To address the need for improved funding, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) included new provisions designed to compel multiemployer plans in poor financial shape to take action to improve their long-term financial condition. The law established two categories of troubled plans—endangered status (commonly referred to as “yellow zone”, which includes an additional subcategory of “seriously endangered”) and a more serious critical status (commonly referred to as “red zone”). PPA further requires plans in both categories to develop strategies that include contribution increases, benefit reductions, or both, designed to improve their financial condition. These strategies must generally be adopted through the collective bargaining process, and plans are required to periodically report on progress made in implementing them. Because of the greater severity of critical status plans’ funding condition, such plans have an exception to ERISA’s anti-cutback rule in that they may reduce or eliminate certain so-called “adjustable benefits” such as early retirement benefits, post-retirement death benefits, and disability benefits for participants not yet retired. For example, if an approved rehabilitation plan eliminated an early retirement benefit, appropriate notice was provided, and the reduction is agreed to in collective bargaining, then participants not yet retired would no longer be able to receive early retirement benefits. PPA funding requirements took effect in 2008, just as the nation was entering a severe economic crisis. The dramatic decline in the value of stocks and other financial assets in 2008 and the accompanying recession broadly weakened multiemployer plans’ financial health. In response, Congress enacted the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA) and, later, the Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010 (PRA) to provide funding relief to help plans navigate the difficult economic environment. For example, WRERA relief measures allowed multiemployer plans to temporarily freeze their funding status, and extended the timeframe for plans’ funding improvement or rehabilitation plans from 10 to 13 years. Generally, PRA allows a plan that meets certain solvency requirements to amortize investment losses from the 2008 market collapse over 29 years rather than 15 years, and to recognize such losses in the actuarial value of assets over 10 years instead of 5, so the negative effects of the market decline would be spread out over a longer period. Overall, since 2009, the funding status of multiemployer plans has improved, but a sizeable number of plans are still critical or endangered. According to plan-reported data, while the funding status of plans has not returned to 2008 levels, the percentage of plans in critical status declined from 34 percent in 2009 to 24 percent in 2011. The percentage of plans in endangered status declined to a greater extent, from 34 percent in 2009 to 16 percent in 2011. However, despite these improvements, 40 percent of plans have not emerged from critical or endangered status. In addition to the difficulties many multiemployer plans face, the challenges that PBGC faces have led us to designate its insurance programs as a “high-risk” federal program. As we noted earlier this year, because of long term challenges related to PBGC’s funding structure, the agency’s financial future is uncertain. We noted that weaknesses in its revenue streams continue to undermine the agency’s long-term financial stability. According to a 2011 survey of 107 critical status plans conducted by the Segal Company, the large majority of critical status plans have developed rehabilitation plans that both increase required employer contributions and reduce participant benefits in an effort to improve plans’ financial positions. Plan officials explained that these changes can have a range of effects and, in some cases, may severely affect employers and participants. While most critical status plans expect to recover from their current funding difficulties, about 25 percent do not and instead seek to delay eventual insolvency. The 2011 survey showed the large majority of critical status plans surveyed developed rehabilitation plans that included a combination of both contribution increases and benefit reductions to be implemented in the coming years. Of plans surveyed, 81 proposed increases in employer contributions and reductions to participant benefits, while 14 proposed contribution increases only and 7 proposed benefit reductions only. The magnitude of contribution increases and benefit reductions varied widely among plans. As Figure 1 illustrates, the rehabilitation plans of 7 critical status plans proposed no contribution increases, while those of 28 plans proposed first year increases of 20 percent or more. It is important to note that these data tell only a part of the story because some rehabilitation plans call for additional contribution increases in subsequent years. The vast majority of multiemployer plans surveyed developed rehabilitation plans that reduced benefit accruals and/or adjustable benefits in an effort to improve the financial condition of the plan. Thirty- two of the 107 multiemployer plans surveyed proposed, in their rehabilitation plans, to reduce accrual rates, and of these, the large majority proposed to cut accruals by more than 20 percent. Fifteen plans proposed to cut accruals by 40 percent or more. This doesn’t reflect all the changes plans made, because some plans reduced accrual rates prior to development of the rehabilitation plans. Furthermore, a majority of plans—88 out of 107—proposed to reduce one or more adjustable benefits. Typically, these reductions will apply to both active and vested inactive participants, but some plans applied them to only one participant group. While the data are informative, they do not get to the heart of the issue— what impact will these changes have on employers, participants, and plans themselves? As might be expected, the impacts on employers and participants will vary among plans. In some cases, employers and participants will be able to bear these changes without undue hardship. In other cases, the impacts were expected to be significant. For example, plan officials said employers outside the plan generally do not offer comparable pension or health insurance benefits, and increases in contributions puts contributing employers at a significant competitive disadvantage. Similarly, an official of a long-distance trucking firm said high contribution rates have greatly affected the firm’s cost structure and damaged its competitive position. In other cases, plans may have been unable to increase employer contribution rates as much as needed. For example, our review of one rehabilitation plan revealed that a 15 percent contribution increase resulted from a difficult balance between, among other factors, adequately funding the plan and avoiding excessive strain on contributing employers. According to the plan administrator, plan trustees determined many employers were in financial distress and a significant increase in contributions would likely lead to business failures or numerous withdrawals. Subsequently, five employers withdrew from the plan after the rehabilitation plan was adopted. Similarly, the reduction or elimination of adjustable benefits were significant and controversial for participants in some cases. Officials of several plans stated the reduction or elimination of early retirement benefits for participants working in physically demanding occupations would be particularly difficult for some workers. At the same time, some plans also eliminated or imposed limitations on disability retirement so workers who have developed physical limitations will have to either continue to work or retire on substantially reduced benefits. Importantly, while most plans expected to emerge from critical status eventually, a significant number did not and instead project eventual insolvency. According to the Segal survey, of 107 critical status plans, 67 expect to emerge from critical status within the statutory timeframes of 10 to 13 years, and 12 others in an extended rehabilitation period (See figure 2). However, 28 of the plans had determined that no realistic combination of contribution increases and benefit reductions would enable them to emerge from critical status, and their best approach is to forestall insolvency for as long as possible. Among these plans, the average number of years to expected insolvency was 12, with some expecting insolvency in less than 5 years and others not for more than 30 years. The majority of these plans expected insolvency in 15 or fewer years. Our contacts with individual plans provide insight into the stark choices faced by these plans. Four of the eight critical status plans we contacted expected to eventually become insolvent, and officials explained that their analyses concluded that no feasible combination of contribution increases or benefit reductions could lead them back to a healthy level of funding. Several indicated that efforts to do so would likely accelerate the demise of the plan. For example, plan documents noted that the actuary of one plan determined the plan would be able to emerge from critical status if contribution rates were increased by 24 percent annually for each of the next 10 years—a total increase of more than 850 percent. The trustees of this plan determined such a proposal would be rejected by both employers and workers, and would likely lead to negotiated withdrawals by employers. This, in turn, could result in insolvency of the plan, possibly as early as 2019. Instead, this plan opted for measures that officials believed are most likely to result in continued participation in the plan, which nonetheless are projected to forestall insolvency until about 2029. Similarly, according to officials of another plan, plan trustees concluded that the contribution increases necessary to avoid insolvency were more than employers in that geographic area could bear. In addition, the plan considered the impact of funding the necessary contribution increases through reductions to base pay. The plan found this infeasible because of the rising cost of living facing employees and their families. Consequently, the plan trustees adopted a rehabilitation plan forestalling insolvency until about 2025. In recent years, the total amount of financial assistance PBGC has provided to insolvent plans has increased markedly. From fiscal years 2006 to 2012, the number of plans needing PBGC’s help has increased significantly, from 33 plans to 49 plans. For fiscal year 2012 alone, PBGC provided $95 million in total financial assistance to help 49 insolvent plans provide benefits to about 51,000 retirees. Loans comprise the majority of financial assistance that PBGC has provided to insolvent multiemployer plans. Based on available data from fiscal year 2011, loans totaled $85.5 million and accounted for nearly 75 percent of total financial assistance. However, the loans are not likely to be repaid because most plans never return to solvency. To date, only one plan has ever repaid a loan. PBGC monitors the financial condition of multiemployer plans to identify plans that are at risk of becoming insolvent—possibly requiring financial assistance. Based on this monitoring, PBGC maintains a contingency list of plans likely to make an insolvency claim, and classifies plans according to the plans’ risk of insolvency. PBGC also assesses the potential effect on the multiemployer insurance fund that insolvencies among the plans on the contingency list would have. Table 1 outlines the various classifications and definitions based on risk and shows the liability associated with such plans. Both the number of plans placed on the contingency list and the amount of potential financial assistance have increased steadily over time, with the greatest increases recorded in recent years. According to PBGC data, the number of plans where insolvency is classified as “probable”—plans that are already insolvent or are projected to become insolvent generally within 10 years—increased from 90 plans in fiscal year 2008 to 148 plans in fiscal year 2012. Similarly, the number of plans where insolvency is classified as “reasonably possible”—plans that are projected to become insolvent generally between 10 and 20 years in the future—increased from 1 in fiscal year 2008 to 13 in fiscal year 2012. Although the increase in the number of multiemployer plans on the contingency list has risen sharply, the present value of PBGC’s potential liability to those plans has increased by an even greater factor. For example, the present value of PBGC’s liability associated with “probable” plans increased from $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $7.0 billion in fiscal year 2012 (see fig. 3). By contrast, for fiscal year 2012, PBGC’s multiemployer insurance fund only had $1.8 billion in total assets, resulting in net liability of $5.2 billion, as reported in PBGC’s 2012 annual report. Although PBGC’s cash flow is currently positive—because premiums and investment returns on the multiemployer insurance fund assets exceed benefit payments and other assistance—PBGC expects plan insolvencies to more than double by 2017, placing greater demands on the insurance fund and further weakening PBGC’s overall financial position. PBGC expects the liabilities associated with current and future plan insolvencies that are likely to occur in the next 10 years to exhaust the insurance fund by about 2023. Further, insolvency may be hastened by the projected insolvencies of two very large multiemployer plans whose financial condition has greatly deteriorated in recent years. According to PBGC officials, the two large plans for which insolvency is “reasonably possible” have projected insolvency between 10 to 20 years in the future. Importantly, the PBGC’s projection of program insolvency by 2023 does not account for the impact of these two plans because their projected insolvency is more than 10 years in the future. PBGC estimates that, for fiscal year 2012, the liability from these plans accounted for about $26 billion of the $27 billion in liability of plans in the “Reasonably Possible” category. Taken in combination, the number of retirees and beneficiaries of these two plans would represent about a six-fold increase in the number of people receiving guarantee payments in 2012. PBGC estimates that the insolvency of either of these two large plans would exhaust the insurance fund in 2 to 3 years. Generally, retirees who are participants in insolvent plans receive reduced benefits under PBGC’s statutory guarantee. When a multiemployer plan becomes insolvent and relies on PBGC loans to make benefit payments to plan retirees, retirees will most likely see a reduction in their monthly benefits. PBGC calculates the maximum benefit guarantee based on the amount of a participant’s benefit accrual rate and years of credit service earned (see figure 4). For example, if a retiree has earned 30 years of credit service, the maximum coverage under the guarantee is about $1,073 per month, yielding an annual benefit of $12,870. Generally, retirees receiving the highest benefits experience the steepest cuts when their plans become insolvent and their benefits are limited by the pension guarantees. According to PBGC, the average monthly benefit received in all multiemployer plans in 2009 was $821. However, according to a PBGC analysis of benefit distributions among retirees of an undisclosed large plan, the range of benefits varies widely across retirees. About half of this plan’s retirees will experience 15 percent or greater reductions in their benefits under the guarantee. Additionally, according to PBGC, one out of five retirees of this plan will experience 50 percent or greater reductions in their benefits under the guarantee. Ultimately, regardless of how long a retiree has worked and the amount of monthly benefits earned, any reduction in benefits—no matter the amount—may have significant effects on retirees’ living standards. In the event that the multiemployer insurance fund is exhausted, participants relying on the guarantee would receive a small fraction of their already-reduced benefit. Because PBGC does not have statutory authority to raise revenue from any other source, officials said that, once the fund is depleted, the agency would have to rely solely on annual insurance premium receipts from multiemployer plans (which totaled $92 million for fiscal year 2012). The precise effect that the insolvency of the insurance fund would have on retirees receiving the guaranteed benefit depends on a number of factors—primarily the number of guaranteed benefit recipients and PBGC’s annual premium income at that time. However, the impact would likely be severe. For example, if the fund were to be drained by the insolvency of a very large and troubled plan, we estimate the benefits paid by PBGC would be reduced to less than 10 percent of the guarantee level. In this scenario, a retiree who once received monthly benefit of $2,000 and whose benefit was reduced to $1,251 under the guarantee would see monthly income further reduced to less than $125, or less than $1,500 per year. Additional plan insolvencies would further depress already drastically reduced income levels. Despite unfavorable economic conditions, most multiemployer plans are currently in adequate financial condition and may remain so for many years. However, a substantial number of plans, including some very large plans, are facing very severe financial difficulties. Many of these plans reported that no realistic combination of contribution increases or allowable benefit reductions—options available under current law to address their financial condition—will enable them to emerge from critical status. While the multiemployer system was designed to have employers serve as principal guarantors against plan insolvency, PBGC remains the guarantor of last resort. However, given their current financial challenges, neither the troubled multiemployer plans nor PBGC currently have the flexibility or financial resources to mitigate the effects of anticipated insolvencies. Should a critical mass of plan insolvencies drain the multiemployer insurance fund, PBGC will not be able to pay current and future retirees more than a very small fraction of the benefit they were promised. Consequently, a substantial loss of income in old age looms as a real possibility for the hundreds of thousands of workers and retirees depending on these plans. In a matter of weeks, we will be releasing a report that goes into greater detail about the issues I have discussed in this testimony, and includes possible actions Congress can take to prevent a catastrophic loss of retirement income for hundreds of thousands of retirees who have spent years often in dangerous occupations and in some of the nation’s most vital industries. This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have. Charles Jeszeck, 202-512-7215. In addition to the above, Michael Hartnett, Sharon Hermes, Kun-Fang Lee, David Lehrer, Sheila McCoy, and Frank Todisco made key contributions to this testimony. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Summary: Multiemployer pension plans--created by collective bargaining agreements including more than one employer--cover more than 10 million workers and retirees, and are insured by the PBGC. As a result of investment market declines, employers withdrawing from plans and demographic challenges in recent years, many multiemployer plans have had large funding shortfalls and face an uncertain future. Also, both PBGC's single-employer and multiemployer insurance programs have been on GAO's list of high-risk federal programs for a number of years. This testimony provides information on (1) recent actions that multiemployer plans in the worst financial condition have taken to improve their funding levels; and (2) the extent to which plans have relied on PBGC assistance since 2009, and the financial condition of PBGC's multiemployer plan insurance program. GAO analyzed government and industry data, interviewed representatives of selected pension plans, and a wide range of industry experts and stakeholders and reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and documentation from plans. GAO is not making recommendations in this testimony. GAO will soon release a separate report on multiemployer pension issues. The most severely distressed multiemployer plans have taken significant steps to address their funding problems and, while most plans expected improved financial health, some did not. A survey conducted by a large actuarial and consulting firm serving multiemployer plans suggests that the majority of the most severely underfunded plans--those designated as being in critical status--developed plans to increase employer contributions or reduce certain participant benefits. In some cases, these measures will have significant effects on employers and participants. For example, one plan representative stated that contribution increases had damaged some firms' competitive position in the industry. Similarly, reductions or limitations on certain benefits--such as disability benefits--may create hardships for some older workers, such as those with physically demanding jobs. Most of the 107 surveyed plans expected to emerge from critical status, but about 26 percent did not and instead seek to delay eventual insolvency. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's (PBGC) financial assistance to multiemployer plans continues to increase, and plan insolvencies threaten PBGC's multiemployer insurance fund. As a result of current and anticipated financial assistance, the present value of PBGC's liability for plans that are insolvent or expected to become insolvent within 10 years increased from $1.8 to $7.0 billion between fiscal years 2008 and 2012. Yet PBGC's multiemployer insurance fund only had $1.8 billion in total assets in 2012. PBGC officials said that financial assistance to these plans would likely exhaust the fund in or about 2023. If the fund is exhausted, many retirees will see their pension benefits reduced to a small fraction of their original value because only a reduced stream of insurance premium payments will be available to pay benefits.