Blog

The Public Sector Accounting Board’s new Section PS 3251 for Employee Benefits has been a long time coming.  And while its effective date of April 1, 2029 might make this feel like a “future problem”, it’s one that plan sponsors in the public sector should start thinking about now – especially since early adoption of this new standard is permitted.

At first glance, PS 3251 looks like a technical update: it replaces PS 3250 and PS 3255 with a single, consolidated standard.  However, in substance, it represents something more meaningful: a shift in how the public sector reports, interprets, and ultimately talks about their obligations for employee benefit programs such as pension plans, post-employment benefits, compensated absences, and termination benefits.

If I had to summarize the changes in one sentence, it’s that PS 3251 removes the smoothing and deferred recognition adjustments.  And with those smoothing adjustments removed, what’s left is a clearer, and more volatile, picture of reality.

From Smoothing to Reality: More Transparency and More Volatility

For years, public sector accounting for employee benefits has permitted various mechanisms which soften the edges for financial reporting, such as the deferral and amortization of actuarial gains and losses, and the smoothing of assets.

The new PS 3251 eliminates all of these.  In particular, actuarial gains and losses will now be recognized immediately in the statement of financial position, and asset values will be measured at market value. 

This is often described as a move toward a “mark-to-market” approach.  What it really means is that financial statements will now show the current economic position of the plan, not a smoothed or averaged version of it.

As such, transparency improves, and the users of financial statements get a more faithful picture of the underlying financial position.  But there’s a trade-off, since this volatility will now be visible in the financial statements (consistent with the accounting treatment in the private sector).

The Other Big Change: Discount Rates

If the elimination of smoothing is the biggest change, the discount rate guidance is a close second.

Historically, PSAB provided relatively limited direction in this area.  In practice, approaches varied, often anchored on expected returns for funded plans or borrowing rates for unfunded ones.

PS 3251 replaces that with a more structured framework tied to funded status.

• Fully funded plans are required to set their discount rate equal to the expected market-based return on their assets; whereas
• Underfunded plans will be required to set their discount rate equal to the market yields on government bonds, high-quality corporate bonds, or another appropriate high-quality financial instrument.

But here’s where this gets interesting, determining whether a plan is “fully funded” is not entirely straightforward and will involve judgment, informed by:

• primary indicators, including any legislative, regulatory, or contractual funding requirements and evidence from the plan’s most recently prepared actuarial valuation for funding purposes; and
• secondary indicators, where the assessment of primary indicators is insufficient to determine the plan’s funding status.  These indicators may include contribution requirements, funding policies, and other relevant plan characteristics.

In other words, they’ve replaced one area of flexibility with another.  Personally, I worry that entities may play fast and loose with the interpretation of “fully funded” – but let’s see how this unfolds over time.

[It’s worthwhile to note that the accounting standards for the private sector require the discount rate to be determined in reference to market yields on high-quality corporate bonds, in contrast to the methods here, which permit fully funded public sector pension plans to develop a discount rate in reference to their “hopeful”/expected investment return.  For more on how optimistic expected returns can arguably be used to understate pension liabilities you can check out my previous blog here.]

More Judgment

If there’s a common thread running through PS 3251, it’s this: judgment matters more than it used to.  We see this in several places:

• Assessing funded status – This isn’t a mechanical calculation, it requires weighing evidence and forming a view, one that can directly influence the discount rate and, therefore, the liability.
• Selecting assumptions – With volatility more visible, the choice of assumptions (economic and demographic) becomes more consequential and more scrutinized.
• Explaining results – When numbers are more volatile from year to year, stakeholders may ask why.  And the simple explanation of “that’s what the model says” won’t be enough.

This last point is easy to underestimate.  PS 3251 doesn’t just change the accounting framework for employee benefit plans; it raises the bar on communication.

More Disclosure

PS 3251 also enhances the disclosure requirements for plan sponsors.  Entities will need to provide better information on:

• Key assumptions and methods;
• A sensitivities analysis of the obligations for each significant assumption;
• A description of the plan and its key risks;
• And even more details will be required for entities that participate in multi-employer plans (i.e. whether or not they have enough details to apply defined benefit accounting for the measurement of its proportionate participation in a multi-employer plan).

Overall, more disclosure is a good thing as better disclosure should lead to better understanding.  But it could also mean more work for preparers, more focus from auditors, and more questions from boards, unions, and other stakeholders.

What Hasn’t Changed

It’s worth grounding all of this in one important point – PS 3251 does not change the economics of a pension or benefit program.  Benefits haven’t changed, funding rules haven’t changed, and the cash requirements for sponsoring a plan haven’t changed.

What has changed is how those economics are reported on an entity’s financial statements.

Practical Implications: Beyond the Accounting

In my view, the most interesting impacts of PS 3251 won’t be found in the financial statements themselves, but in what happens around them.

A few areas stand out:

• Risk and volatility will become more prominent – with no smoothing, swings in asset values and interest rates will show up immediately.  This may lead to more attention in de-risking strategies, more focus on asset-liability alignment, and more discussion around downside protection.  Not because these risks are new, but because they’re now more prominently reported in the financial statements.
• Governance may need to evolve – Judgment-heavy areas, particularly around funded status and assumptions, will require clear frameworks, strong documentation, and consistent application over time. 
• Telling the story – Perhaps most importantly, organizations will need to get better at explaining their results.  When volatility is more visible in the financial statements, the narrative becomes critical: What changed? Why did it change? Is the change temporary or structural? What does it mean for the plan?  This is where actuarial and finance teams may need to work more closely with plan sponsors.

A Final Thought: Clarity Isn’t Always Comfortable

PS 3251 is, at its core, about providing a greater level of clarity.  It removes mechanisms that smooth the underlying economics and replaces them with a framework that reflects the current economics more directly.

In my view, this is a positive development.  Nevertheless, clarity isn’t always comfortable.  More transparent financial statements will mean more volatility, more scrutiny, more judgment, and ultimately, more thoughtful interpretation.

In that sense, PS 3251 doesn’t just modernize accounting, it shifts the conversation.  And for those responsible for explaining these results, that is where they will need to focus.