, but only 4.5 percent of the 90,448

participants in all 22 plans in our sample. This limitation also reduced the present value

of benefits for all affected participants by a total of $130.9 million, far more than the

$5.3 million benefit reduction caused by the other two limitations combined. Thus, the

maximum insurance limitation accounted for more than 95 percent of the total reduction in expected plan benefits caused by the three benefit limitations.

Six in seven of these affected participants were in one of two plans for airline pilots

that PBGC has taken over. More than half the remaining affected participants were in

another air transportation plan that covered flight engineers. The maximum insurance

limitation reduced the benefits of almost 60 percent of the participants in these three

plans. This large number of affected participants is not too surprising given the relatively

high salaries of pilots and flight engineers, the high average benefits they receive, and

their ability to take normal retirement benefits at age 60 or earlier (recall that the maximum insurance guarantee is reduced if benefits are first received before age 65). Once we

11 An example of this latter type of plan would be a “30 and out” plan that allowed a participant to retire at any

age with unreduced benefits once he had completed 30 years of service with the plan’s sponsor.

12 The maximum guaranteed amount is adjusted annually based on changes in the Social Security contribution

and benefit base.
8 PBGC’S GUARANTEE LIMITS PENSION INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1999

subtracted these three air transportation plans and their participants from the totals,

we found that this limitation reduced the benefits of less than 1 percent of the 38,844

participants in the remaining 12 plans.

By participant category, the maximum insurance limitation reduced benefits for

about 14 percent of retirees, 3 percent of separated vested participants, and 11 percent of

active vested participants in these 15 plans. While affected participants in each participant category lost about 17 percent of the present value of their plan benefits ($32,000

per affected participant, on average), the retirees experienced a much greater average loss

than did either the separated or active participants (about $40,000 versus $21,000 and

$26,000 respectively). Affected retirees had larger benefit cutbacks because they had

higher accrued benefits than those in the other two participant groups. Thus, more of

them had earned benefits that were above the maximum benefit guarantee threshold.

The percentage of benefits lost was much greater for some affected participants than

for others. A few participants who were entitled to very large benefits from their poorly

funded pension plans lost more than half of the present value of their expected plan

benefits. However, relatively few affected participants suffered a sizeable reduction in

their expected pension benefits because of this limitation. Only one in eight lost as

much as 25 percent of their expected benefit, and more than half received at least

85 percent of their vested plan benefits.

Participant

Category

Number of

Participants

Affected by

the

Maximum

Insurance

Limitation

Present

Value of

Benefits

Before

Applying the

Maximum

Insurance

Limitation

(Dollars in

millions)

Present

Value of

Benefits

After

Applying the

Maximum

Insurance

Limitation

(Dollars in

millions)

Percent of

Pre-limitation Benefit

Received

Present

Value of

Total

Benefits

Lost Due

to the

Maximum

Insurance

Limitation

(Dollars in

millions)

Average

Loss of

Present

Value per

Affected

Participant

Retired 1,911 $462.8 $385.7 83% $77.1 $40,300

Separated

Vested 529 $65.9 $54.6 83% $11.3 $21,400

Active

Vested 1,656 $261.9 $219.4 84% $42.5 $25,700

Total 4,096 $790.6 $659.7 83% $130.9 $32,000

Source: PBGC

Table 1: Impact of the Maximum Insurance Limitation

on Benefits
PENSION INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1999 PBGC’S GUARANTEE LIMITS 9

III. Impact of the Accrued-at-Normal Limitation

The “accrued-at-normal” limitation constrains the benefits PBGC will pay to a

monthly amount that is no larger than the monthly benefit provided by a straight life

annuity available at the plan’s normal retirement age. The portion of any combined early

retirement benefit and supplemental benefit the participant receives that exceeds the

normal retirement age straight life annuity benefit is eliminated by this limitation. For

example, if, under the terms of the plan, a participant is entitled to a single life annuity

benefit at age 65 of $1,000 per month but is entitled to an early retirement benefit of

$750 per month and a supplemental benefit of $400 per month between ages 60 and 65,

the accrued-at-normal limitation will cut the supplemental benefit by $150. In this case,

the participant would receive $1,000 per month from age 60 to 65, instead of $1,150,

and would receive $750 per month at age 65, the same amount he would have received

at age 65 if the plan had not terminated.

Table 2 shows the impact of the accrued-at-normal limitation. This limitation

reduced the benefits of 488 participants, the second highest number of the three benefit

limitations. The limitation also reduced the total present value of benefits these affected

participants received by $4.3 million, or 17 percent of their pre-reduction benefit. This

limitation affected participants in only 4 of the 10 companies in our sample. However,

9 of the 12 plans sponsored by these 4 companies contained affected participants. About

7 percent of the 7,016 participants in these 9 plans received reduced benefits because of

the accrued-at-normal limitation. More than 6 in 7 of these affected participants were in

just 2 plans. When we subtract these two plans and their participants from the totals for

the nine plans, just over 1 percent of the participants in the remaining 7 plans received

lower benefits because of this limitation. Thus, the impact of this limitation on the

benefits of affected participants is not nearly as widespread or severe, on average, as that

of the maximum insurance limitation.

The accrued-at-normal limitation provision reduced the benefits of a larger proportion of active participants (12 percent) in the 9 affected plans than of retired participants

(7 percent) or separated vested participants (less than 0.5 percent). The accrued-atnormal limitation reduced the benefits of affected retirees by an average of $19,000

(20 percent of the average unreduced benefit) versus an average of $1,000 (less than

6 percent) per affected active worker. These differences in the average reduction are

largely accounted for by the differences in the provisions of just 2 plans. Most retirees

were in a plan that provided very generous early retirement supplemental benefits, which

explains why affected retirees experienced such a large benefit loss. Most active workers

were in another plan with a supplemental benefit design that resulted in only small

benefit reductions after the accrued-at-normal limitation was applied.
10 PBGC’S GUARANTEE LIMITS PENSION INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1999

Other statistics support the finding that the accrued-at-normal limitation had a

greater negative impact on the benefits of early retirees in our sample than it did on

active participants. About one-third of the affected retirees received between 60 percent

and 75 percent of their vested plan benefits, one-third received 75-85 percent, and onethird received more than 85 percent but less than 100 percent of what they would have

received in the absence of this limitation. However, most affected active participants

(almost 70 percent) received between 80 percent and 85 percent of their pre-limitation

benefit, and most of the remainder received more than 85 percent.

13 Participants who are also substantial owners (an individual who owns the entire interest in an unincorporated

trade or business, more than a 10 percent interest in a partnership, or more than 10 percent of the stock in a corporation) are subject to a different “phase-in” provision that we do not discuss in this chapter because it is rarely applicable

in large plans.

Participant

Category

Number of

Participants

Affected

by the

Accrued-atNormal

Limitation

Present

Value of

Benefits

Before

Applying the

Accrued-atNormal

Limitation

(Dollars in

millions)

Present

Value of

Benefits

After

Applying the

Accrued-atNormal

Limitation

(Dollars in

millions)

Percent of

Pre-limitation Benefit

Received

Present

Value of

Total

Benefits

Lost Due

to the

Accrued-atNormal

Limitation

(Dollars in

millions)

Average

Loss of

Present

Value per

Affected

Participant

Retired 207 $19.9 $15.9 80% $4.0 $19,100

Separated

Vested 4 $0.5 $0.5 94% ** ***

Active

Vested 277 $5.2 $4.9 94% $0.3 $1,100

Total 488 $25.6 $21.3 83% $4.3 $8,800

Source: PBGC

** Less than $0.05 million

*** No calculation made

Table 2: Impact of the Accrued-at-Normal Limitation

on Benefits

IV. Impact of the Phase-In Limitation

The phase-in limitation restricts the proportion of recent plan benefit improvements

PBGC will pay to participants.13 PBGC will fully cover any benefit improvements the

plan made more than 5 years prior to the date of the plan’s termination. PBGC will not

cover any benefit increase the plan made within a year of the date of plan termination.
PENSION INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1999 PBGC’S GUARANTEE LIMITS 11

For benefit improvements that became effective (or that the sponsor adopted, if later)

more than one year but less than 5 years prior to the plan’s termination, PBGC will

guarantee the larger of 20 percent of the benefit increase or $20 per month for each full

year the increase was in effect.

Of the three limitations, the phase-in limitation affected the fewest number of

participants in the trusteed plans in our study. (See Table 3.) It reduced the benefits of

participants in only 4 companies and in just half of the 8 plans these companies sponsored. The 419 affected participants represent just over one percent of all participants in

these 4 plans. However, in 1 of these 4 plans, the limitation reduced the benefits of

about 12 percent of the participants. The phase-in limitation reduced total benefits by

only about $1 million, just 2 percent of the vested plan benefits of the affected participants. More than 98 percent of the active and retired participants affected by this

limitation received at least 95 percent of their unreduced benefits, reinforcing the minimal impact of this limitation.

The impact of this limitation is relatively small for several reasons. The most important reason is that most sponsors do not regularly improve plan benefits. In addition,

few plans receiving ad hoc benefit improvements terminate within five years of the

increase, so these increases are usually fully guaranteed by PBGC (subject, of course, to

the maximum insurance and accrued-at-normal limitations). Participants likely to have

benefits reduced by the phase-in limitation include those in collectively bargained plans

that provide regular (yearly) benefit enhancements and those whose employers modified

their plans to provide special early retirement incentives shortly before the plan terminated. Even here, the impact of the phase-in limitation may be minimal because PBGC

guarantees the greater of 20 percent of the benefit increase or $20 for each year the

increase has been in effect. If the monthly benefit increases are relatively small, they can

be fully guaranteed a year or two after the increase becomes effective. For example, a

benefit increase of $30 per month ($360 per year) will be 66 percent guaranteed by

PBGC one year after the increase was made and fully guaranteed after two years.

A second example illustrates what might happen to the benefits of a participant in a

collectively bargained plan that provided a monthly benefit increase of $1 per year of

service for each year over a five-year contract period with the first increase implemented

at the contract’s effective date. A worker with 20 years of service at the beginning of the

five-year period would receive benefits increases of $21 per month if he retired at the end

of the first year (the $1 per month per year of service increase times 21 years of service),

$44 per month if he retired at the end of the second year (both the first and second $1

monthly increases per year of service times 22 years of service), $69 if he retired after the

third year, $96 after the fourth, or $125 if he retired after the fifth year and the plan

remained in existence. Assume the plan terminated under PBGC-trusteeship shortly

after the fifth increase became effective (just over four years into the contract period).

Each of the first three $1 benefit increases would be fully guaranteed at termination
12 PBGC’S GUARANTEE LIMITS PENSION INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1999

because each increase would be worth $24 at that point ($1 per year of service times

24 years of service) and each would have been in effect for at least 2 years. Recall that

PBGC guarantees a minimum of $20 of a benefit increase once it has been in effect for

one year and $40 per month after 2 years. Only $20 of the fourth $24 increase would be

guaranteed under the phase-in limitation because the increase had been in effect more

than one year but less than two. The fifth increase would not be payable because it had

been in effect less than one year and thus was not guaranteed. The phase-in limitation

reduced the benefits of this participant from the $120 he would have received had he

retired from an ongoing plan on the plan’s termination date ($5 per month increase per

year of service times 24 years of service) to $92 ($3 per month increase per year of service

times 24 years of service plus $20 plus $0).

Average

Loss of

Present

Value per

Affected

Participant

Retired 253 $31.2 $30.4 97% $0.8 $3,200

Separated

Vested 20 $0.1 $0.1 77% ** ***

Active

Vested 146 $22.0 $21.8 99% $0.2 $1,400

Total 419 $53.3 $52.3 98% $1.0 $2,500

Source: PBGC

** Less than $0.05 million

*** No calculation made

Table 3: Impact of the Phase-In Limitation on Benefits

Participant

Category

Number of

Participants

Affected by

the PhaseIn Limitation

Present

Value of

Benefits

Before

Applying the

Phase-In

Limitation

(Dollars in

millions)

Present

Value of

Benefits

After

Applying the

Phase-In

Limitation

(Dollars in

millions)

Percent of

Pre-limitation Benefit

Received

Present

Value of

Total Benefits Lost

Due to the

Phase-In

Limitation

(Dollars in

millions)

V. Observations

This study looked at the impact of three PBGC benefit limitations. We found that

these limitations reduced the benefits of at least some participants in 8 of the 10 of the

companies in our sample and 17 of the 22 plans they sponsored. Affected participants

tended to be concentrated either in plans whose participants had specific characteristics,

such as high benefits, or in plans with certain features, such as large supplemental benefits.
PENSION INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1999 PBGC’S GUARANTEE LIMITS 13

About 5.5 percent of all participants in our sample experienced, or will experience,

reduced PBGC-paid benefits because of these limitations. Even in the 17 affected plans,

only 10.5 percent of the participants received, or will receive, reduced benefits. Thus,

these three limitations did not change the benefits for the vast majority of participants in

our sample.

The impacts of these limitations, while modest from a population perspective, were

substantial for some participants. The present value of the average benefit loss from these

three limitations combined was $1,500 if measured across the 90,488 participants in all

22 plans in our study, $2,900 if measured across the 47,128 participants in the 17

affected plans, but $27,400 if measured across only the 4,965 participants who lost some

of their benefits. This latter loss is substantial, but it is only about 16 percent of the

average present value of vested plan benefits ($175,100) for these affected participants.

On an individual basis, the benefit reductions could be quite severe. More than 100 of

the almost 5,000 participants who lost benefits because of these limitations lost more

than 50 percent of their vested plan benefits.

In our sample, the maximum insurance limitation had, by far, the largest impact of

the three limitations. This limitation reduced the benefits of more than 80 percent of

participants affected by any of the three limitations and was responsible for more than

95 percent of the aggregate benefit reductions they experienced. Pilots and flight engineers, who have higher than average pension benefits, represented the majority of participants who lost benefits because of this limitation. We believe our sample contains a

higher proportion of high earners than would be found in either the plans PBGC has

trusteed or the plans it insures. Thus, we again caution the reader that these results,

while informative, should not be generalized beyond the plans in our sample. We are

confident that the maximum insurance limitation, of the three, affects the benefits of the

greatest number of participants and reduces benefits by the greatest average amount, but

we also believe the estimate that it reduces the benefits of 4.5 percent of participants in

PBGC-trusteed plans represents an upper limit and that the maximum limitation probably reduced the benefits of a somewhat smaller proportion of participants in all postPPA trusteed plans.

Compared to the maximum insurance limitation, the accrued-at-normal limitation

reduced the benefits of far fewer participants, about 10 percent as many, and by a much

smaller average amount, only about $8,800 in present value terms compared with

$32,000. However, each of these two limitations reduced the benefits of the participants

it affected by about 17 percent. Early retirement supplements are more prevalent among

plans in the manufacturing sector, which was underrepresented in our sample, than in

other sectors. This suggests that our study’s estimate that the accrued-at-normal limitation reduced the benefits of 0.5 percent of participants probably underestimates the

limitation’s impact on participants in all plans PBGC trusteed under PPA provisions.
14 PBGC’S GUARANTEE LIMITS PENSION INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1999

Our study also indicates that the phase-in limitation reduced the benefits of about

0.5 percent of all participants in our sample. The average reduction in the present value

of lifetime benefits for affected participants was only $2,500 or about 2 percent of their

total vested plan benefits. The phase-in limitation has a small impact on participant

benefits because PBGC gradually guarantees the benefit improvement over several years.

The impact of this limitation depends on both when a benefit enhancement is made

relative to the date of the plan’s termination and the size of the enhancement. The design

of the phase-in limitation is such that most small benefit improvements provided by a

plan’s sponsor are fully guaranteed in less than 5 years. PBGC’s guarantee takes the full

5 years to phase-in if the benefit enhancement is $100 per month or larger. However,

unless the plan adopted a benefit improvement less than one year before the plan terminated, PBGC will guarantee at least a part of the increase. Again, because we believe

collectively bargained plans are more likely than other types of plans to be affected by

the phase-in limitation and because these plans are underrepresented in our sample,

we believe the phase-in limitation has probably affected the benefits of more than

0.5 percent of the participants in plans PBGC trusteed under PPA provisions.

This study presents new but preliminary findings. The results of this study suggest

fewer participants are affected by these three statutory limitations (5.5 percent) than we

previously assumed (10 to 15 percent). However, because our sample is nonrandom, we

cannot generalize these findings to either the population of plans PBGC has trusteed or

the population of plans it insures and might trustee in the future. We are encouraged,

however, that the results do not contradict our long-held belief that these limitations

reduce the benefits of relatively few of the participants in the plans PBGC trustees. To

make our results more applicable to the entire population of plans PBGC has trusteed

since PPA was enacted, we are expanding our sample to include more companies and

plans from the manufacturing and other non-air transportation sectors of the economy.

However, the new plans will continue to be drawn from companies that had large unfunded liabilities and terminated after PPA’s enactment. Thus, the expanded sample will

also be nonrandom and we will need to remain cautious about making generalizations

from the analyses we perform on it.
APPENDIX S

Single-Employer Data Tables
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 17

Table S-1

 Financial Position of PBGC’s Single-Employer Program (1980-1999)

 (1980-1999).

on in liabilities that were subsequently returned by a Supreme Court ruling to a reorganized LTV Corporation.

tems, rows may not add across.

Assets Liabilities Net Position

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

$467 $561 -$95

515 704 -189835 1,168 -333

1,085 1,608 -5231,063 1,525 -4621,155 2,480 -1,3251,740 5,566 -3,8262,163 3,712 -1,5492,422 3,965 -1,5433,059 4,183 -1,1242,797 4,710 -1,9135,422 7,925 -2,503

6,381 9,118 -2,7378,267 11,164 -2,897

8,281 9,521 -1,240

10,371 10,686 -31512,043 11,174 86915,314 11,833 3,48117,631 12,619 5,01218,431 11,393 7,038

* *
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 18

Table S-2

BGC Premium Revenue, Benefit Payments and Expenses (1980-1999)

Single-Employer Program

t (1980-1999).

ing of individual items, figures may not add up to totals in other tables.

Total Administrative & Premiums Minus

Premium Benefit Investment Benefits Paid

Revenue Payments Expenses and Expenses

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

$71 $37 $20 $14

75 57 21 -380 94 24 -3882 137 27 -8281 169 30 -11882 170 33 -121

201 261 33 -93268 300 36 -68465 356 48 61603 353 45 205659 369 63 227741 514 71 156875 634 97 144890 678 107 105955 719 135 101838 761 138 -61

1,146 790 150 2061,067 823 155 89

966 847 158 -39902 901 161 -160
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 19

Table S-3

PBGC Benefit Payments, Payees and Deferred Payees (1980-1999)

Single-Employer Program

System (PRISM), fiscal year calculations, PBGC Management Reports, and PBGC Benefit Payment Reports.

cash-outs of pensions with de minimis present values and backpayments to current pensioners.

both pensions and lump sum payments, total number of payees may be less than the sum of pensioners and lump sum recipients.

 that are in probable termination status as of end of fiscal year.

have been adjusted to reflect subsequent improvements in data quality.

RIODIC PENSION PAYMENTS LUMP SUM PAYMENTS ALL PAYMENTS

Average Median

Payees Monthly Monthly Payees Average Payees Deferred

in Year Payment Payment Total in Year Payment Total in Year Payees

(in thousands) (in millions) (in thousands) (in millions) (in thousands) (in thousands)

28 $124 $91 $3 2 $1,623 $37 30 2536 129 87 7 5 1,484 57 41 3351 165 79 15 5 2,938 94 56 5555 206 96 8 3 2,511 137 58 7465 232 112 3 1 1,942 169 66 8375 226 128 4 2 1,782 170 77 9491 275 141 2 1 2,188 261 92 99

110 248 174 2 1 1,770 300 111 104110 265 178 9 2 3,515 356 112 104

107 261 180 11 5 3,051 353 112 109

110 262 184 13 6 2,437 369 116 115

140 338 189 15 6 2,558 514 146 183150 359 232 17 6 3,078 634 156 184157 379 234 13 5 2,686 678 162 188170 359 238 20 7 2,818 719 176 198182 344 232 22 6 3,335 761 187 210199 328 225 20 7 2,757 790 206 240204 316 212 23 9 2,629 823 213 260208 313 208 21 9 2,198 847 216 263214 311 208 56 16 3,553 901 229 317
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 20

Table S-4

PBGC Payees and Benefit Payments by Industry (1999)

Single-Employer Program

Mean Median

Monthly Monthly

Payees Benefit Payments Pension Pension

NG, AND CONSTRUCTION 5,614 2.5% $24,232,166 2.7% $310 $238

143,973 63.0% 514,004,350 57.1% 289 194

extile Mill Products 25,379 11.1% 47,123,684 5.2% 173 88

etal Products 15,475 6.8% 51,100,403 5.7% 267 202

acco Products 5,998 2.6% 15,087,473 1.7% 210 155

d Computer Equipment 20,952 9.2% 74,485,611 8.3% 280 217

 Equipment 5,164 2.3% 16,190,716 1.8% 256 207

s 45,422 19.9% 236,151,825 26.2% 416 356

iscellaneous Plastics 6,508 2.8% 22,674,434 2.5% 276 226

cturing 19,075 8.3% 51,190,203 3.7% 216 145

ND PUBLIC UTILITIES 55,665 24.4% 309,801,909 34.4% 455 334

tion 43,040 18.8% 276,162,731 30.7% 522 394

ortation 12,541 5.5% 33,492,322 3.7% 216 165

84 * 146,856 * 202 141

6,232 2.7% 15,969,727 1.8% 211 131

8,669 3.8% 13,959,129 1.5% 138 70

E, AND REAL ESTATE 1,438 0.6% 4,259,257 0.5% 261 152

6,663 2.9% 18,280,374 2.0% 233 143

IZATIONS 272 0.1% 404,611 * 102 52

228,526 100.0% $900,911,522 100.0% $311 $208

ystem (PRISM), fiscal year calculations, and PBGC Management Reports.

ing of individual items, totals may not add up to totals in other tables and percentages may not add up to 100 percent.
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 21

Table S-5

PBGC Payees and Benefit Payments by Gender and Age (1999)

Single-Employer Program

System (PRISM), fiscal year calculations, and PBGC Management Reports.

tems, totals may not add up exactly to totals in other tables and percentages may not add up to 100 percent.

methodology used to prepare this table, differences with previous versions of this table may be noted.

TOTAL PERIODIC PENSION PAYEES MALE FEMALE

Average Average Average

Monthly Monthly Monthly

Payees Pension Payees Pension Payees Pension

19,194 100.0% $296 11,660 60.7% $348 7,534 39.3% $220

27,676 100.0% 346 19,808 71.6% 402 7,868 28.4% 21839,337 100.0% 351 27,397 69.6% 422 11,940 30.4% 19942,506 100.0% 332 27,621 65.0% 414 14,885 35.0% 18740,266 100.0% 309 24,059 59.7% 403 16,207 40.3% 17126,826 100.0% 268 14,749 55.0% 363 12,077 45.0% 147

18,356 100.0% 209 9,321 50.8% 283 9,035 49.2% 125

214,161 100.0% $311 134,615 62.9% $391 79,546 37.1% $178
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 22

Table S-6

PBGC Payees and Benefit Payments by Size of Payment (1999)

Single-Employer Program

ystem (PRISM), fiscal year calculations, and PBGC Management Reports.

ing of individual items, totals may not add up exactly to totals in other tables and percentages may not add up to 100 percent.

nt Periodic Pension Payees Periodic Pension Payments

21,884 10.2% $8,680,330 1.0%36,736 17.2% 34,661,881 4.1%

25,170 11.8% 38,930,989 4.6%20,154 9.4% 43,894,068 5.2%16,865 7.9% 47,157,940 5.6%12,615 5.9% 43,290,406 5.1%

11,455 5.3% 46,546,934 5.5%

9,617 4.5% 45,393,222 5.4%9,579 4.5% 51,302,755 6.1%7,961 3.7% 47,895,718 5.7%7,031 3.3% 46,911,080 5.6%5,955 2.8% 43,698,039 5.2%

12,359 5.8% 105,840,804 12.5%

9,340 4.4% 102,485,386 12.1%

5,228 2.4% 79,382,426 9.4%2,212 1.0% 58,410,070 6.9%

214,161 100.0% $844,482,050 100.0%
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 23

Table S-7

GC Payees and Benefit Payments by Date of Plan Termination (1999)

Single-Employer Program

ystem (PRISM), fiscal year calculations, and PBGC Management Reports.

tems, totals may not add up exactly to totals in other tables and percentages may not add up to 100 percent.

Payees Receiving Payment Benefit Payments

n (1999) (1999)

14,128 6.2% $23,370,844 2.6%

4,781 2.1% 11,351,455 1.3%7,616 3.3% 13,606,863 1.5%

15,475 6.8% 47,394,219 5.3%10,689 4.7% 41,122,018 4.6%

2,008 0.9% 4,807,631 0.5%7,887 3.5% 23,764,762 2.6%

20,268 8.9% 103,160,033 11.5%

9,084 4.0% 36,116,542 4.0%9,888 4.3% 35,102,559 3.9%8,060 3.5% 19,438,918 2.2%6,385 2.8% 19,640,970 2.2%

46,712 20.4% 274,246,299 30.4%15,446 6.8% 68,389,256 7.6%

5,662 2.5% 17,971,652 2.0%

12,864 5.6% 60,268,792 6.7%

7,351 3.2% 29,676,301 3.3%9,281 4.1% 26,403,225 2.9%

11,536 5.0% 37,216,504 4.1%

2,818 1.2% 7,136,437 0.8%

587 0.3% 726,241 0.1%

228,526 100.0% $900,911,522 100.0%
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 24

Table S-8

PBGC Payees and Benefit Payments by Size of Trusteed Plan (1999)

Single-Employer Program

ystem (PRISM), fiscal year calculations, and PBGC Management Reports.

ing of individual items, totals may not equal those in other tables and percentages may not add up to 100 percent.

Average Median

Payments Monthly Pension Monthly

Payees (in millions) Payment Pension

18,968 8.3% $48.2 5.3% $206 $130

46,452 20.3% 123.4 13.7% 210 139

32,053 14.0% 101.1 11.2% 250 143

er 131,053 57.3% 628.2 69.7% 375 285

228,526 100.0% $900.9 100.0% $311 $208
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 25

Table S-9

kruptcies and Underfunding Among Publicly Traded Firms (1980-1998)

s Compustat Data and New Generations Database and Yearbook, various issues.

GC claims experience.

Total Bankrupt Firms With Bankrupt Firms With

nkruptcies Fully Funded Defined Benefit Plans Only Any Underfunded Defined Benefit Plans

86 25 29.1% 1 1.2%76 30 39.5% 2 2.6%93 23 24.7% 3 3.2%86 22 25.6% 6 7.0%

113 23 20.4% 1 0.9%

128 35 27.3% 1 0.8%128 30 23.4% 7 5.5%

95 20 21.1% 3 3.2%

122 26 21.3% 5 4.1%150 29 19.3% 8 5.3%149 45 30.2% 9 6.0%145 41 28.3% 5 3.4%

99 24 24.2% 3 3.0%

114 27 23.7% 6 5.3%

60 15 25.0% 0 0.0%94 20 21.3% 5 5.3%69 12 17.4% 4 5.8%

105 23 21.9% 1 1.0%104 25 24.0% 2 1.9%

2,016 495 24.6% 72 3.6%
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 26

Table S-10

PBGC Terminations and Claims (1975-1999)

Single-Employer Program

dard Trusteed Gross Net

nations Terminations Assets Liabilities Claims Recoveries Claims

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

70 100 $18.9 $56.0 $37.2 $5.1 $32.132 171 41.6 87.9 46.3 28.5 17.802 130 17.2 51.8 34.6 9.2 25.458 103 43.3 124.4 81.1 8.9 72.2

0 82 31.3 77.3 46.1 7.2 38.8

33 104 74.3 166.5 92.3 32.2 60.149 137 67.1 174.3 107.2 39.3 67.903 131 145.6 456.2 310.7 44.3 266.430 149 210.8 412.1 201.3 40.5 160.821 99 19.5 48.3 28.8 3.5 25.335 115 39.9 260.9 221.0 14.5 206.529 132 277.5 1,164.0 886.5 81.1 805.4

65 105 140.0 350.7 210.6 32.8 177.890 99 109.3 379.4 270.1 21.5 248.6

00 85 85.5 195.7 110.1 12.4 97.700 101 109.3 219.6 110.3 7.7 102.7

00 172 1,481.6 3,028.4 1,546.8 233.4 1,313.5

70 152 250.4 829.8 579.4 77.9 501.520 122 123.5 261.0 137.4 15.9 121.550 131 303.8 794.5 490.7 32.8 458.070 117 235.3 394.9 159.6 6.8 152.809 83 252.2 403.9 151.8 26.3 125.597 67 436.7 663.5 226.8 8.7 218.175 51 166.9 262.2 95.3 2.6 92.669 37 254.6 351.1 96.5 3.8 92.7

87 2,775 $4,936.0 $11,214.4 $6,278.4 $796.7 $5,481.7

losing File (9/30/99) and PBGC Case Administration System.

tems, values may not add up across columns.

able are calculated on a plan basis and identified with fiscal year of plan termination for each plan.

alues are for 7/1/74 to 6/30/75. 1976 values are for 7/1/75 to 9/30/76. For 1977 on, values are for 10/1 of the prior calendar year to 9/30 of the current

ed terminations shown in this table may differ from those reported elsewhere, as they reflect the fiscal year of plan termination,

 which the loss is recorded.

as PBGC completes reviewing, establishes termination dates, and determines recoveries.
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 27

Table S-11

PBGC Claims (1975-1999)

Single-Employer Program

Closing File (9/30/99) and PBGC Case Administration System.

 may not add up to 100 percent.

 calculated on a plan basis.

 are summations of all claims in that fiscal year associated with the Top 10 firms.

as PBGC completes reviewing, establishes termination dates, and determines recoveries.

 Top 10 firms with the largest value of claims.

Claims of Top 10 Firms and Other Claims and

Total Claims Percent of Total Annual Claims Percent of Total Annual Claims

$37,180,226 — — $37,180,226 100.0%

46,275,083 — — 46,275,083 100.0%34,590,631 — — 34,590,631 100.0%81,063,015 — — 81,063,015 100.0%46,057,726 — — 46,057,726 100.0%92,288,503 — — 92,288,503 100.0%

107,153,344 — — 107,153,344 100.0%310,664,367 — — 310,664,367 100.0%201,321,684 — — 201,321,684 100.0%

28,770,078 — — 28,770,078 100.0%

220,981,335 $180,568,290 81.7% 40,413,044 18.3%886,502,270 722,321,849 81.5% 164,180,422 18.5%210,635,701 35,566,557 16.9% 175,069,144 83.1%270,060,020 186,046,772 68.9% 84,013,249 31.1%

110,135,846 — — 110,135,846 100.0%110,336,897 — — 110,336,897 100.0%

1,546,828,673 1,371,920,378 88.7% 174,908,295 11.3%

579,397,343 439,262,437 75.8% 140,134,906 24.2%137,448,213 — — 137,448,213 100.0%490,716,046 326,302,449 66.5% 164,413,597 33.5%159,613,039 — — 159,613,039 100.0%151,774,155 — — 151,774,155 100.0%226,832,605 — — 226,832,605 100.0%

95,259,234 — — 95,259,234 100.0%96,504,428 — — 96,504,428 100.0%

$6,278,390,463 $3,261,988,732 52.0% $3,016,401,731 48.0%
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 28

Table S-12

Top 10 Firms Presenting Claims (1975-1999)

Single-Employer Program

Average

Number Fiscal Years Claim Per Percent

of of Plan Vested Vested of Total

Plans Terminations Claims Participants Participant Claims

(by firm) (1975-1999)

3 1991, 1992 $841,082,434 37,472 $22,446 13.4%7 1991 552,730,569 51,182 10,799 8.8%7 1986 495,235,029 22,144 22,364 7.9%5 1994 290,787,636 6,886 42,229 4.6%

1 1986 221,920,051 8,208 27,037 3.5%

4 1987, 1988 221,613,329 8,403 26,373 3.5%

11 1985, 1986 185,735,060 9,055 20,512 3.0%

1 1992 184,023,622 4,239 43,412 2.9%

1 1992 149,930,778 5,212 28,766 2.4%

6 1992, 1994 118,930,225 5,659 21,016 1.9%

46 3,261,988,732 158,460 20,586 52.0%

2,729 3,016,401,731 493,202 6,116 48.0%

2,775 $6,278,390,463 651,662 $9,634 100.0%

losing File (9/30/99), PBGC Case Administration System, and PBGC Participant System (PRISM).

may not add up to 100 percent.

culated on a firm basis and includes all plans of each firm.

nation of plan sponsored by the reorganized Allis-Chalmers Corporation.
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 29

Table S-13

PBGC Claims by Plan Funding Ratio at Termination (1975-1999)

Single-Employer Program

losing File (9/30/99) and PBGC Case Administration System.

ated claims over the period 1975-1999.

ubject to change as PBGC completes reviewing, establishes termination dates, and determines recoveries.

as the ratio of trust plan assets to plan benefit liabilities before recoveries from employers.

ems, percentages may not add up to 100 percent.

Ratio Claims

% $3,104,330,279 49.4%

% 1,564,953,356 24.9%% 1,471,974,505 23.4%

Over 137,132,323 2.2%

$6,278,390,463 100.0%
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 30

Table S-14

Average Claim per Vested Participant by Plan Size (1975-1999)

Single-Employer Program

Average Average

Vested Claim Per Claim Per

Participants Plans Claims Participant Claims Participant

(1999 Dollars) (1999 Dollars)

63,909 1,826 $372,782,202 5.9% $5,833 $508,145,236 5.9% $7,951

245,658 845 1,509,393,469 24.0% 6,144 2,173,809,076 25.0% 8,849

188,359 91 1,827,353,859 29.1% 9,701 2,611,796,143 30.1% 13,866

70,046 9 1,079,218,498 17.2% 15,407 1,495,007,660 17.2% 21,343

83,690 4 1,489,642,435 23.7% 17,800 1,894,699,854 21.8% 22,640

651,662 2,775 $6,278,390,463 100.0% $9,634 $8,683,457,969 100.0% $13,325

losing File (9/30/99), PBGC Case Administration System, and Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 are subject to change as PBGC completes reviewing, establishes termination dates, and determines recoveries.

aggregated and average counts of plans, claims, and participants over the period 1975-1999.

tems, percentages may not add up to 100 percent.

culated using Consumer Price Index - Urban Consumers.
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 31

Table S-15

PBGC Claims by Industry (1975-1999)

Single-Employer Program

losing File (9/30/99) and PBGC Case Administration System.

ubject to change as PBGC completes reviewing, establishes termination dates, and determines recoveries.

tems, percentages may not add up to 100 percent.

Vested

ustry Total Claims Plans Participants

G, AND CONSTRUCTION $122,267,764 1.9% 152 15,330

3,986,824,000 63.5% 1,633 381,808

Allied Products 69,409,216 1.1% 29 6,848

al Products 447,924,033 7.1% 322 42,910

cco Products 110,410,416 1.8% 130 18,825

 Computer Equipment 566,574,490 9.0% 200 51,541

Equipment 205,542,015 3.3% 84 25,347

d Products 37,244,687 0.6% 66 6,099

1,902,087,507 30.3% 219 108,766

scellaneous Plastics 225,071,209 3.6% 66 17,138

turing 422,560,427 6.7% 517 104,334

ND PUBLIC UTILITIES 1,704,087,432 27.1% 191 136,257

on 1,506,937,409 24.0% 25 99,218

tation and Utilities 197,150,023 3.1% 166 37,039

61,743,481 1.0% 194 20,157

153,152,118 2.4% 254 43,903

E, AND REAL ESTATE 23,080,596 0.4% 89 8,230

227,235,073 3.6% 262 45,977

$6,278,390,463 100.0% 2,775 651,662
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 32

Table S-16

PBGC-Covered Plan Participants (1980-1999)

Single-Employer Program

gs, various years.

m PBGC internal calculations.

ear have been updated to reflect actual premium filings.

l In Plans with In Plans with In Plans with In Plans with In Plans with In Plans with In Plans with

ed 10,000+ 5,000-9,999 1,000-4,999 250-999 100-249 25-99 <25

ants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants

nds) (in thousands) (in thousands) (in thousands) (in thousands) (in thousands) (in thousands) (in thousands)

8 12,044 2,833 5,776 3,852 1,436 1,064 5136 12,304 2,894 5,900 3,901 1,455 1,094 5282 12,190 2,867 6,077 3,979 1,484 1,069 5161 12,770 2,908 6,030 3,839 1,536 1,090 5287 12,707 3,010 6,503 4,146 1,588 1,131 5529 12,724 3,164 6,579 4,032 1,585 1,164 5613 12,800 3,236 6,596 4,104 1,593 1,155 5590 13,522 3,168 6,728 4,434 1,644 1,166 5381 13,820 3,141 6,844 4,401 1,581 1,150 5244 14,253 3,356 6,881 3,984 1,492 1,108 5003 14,336 3,351 6,989 4,064 1,429 1,023 4411 14,759 3,433 6,945 3,968 1,415 946 3856 15,416 3,520 6,997 3,694 1,276 825 3281 15,895 3,617 7,000 3,552 1,176 758 2732 16,258 3,814 6,942 3,292 1,120 698 2484 16,934 3,771 6,908 3,136 1,062 625 1984 17,076 3,843 6,896 3,128 1,005 591 1854 18,046 3,787 6,767 3,008 919 527 1605 18,568 3,905 6,719 2,883 847 476 1474 19,591 3,869 6,355 2,662 776 422 130
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 33

Table S-17

PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1999)

Single-Employer Program

gs, various years.

m PBGC internal calculations.

year have been updated to reflect actual premium filings.

Insured Insured Insured Insured Insured Insured Insured

l Plans with Plans with Plans with Plans with Plans with Plans with Plans with

ed 10,000+ 5,000-9,999 1,000-4,999 250-999 100-249 25-99 <25

s Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants

9 349 365 2,858 7,439 8,512 19,069 56,8472 344 360 3,010 7,803 8,928 19,956 59,491

3 393 411 2,965 8,142 9,316 20,646 61,5508 377 413 2,908 8,006 9,676 21,123 64,165

1 386 428 3,178 8,470 10,005 21,891 67,133

8 354 435 3,125 8,230 10,003 22,609 67,452

4 379 447 3,158 8,186 9,859 22,442 67,473

1 411 450 3,276 9,036 10,339 22,373 65,466

9 412 446 3,314 8,799 9,965 22,028 63,315

4 427 462 3,211 8,057 9,395 21,113 59,059

9 458 477 3,400 8,085 8,976 19,464 51,0397 495 493 3,353 7,986 8,867 17,888 43,6359 505 504 3,367 7,402 7,991 15,410 36,4108 504 517 3,336 7,064 7,358 14,392 30,6070 524 553 3,361 6,682 6,941 13,100 25,8499 528 559 3,308 6,743 6,850 11,674 23,9278 531 556 3,280 6,217 6,225 10,931 21,0082 563 550 3,199 5,962 5,734 9,822 18,0722 570 565 3,139 5,693 5,255 8,788 17,4526 603 555 2,933 5,271 4,803 7,779 15,592
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 34

Table S-18

BGC-Insured Plans, Participants and Premiums by Industry (1999)

Single-Employer Program

dustry Covered Participants Premiums Insured Plans

NG, AND CONSTRUCTION 675,420 2.0% $19,890,327 2.2% 2,807 7.5%

17,252,012 51.0% 474,501,098 52.6% 12,079 32.2%

 Allied Products 1,782,585 5.3% 42,441,021 4.7% 958 2.6%

tal Products 1,013,744 3.0% 35,565,698 3.9% 2,291 6.1%

acco Products 1,289,686 3.8% 37,398,248 4.1% 972 2.6%

d Computer Equipment 1,410,500 4.2% 34,046,326 3.8% 1,173 3.1%

Equipment 1,885,872 5.6% 52,902,402 5.9% 416 1.1%

ed Products 802,267 2.4% 20,882,612 2.3% 638 1.7%

s 889,059 2.6% 32,993,719 3.7% 599 1.6%

iscellaneous Plastics 455,568 1.3% 12,022,638 1.3% 532 1.4%

cturing 7,722,731 22.8% 206,248,434 22.9% 4,500 12.0%

ND PUBLIC UTILITIES 3,737,366 11.1% 97,097,121 10.8% 1,586 4.2%

tion 605,452 1.8% 20,787,037 2.3% 96 0.3%

rtation 620,571 1.8% 14,647,548 1.6% 638 1.7%

2,511,343 7.4% 61,662,535 6.8% 852 2.3%

798,106 2.4% 18,414,108 2.0% 3,302 8.8%

2,259,956 6.7% 59,651,643 6.6% 1,949 5.2%

E, AND REAL ESTATE 4,148,354 12.3% 102,100,241 11.3% 4,292 11.4%

3,937,864 11.6% 102,253,512 11.3% 7,370 19.6%

IZATIONS 994,903 2.9% 28,091,950 3.1% 4,151 11.1%

33,803,981 100.0% $902,000,000 100.0% 37,536 100.0%

gs.

ing of individual items, totals may not add up to totals in other tables and percentages may not add up to 100 percent.
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 35

Table S-19

PBGC-Covered Plan Participants by Participant Status (1980-1997)

Single-Employer Program

Active Retired Separated Vested

Participants Participants Participants

77.6% 16.0% 6.4%76.8% 16.3% 6.8%75.3% 17.2% 7.5%73.8% 18.0% 8.2%72.8% 18.8% 8.4%72.2% 18.7% 9.1%71.3% 19.1% 9.6%70.1% 19.8% 10.1%70.6% 18.9% 10.5%70.1% 18.9% 11.0%68.1% 19.4% 12.6%66.4% 20.1% 13.5%64.2% 20.9% 14.9%61.9% 21.6% 16.5%61.2% 21.3% 17.5%58.0% 22.9% 19.1%55.5% 23.0% 21.5%55.0% 23.8% 21.3%

vice Form 5500 Series Filings for single-employer plans with 100 or more participants.

ems, rows may not add up to 100 percent.

m PBGC internal calculations.

ear have been updated to reflect actual Form 5500 filings.
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 36

Table S-20

PBGC-Insured Plans and Participants by Total Premium Paid (1999)

Single-Employer Program

% of Variable % of Participants

Rate in Variable

emium Premium-Paying % of All Rate Premium- % of All

ticipant Plans Plans Plans Participants Paying Plans Participants

ATE PREMIUM PAID) 24,378 —— 64.9% 29,340,027 —— 86.8%

TE PREMIUM PAYERS 13,158 100.0% 35.1% 4,463,954 100.0% 13.2%

$28.99 1,170 8.9% 3.1% 793,367 17.8% 2.3%

$38.99 1,147 8.7% 3.1% 388,832 8.7% 1.2%

$48.99 1,144 8.7% 3.0% 422,543 9.5% 1.2%$58.99 1,092 8.3% 2.9% 417,953 9.4% 1.2%$68.99 925 7.0% 2.5% 231,835 5.2% 0.7%$78.99 902 6.9% 2.4% 481,032 10.8% 1.4%$88.99 712 5.4% 1.9% 239,894 5.4% 0.7%$98.99 649 4.9% 1.7% 257,664 5.8% 0.8%

$108.99 525 4.0% 1.4% 128,324 2.9% 0.4%

$118.99 488 3.7% 1.3% 126,788 2.8% 0.4%

r More 4,404 33.5% 11.7% 975,722 21.9% 2.9%

L PLANS 37,536 —— 100.0% 33,803,981 —— 100%

gs.

tems, percentages may not add up to 100 percent.
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 37

Table S-21

BGC Premium Receipts by Size of Plan and Type of Premium (1999)

Single-Employer Program

Flat Rate Variable Rate Total

Premium Premium Premium

$9,754,366 1.5% $21,502,960 8.3% $31,257,326 3.7%33,460,756 5.2% 36,988,471 14.2% 70,449,227 8.2%29,092,682 4.5% 29,747,299 11.5% 58,839,980 6.8%

59,247,668 9.2% 37,916,575 14.6% 97,164,243 11.0%59,462,263 9.3% 35,119,284 13.5% 94,581,547 10.6%70,702,557 11.0% 23,887,760 9.2% 94,590,317 10.4%

380,555,348 59.3% 74,562,011 28.7% 455,117,359 49.3%

$642,275,639 100.0% $259,724,361 100.0% $902,000,000 100.0%

71% 29% 100%

gs.

ing of individual items, premium totals may not equal those in other tables and percentages may not add up to 100 percent.

oportions of Flat Rate and Variable Rate Premiums, respectively, of Total Premiums.
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 38

Table S-22

-Insured Plans and Participants by Variable Rate Premium Status (1992-1999)

Single-Employer Program

gs.

ted benefits for PBGC Variable Rate Premium for plans with premium payment years beginning in January of the respective year.

Participants In Participants In

Plans Paying Plans Paying Plans Paying Plans Paying Variable Rate

Variable Rate Flat Rate Variable Rate Flat Rate Premium

Premium Premium Only Premium Premium Only Interest Rate*

30.8% 69.2% 27.4% 72.6% 6.16%36.4% 63.6% 24.9% 75.1% 5.95%43.1% 56.9% 34.2% 65.8% 5.00%38.5% 61.5% 23.8% 76.2% 6.30%46.8% 53.2% 32.1% 67.9% 4.85%37.0% 63.0% 19.4% 80.6% 5.24%35.6% 64.4% 16.6% 83.4% 5.09%35.1% 64.9% 13.2% 86.8% 4.30%
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 39

Table S-23

Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1997)

Single-Employer Program

vice Form 5500 Series Filings for single-employer plans with 100 or more participants.

adjusted to an interest rate that, along with an assumed mortality table, reflects the cost to purchase an annuity at the beginning of the relevant year.

was UP-84 for 1980-1992 and GAM-83 for 1993-1997.

Assets Liabilities Funding Underfunding Overfunding PBGC

(in millions) (in millions) Ratio (in millions) (in millions) Rate*

$259,810 $211,817 123% $20,156 $67,894 8.50%

309,969 212,072 146% 12,043 114,676 9.75%331,540 206,303 161% 10,263 135,500 10.75%376,732 241,010 156% 11,783 147,505 9.75%457,644 280,695 163% 9,876 186,825 9.75%500,673 308,617 162% 11,182 203,238 9.75%619,490 406,118 153% 14,719 228,091 8.50%644,239 463,255 139% 20,692 201,676 7.50%640,741 450,844 142% 22,341 212,238 8.25%696,146 517,226 135% 26,340 205,260 7.75%837,131 604,047 139% 35,689 268,773 7.25%848,251 687,896 123% 34,485 194,840 7.25%915,722 771,421 119% 47,528 191,829 6.25%951,972 844,803 113% 59,622 166,791 6.40%

,001,129 936,698 107% 75,569 140,000 5.65%,032,503 887,730 116% 37,278 182,050 7.15%,198,221 1,134,194 106% 83,071 147,098 5.30%,368,188 1,192,222 115% 47,906 223,871 5.80%
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 40

Table S-24

Funding of Underfunded PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1997)

Single-Employer Program

vice Form 5500 Series Filings for single-employer plans with 100 or more participants.

adjusted to an interest rate that, along with an assumed mortality table, reflects the cost to purchase an annuity at the beginning of the relevant year.

was UP-84 for 1980-1992 and GAM-83 for 1993-1997.

Assets Liabilities Underfunding Funding PBGC

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions) Ratio Rate*

$53,840 $73,996 $20,156 73% 8.50%

31,587 43,630 12,043 72% 9.75%29,967 40,230 10,263 74% 10.75%37,037 48,820 11,783 76% 9.75%

26,208 36,084 9,876 73% 9.75%

28,722 39,904 11,182 72% 9.75%41,780 56,499 14,719 74% 8.50%62,942 83,634 20,692 75% 7.50%68,920 91,261 22,341 76% 8.25%99,682 126,022 26,340 79% 7.75%95,068 130,758 35,689 73% 7.25%

147,301 181,786 34,485 81% 7.25%172,372 219,900 47,528 78% 6.25%215,695 275,317 59,622 78% 6.40%308,516 384,085 75,569 80% 5.65%218,493 255,771 37,278 85% 7.15%493,597 576,668 83,071 86% 5.30%353,823 401,729 47,906 88% 5.80%
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 41

Table S-25

Funding of Overfunded PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1997)

Single-Employer Program

vice Form 5500 Series Filings for single-employer plans with 100 or more participants.

adjusted to an interest rate that, along with an assumed mortality table, reflects the cost to purchase an annuity at the beginning of the relevant year.

was UP-84 for 1980-1992 and GAM-83 for 1993-1997.

Assets Liabilities Overfunding Funding PBGC

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions) Ratio Rate*

$205,970 $138,076 $67,894 149% 8.50%

278,382 163,706 114,676 170% 9.75%301,573 166,073 135,500 182% 10.75%339,695 192,190 147,505 177% 9.75%431,436 244,611 186,825 176% 9.75%471,951 268,713 203,238 176% 9.75%577,710 349,619 228,091 165% 8.50%581,297 379,621 201,676 153% 7.50%571,821 359,583 212,238 159% 8.25%596,464 391,204 205,260 152% 7.75%742,063 473,289 268,773 157% 7.25%700,950 506,110 194,840 138% 7.25%743,350 551,520 191,829 135% 6.25%736,277 569,486 166,791 129% 6.40%692,613 552,613 140,000 125% 5.65%814,009 631,959 182,050 129% 7.15%704,624 557,526 147,098 126% 5.30%

1,014,365 790,494 223,871 128% 5.80%
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 42

Table S-26

oncentration of Underfunding in PBGC-Insured Plans (1990-1997)

Single-Employer Program

vice Form 5500 Series Filings for single-employer plans with 100 or more participants.

tems, percentages may not add up to 100 percent.

justed to an interest rate that, along with an assumed mortality table, reflects the cost to purchase an annuity at the beginning of the relevant year.

was UP-84 for 1990-1992 and GAM-83 for 1993-1997.

Total 10 Plans With the Highest Next 40 Plans All Other Plans

Underfunding Underfunding Underfunding Underfunding

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

$35,689 $14,119 39.6% $6,487 18.2% $15,083 42.3%

34,485 14,067 40.8% 6,884 20.0% 13,534 39.2%47,528 21,610 45.5% 7,818 16.4% 18,100 38.1%59,622 25,894 43.4% 9,337 15.7% 24,392 40.9%

75,569 28,658 37.9% 10,310 13.6% 36,601 48.4%

37,278 6,535 17.5% 7,921 21.2% 22,822 61.2%

83,071 13,850 16.7% 16,410 19.8% 52,810 63.6%

47,906 7,751 16.2% 8,473 17.7% 31,682 66.1%
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 43

Table S-27

icipants and Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans by Funding Ratio (1997)

Single-Employer Program

vice Form 5500 Series Filings for single-employer plans with 100 or more participants.

tems, dollar totals may not add up to totals in other tables and percentages may not add up to 100 percent.

justed to an interest rate that, along with the GAM-83 mortality table, reflects the cost to purchase an annuity at the beginning of 1997.

Participants Total Liabilities Underfunding Overfunding

(in thousands) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

64 0.2% $1,347 0.1% $961 2.0% — —

108 0.3% 2,664 0.2% 1,477 3.1% — —179 0.5% 4,881 0.4% 2,195 4.6% — —697 2.1% 19,827 1.7% 6,770 14.1% — —

1,917 5.8% 39,232 3.3% 9,605 20.1% — —4,417 13.3% 129,857 10.9% 18,401 38.4% — —5,396 16.2% 203,922 17.1% 8,496 17.7% — —

4,845 14.6% 160,365 13.5% — — $7,941 3.5%

4,980 15.0% 217,134 18.2% — — 32,152 14.4%

3,759 11.3% 132,093 11.1% — — 33,032 14.8%2,636 7.9% 123,082 10.3% — — 42,132 18.8%1,190 3.6% 50,239 4.2% — — 22,341 10.0%3,026 9.1% 107,582 9.0% — — 86,274 38.5%

33,214 100.0% $1,192,222 100.0% $47,906 100.0% $223,871 100.0%
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 44

Table S-28

rious Measures of Underfunding in PBGC-Insured Plans (1990-1999)

Single-Employer Program

rom IRS Form 5500 filings.

anies in the preparation of the PBGC Top 50 list of largest underfunded plan sponsors.

ained from Standard & Poor’s Compustat.

PBGC premium filings used to calculate the Variable Rate Premium.

der Section 4010 of ERISA, which requires that companies annually provide PBGC with information on their underfunded plans, if the firm’s aggregate

0 million, or there is an outstanding lien for missed contributions exceeding $1 million or an outstanding funding waiver of more than $1 million.

onsors with less than investment grade bond ratings.

C), (D) and (E) totals may differ from year to year.

(A) (C) (D)

Form (B) Variable Section (E)

5500 Top 50 / Rate 4010 Reasonably

Filings Compustat Premium Filings Possible

(in billions) (in billions) (in billions) (in billions) (in billions)

$35.69 $26.78 $41.28 —— $8.00

34.48 32.80 43.32 —— 13.0047.53 38.19 53.66 —— 12.3659.62 53.07 43.80 —— 13.0675.57 71.00 65.67 —— 18.2337.28 31.39 33.37 —— 14.5683.07 63.68 82.23 $38.10 22.4747.91 —— 51.57 28.70 20.73

—— —— 37.23 25.20 15.38—— —— 28.86 34.90 17.50
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 45

Table S-29

Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans by Industry (1997)

Single-Employer Program

vice Form 5500 Series Filings for single-employer plans with 100 or more participants.

tems, percentages may not add up to 100 percent.

justed to an interest rate that, along with the GAM-83 mortality table, reflects the cost to purchase an annuity at the beginning of 1997.

dustry Funding Ratio Total Liabilities Underfunding Overfunding

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

G, AND CONSTRUCTION 108% $17,129 1.4% $826 1.7% $2,266 1.0%

107% 662,001 55.5% 29,811 62.2% 90,688 40.5%

roducts 109% 66,732 5.6% 2,463 5.1% 8,618 3.8%

quipment 117% 81,168 6.8% 4,006 8.4% 17,811 8.0%

ucts 100% 25,189 2.1% 2,700 5.6% 2,675 1.2%

oducts 111% 32,328 2.7% 1,472 3.1% 5,000 2.2%

ter Equipment 110% 69,776 5.9% 1,822 3.8% 9,015 4.0%

ent 108% 119,937 10.1% 2,489 5.2% 11,805 5.3%

ucts 109% 23,769 2.0% 1,401 2.9% 3,524 1.6%

111% 27,505 2.3% 451 0.9% 3,437 1.5%

95% 42,470 3.6% 4,654 9.7% 2,721 1.2%

Instruments 103% 13,502 1.1% 706 1.5% 1,167 0.5%

111% 159,626 13.4% 7,646 16.0% 24,915 11.1%

D PUBLIC UTILITIES 127% 219,861 18.4% 5,212 10.9% 64,126 28.6%

102% 29,481 2.5% 1,869 3.9% 2,500 1.1%

110% 16,794 1.4% 1,192 2.5% 2,836 1.3%

133% 173,587 14.6% 2,151 4.5% 58,790 26.3%120% 14,677 1.2% 825 1.7% 3,723 1.7%102% 22,062 1.9% 2,301 4.8% 2,678 1.2%

, AND REAL ESTATE 120% 125,907 10.6% 3,704 7.7% 29,209 13.0%

121% 103,758 8.7% 4,239 8.8% 25,861 11.6%

ZATIONS 116% 26,828 2.3% 988 2.1% 5,321 2.4%

115% $1,192,222 100.0% $47,906 100.0% $223,871 100.0%
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 46

Table S-30

Pension Funding Data for PBGC-Insured Plans by State (1997)

Single-Employer Program

OVERFUNDED UNDERFUNDED TOTAL

Assets Liabilities Overfunding Assets Liabilities Underfunding Assets Liabilities

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

$106,946 $83,286 $23,660 $28,776 $32,305 $3,529 $135,722 $115,591

70,080 54,195 15,885 16,998 18,846 1,848 87,078 73,042

1,183 985 198 284 329 45 1,467 1,314

28,141 21,979 6,162 9,098 10,309 1,211 37,240 32,289

837 705 132 895 1,067 172 1,731 1,772

6,275 5,054 1,222 1,346 1,572 226 7,622 6,626

430 367 63 154 181 27 585 549

351,587 278,495 73,092 102,729 119,726 16,997 454,316 398,221

5,373 4,397 976 505 611 107 5,878 5,008

8,622 6,574 2,048 3,016 3,335 319 11,638 9,908

24,043 18,496 5,547 4,989 5,678 689 29,032 24,174

70,674 53,601 17,073 20,422 23,050 2,627 91,096 76,650

170,087 136,753 33,334 27,393 32,414 5,021 197,479 169,167

55,678 45,007 10,671 35,840 42,532 6,691 91,518 87,539

16,200 12,999 3,202 9,656 11,005 1,349 25,857 24,004

910 668 242 908 1,102 194 1,819 1,770

90,946 66,889 24,058 30,006 34,871 4,865 120,952 101,759

3,016 2,375 640 737 861 123 3,753 3,2361,159 909 250 224 269 45 1,383 1,178

8,735 5,982 2,753 4,358 5,048 689 13,093 11,029

40,233 27,460 12,774 5,973 7,202 1,229 46,207 34,662

4,769 3,842 928 1,259 1,508 250 6,028 5,350

3,633 2,859 774 5,704 6,077 373 9,338 8,936

1,431 1,110 321 181 215 34 1,612 1,325

11,069 8,673 2,396 6,445 7,313 868 17,514 15,986

2,666 2,116 550 2,849 3,633 784 5,515 5,749

14,235 11,563 2,671 2,275 2,745 470 16,509 14,308

246,531 193,051 53,479 132,392 146,043 13,651 378,923 339,095

68,712 50,577 18,135 30,312 34,927 4,615 99,024 85,504

10,542 7,831 2,712 4,928 5,881 953 15,470 13,711

95,319 80,597 14,722 53,943 56,247 2,304 149,262 136,844

13,320 9,939 3,381 15,579 17,212 1,633 28,899 27,151

44,101 33,951 10,150 20,697 23,790 3,093 64,797 57,741

14,537 10,158 4,379 6,934 7,986 1,052 21,471 18,143
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 47

Table S-30 (continued)

Pension Funding Data for PBGC-Insured Plans by State (1997)

Single-Employer Program

vice Form 5500 Series Filings for single-employer plans with 100 or more participants.

tems, totals may not equal those in other tables or add up across columns.

djusted to an interest rate that, along with the GAM-83 mortality table, reflects the cost to purchase an annuity at the beginning of 1997.

ate of plan administration.

OVERFUNDED UNDERFUNDED TOTAL

Assets Liabilities Overfunding Assets Liabilities Underfunding Assets Liabilities

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

$23,933 $18,893 $5,041 $11,166 $12,877 $1,710 $35,100 $31,770

3,014 2,217 796 2,448 2,822 374 5,462 5,039

4,414 3,809 604 655 784 128 5,069 4,593

14,014 10,777 3,237 7,202 8,237 1,034 21,216 19,013

2,079 1,768 311 779 944 166 2,857 2,712

223 176 48 77 85 8 301 261

190 146 44 5 5 * 195 151

65,525 50,558 14,967 24,999 27,941 2,942 90,524 78,499

1,869 1,651 218 4,279 4,459 180 6,147 6,109

2,546 1,366 1,180 317 328 11 2,864 1,695

2,487 1,980 507 1,979 2,210 231 4,466 4,190

58,623 45,561 13,062 18,424 20,944 2,520 77,047 66,505

19,406 14,582 4,824 4,958 5,458 500 24,364 20,040

12,349 8,933 3,416 3,125 3,408 284 15,474 12,341

2,092 1,815 277 504 593 90 2,596 2,408

302 230 72 15 18 3 317 247

461 327 135 601 652 52 1,062 979

4,131 3,242 889 677 748 70 4,808 3,990

71 35 36 36 39 2 107 74

108,798 84,178 24,619 18,119 21,600 3,481 126,917 105,779

143 111 33 110 131 21 253 242

67,528 50,814 16,714 12,957 15,727 2,771 80,484 66,542

2,050 1,473 577 584 700 117 2,634 2,173

3,167 2,512 655 2,179 2,529 350 5,346 5,041

35,909 29,269 6,640 2,290 2,512 222 38,199 31,781

693 562 131 678 908 230 1,371 1,470

* * * 2 2 * 2 2

4 4 * * * * 4 4

686 556 130 656 880 224 1,342 1,437

2 2 * 20 26 5 23 28

$1,014,365 $790,494 $223,871 $353,823 $401,729 $47,906 $1,368,188 $1,192,222
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 48

Table S-31

PBGC Pension Data by State* and Region

Single-Employer Program

CLAIMS COVERAGE BENEFITS PAID

1975-1999 1999 1999

Mean Monthly

Plans Claims Plans Participants Payees Payments Pension

349 $421,795,203 3,039 1,930,193 14,511 $42,489,282 $228

97 250,835,608 1,102 723,393 4,798 15,844,115 261

8 932,489 146 148,737 1,293 2,336,328 141

180 109,693,957 1,305 730,165 5,341 15,356,896 222

16 6,138,752 183 145,356 1,141 4,132,001 282

39 34,852,346 209 111,553 1,299 2,397,392 140

9 19,342,051 94 70,989 639 2,422,551 288

955 3,348,192,397 12,309 7,565,319 57,632 226,722,931 307

4 4,392,433 179 169,020 664 2,481,808 305

11 3,326,881 289 50,706 181 657,032 285

63 64,516,672 709 726,784 2,194 9,410,319 341

160 149,654,683 2,276 1,142,573 6,018 21,370,281 280

381 2,022,008,900 5,209 2,271,623 14,749 56,466,130 298

266 603,263,976 2,626 1,717,240 26,386 108,859,720 319

27 8,243,149 792 1,179,756 4,103 12,532,353 244

43 492,785,703 229 307,616 3,337 14,945,287 351

209 175,952,137 4,242 6,321,336 52,724 223,178,617 342

15 9,809,662 298 392,126 3,359 8,117,486 210

8 4,359,684 175 219,725 1,301 3,186,926 197

48 50,153,706 976 1,541,460 22,197 125,214,478 444

33 45,482,227 630 990,455 7,335 34,710,169 378

15 7,807,667 377 540,864 2,248 5,783,831 217

20 5,931,106 302 537,482 1,790 5,691,965 255

6 2,063,353 150 182,541 1,347 2,641,835 166

28 10,736,972 620 922,848 4,531 16,026,246 276

5 59,414 259 463,114 3,151 8,627,064 213

31 39,548,346 455 530,722 5,465 13,178,616 193

811 1,458,700,938 8,501 7,250,942 62,338 241,662,188 305

183 206,559,744 2,424 1,740,902 8,718 27,065,690 254

77 57,437,148 765 723,403 9,723 36,270,493 292

213 238,340,356 1,667 1,308,211 11,515 38,987,574 271

34 116,184,119 585 703,123 3,548 15,179,473 283

238 564,422,018 2,206 1,707,099 22,172 102,011,189 357

66 275,757,553 854 1,068,204 6,662 22,147,770 289

administration; benefits and coverage data by state of payee residence.
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 49

Table S-31 (continued)

PBGC Pension Data by State* and Region

Single-Employer Program

Closing File (9/30/99), Employee Benefits Supplement to the April 1993 Current Population Survey, PBGC Case Administration System,

BGC Participant System (PRISM), and fiscal year calculations.

items, totals may not equal those in other tables.

administration; benefits and coverage data by state of payee residence.

CLAIMS COVERAGE BENEFITS PAID

1975-1999 1999 1999

Mean Monthly

Plans Claims Plans Participants Payees Payments Pension

89 $153,544,214 1,587 1,879,498 9,259 $29,956,915 $254

28 86,290,540 443 381,984 5,764 19,165,408 254

19 28,451,228 234 368,463 684 2,911,436 334

36 31,387,877 628 811,293 2,342 6,281,461 227

4 7,285,836 190 206,205 345 1,138,956 259

2 128,733 54 57,466 67 208,161 217

0 0 38 54,086 57 251,493 321

123 164,331,729 2,317 2,957,843 10,586 39,561,662 296

20 6,174,559 487 466,494 1,831 7,556,197 323

6 10,377,511 131 145,356 585 2,331,149 313

15 39,607,621 265 297,474 1,130 3,548,662 244

82 108,172,038 1,434 2,048,519 7,040 26,125,654 295

35 204,221,409 809 1,044,540 5,007 29,093,046 454

12 186,889,425 366 378,604 2,751 20,692,082 582

6 12,554,525 76 108,173 646 1,869,808 226

3 252,370 56 98,031 128 486,939 273

6 788,421 101 196,063 822 3,416,144 337

7 3,024,648 181 182,541 568 2,286,918 306

1 712,020 29 81,129 92 341,155 296

192 340,888,259 4,596 4,786,397 14,047 59,503,427 337

5 2,721,269 41 54,086 46 131,105 238

139 278,725,051 3,568 3,441,000 10,728 46,109,628 343

15 16,260,130 277 118,314 1,094 4,939,384 350

17 32,233,385 282 314,377 850 2,779,940 255

16 10,948,424 428 858,620 1,329 5,543,371 333

12 10,764,177 124 66,712 1,575 5,213,043 273

0 0 11 1,136 90 447,264 386

S — — — — 757 3,083,146 320

2,775 $6,278,390,463 37,535 33,803,916 228,526 $900,911,522 $311
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 50

Table S-32

PBGC Maximum Guaranteed Benefits (1988-2000)

Single-Employer Program

ear of Plan Maximum Monthly Maximum Annual

ermination Guarantee Guarantee

1988 $1,909.09 $22,909.081989 2,028.41 24,340.921990 2,164.77 25,977.241991 2,250.00 27,000.001992 2,352.27 28,227.241993 2,437.50 29,250.001994 2,556.82 30,681.841995 2,573.86 30,886.321996 2,642.05 31,704.601997 2,761.36 33,136.321998 2,880.68 34,568.161999 3,051.14 36,613.682000 3,221.59 38,659.08

ome Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) mandates that the maximum guaranteed amount be adjusted annually based on changes in the Social Security

e.

es to workers who retire at age 65 or later.

uced for retirees taking earlier retirement or electing survivor’s benefits.

ension plan has adequate resources or PBGC recovers sufficient amounts, a participant may receive benefits in excess of the maximum guarantee.
K 1999 SINGLE-EMPLOYER DATA TABLES 51

Table S-33

PBGC’s Historic Premium Rates

 Single-Employer Program

Plan Years Flat Rate Premium Variable Rate

ginning (per participant) Premium

4 - December 31, 1977 $1.00 —

8 - December 31, 1985 2.60 —6 - December 31, 1987 8.50 —8 - December 31, 1990 16.00 $6 per $1,000 of unfunded vested benefits

(Maximum of $34 per participant)

1 - June 30, 1994 19.00 $9 per $1,000 of unfunded vested benefits

(Maximum of $53 per participant)

4 - June 30, 1995 19.00 $9 per $1,000 of unfunded vested benefits

(Maximum of $53 per participant plus 20% of uncapped

variable premium in excess of $53 per participant)

5 - June 30, 1996 19.00 $9 per $1,000 of unfunded vested benefits

(Maximum of $53 per participant plus 60% of uncapped

variable premium in excess of $53 per participant)

er July 1, 1996 19.00 $9 per $1,000 of unfunded vested benefits

(No maximum)
APPENDIX M

Multiemployer Data Tables
K 1999 MULTIEMPLOYER DATA TABLES 55

Table M-1

et Financial Position of PBGC’s Multiemployer Program (1980-1999)

 (1980-1999).

tems, rows may not add across.

Assets Liabilities Net Position

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

$21 $30 -$9

28 29 -140 29 1152 46 661 44 1778 52 2798 54 45

114 45 68

129 37 92161 37 123190 58 132238 75 163283 114 169407 131 276378 181 197477 285 192505 381 124596 377 219745 404 341692 493 199
K 1999 MULTIEMPLOYER DATA TABLES 56

Table M-2

BGC Premium Revenue, Benefit Payments and Expenses (1980-1999)

Multiemployer Program

Total Administrative & Premiums Minus

Premium Benefit Investment Benefits Paid

Revenue Payments Expenses and Expenses

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

$5 $4 $2 -$212 4 2 513 5 3 513 4 3 612 4 3 614 4 4 715 3 4 817 3 3 1017 3 4 1120 3 3 1521 2 2 1723 2 * 2123 2 * 2123 2 * 2123 2 * 2122 2 * 2022 2 * 2023 1 * 2223 1 * 2223 1 * 22

t (1980-1999).

ding of individual items, figures may not add up to totals in other tables or add up across columns.
K 1999 MULTIEMPLOYER DATA TABLES 57

Table M-3

PBGC Payees and Benefit Payments (1980-1999)

Multiemployer Program

PERIODIC PENSION PAYMENTS

Average Median

Payees in Year Total Monthly Payment Monthly Payment

(in millions)

4,100 $4 $77 $454,000 4 83 453,800 5 86 453,500 4 89 453,400 4 93 453,100 4 91 453,250 3 91 452,800 3 92 452,500 3 93 452,310 3 95 452,170 2 97 501,990 2 98 511,760 2 98 521,590 2 99 531,420 2 102 551,300 2 102 551,130 2 104 551,000 1 102 55

855 1 104 55738 1 106 62

ystem (PRISM), fiscal year calculations, PBGC Management Reports and PBGC Benefit Payment Reports.

y, semi-annual, or annual basis were converted to their monthly equivalent.
K 1999 MULTIEMPLOYER DATA TABLES 58

Table M-4

PBGC-Covered Plan Participants (1980-1999)

Multiemployer Program

gs, various years.

m PBGC internal calculations.

vised and 1998 estimates reported last year have been updated to reflect actual premium filings.

In Plans with In Plans with In Plans with In Plans with In Plans with In Plans with In Plans with

d 10,000+ 5,000-9,999 2,500-4,999 1,000-2,499 500-999 250-499 <250

nts Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants

s) (in thousands) (in thousands) (in thousands) (in thousands) (in thousands) (in thousands) (in thousands)

5,072 925 751 731 299 147 715,151 960 781 759 281 145 745,404 1,026 776 746 305 145 725,438 934 774 727 302 139 71

5,119 973 739 719 306 136 67

5,376 857 761 729 283 136 665,316 879 746 731 288 129 645,443 908 718 709 293 124 615,453 917 739 704 295 127 585,557 918 767 702 302 124 565,731 891 757 695 290 121 485,996 874 731 665 285 110 476,105 830 734 672 276 115 495,990 869 711 657 270 111 495,931 861 703 639 263 112 505,986 855 709 661 264 112 455,976 904 713 636 266 106 486,058 906 718 641 263 110 446,166 930 671 651 259 107 406,339 914 659 655 252 101 37
K 1999 MULTIEMPLOYER DATA TABLES 59

Table M-5

PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1999)

Multiemployer Program

gs, various years.

m PBGC internal calculations.

vised and 1998 estimates reported last year have been updated to reflect actual premium filings.

Insured Insured Insured Insured Insured Insured Insured

l Plans with Plans with Plans with Plans with Plans with Plans with Plans with

ed 10,000+ 5,000-9,999 2,500-4,999 1,000-2,499 500-999 250-499 <250

s Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants

4 120 131 211 452 420 404 5062 121 135 221 479 392 399 5259 125 142 218 468 420 396 5205 134 132 218 454 418 385 5443 127 138 209 451 430 381 4878 137 124 216 459 402 376 4743 135 127 213 461 405 362 4508 139 131 205 438 408 344 4331 137 133 213 436 409 351 4020 137 131 217 430 417 337 3913 140 127 214 428 402 332 3406 145 127 207 414 401 302 3306 150 121 210 418 386 310 3410 143 126 204 412 378 302 3350 141 125 202 403 369 302 3389 144 123 205 409 368 303 3276 143 132 206 400 373 287 3356 145 131 206 401 365 296 3022 146 136 192 401 357 287 2833 148 134 187 397 346 273 288
K 1999 MULTIEMPLOYER DATA TABLES 60

Table M-6

PBGC-Insured Plans and Participants by Industry (1999)

Multiemployer Program

dustry Covered Participants Insured Plans

18,852 0.2% 12 0.7%

193,803 2.2% 7 0.4%

3,078,597 34.4% 987 55.7%

499,029 5.6% 102 5.7%389,913 4.4% 61 3.4%

Conditioning 316,394 3.5% 180 10.1%

644,322 7.2% 132 7.5%

work 150,706 1.7% 142 8.0%

397,411 4.4% 99 5.6%

Work 242,262 2.7% 74 4.2%

438,560 4.9% 197 11.1%

1,345,944 15.0% 216 12.2%

s 233,315 2.6% 33 1.8%

ts 326,917 3.6% 17 1.0%

70,720 0.8% 5 0.3%

218,122 2.4% 46 2.6%

63,369 0.7% 5 0.3%

Equipment 175,126 2.0% 7 0.4%

quipment 44,335 0.5% 9 0.5%

214,040 2.4% 94 5.3%

ND PUBLIC UTILITIES 1,463,895 16.3% 143 8.1%

1,260,305 14.1% 69 3.9%

115,833 1.3% 42 2.4%

49,300 0.6% 25 1.4%

38,457 0.4% 7 0.4%

229,672 2.6% 55 3.1%

1,255,818 14.0% 119 6.7%

E, AND REAL ESTATE 18,210 0.2% 4 0.2%

1,352,194 15.1% 230 13.0%

8,956,985 100.0% 1,773 100.0%

gs.

ding of individual items, totals may not add up to totals in other tables and percentages may not add up to 100 percent.
K 1999 MULTIEMPLOYER DATA TABLES 61

Table M-7

PBGC-Covered Plan Participants by Participant Status (1980-1997)

Multiemployer Program

rvice Form 5500 Series Filings for multiemployer plans with 100 or more participants.

om PBGC internal calculations.

year have been updated to reflect actual Form 5500 filings.

tems, rows may not add up to 100 percent.

Active Retired Separated Vested

Participants Participants Participants

75.9% 17.7% 6.5%73.7% 19.1% 7.3%72.9% 18.6% 8.6%68.6% 21.7% 9.7%66.5% 23.1% 10.4%66.1% 22.6% 11.4%63.7% 23.2% 13.1%62.3% 24.1% 13.6%61.1% 24.5% 14.4%61.3% 24.6% 14.1%58.6% 25.2% 16.2%57.2% 26.3% 16.5%54.6% 27.6% 17.8%53.5% 28.0% 18.4%53.4% 28.0% 18.6%51.5% 29.1% 19.4%51.3% 29.2% 19.6%51.1% 29.1% 19.8%
K 1999 MULTIEMPLOYER DATA TABLES 62

Table M-8

Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1997)

Multiemployer Program

vice Form 5500 Series Filings for multiemployer plans with 100 or more participants.

djusted to an interest rate that, along with an assumed mortality table, reflects the cost to purchase an annuity at the beginning of the relevant year.

was UP-84 for 1980-1992 and GAM-83 for 1993-1997.

Assets Liabilities Funding Underfunding Overfunding PBGC

(in millions) (in millions) Ratio (in millions) (in millions) Rate*

$40,363 $52,123 77% $17,887 $6,126 8.50%

46,342 53,282 87% 13,068 6,129 9.75%

55,073 57,477 96% 11,560 9,156 10.75%

64,202 64,410 100% 11,221 11,013 9.75%73,932 69,865 106% 10,282 14,350 9.75%88,182 75,942 116% 6,432 18,672 9.75%

107,259 93,436 115% 7,687 21,511 8.50%121,080 111,259 109% 10,079 19,900 7.50%126,963 109,882 116% 8,240 25,321 8.25%135,654 121,915 111% 8,635 22,374 7.75%166,348 156,149 107% 11,574 21,773 7.25%165,734 160,370 103% 13,068 18,432 7.25%184,670 187,829 98% 17,835 14,676 6.25%197,461 202,177 98% 19,864 15,148 6.40%206,625 225,982 91% 29,193 9,837 5.65%209,947 218,458 96% 22,726 14,216 7.15%238,571 270,551 88% 40,019 8,039 5.30%268,471 287,569 93% 32,549 13,452 5.80%
K 1999 MULTIEMPLOYER DATA TABLES 63

Table M-9

Funding of Underfunded PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1997)

Multiemployer Program

vice Form 5500 Series Filings for multiemployer plans with 100 or more participants.

adjusted to an interest rate that, along with an assumed mortality table, reflects the cost to purchase an annuity at the beginning of the relevant year.

was UP-84 for 1980-1992 and GAM-83 for 1993-1997.

Assets Liabilities Underfunding Funding PBGC

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions) Ratio Rate*

$24,819 $42,706 $17,887 58% 8.50%

25,599 38,668 13,068 66% 9.75%22,301 33,861 11,560 66% 10.75%27,287 38,508 11,221 71% 9.75%22,515 32,798 10,282 69% 9.75%

22,813 29,246 6,432 78% 9.75%27,035 34,723 7,687 78% 8.50%

29,782 39,861 10,079 75% 7.50%

29,802 38,042 8,240 78% 8.25%34,845 43,480 8,635 80% 7.75%

56,512 68,086 11,574 83% 7.25%62,563 75,631 13,068 83% 7.25%93,790 111,625 17,835 84% 6.25%95,331 115,195 19,864 83% 6.40%

128,718 157,911 29,193 82% 5.65%

118,707 141,434 22,726 84% 7.15%

168,347 208,366 40,019 81% 5.30%152,633 185,182 32,549 82% 5.80%
K 1999 MULTIEMPLOYER DATA TABLES 64

Table M-10

Funding of Overfunded PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-1997)

Multiemployer Program

e Form 5500 Series Filings for multiemployer plans with 100 or more participants.

usted to an interest rate that, along with an assumed mortality table, reflects the cost to purchase an annuity at the beginning of the relevant year.

s UP-84 for 1980-1992 and GAM-83 for 1993-1997.

Assets Liabilities Overfunding Funding PBGC

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions) Ratio Rate*

$15,543 $9,417 $6,126 165% 8.50%

20,743 14,614 6,129 142% 9.75%32,772 23,615 9,156 139% 10.75%

36,915 25,902 11,013 143% 9.75%51,417 37,067 14,350 139% 9.75%65,368 46,697 18,672 140% 9.75%80,223 58,713 21,511 137% 8.50%91,298 71,398 19,900 128% 7.50%97,161 71,840 25,321 135% 8.25%

100,809 78,435 22,374 129% 7.75%109,836 88,062 21,773 125% 7.25%103,171 84,739 18,432 122% 7.25%

90,880 76,204 14,676 119% 6.25%

102,130 86,981 15,148 117% 6.40%

77,907 68,070 9,837 114% 5.65%91,240 77,024 14,216 118% 7.15%70,224 62,185 8,039 113% 5.30%

115,838 102,386 13,452 113% 5.80%
K 1999 MULTIEMPLOYER DATA TABLES 65

Table M-11

oncentration of Underfunding in PBGC-Insured Plans (1990-1997)

Multiemployer Program

vice Form 5500 Series Filings for multiemployer plans with 100 or more participants.

tems, percentages may not add up to 100 percent.

djusted to an interest rate that, along with an assumed mortality table, reflects the cost to purchase an annuity at the beginning of the relevant year.

was UP-84 for 1990-1992 and GAM-83 for 1993-1997.

Total 10 Plans with the Highest Next 40 Plans All Other Plans

Underfunding Underfunding Underfunding Underfunding

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

$11,574 $6,760 58.4% $2,791 24.1% $2,023 17.5%

13,068 7,906 60.5% 3,123 23.9% 2,038 15.6%17,835 9,500 53.3% 4,411 24.7% 3,923 22.0%19,864 10,348 52.1% 4,927 24.8% 4,590 23.1%29,193 13,575 46.5% 7,012 24.0% 8,606 29.5%22,726 11,340 49.9% 6,236 27.4% 5,150 22.7%

40,019 16,157 40.4% 10,900 27.2% 12,962 32.4%

32,549 14,666 45.1% 8,166 25.1% 9,717 29.9%
K 1999 MULTIEMPLOYER DATA TABLES 66

Table M-12

icipants and Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans by Funding Ratio (1997)

Multiemployer Program

vice Form 5500 Series Filings for multiemployer plans with 100 or more participants.

djusted to an interest rate that, along with the GAM-83 mortality table, reflects the cost to purchase an annuity at the beginning of 1997.

Participants Total Liabilities Underfunding Overfunding

(in thousands) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

101 1.2% $2,136 0.7% $1,486 4.6% — —

14 0.2% 405 0.1% 226 0.7% — —

305 3.5% 8,163 2.8% 3,679 11.3% — —204 2.3% 9,868 3.4% 3,429 10.5% — —

1,157 13.2% 45,131 15.7% 12,367 38.0% — —

1,567 17.9% 50,287 17.5% 7,405 22.8% — —1,984 22.7% 69,193 24.1% 3,956 12.2% — —

1,659 19.0% 57,278 19.9% — — $2,709 20.1%

940 10.8% 25,034 8.7% — — 3,633 27.0%

347 4.0% 8,374 2.9% — — 2,000 14.9%

311 3.6% 7,917 2.8% — — 2,755 20.5%

54 0.6% 1,187 0.4% — — 554 4.1%

97 1.1% 2,596 0.9% — — 1,800 13.4%

8,740 100.0% $287,569 100.0% $32,549 100.0% $13,452 100.0%

The Pension Insurance Data Book 1999 was developed by the Corporate Policy and

Research Department under project manager William James, and produced by the

Communications and Public Affairs Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

NUMBER 4, SUMMER 2000