Accounting For OPEBs: Does Better Accounting Serve The Public Interest?

In 1992, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issues Employers Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions (SFAS 106). SFAS 106 requires public companies to account for postretirement benefits other than pensions (e.g., health care) on an accrual basis. While SFAS 106 is good accounting, it provides corporations with an excellent excuse to amend or terminate health care coverage for retirees. This paper discusses the economic and social consequences of SFAS 106 as well as the politics of the accounting standard setting process.

Cost/Benefit Tradeoffs Relating To Reductions In Postretirement Health Care Benefits In The SFAS 106 Environment

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; tab-stops: -.5in .5in; mso-hyphenate: none;"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Batang;">We investigate what factors help explain postretirement health care benefit (PRB) reductions around the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard 106 (SFAS 106). We find that firms with more motivation to make benefit cuts because of larger PRB-related obligations were more likely to decrease benefits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Our primary contribution comes from examining the <strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">cost/benefit</strong> <strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">tradeoffs</strong> of making these reductions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>For example, we find a trade-off between reductions in PRB and increases in pension obligations, consistent with firms offering higher alternative forms of compensation to make up for the loss in PRB. In addition, firms with greater unionization among employees are somewhat less likely to reduce benefits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Finally, we document that firms involved in more extensive efforts to reduce capacity and cut costs through firm restructurings are more likely to reduce benefits.</span></span></span></p>