The impact of governmental accounting standards on public-sector pension funding

IF 4.8 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Review of Accounting Studies Pub Date : 2023-03-23 DOI:10.1007/s11142-022-09746-5
Divya Anantharaman, Elizabeth Chuk
{"title":"The impact of governmental accounting standards on public-sector pension funding","authors":"Divya Anantharaman, Elizabeth Chuk","doi":"10.1007/s11142-022-09746-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The funding policy for defined benefit pension plans covering government employees represents an important decision for governments sponsoring those plans. Many state and local government plans have become severely underfunded (e.g., New Jersey, Illinois, and Detroit), raising concerns about whether governments are contributing enough to their pensions. Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statements 67/68 (GASB 67/68) fundamentally alter the financial reporting of pension liabilities, by (i) requiring pension liabilities to be estimated using a potentially lower discount rate (increasing estimated liabilities and any funding deficits), and (ii) mandating balance sheet recognition of funding deficits/surpluses. Although GASB 67/68 only change financial reporting and acknowledge specifically that funding is outside their scope, we find, for 100 large state-administered plans, that governments increase pension contributions significantly upon applying GASB 67/68. This funding response is stronger from governments likely to face greater political consequences once pension deficits are made prominent by GASB 67/68. Benefit cuts are also more likely post GASB 67/68, but plans that increase funding are less likely to cut benefits—suggesting that these responses substitute for each other and that pension funding is more of a fiscal priority in some states than others. Overall, our findings suggest that purely accounting changes can have “real” effects on governmental pension policy.","PeriodicalId":48120,"journal":{"name":"Review of Accounting Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Accounting Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-022-09746-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The funding policy for defined benefit pension plans covering government employees represents an important decision for governments sponsoring those plans. Many state and local government plans have become severely underfunded (e.g., New Jersey, Illinois, and Detroit), raising concerns about whether governments are contributing enough to their pensions. Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statements 67/68 (GASB 67/68) fundamentally alter the financial reporting of pension liabilities, by (i) requiring pension liabilities to be estimated using a potentially lower discount rate (increasing estimated liabilities and any funding deficits), and (ii) mandating balance sheet recognition of funding deficits/surpluses. Although GASB 67/68 only change financial reporting and acknowledge specifically that funding is outside their scope, we find, for 100 large state-administered plans, that governments increase pension contributions significantly upon applying GASB 67/68. This funding response is stronger from governments likely to face greater political consequences once pension deficits are made prominent by GASB 67/68. Benefit cuts are also more likely post GASB 67/68, but plans that increase funding are less likely to cut benefits—suggesting that these responses substitute for each other and that pension funding is more of a fiscal priority in some states than others. Overall, our findings suggest that purely accounting changes can have “real” effects on governmental pension policy.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政府会计准则对公共部门养老基金的影响
政府雇员固定收益养老金计划的资金政策是政府资助这些计划的一个重要决定。许多州和地方政府的计划资金严重不足(例如,新泽西州、伊利诺伊州和底特律),这引发了人们对政府是否为养老金提供了足够资金的担忧。政府会计准则委员会第67/68号声明(GASB 67/68)从根本上改变了养老金负债的财务报告,通过(i)要求使用可能较低的贴现率(增加估计负债和任何资金赤字)来估计养老金负债,以及(ii)要求在资产负债表上确认资金赤字/盈余。虽然GASB 67/68只改变了财务报告,并明确承认资金超出了其范围,但我们发现,对于100个大型国家管理计划,政府在应用GASB 67/68后显着增加了养老金缴款。一旦《政府会计准则第67/68号》突出养老金赤字问题,来自政府的这种资金反应可能会面临更大的政治后果。在政府会计准则第67/68号之后,削减福利的可能性也更大,但增加资金的计划不太可能削减福利——这表明这些回应是相互替代的,养老基金在一些州比其他州更优先考虑财政问题。总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,纯粹的会计变化可以对政府养老金政策产生“实际”影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Accounting Studies
Review of Accounting Studies BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: Review of Accounting Studies provides an outlet for significant academic research in accounting including theoretical, empirical, and experimental work. The journal is committed to the principle that distinctive scholarship is rigorous. While the editors encourage all forms of research, it must contribute to the discipline of accounting. The Review of Accounting Studies is committed to prompt turnaround on the manuscripts it receives.  For the majority of manuscripts the journal will make an accept-reject decision on the first round.  Authors will be provided the opportunity to revise accepted manuscripts in response to reviewer and editor comments; however, discretion over such manuscripts resides principally with the authors.  An editorial revise and resubmit decision is reserved for new submissions which are not acceptable in their current version, but for which the editor sees a clear path of changes which would make the manuscript publishable. Officially cited as: Rev Account Stud
期刊最新文献
How do retail investors respond to summary disclosure? Evidence from mutual fund factsheets The effect of the FASB-IASB convergence project on the rules- and principles-based nature of US GAAP and IFRS Unexpected defaults: the role of information opacity The gender effects of COVID: evidence from equity analysts Board bias, information, and investment efficiency
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1