The Market Value Implications of Post‐Retirement Benefit Plans and Plan Surpluses — Canadian Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examine a sample of Canadian firms with defined benefit pension plans over 2000 and 2001, using note disclosures available for the first time in Canada in 2000, and find the following: On average, Canadian investors appear to view the deficit arising from under‐funded plans as a liability of the sponsoring firm, but do not appear to view the surplus arising from over‐funded plans as an asset of the firm. This finding is consistent with the legal constraints faced by Canadian firms attempting to withdraw a pension surplus from plans. Additionally, we document that post‐retirement benefits other than pensions are largely unfunded in Canada, but are not consistently priced by the market. This latter result may be attributable to lack of investor confidence in the estimation of these liabilities. Our findings on defined benefit pension plans surpluses support current International Accounting Standards Board proposals on applying an asset ceiling test to pension surpluses. Résumé La présente étude utilise les informations annexes disponibles au Canada pour la premiére fois en 2000 pour analyser un échantillon d'entreprises canadiennes dotées, entre 2000 et 2001, de régimes de retraite àA prestations déterminées. L'étude révèle qu'en moyenne, les investisseurs canadiens ont tendance à considérer le déficit résultant des régimes sous‐capitalisés comme une responsabilité des firmes promotrices; en revanche. ils refusent de considérer l'excédent résultant des régimes surcapitalisés comme un atout pour ces firmes. Cette attitude est attribuable aux contraintes juridiques auxquelles sont soumises les firmes canadiennes qui essaient de puiser le surplus des caisses de retraites. L'étude démontre que hormis les prestations de retraite, les indemnityés à la retraite manquent cruellement de capitaux au Canada et sont sous‐évaluées parle marché. Ce dernier résultat peut être attribué au fait que les investisseurs n'ont pas foi en l'évaluation de leur passif. En ce qui conceme les excédents des régimes de retraites à prestations déterminées, nos conclusions vont dans le même sens que les propositions du Comité international de normalisation de la comptabilité qui recommandent I'application d'un test de plafonnement aux excédents des régimes de pensions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".