Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

Sneak Preview of New Book on Behavioral Finance

I’ve spent the past third of my life observing annuities, as an annuity marketer at Vanguard, as author of Annuities for Dummies, as editor of RIJ, and as a fly-on-the-wall at dozens of annuity conferences. Over that time, I’ve developed a few personal theories about why it’s so tough to sell annuities, especially income annuities.

Here are three reasons I think annuities aren’t more popular:

Few people spend two hundred big ones all at once, on anything. Most people value liquidity highly, and the purchase of an annuity means a cliff-like loss of liquidity. No one I know pays for insurance of any kind with a lump sum; their spouses would veto the transaction. The most sensible way to buy a retirement annuity is the way you buy your Social Security benefit from Uncle Sam: With a little bit of every paycheck, over a lifetime.

“Deadstick” landings are unpopular. When an airplane loses all propulsive power and the pilot has to emergency-land onto an airstrip or highway or cornfield (or the icy Hudson River, famously) with no way to regain altitude, that’s a deadstick landing. No matter how old, many people still hope to get rich someday. And they reduce their chances if they annuitize too much of their money. They feel less powerful.

Jack Bogle is not an avid fan. Vanguard has always preached that if you stay the course (keep expenses low, don’t try to market-time, and always have a few losers in your portfolio), then reversion to the mean and the equity premium will see you safely through and you won’t need to insure your investments. If St. Jack were a cheerleader for annuities, sales would be higher.

If you’re wondering if any of my hypotheses were ever tested in double-blind studies or published in peer-reviewed journals, they weren’t. And none of them shows up in the forthcoming First Handbook of Behavioral Finance (Elsevier), edited by Douglas Bernheim, Stefano DellaVigna and David Laibson.

In the just-published draft (NBER Working Paper 24854) of a chapter in the book called “Behavioral Household Finance,” authors James Choi of Yale and John Beshears, David Laibson and Brigitte Madrian of Harvard, review the best available research on the causes of the annuity puzzle. Here are the factors they collected and shared:

‘Actuarially unfair’ annuity prices. Several studies suggest that life-only income annuities don’t offer good value. According to one estimate, the average annuity owner only gets back between 75 and 85 cents for every dollar of purchase premium, with insurance company costs eating up the difference. To me this means: most people don’t expect to live long enough to be “in the money” on their contract.

A high fraction of household wealth is already annuitized in the form of future benefits from Social Security and private pensions. This seems intuitively right. For many people, the present value of their Social Security benefit can make up more than half of their net worth. On the other hand, the fact that most people minimize their benefits by claiming ASAP makes me wonder if they understand that Social Security is an annuity.

A bequest motive plus the opportunity to invest in equities can suppress annuity demand. It makes sense, as the authors observe, that people who are primarily thinking of their children’s inheritances would prefer individual stocks over annuities, especially where the investments aren’t held in qualified accounts. On the other hand, research shows that the bequest motive is fairly weak.

Married couples have built-in partial longevity insurance. On the principle that one can often live cheaper than two, or that a surviving spouse needs less income than an elderly couple, the book suggests that “when one member dies earlier than expected, there are more resources available to help meet financial needs if the other member lives longer than expected.” This explanation seems less than intuitive, although it makes sense that the high cost of many joint-and-survivor annuities, relative to single-life annuities, might hurt their appeal to couples.

Annuities are not popular in bull markets. “Annuity take-up is negatively correlated with recent stock market returns. Households appear to extrapolate when forming beliefs about future stock returns and therefore prefer lump sums that can be invested in equities when recent returns have been high,” the book says. Conservative investments don’t hold much attraction when the world seems to be ignoring risk. A smart near-retiree, you might hope, would sell inflated equities to lock in safe lifetime income. But most people don’t think that way.

Uncertainty regarding future health care needs. “Households may refrain from purchasing annuities and instead use accumulated wealth to self-insure against the risk of health shocks,” the book says. This sentiment could be especially strongest among people who dread the prospect of needing Medicaid-funded long-term care. At the same time, anyone with a health problem that reduces longevity expectations would obviously lose interest in life annuities, unless a discounted or “impaired risk” annuity were available.

Institutional factors don’t make it easy for plan participants to buy annuities. Since 401(k) plans generally do not include education that emphasizes the importance of turning savings into retirement income, most people don’t arrive at retirement with an understanding of or appreciation for annuities–or a well-marked path toward the purchase of one. “Few defined contribution retirement savings plans provide annuities as an option in the investment menu, and small frictions in the process of purchasing an annuity may decrease annuity take-up substantially,” the book says.

Not everyone is smart enough to make a sensible annuity choice. Is it dumber to buy an annuity or not to buy an annuity? It seems to depend on the situation. On the one hand, it takes a certain amount of financial sophistication to understand and appreciate the value of an annuity. Also, smart people tend to be wealthier, and wealthier people tend to live longer, so smart wealthy people, you might think, would value longevity insurance. On the other hand, people who are financially sophisticated are often confident enough in their investing ability not to feel the need for such a conservative financial instrument.

There you have them: Eleven answers to the annuity puzzle. Eight of them are deemed worth mentioning in an authoritative new textbook. Three of them come from my gut. Sellers of annuities should feel forewarned, if not forearmed.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Mind the Coverage Gap

Would “open multiple employer plans” (MEPs) or “pooled employer plans” (PEPs) encourage thousands of small employers to offer their workers a retirement plan for the first time?

Or would these umbrella 401(k) plans, which plan recordkeepers, payroll companies and outsourced fiduciaries create and invite employers to join, mainly recruit and enroll employers that already offer plans?

More to the point: Would these relatively new types of plans significantly shrink America’s coverage gap—the fact that about half of full-time private-sector US workers lack a tax-deferred savings plan at work—or would they just rearrange and “cannibalize” existing market share?

In lobbying Congress to remove the legal barriers to MEPs and PEPs, major retirement firms and their advocacy groups have insisted that these plans will reduce the coverage gap. That argument didn’t sway the Obama administration, which preferred public remedies for the gap, such as a nationwide system of auto-enrolled IRAs called MyRAs or state-sponsored programs.

But the Trump administration appears receptive to an industry-led solution to the under-coverage problem. It axed the MyRA plan, and a top Labor Department appointee is the former Republican Senate aide who in 2016 wrote one of the pending proposals that could enable more open MEPs and PEPs. It remains to be seen if any of those proposals will become law.

For this installment of RIJ’s series on provider-sponsored 401(k) plans, we talked to several people with strong opinions regarding the questions posed above. The answers suggest that there probably will be some cannibalization and some growth in coverage. An industry-led solution is likely to close the coverage gap where it makes business sense to do so, but not necessarily in the areas of greatest need.

‘No consensus’

Troy Tisue, the CEO of TAG Resources, Inc. of Knoxville, Tenn., which provides outsourced fiduciary services to clusters of small plans, is well-positioned to comment on MEPs. He claims to have started the open MEP movement in 2002, after an IRS ruling confirmed the tax-favored status of certain umbrella 401(k) plans.

Often partnering with Transamerica as plan recordkeeper, TAG Resources began setting up such plans. His business model attracted imitators, and the field slowly grew. In 2012, after the Department of Labor declared that companies in an umbrella plan must have some “nexus” or commonality, he and Transamerica tweaked their model so that each employer in the plan filed its own Form 5500, a dreaded piece of essential red tape.

Asked about the issue of cannibalization versus coverage expansion, Tisue told RIJ, “40% of the plans we write are dead start-ups.” That is, about 60% of the employers he recruits already have plans. New employers join a Transamerica/TAG umbrella plan either because it lets them start up a plan for less or because they want to transfer most of the risk of being sued (for making a mistake in choosing investments or handling participant money) to an outside fiduciary.

“Everyone has an innate fear of doing something wrong. That’s why the employer wants delegation [of the plan watchdog or ‘fiduciary’ role],” Tisue told RIJ. Asked if he had ever detected pent-up demand for 401(k) plans among the employers or employees at small companies that don’t currently offer plans, Tisue couldn’t say.

A 2012 Government Accountability study showed no clear evidence that MEPs would shrink the coverage gap. “Overall, no consensus existed among MEP representatives and pension experts on whether or not MEPs such as PEO MEPs or open MEPs would substantially expand pension coverage,” the GAO report said.

“Several MEP representatives thought that MEPs had the potential to expand coverage, especially among small to mid-size employers that could benefit from the potential administrative and cost advantages. However, a couple of pension experts were skeptical that open MEPs would have much of an impact in expanding retirement plan coverage. For example, one pension expert said employee demand, rather than cost benefits offered by MEPs, drives whether or not a business sponsors a plan.

“While a couple of the MEPs we spoke with had offerings for employers to start new plans through the MEP, several targeted businesses with existing plans. For example, an open MEP representative said their adopting employers usually have over 100 employees or plan assets of $2 million to $5 million,” the report said.

“We, like GAO, found that open MEPs are not coverage solvers, but rather an attempt to offer a product with fewer restrictions,” former chief of the DOL’s Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) Phyllis Borzi told RIJ. “It was a deregulation thing, because employers who had established 401(k)s would now be out from under their fiduciary burden.

“The industry would be cannibalizing its existing 401(k) business, so there would be no overall increase in coverage. So the Obama administration was not supportive it. We did talked about a version of open MEPs in the budget, but these could only be used or marketed however to employers who hadn’t had a plan for three to five years.”

Industry voices

Industry views are softer. “On the question of cannibalization, it’s not a matter of ‘either/or,’” said State Street Global Advisors’ managing director for public policy, Melissa Kahn, in an interview. “There might be some cannibalization. But for most part [open MEPs] will bring more people into the system. In Oregon, for example, they have a coverage mandate, and a lot of employers are voluntarily enrolling in plans even before they are forced to.”

Lori Lucas, president and CEO of the Employee Benefits Research Institute (EBRI) told RIJ, “We often hear that the burdens of offering retirement plans outweigh the merits. [Plan sponsors] cite the 401(k) litigation and lawsuits. They would eagerly move away from [direct plan sponsorship] if the system facilitated it. They would look at a widely accessible open MEP system as a way out of the traditional system. That would be a completely different dynamic. It would begin to cannibalize the industry.”

Jack Towarnicky, executive director of the Plan Sponsors Council of America and who sponsored a MEP among affiliated companies for 25 years, does not predict that open MEPs or PEPs will be the answer to the coverage gap.

“A PEP does enable small employers to band together, to qualify as a single plan, and to achieve a modest reduction in costs through simplified annual reporting and audit relief,” he told RIJ in an email. “Those savings may be substantial for small employers who have already adopted a plan.”

He added, in contradiction of some claims that PEPs will reduce plan costs significantly, that PEPs “may not change the cost calculation for those employers who have not adopted a plan. I am not aware of any predictions that a significant percentage of small employers who do not currently offer a plan will now adopt a PEP.”

Sharp sticks, plump carrots

Government statistics, albeit dated, showing that the larger the firm, the more likely it already offers a plan today. In 2009, only 31% of the half-million firms with 26 to 100 employees offered plans and 26% of the 725,000 firms with 12 to 25 employees offered plans. That’s where the opportunity for MEPs might be concentrated. The millions of firms smaller than that would be too insignificant for private firms to spend marketing dollars on. To the extent that they employ low-income workers, however, they become a concern of public policymakers.

No matter how cheap and easy providers make it to offer a plan, employers currently without plans wouldn’t necessarily jump into a pooled plan. Low-cost, low-friction ways to offer 401k plans or SIMPLE IRAs already exist for employers who are altruistically inclined to do so, or who want the tax breaks that go with offering plans, or who feel pressure from employees. States like California and Oregon are proceeding with state-sponsored plans on the assumption that it will take a mandate or at least a nudge to achieve universal 401(k) or IRA coverage within their borders.

“I like the idea of state- or large city-sponsored open MEPs, because you have experts, acting in the public trust, making critical decisions about plan design,” said Nari Rhee, director of the Retirement Security Program at the University of California–Berkeley. “They also command some market power to drive down fees on behalf of participants, and they’re more likely to reach scale. So far, the one in Massachusetts for nonprofits seems to be decent.”

“It’s no accident that most countries have gone to a mandatory DC system,” Borzi told RIJ. “You can’t have sharp enough sticks or plump enough carrots to get to the goal of universal coverage. But in the U.S. we’re not close to a mandatory system.”

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

June was a ‘risk-off’ month for equities: Morningstar

U.S. equity funds saw net redemptions of $20.8 billion in June 2018, as long-term U.S. open-end mutual funds and ETFs saw their greatest outflows since August 2015, according to the Morningstar Direct Asset Flows Commentary for June.

June ended the third-worst first half for U.S. equity flows in a decade, after 2015 and 2009. Sector-equity, international-equity, allocation, alternative, and commodity funds all had net outflows. In their largest monthly outflow in at least a decade, large-blend funds alone saw net outflows of $19.4 billion.

Only taxable-bond and municipal-bond funds had inflows. Taxable-bond funds were the only long-term group with big inflows, adding $15.5 billion in June. Relatively conservative ultrashort-bond funds attracted almost $5.5 billion, and intermediate government funds gained about $3.1 billion in inflows. High-yield bond funds surrendered $3.4 billion in outflows.

Over the past 12 months, ultrashort-bond funds received $50.5 billion for a 38.2% organic growth rate. Since the start of Federal Reserve rate-hikes in December 2015, ultrashort-bond funds have attracted $85.3 billion, up from just $14.0 billion in the previous two and a half years.

For equities, it was a different story. “In a bit of a paradox, the greatest net outflows came from active U.S. equity funds, which had $17.1 billion in net redemptions versus negative $3.7 billion for passive funds,” the Morningstar analyst wrote.

Among individual funds, index offerings fared especially badly. Five funds–SPDR S&P 500 ETF SPY, iShares Core S&P 500 ETF IVV, Vanguard Institutional Index VINIX, Invesco QQQ Trust QQQ, and Vanguard Total Stock Market Index VTSMX–saw combined outflows of $14.7 billion.

While a few large passive funds had substantial outflows, the majority (about 70%) had inflows. About 26% of actively managed U.S. equity funds had modest inflows; T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value PRSVX added about $660 million.

“Because ETFs are often used as trading vehicles, it’s hard to know how much of last month’s U.S. equity passive outflows reflect a change in investor sentiment versus simple trading or rebalancing. Looking from a broader perspective, U.S. equity inflows haven’t been terribly strong over the past decade,” the Morningstar report said.

“Since July 2008, U.S. equity funds have collected about $254 billion in inflows. That’s a big number, but it’s not that impressive when you consider that’s starting from a base of $3 trillion,” the analyst wrote.

“Yes, the past 10-year period includes a chunk of the credit crisis in 2008-09, but it also includes a historically long bull market. With the global population aging and many investors focused on capital preservation, equity demand among fundholders remains tepid.”

International equity funds saw outflows for the first time since September 2016, estimated at $9.8 billion. The average diversified emerging-markets equity fund was down 8.9% over the past three months. Net redemptions of about $8 billion from diversified emerging-markets equity funds represented the greatest net outflow in at least a decade.

Investors pulled a combined $625 million from emerging-markets bond and emerging- markets local-currency bond funds. Vanguard Total International Stock Index enjoyed about $7.3 billion in inflows, but emerging markets represent only about 17% of its assets. Foreign large-blend funds had $4.3 billion in inflows while Vanguard Total International Stock Index VGTSX, a core holding, collected $7.3 billion.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Should We Worry About Higher Oil Prices?

In the middle of last year oil prices were $45 per barrel. A year later at $74 they are higher than anyone anticipated. What is behind this 65% increase in oil prices? What should we expect going forward? Could they be the catalyst for the Fed to accelerate the pace of rate hikes?

Oil prices began their ascent in the second half of last year as it became apparent that global GDP growth was accelerating. In April the IMF officially raised its estimate of global growth by 0.2% to 3.9% as the United States, European, and Japanese economies all gathered momentum. The prospect of faster growth began to push oil prices higher.

Since that time supply factors have come into play. The Venezuelan economy has plunged into a deep economic crisis. The IMF estimates that GDP growth will fall 15% in 2018, which would be the fifth consecutive year of contraction. Inflation is expected to skyrocket to 14,000%. The oil sector is in shambles as the result of chronic mismanagement and inadequate investment. At the beginning of 2016 Venezuela produced 2.6 million barrels of oil per day. That has fallen steadily to 1.5 million barrels per day currently — a multi-decade low — and analysts expect a further drop to 0.8 million barrels per day by the end of this year. This dramatic drop in production from a previously top-10 oil producing country has been a major factor behind the recent rise in oil prices.

In May President Trump announced that he was withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and intended to re-instate sanctions against Iranian oil exports. The idea is to slash Iranian oil exports from 1.3 million barrels per day currently to almost nothing. That announcement caused oil prices to jump by an additional $6 per barrel.

With the prospect of losing perhaps another 2.0 million barrels of oil output per day between now and the end of next year, can other oil producers pick up the slack? Perhaps. Last month OPEC ministers and non-OPEC producers agreed to step up production by about 1.0 million barrels per day with Saudi Arabia and Russia leading the way. However, there may not be enough unused capacity in those two countries to achieve the agreed-upon increase in production.

At the same time U.S. shale oil producers continue to boost output. Since the end of last year oil production in the U.S. has climbed from 9.8 million barrels per day to 11.0 million barrels currently, and the Energy Department expects production to climb further to 11.8 million barrels per day in 2019.

Between the announced increase in production by OPEC and the likely pickup in U.S. production, global output should counter most of the reduced oil supply from Venezuela and Iran.

At the same time the demand for oil could be reduced if countries that rely primarily on trade see some slippage in GDP growth caused by the newly imposed tariffs. China is a prime candidate for slower growth from reduced trade flows. As the world’s second largest economy slower GDP growth in China matters. In its recent revision the IMF did not soften its growth outlook for China, which it expects to slip from 6.9% last year to 6.6% this year and to 6.4% in 2019. However, those projections do not incorporate any impact from the broader trade actions announced by the U.S. in early July, which are bound to further curtail GDP growth.

Elsewhere, growth in most European countries and Japan will be negatively impacted by reduced trade flows. The IMF recently chopped GDP growth for Germany, France, Italy, Britain, and Japan this year by 0.3% apiece. The imposition of additional tariffs will further stifle growth in these countries.

The oil market is trying to digest unprecedented changes with output largely disappearing in a previously major oil-producing country, a potential significant drop-off in exports from another country as the result of sanctions, combined with a dramatic increase in output in yet another country. At the same time the demand side outlook is murky as the trade war between the U.S. and its trading partners escalates. Faster global growth contributed to the earlier increase in oil prices. Slower growth triggered by reduced trade flows will do the opposite.

For now, the impact from this combination of events appears to have produced a temporary run-up in oil prices, which are expected to decline over time. For example, the December 2018 futures contract for West Texas Intermediate crude oil is about $65 per barrel; the December 2020 contract expects a further drop to about $58.

The real concern will be if, at some point, business leaders become sufficiently uncertain about the economic environment that they are unwilling to invest in which case the global growth slowdown will become more pronounced. For now, the economic outlook is solid. Second quarter GDP growth in the U.S. should be solid at about 4.0%. Business confidence as measured by the ISM index is at a 14-year high despite all the trade talk.

Consumer confidence by any measure is equally buoyant.

The Fed will be concerned only if higher oil prices significantly boost inflation expectations. But, thus far, that has not happened. Survey-based measures of inflation expectations have been relatively stable. One such survey produced by the University of Michigan has been at about 2.75% since the end of 2016.

One market-based measure of inflationary expectations, the difference between the yield on the nominal 10-year note and its inflation-adjusted equivalent, has risen in the past year or so but remains subdued at 2.1%.

So, while the oil market has been struggling to adjust to some dramatic changes in production and possible changes in demand, thus far the recent increase in oil prices appears likely to be a largely temporary event with little negative impact on the U.S. economy or inflation expectations. If business and consumer confidence hold up and inflation expectations remain subdued the Fed will not be alarmed.

© 2018 Numbernomics.com.

‘Freedom’ is the key to Sammons’ new variable annuity

What makes a skeptical advisor sit up and notice a new variable annuity contract? Three factors rank high: ample equity exposure, a guaranteed floor income, and maximum ability to access the money in the contract.

In their unusual new LiveWell Freedom Variable Annuity contract, Sammons Retirement Solutions and Midland National Life have done a creative job of arranging the product’s moving parts to respond to those criteria.

“You can’t come out with something that’s like everybody else and expect to change the market,” Sammons CEO Bill Lowe told RIJ in a phone interview this week. “Variable annuities with GLWB [guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefits] riders were selling better when the benefits were higher. First, you have to have upside potential. So we allow up to 80% equity exposure.”

LiveWell Freedom VA owners are required, in fact, to allocate between 60% and 80% of the premium to one or more of only five equity fund options. The product has an annual roll-up linked to the returns of the S&P 500 Index as well as a novel “Freedom Date.”

The Freedom Date provision allows the contract owner to take money out of the contract without affecting the annual income payment after a 20-year holding period (25 years if the owner is under age 60 at time of purchase. (There is no guarantee, however, that there will be a positive balance in the contract after 20 years of withdrawals and fees. But the high equity allocation makes it conceivable.)

“The unique feature is the Freedom Date,” Lowe said. “If you buy this at age 60, at age 80 you have 100% access to the accumulation value without negatively affecting the lifetime payment account. And after that point, we no longer charge for the rider.” In other words, clients don’t have to outlive all of their own assets before starting to receive the insurer’s money. “Normally, with a GLWB, the insurer doesn’t pay those benefits until you run out of money,” he added.

The design of the roll-up is also novel. “You’ve seen those contracts with a five percent or six percent roll-up,” Lowe said. “We tied the roll-up to the S&P 500.” Each contract year after purchase, the income base increases by 2% plus 75% of the gain in the S&P 500. The annual roll-up stops at the first withdrawal, or when the income base reaches 200% of the value of the original premium.

The insurer pays for these benefits in part by lowering the generosity of the withdrawal rates. Between the ages of 60 and 64, withdrawals are limited to 3.5% of the benefit base (which unlike the account value, is not exposed to market depreciation) per year (3.0% for joint-and-survivor contracts). For ages 65 to 69, withdrawals are capped at 4% per year (3.5% for joint contracts). Withdrawals in excess of the cap reduce the account value and the annual payout.

As for the roll-up’s promise of 75% of the gain in the S&P 500 Index during each contract year, the insurer uses a portion of the annual 1.45% GLWB rider fee (based on the value of the income benefit) to hedge against higher-than-expected gains in the index. The GLWB fee is assessed every year that the contract is in force, and not just in years when a roll-up is earned.

In addition to the GLWB rider fee (which the insurer can adjust as high as 2.50% during the life of the contract), there’s a .90% annual mortality and expense risk fee (which the insurer can apply to distribution costs) and an annual administrative fee equal to 0.35% of the account value.

Investment fees on the 10 mutual fund options (see box below) range from 0.61% per year to 1.10% per year. None of the funds have “volatility controls” that act as built-in buffers on their appreciation. When the contract owner or owners die, a death benefit equal to the remaining account value is paid.

The contract has a seven-year surrender period with a maximum penalty of 8% on withdrawals that exceed the free withdrawal limit, which is equal to 10% of the account value, the regular income payment if income has begun, or the amount of the contract owner’s requirement minimum distribution from a qualified contract purchased with pre-tax money.

The LiveWell Freedom variable annuity is distributed through banks, independent broker-dealers and full-service broker-dealers (wirehouses). “We’re generally focused on the regional full services distributor,” Lowe said. Asked if the LiveWell contract might cannibalize some of Midland Life’s fixed indexed annuity sales, he said, “It’s a completely different buyer. [The FIA buyer] One is conservative and values the protection of principal. The [VA buyer] says, ‘I’d like to have more upside.’”

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

RIAs should beware the stress of success: Cerulli

Registered investment advisors (RIAs) encounter a new set of growing pains when they reach $1 billion in assets under management (AUM), according to recent research from Cerulli Associates, the global research and consulting firm.

“As smaller RIAs reach $500 million or more in assets, they transition from a practice to become a functional business, but as firms surpass $1 billion in assets, they reach a new phase in their business lifecycle,” said Kenton Shirk, a director at Cerulli, in a release.

“In many cases, they begin to support a growing number of advisors across multiple locations, and as they centralize services and resources, they develop a home-office support structure analogous to that of a broker/dealer (B/D).” At that stage of development, RIAs need to acquire a new set of competencies or risk losing competitiveness.

“They now face new challenges such as attracting and retaining advisors, building scale across a large number of advisors, enhancing advisor productivity, and offering a consistent and positive client experience across a large organization,” said Shirk. “They need to build an executive management team, which often includes hiring roles such as chief operating officers, chief compliance officers, and chief investment officers.”

Billion-dollar RIAs grew 9.8% annually during the five years ended 2016, according to Cerulli. RIAs with $250 million to $500 million in AUM grew 11.8% and firms with $500 million to $1 billion grew 10.6%. The seven RIAs with $10 billion or more at the beginning of the period grew only 6.0%, underperforming the growth rate of small broker/dealers with $10 billion to $50 billion (9.5%).

Despite these hurdles, “RIAs that can overcome these challenges could ultimately become formidable competitors among wealth management firms,” Shirk sad.

These findings are included in the 3Q 2018 issue of The Cerulli Edge–U.S. Advisor Edition.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Healthy economy ahead: Phil Chao

Chao and Co., the Vienna, VA-based retirement plan and fiduciary consulting firm led by Philip Chao, has released its second quarter economic commentary. Highlights of the report included:

Strong US economy. The press release, press conference and the minutes to the FOMC June meeting along with Chairman Jay Powell’s June 20th speech at the ECB Forum on Central Banking, at Sintra, Portugal, all confidently point to a strong U.S. economy.

Low unemployment. Unemployment is expected to remain low and to go lower. This is the brightest spot in the U.S. economy. Over 200,000 new jobs created month after month in the 9th year of an economic recovery is nothing less than spectacular. The June jobs report shows a small uptake in participation rate as well as the unemployment rate. These indicators suggest that there are workers not previously accounted for and now entering the job force or return to looking for a job. If this is true, then the natural employment rate (or NAIRU) has not yet been reached.

Moderate inflation. Core inflation is now at the 2% FOMC objective, and the FOMC wants to be sure that this is sustainable. As such, the FOMC continues to use “symmetry” to frame its policy reaction function. This means that the FOMC will tolerate a slightly above 2% core inflation rate for a period of time before reconsidering its monetary stance.

Interest rates. The long-end of the treasury yield curve is subject to market forces such as rate disparity among central banks, significant demand from pensions due to aging demographics, and the increasing demand for safe assets globally. This drag on the back-end of the yield curve limits the amount of rate hikes the FOMC can effect before the yield curve inverses, which could usher in the next economic slowdown or recession. Historically 2-3-4 is a simple rule of thumb for understanding the Fed. The Fed is looking to maintain a 2% core inflation rate, 3% neutral Fed Fund’s rate and promote a 4% GDP. In the New Normal environment, the 2% inflation has been difficult to achieve and sustain. Moreover, the Fed Funds rate of 1% above the core inflation rate is even harder to reach with the fear of failing the 2% inflation rate, which would impact the 4% economy. We believe going forward in the long run, it is more a 2-2-2 world.

Tax cuts and tariffs. The January Tax Cuts and Jobs Act gave the already expanding economy a huge boost. This front-loaded, debt-driven gift is expected to push the 2nd and 3rd quarter to a 3.5-4% annualized GDP rate. Then growth is expected to taper through 2019 and beyond. This very positive economic scenario is now facing a self-imposed headwind of impending global trade war. At its most basic level, tariffs will push up inflation (cost-push), which is equivalent to a tax hike. Further, the jump in oil prices is also a drag.

The reversal of quantitative easing. Uncertainty is rising with interest rate in the front end continuing to rise with positive safe asset returns beginning to bleed into other assets; and at the same time, macro liquidity is shrinking (withdrawal of global QE). The cumulative impact from the reversal of the global central bank policies of the past nine years will not be symmetric or gradual.

© 2018 Chao & Co.

The ‘Institutionalization’ of the 401(k)

The defined contribution retirement savings system in the US may be only one or two Congressional roll call votes away from a subtle but far-reaching shift in direction, philosophy and leadership.

A new paradigm called “institutionalization” may be about to glide like an Amtrak Acela into Washington, D.C.’s white marble Union Station.

Lew Minsky, the president and CEO of the Defined Contribution Institutional Investors Association (DCIIA), which advocates for the asset managers, recordkeepers and other providers of services to retirement plans and participants, used that term in a recent email with RIJ.

Institutionalization, as Minsky later described it in an interview, means a transfer of direct sponsorship of private 401(k) plans fro employers to industry players. Traditionally, each employer has required more or less its own unique Department of Labor-regulated plan from 401(k) service providers; in the future, industry players could offer one plan design to hundreds of small, mid-size or even large employers.

This shift, which current law prevents from fully flourishing, would check several boxes:

¶ Many employers say they don’t want the legal liability, cost, or administrative of offering a federally regulated retirement plan.

¶ Service providers say the shift would allow them to apply their economies of scale to every plan, no matter how small, making the whole system cheaper and more efficient. As one asset manager’s whitepaper said, it would change the retirement industry the way the mass-produced Model T changed the American auto industry.

¶ In Washington, policymakers and legislators want to boost retirement savings among the have-nots of the current system—tens of millions of low-income and minority workers whose employers don’t currently offer a plan.

Here’s an edited version of RIJ’s interview with Minsky:

RIJ: Lew, when you say ‘institutionalizing’ the retirement industry, what exactly does that mean?

Lew Minsky

Minsky: It means shifting the defined contribution model to a more institutional model. It means pooling assets, broadening the set of solutions, and closing the performance gap that exists between DC and [professionally managed] defined benefit pension funds, endowments and foundations. In the broadest sense, it means driving better outcomes for participants.

RIJ: We’re talking about institutionalizing the 401(k) for smaller companies specifically, right?

Minsky: Institutionalization involves a recognition that, at least at the small end of the employer spectrum, there’s a disconnect between the work required to set up a plan and the risk required to be a plan sponsor, on the one hand, and the capabilities and capacities of small and ‘micro’ employers.

RIJ: Can you give me an example?

Minsky: For instance, DCIIA itself is a small business. And we’re already in the retirement business. So we should be well positioned to run a small plan. But it’s a lot of work for a small employer like us. So we participate in a multiple employer plan, or MEP. We’re in the American Bar Association’s plan. We feel like that’s the best solution for us. But the requirements—the nexus [or ‘commonality’] required to be in a MEP like ours requirements—are very limiting, however. We support opening that up.

RIJ: So, today an association and employer like the American Bar Association or the National Association of Auto Dealers can sponsor a MEP. But, under some of the legislation pending in Congress, a retirement plan service provider would be able sponsor a MEP… is that right?

Minsky: It’s an open question as to who would be the sponsoring employer of these plans. I expect we’ll see a solution evolve that looks more like Australia’s system. In Australia, they have superannuation plans or supers. They have disintermediated the employer through the sponsorship of trusts. The employer would make mandatory contributions for employees. Clearly, it will be an uphill climb to require mandatory employer contributions in the US. But it’s a discussion that we’ll eventually have to have. I haven’t found an economist yet who thinks that we can close the coverage gap without at least a ‘soft nudge’ in that direction.

RIJ: Who would be most likely to sponsor a multiple employer plan here in the US?

Minsky: Companies with built-in distribution models, particularly those with strong retail brands, will find it attractive to sponsor these programs. Others that are less well-positioned to sell directly to employers will look to be solution providers.

RIJ: You mentioned disintermediation. What will all this mean for the financial advisors, like members of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, who currently put together 401(k) plans for small employers?

Minsky: I don’t think the members of NAIFA should be concerned. We’re looking to make the pie bigger. It can work to the benefit of everyone—especially for the individual worker. I’m sure we’ll see a multi-faceted system develop, along the lines of 529 plans. There will be institutional distribution options as well as options for brokers to sell plans to their clients and earn commissions.

RIJ: Some say that institutionalization will help close the so-called coverage gap by encouraging and enabling more small employers to offer 401(k) plans for the first time. But others tell me that institutions will likely sell multiple employer plans to companies that currently offer plans. They’re an easier sell, but aggregating existing plans won’t narrow the coverage gap.

Minsky: Some of this will evolve organically. I expect to see a combination of approaches. Leading providers and others will have opportunities to recruit new employers that have been left out of the system because the challenge was too daunting before. We’ll also see a model where existing plans get an option to upgrade. If, as an employer, I already have a plan through ‘recordkeeper X,’ and that recordkeeper develops its own MEP, I might be able to get the same services I had before at a lower cost. For other companies, institutionalization will be an opportunity to refine their model—i.e., step up their game in the face of competition.

RIJ: What’s the likelihood that institutionalization will actually happen?

Minsky: Whether it’s through RESA [the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act of 2018], or through industry ingenuity, we are ultimately going to see an expansion of pooling arrangements. As a system, we have to provide a model that’s easier for small employers to offer plans. The mix of providers who are serving plans will change a bit. It will become more institutionally-focused on the investment side and more retail-focused in terms of outreach to individuals. But, in the long run, to make meaningful societal changes with respect to retirement savings, we’ll have to think about policy and decide if we’re willing to introduce a soft mandate.

RIJ: Thank you, Lew.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

RIJ and others urge Senators to take action on retirement

Retirement Income Journal editor and publisher Kerry Pechter was one of eleven retirement experts to sign a letter to Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Todd Young (R-IN), offering support to the senators in their efforts to convene a Retirement Security Commission. The letter said:

Dear Senator Young and Senator Booker,

The undersigned are all retirement policy experts, each of whom has devoted our career to investigate the adequacy, efficiency, affordability, efficacy, and fairness of the current U.S. retirement system.

This bipartisan group of researchers, representing a broad spectrum of political affiliations, agrees that millions of Americans reaching retirement age in the coming decades will not have adequate retirement income.  We recognize that one of the most effective solutions—working longer—will not be an option for every individual.

We also agree that the voluntary, employer-based retirement system has not worked for many of our citizens. And we agree that Social Security needs to be placed on more sound financial footing, although we recognize that this is not your first area for review.

Our bipartisan group of researchers hold a wide range of views, sometimes even opposing views, on what would constitute an ideal set of reforms to improve retirement security.  However, we stand in firm agreement that our nation urgently needs a serious, holistic conversation and bold action to strengthen the foundations of retirement security in the U.S.

We applaud your efforts to review the system and your concern and care about American elders. We stand ready to assist you in your efforts to convene a Retirement Security Commission.

In addition to Pechter, the following individuals signed the letter: David Babbel, University of Pennsylvania; Zvi Bodie, Boston University; Jeffrey Brown, University of Illinois; Brett Hammond, Capital Group; Lori Lucas, Employee Benefit Research Institute; Alicia Munnell, Boston College, Robert Powell, Retirement Weekly; Anna Rappaport; Steven Sass, Boston College; and Jack VanDerhei, Employee Benefit Research Institute.

Senators Booker, Young, Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), are introducing legislative proposals that would expand access to workplace retirement savings plans, particularly for workers employed by small businesses.

Different legislators are addressing the problem differently. These three bills (S.3218, S.3220, and S.3221) would also help Americans accumulate savings by: expanding the number of employers using automatic enrollment, automatic escalation, and other best practices; facilitating emergency savings to prevent retirement account leakage; and encouraging people to save (rather than spend) their tax refunds.

These reforms echo recommendations from the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Commission on Retirement Security and Personal Savings.

Legislative summaries

The Small Business Employees Retirement Enhancement Act, S.3219, would increase access to workplace retirement plans by making it easier for small business owners to offer plans. Specifically, the bill:

  • Eliminates the regulatory barriers that prevent small business owners from joining professionally managed pooled employer plans, lowering the administrative cost of offering a plan.
  • Transfers some of the fiduciary responsibility from the employer to the pooled plan provider, lessening the legal risk to small businesses – in turn, incentivizing more of them to get off the sidelines – and placing the responsibility and accountability for important plan decisions with those who have the expertise to make them.

The Retirement Flexibility Act, S.3221, would help more Americans accumulate savings by expanding the prevalence of well-designed workplace retirement plans, both by inspiring new plans and bringing auto features to some of the nearly half of all plans that lack them today. Specifically, the bill:

  • Incentivizes plan sponsors to use automatic enrollment and automatic escalation of contributions to levels that are considered appropriate for the average saver. Workers would always be able to opt out.
  • Makes it easier for small businesses to offer these well-designed plans by providing flexibility on the required employer contributions in order to be exempted from certain regulatory testing.

The Strengthening Financial Security Through Short-Term Savings Act, S.3218, would reduce early withdrawals (“leakage”) from retirement accounts and facilitate short-term savings by allowing employers to automatically enroll their workers into emergency savings accounts in addition to retirement accounts.

The Refund to Rainy Day Savings Act, S.3220, would allow individuals to pre-commit to saving their tax refunds for later in the year.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Inside the Beltway, pro-retirement proposals pile up

Yet another legislative proposal has been added to the growing pile of bills in both the House and Senate that are aimed at narrowing the “coverage gap”—the fact that about half of all full-time private-sector US workers have no 401(k)-type plan at work—and get more lower-income and minority Americans saving for retirement.

(Will any of them be enacted this year? With less than four months to go before the mid-term election, it doesn’t seem likely. On the other hand, retirement security—except the small matter of Social Security—appears to be one of the few issues that can still attract bipartisan support.)

To incentivize small employers to offer retirement savings plans to employees, Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mark Warner (D-VA) have introduced the SIMPLE Plan Modernization Act (S.3197), which is also supported by AARP. The act is intended to help small business employees and their employers adopt SIMPLE Plans.

A SIMPLE (Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees) IRA plan lets small-company employers contribute toward their employees’ and their individual retirement accounts. Employees may make salary reduction contributions to the IRA and the employer is required to make either matching or non-elective contributions.

There are relatively few employer-sponsored IRA plans in use. According to a January 2017 report from the Investment Company Institute, 42.5 million US households had an IRA in 2016. Of those, 7.2 million households (5.7% of US households) had a SIMPLE IRA, SEP IRA or SAR SEP IRA through an employer.

The proposed legislation would:

  • Raise the contribution limit for SIMPLE plans to $15,500 from $12,500 (halfway between current SIMPLE plans and traditional 401(k)s) for businesses with one to 25 employees, with a corresponding increase in the catch-up limit to $4,500 from $3,000.
  • Encourage businesses with 26 to 100 employees to transition to 401(k)s by raising employers’ SIMPLE Plan mandatory employer contribution requirements by one percentage point if they decide to elect the higher contribution limits.
  • Allow for a reasonable transition period for employers who hire additional employees above 25.
  • Make the limit increases unavailable if the employer has had another defined contribution plan within the past three years (to encourage businesses that already have qualified plans to retain them).
  • Modernize SIMPLE plan form filing requirements and modify the transition rules from SIMPLE plans to traditional plans to facilitate and encourage such transitions.
  • Direct Treasury to study the use of SIMPLE plans and report to Congress on such use, along with any recommendations.

Congress established SIMPLE (Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees) retirement plans in the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 to encourage small businesses to provide their employees with retirement plans.

Then, as now, retirement plans among small employers were, and continue to be, scarcer than among medium and large employers.  While these smaller businesses had access to tax-favored retirement savings plans (including traditional 401(k)s), those plans are more expensive to administer.

Businesses with 100 or fewer employees may currently create SIMPLE retirement savings accounts for their employees, so long as the employers do not have another employer-sponsored retirement plan.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Honorable Mention

Vanguard publishes ‘How America Saves’

As it has done every year since 2000, Vanguard has published a fact book on its retirement plans, How America Saves, which can be downloaded hereThis year Vanguard has supplemented this document with a report on the mutual fund and 401(k) giant’s small plans. It can be downloaded here.

Rising rates lift pension funding levels: Milliman

The 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans experienced a $23 billion increase in funded status in June, as the deficit of the Milliman 100 PFI plans fell to $118 billion on June 30 from $141 billion at the end of May, according to Milliman’s latest Pension Funding Index (PFI).

The improvement stemmed from an increase in the benchmark corporate bond interest rates used to value pension liabilities, which saw discount rates increase by 13 basis points to 4.12% from 3.99% over the same time period, according to the global actuarial consulting firm. The funded ratio for the Milliman 100 PFI jumped to 92.8% from 87.6% in the first half of the year despite June’s poor investment returns of -0.09%.

“Six months into 2018 and corporate pensions are well ahead of where they started at the beginning of the year,” said Zorast Wadia, co-author of the Milliman 100 PFI. June saw the highest rate since January 2016.

June’s -0.09% investment return led the Milliman 100 PFI asset value to decline to $1.536 at the end of June from $1.531 trillion at the end of May. By comparison, the 2018 Milliman Pension Funding Study reported that the monthly median expected investment return during 2017 was 0.55% (6.8% annualized). The projected benefit obligation (PBO) decreased by $28 billion during June, lowering the Milliman 100 PFI value to $1.644 trillion.

Under an optimistic forecast, with interest rates reaching 4.42% by the end of 2018 and 5.02% by the end of 2019, and assets returning 10.8% per year, the funded ratio would climb to 100% by the end of 2018 and 116% by the end of 2019.

Under a pessimistic forecast, with a 3.82% discount rate at the end of 2018 and 3.22% by the end of 2019, and 2.8% annual returns, the funded ratio would decline to 89% by the end of 2018 and 83% by the end of 2019.

Click here to view the complete Pension Funding Index. Click here to see the 2018 Milliman Pension Funding Study.

Announcing WellnessPath, from Lincoln Financial

Lincoln Financial Group has launched Lincoln WellnessPATH, a financial wellness tool for plan sponsors and participants, according to a release from Sharon Scanlon, head of Customer Experience, Retirement Plan Services, Lincoln Financial Group.

“Twenty percent of savers admit to putting off retirement saving because of competing priorities such as a mortgage, credit card debt, student and car loans,” the Lincoln release said.

Financial wellness programs, which have become a must-have offering for retirement plan providers, are intended to help employees manage short-term financial stress without sacrificing long-term security. It’s too early to say whether they will accomplish that goal.

According to Lincoln Financial’s 2017 Retirement Power Participant Study, 51% of employees want to learn how to budget more effectively, and more than 25% of plan participants have researched at least eight financial issues, including: prioritizing financial goals; being on track with savings; and expenses in retirement.

Likewise, 78% of employees “wish they had a better understanding of the elements of saving for retirement in their workplace retirement plans and six in ten cite their employer as a top source of information about financial topics,” the release said.

The program includes “actionable web content, on-site personal support and an interactive financial wellness tool,” said Scanlon.

Participants who want instant help with establishing budgets, goals and priorities can take a simple quiz, get a financial wellness score and learn actionable ways to improve their scores. The quiz is accessible from the employee’s online account.

John Y. Kim to retire as president of New York Life

New York Life announced today that John Y. Kim will retire as President at the end of the year. He joined the company in 2008 and was named President in 2015. “During his tenure, he led the investment management arm of the company, which experienced impressive growth in assets under management, expanded globally, and posted record profitability,” a New York Life release said.

With Mr. Kim’s pending retirement, the company also announced several organizational changes including:

  • Mark Madgett, Senior Vice President in charge of New York Life’s career Agency distribution system, who has led record sales campaigns and guided a successful transition to a digital sales platform in the last two years, will continue in this critical role and report to Ted Mathas, Chairman and CEO of New York Life, effective January 1, 2019.
  • Craig DeSanto, promoted to Executive Vice President, assumes oversight of Retail Annuities in addition to his current responsibilities for the Strategic Insurance Businesses.
  • Matt Grove, promoted to Executive Vice President, assumes oversight for the Technology, Service, and Business Planning and Strategy organizations in addition to his current responsibilities, which include the life insurance, underwriting, and marketing functions of the company.
  • Anthony Malloy, promoted to Executive Vice President, assumes oversight for New York Life Investment Management, which will continue to be led by Yie-Hsin Hung, in addition to his current responsibilities as Chief Investment Officer.
  • DeSanto, Mr. Grove, and Mr. Malloy will also begin reporting to Mr. Mathas on January 1, 2019. Mr. DeSanto and Mr. Malloy will also join the company’s Risk Steering Committee. Mr. Madgett, Mr. DeSanto, Mr. Grove, Mr. Malloy and Ms. Hung remain members of the Executive Management Committee of the company.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Turning the 401(k) on Its Head

To certain policymakers in Washington, D.C., the fact that tens of millions of Americans working at tiny companies aren’t covered by a retirement plan at work—and might reach age 65 with only Social Security to live on—is a societal time bomb that needs defusing.

For big 401(k) recordkeepers and asset managers, that same “coverage gap” represents a opportunity that hasn’t existed before. In the past, the small company market was too fragmented for them to pursue. At the same, small employers have avoided sponsorship because they fear the costs, complexities and legal risks that go with it.

All that could change if the dysfunctional Congress passes any of a slew of retirement-related legislative proposals currently pending. If passed, the bills could do for 401(k) providers roughly what hydraulic fracking did for the oil industry: Allow it to aggregate a widely dispersed, hard-to-reach resource into economically viable quantities.

In the House, the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act of 2018 (RESA), the Retirement Plan Simplification and Enhancement Act of 2017, and other bills (HR3902, HR3910, HR854) could turn the retirement business on its head by letting teams of retirement service providers create turnkey 401(k) plans—called Pooled Employer Plans or PEPs.

The providers would then invite dozens or even hundreds of companies to join these PEPs (sometimes called “open multiple employer plans” or open MEPs). Once the savings of those companies’ employees are gathered into large investment pools, big recordkeepers and asset managers can efficiently serve them.

Politicians and providers alike hope that thousands of small employers who currently don’t offer plans—and some who are unhappy with the plans they have—would join a PEP. As PEPs flourish, the industry assures legislators, more employers will adopt them. Then, in theory, the dreaded “coverage gap” would shrink.

“RESA would allow Prudential and other major recordkeepers to participate at the smaller end of the market in a more scalable and efficient way,” said Harry Dalessio, head of Full Service Solutions at Prudential Retirement. “It could flip the existing service model on its head and become the go-to market strategy at the small end.”

Recordkeepers that we’ve identified as having an interest in this emerging space include: Ameritas, Empower Retirement, Prudential, Securian and Transamerica. As an asset manager, State Street Global Advisor is especially active.

Companies playing professional rules, including payroll, consulting or outsourced fiduciary roles, include ADP, PayChex, Bukaty Companies, Convergent Retirement Plan Solutions, Fidelis Fiduciary Management, Mesirow Financial Investment Management, Pentegra, Plan Pilot, Sageview Advisory Group, Tag Resources, and The Platinum 401(k). (If we missed you, please let us know.)

State Street Global Advisors

State Street Global Advisors, the financial giant that sells its SPDR exchange-traded funds (ETFs) through defined contribution plans, has lobbied aggressively for the RESA bill. Already active in the multiple employer plan space, it serves as the investment manager for People’s Pension in the UK, a master trust arrangement in the US that resembles a PEP. It is an investment provider for OregonSaves, the state-sponsored auto-IRA in Oregon and it has put in a bid to manage assets for Vermont’s new state-sponsored multiple employer plan.

Melissa Kahn

Since Boston-based SSgA is both an ETF manufacturer and a wealth management firm, it could sponsor a PEP or provide services to one. “There are multiple roles we could play,” Melissa Kahn, SSgA’s managing director for Retirement Policy Strategy told RIJ recently. “We could be the investment manager of whatever products are offered through the PEP. We could play a consultative role. We’re also looking at other options, in terms of strategic partnerships.

“We are not a recordkeeper, so we can’t be a complete solution. But we could clearly have a strategic alliance to develop the structure for one. We could be in the construction phase of it, and then a separate fiduciary would oversee the whole plan. That could be a

3(38) or 3(21) fiduciary,” she said, referring to two types of investment oversight roles.

“The world is moving to a new benefit platform for retirement and for health, where the employer is the funder and facilitator and the liaison with the providers, but not the sponsor or fiduciary,” Kahn added. “I think given our litigious society, that’s where we will be going. It will start with smaller employers. Down the road it could reach mid-sized and larger employers who say, ‘I want this liability off my plate.’”

Transamerica Retirement Services

As a recordkeeper, Transamerica has long been active in the multiple employer plan (MEP). As far back as 2002, the firm supported “closed MEPs,” which are multiple employer plans that admit only certain affiliated employers and their employees, according to Deborah Rubin, the vice president and managing director who leads Transamerica’s distribution efforts for MEPs and third-party administrators.

In 2013, Transamerica created an “exchange” where unrelated employers could join an open MEP. In an open MEP, each employer must file its own plan document, called a Form 5500. That responsibility could go away in a PEP.

“Our ‘retirement exchange’ is a pooled investment vehicle that contains a collection of single-employer retirement plans,” Jim Kais, then a senior vice president at Transamerica Retirement Solutions (at Ameritas as of May 2018), told InsuranceNewsNet in 2013. Transamerica serves as the recordkeeper and manager of the plan/participant interface. Knoxville, TN-based Tag Resources provides fiduciary and other services.

“We have expertise in running MEPs,” said Jeanne De Cervens, vice president and director of federal government relations at Transamerica. “So we are well positioned if RESA passes.” Added Rubin, “Transamerica is in a good place no matter what, and our exchange would stay in business either way. This is what small employers are looking for. We really care about expanding coverage, and we care about the beauty of the exchange.”

Securian Financial

In June, Securian Financial launched MEPConnect, with Securian as the recordkeeper and subsidiary Minnesota Life as the provider of each plan’s group annuity. Two fiduciaries are part of the team: Clearwater, FL-based The Platinum 401k, Inc., as the plan administrator and Tampa-based Fidelis Fiduciary Management as the investment manager. Like Transamerica’s exchange, MEPConnect could grow into a PEP provider if the applicable laws change.

“For small to mid-sized plans, we’re using The Platinum 401k chassis and leveraging that with the strength of our plan administration and compliance services,” Ted Schmelzle, head of plan sponsor services at Securian. “Each one of the employers will have its own audit, its own Form 5500, its own ERISA bond. Because of the risk of civil litigation, my clients all have a concern about running plans.”

For the employers in the MEP, the plans are similar but not necessarily identical, said Terrance Power, CEO of The Platinum 401k. “Typically, they will all have the same plan investment lineups,” he told RIJ. “Eligibility and plan designs are flexible and are set by each adopting employer. If we have a large plan with special needs we can also customize the investment lineup for them.”

“If RESA passes,” said Schmelzle, “we would be in a good position to transition over [from open MEPs to PEPs]. We felt that we’re at an inflection point where it made sense to enter the market. MEPConnect prepares us for the future.”

Prudential Financial

Harry Dalessio

In 2017, Prudential Retirement published a whitepaper in praise of open MEPs and their potential to solve America’s retirement savings shortfall by helping small employers offer plans. In a recent interview, Prudential’s Harry Dalessio reiterated that message.

“We’ve been preparing for this for the last few years,” Dalessio told RIJ. “We’re thinking about product design, service models, investments and other products. We’re thinking much broader than just DC recordkeeping. Recordkeeping is a commodity. A lot of firms can provide defined contribution services.

“Our strategy is to expand the footprint about the broader issue of financial wellness. Our group businesses offer products and services to 20 million people. There’s an opportunity to bring the full power of Prudential into a market that goes beyond 401(k) administration. Given the type of feedback we get from [plan sponsors], we’re thinking about bolting on a variety of financial wellness capabilities.

“We can add capabilities like emergency savings accounts, healthcare savings accounts and 529 plans. Student loan debt counseling would be big. Budgeting would be big. That’s where we see an opportunity for leadership: in financial wellness. The market won’t change overnight. There’s a lot of complexity to providing these services. Depending on how the RESA language is written, it could open up more possibilities for income products to be part of the core offering of open MEPs.”

Losing the ‘main leg of the stool’

In sum, the coverage crisis is providing an opportunity for an historic shift in the role of plan sponsor from employers—who increasingly don’t want the risk of being sued for mismanaging a plan—to providers. The providers see a chance to do well and do good at the same time. There will be unforeseen losers as well as winners.

“There is more opportunity for disruption in the retirement space today than ever before,” one retirement executive told RIJ, on condition of anonymity. “The converging forces of demographics, labor trends, technology, and politics have placed a 30-year-old model in the cross hairs.

“Every rung of the value chain is under siege by these forces. The perennial assumption that the employer is the main leg of the stool is about to be cut off. The trend toward the ‘big eating the small’ will continue. The winners will be big recordkeepers.”

Next week: Will Pooled Employer Plans really close the ‘coverage gap’?

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Good Policy Will Keep the Economy Humming

The economic expansion just celebrated its ninth birthday and is far healthier today than it has been in some time. It has shrugged off two years of stagnation and is chugging along at nearly a 3.0% clip. At this time next year, it will enter the history books as the longest U.S. expansion on record.

But the naysayers continue to see a dark side. They believe that the recent stimulus from tax cuts and deregulation will prove to be temporary. Furthermore, there is a widespread consensus that the next recession will occur in 2020.

Not so fast. As we see it, good policy and rapid technological advancements can keep the economy humming for some time to come. While it will eventually end, the end is not yet in sight.

It does not always feel like it, but policy makers have gotten better at extending periods of growth. Between 1850 and 1900 a typical business cycle lasted four years to two years of expansion followed by two years of recession. But in the eleven business cycles since the end of World War II the average expansion now lasts six years followed by a one-year recession. Expansions have gotten far longer, and recessions do not last nearly as long. That was not an accident. Why? Good policy.

In the past 50 years economists’ understanding of macroeconomic policy has gotten better. Policy makers at the Fed have gotten smarter. They seem better able to determine the level of interest rates required to keep the economy on track. Fiscal policy has also improved, and economists better understand the impact of government spending, tax, and trade policies on the economy. Good policy can extend the life expectancy of an expansion.

For example, not long ago the unemployment rate was 5.0%. Most economists thought that the labor market had reached full employment and worried that wage pressures and inflation would soon rise. But Janet Yellen and her colleagues at the Fed argued that there were still many “underemployed” workers who wanted full time jobs but could only get part-time employment. Hence, the Fed concluded that the economy was not yet at full employment and it elected to raise rates very cautiously for the next 15 months. The Fed got it right. Smart implementation of monetary policy prevented the Fed from prematurely raising rates and inadvertently choking off growth.

In 2015 and 2016 the economy grew at rates of 2.0% and 1.8%, respectively.  Business leaders were frustrated by the political gridlock in Washington. They lacked confidence and chose not to deploy their vast cash holdings on new technology or to refurbish the assembly line.

Recognizing the lack of investment, Trump campaigned on a promise to lower taxes and significantly reduce the then stifling regulatory burden. He has done both and suddenly investment spending has picked up to a double-digit pace and GDP growth accelerated to a 2.6% pace last year and is expected to reach 3.0% this year which would be the fastest annual growth rate since 2005. Thus, good fiscal policy has provided a welcome boost to the pace of economic activity.

However, most economists believe the recent stimulus will prove to be temporary and within a year or two, growth will revert to its old 2.0% potential growth path.  But why should that be the case? A lower corporate tax rate and the ability to repatriate money from overseas should stimulate investment for many more years.

Businesses should be further encouraged to spend if Trump continues to eliminate unnecessary, overlapping, and confusing Federal regulations. And rapid technological advancements in artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, personal robots, 3-D printing, nanotechnology, and genome research will keep businesses spending for the foreseeable future, and that type of investment will boost productivity growth.

Thus, we believe that potential growth will pick up from 1.8% in the 2000’s to 2.8% by the end of this decade. There is no reason that today’s surge in investment spending should be regarded as a short-lived event.

Furthermore, what is magic about this expansion reaching the 10-year old mark and becoming the longest recession on record? The 120-month long expansion during the 1990’s surpassed the previous record (of the 1960’s) by 14 months. Why can’t the current expansion do the same? Expansions do not die from “old age.” They end because of policy mistakes.

Many think that a 10-year is expansion is a big deal.  Certainly by U.S. standards that is the case. But the Australian economy just completed a world record 27th year of expansion. Why can’t the U.S. duplicate that astonishing achievement?  Suddenly a 10-year expansion seems modest.

© 2018 Numbernomics.com.

Global Aging and Fiscal Solvency

Government programs to support retirees are in trouble in every country, owing to increasing life expectancy and the rising ratio of retirees to taxpayers. The problem will worsen in the years ahead as the adverse demographic trend increases the fiscal burden of funding pensions and health care.

The problem is uniquely different in the United States, because America’s “trust fund” system of financing Social Security will create a crisis when the fund is exhausted. Though the options at that time will be different from the choices facing other governments, policies to avoid the US crisis are relevant to other countries that confront population aging.

Here’s how the US system works: by law, a payroll tax is dedicated exclusively to financing retiree benefits. Employers and employees each pay 6.2% of cash earnings up to an individual maximum of $128,000, an amount that increases annually with average wages. These tax funds are deposited into the Social Security Trust Fund and invested in government bonds.

Individuals are entitled to benefits at age 67 based on their lifetime payroll tax payments, with the option to take actuarially reduced benefits as early as age 62 or to wait until age 70 with an actuarial increase. The annual benefits rise with an individual’s average lifetime earnings, according to a schedule that causes the ratio of benefits to past earnings to decline as those earnings rise.

Because of the aging of the population, the total level of benefits is increasing more rapidly than tax collections. In 2010, total Social Security tax revenue was $545 billion and benefit payments totaled $577 billion. Because the interest on the previously accumulated bonds was $108 billion, the total size of the trust fund increased by $76 billion.

Six years later, in 2016, the tax revenue was up to $679 billion and the benefits were up to $769 billion. The resulting cash deficit was $90 billion, almost exactly equal to the interest that year, leaving the size of the trust fund relatively unchanged.

Since 2016, the benefit payments have exceeded the combination of the tax funds and the interest, causing the trust fund balance to decline. Looking ahead, the Social Security Administration’s actuaries estimate that the annual decline in the trust fund will continue, until the balance is zero in 2034.

At that point, the trust fund will no longer have any interest income. Because benefits can be paid only from the trust fund, the benefits will have to be decreased to the amount of the taxes being received that year.

If Congress does not change the law, the actuaries predict that benefits would have to be reduced immediately in 2034 by 21%. Alternatively, to avoid that 21% reduction, the tax would have to rise by 26.5%, from a combined 12.4% to nearly 16%.

While it is hard to predict what a future Congress will do, I find it hard to believe that a majority would vote to reduce the level of benefits by 21% or to increase the level of the payroll tax paid by all employers and all employees by 26%.

The most likely alternative would be to use general income tax revenue to maintain the level of benefits. That would require an increase in personal tax rates of about 10%. That strategy would shift the burden of the Social Security program to higher- income households, which pay the bulk of personal income taxes. That may explain why left-of-center politicians are not trying to avoid the future Social Security crisis.

The crisis in 2034 could be prevented by increasing the standard Social Security retirement age, as the US did in 1983. Back then, with Social Security’s finances in trouble, Congress agreed on a bipartisan basis to raise gradually the standard retirement age from 65 to 67. Since then, life expectancy for someone at that age has increased by three years.

Congress could now vote to increase gradually the standard Social Security retirement age by another three years, from 67 to 70. Because life expectancy at 67 is about 17 years, a three-year increase in the age for full benefits would be a 17% reduction in lifetime benefits, almost enough to offset the shortfall that results from the reduced revenue. It would be even better to adjust the annual retirement age each year for the actuarial increase in life expectancy.

An alternative strategy for dealing with the increasing cost of retiree benefits would be to move away from a pure pay-as-you-go (PAYG) system by adding an investment-based component. Instead of investing the revenue from the 12.4% payroll tax in government bonds, a significant portion could be invested in a portfolio of equities, as corporate pension systems do. The trust fund would then grow more rapidly, and the crisis would be avoided.

Although the trust fund system in the US creates the prospect of a crisis when the fund is exhausted, the remedies to avoid that outcome would help other countries that now have a PAYG system—increasing the age for full benefits or combining the existing system with equity funding. The sooner these changes are made, the more viable the fiscal situation—and the more reliable future benefits—will be.

Border Turmoil and Social Security Solvency

News coverage of the anguish on the US southern border, where families fleeing domestic terrorism in Central America face a North America worried about a possible invasion by international terrorists, doesn’t focus much on the link between US immigration policy and Social Security. But maybe it should.

A 2017 study by Bipartisan Policy Center showed that, while the impact of immigration on the US economy is complex and varied, an open-door policy toward working-age immigrants could help offset the fiscal problems associated with the aging of the Boomer generation and the nation’s declining fertility rate.

Immigrants add to the workforce, pay taxes, and create demand, the BPC study showed. An influx of working-age immigrants could offset America’s rising dependency ratio. Thanks to the retirement of the Boomer generation and a falling fertility rate, the US has only about two workers paying federal taxes for every individual dependent on federal programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Events in Italy this week showed, however, that there’s not much room in the current political environment for dispassionate debate over immigration and economics. The chairman of Italy’s social security agency was criticized for saying that his country needs a steady influx of immigrants to restore the balance between contributions and payouts within its pay-as-you-go first-pillar pension system, the equivalent of our Social Security.

The comments, by Tito Boeri of the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS), were instantly “scorned” by the Italian government, according to a report in IPE.com. The government has closed ports to NGO (non-government organization) vessels that rescue immigrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea from Africa.

“By closing our borders, we risk destroying our social protection system,” Boeri told Italy’s lower house of parliament. “A ruling class that lives up to its name must have the courage to tell Italians the truth: we need immigrants to keep our social protection system on its feet.

“Immigrants provide a very important contribution to the financing of our social protection system and their function is destined to grow in the next decades, while the generations of indigenous workers that enter the labor market will become smaller,” he added.

Matteo Salvini, deputy prime minister and interior minister, who has worked to keep migrants from entering Italy, tweeted, “The chairman of INPS continues to be political, ignoring the will to work of so many Italians.” In a Facebook video, he added, “Much will have to be changed in” the INPS and other public bodies.

Agency models €38bn financing gap

The INPS annual report that showed that a reduced inflow of foreign, non-European Union workers in the country would have a negative impact on its social protection system.

As part of the annual report, the organization modeled the evolution of welfare expenditure until 2040 if the inflow of foreign non-EU workers would be stopped completely.

The report showed that, in the three years before Italy’s economic crisis, 150,000 foreign non-EU workers would join the system each year. At the same time, 5% of the stock of foreign workers, which amounted to around 100,000 people, would leave the labor force.

Assuming that the stock of foreign workers contributing to the system falls by an average of 80,000 each year until 2040, the INPS would lose €73bn in contributions from immigrant workers each year and gain €35bn in welfare expenditure directed at foreign workers, the report said, for a net inflow of €38bn in INPS coffers each year.

“The inflows of migrant workers compensate the falling birth rate in our country, which is the gravest threat to the sustainability of our pension system,” Boeri said. While the system is prepared for rising longevity, further reductions in the numbers of contributors would likely put it at risk.

Former labor and welfare minister Elsa Fornero, who designed a major reform of Italy’s pension system in 2011, told IPE: “We need immigrants, because our ratio of young workers in the labor force is shrinking. [But] immigrants alone can’t solve Italy’s pension problems.”

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Honorable Mention

Schwab adds 11 new options to its ETF OneSource marketplace

Charles Schwab’s ETF OneSource platform has added 11 additional ETFs to its offerings, effective July 3. The commission-free online ETF exchange, which has no enrollment requirements or early redemption fees, now offers 265 ETFs from 15 providers across 70 Morningstar Categories.

“Our 2018 ETF Investor Study showed that 64% of investors say that the ability to trade ETFs without commissions is important to them, and 54% of Millennial investors agree,” said Heather Fischer, vice president of ETF and mutual fund platforms at Schwab, in a release.

The 11 new ETFs cover domestic equities, fixed income and international equities. Six of the additions fall into the taxable bond category. The funds added to Schwab ETF OneSource on July 3 include:

Millennials reap benefits of Pension Protection Act: Empower

A new survey from Empower Institute, the thought-leadership arm of Empower Retirement, suggests that the savings levels of Millennials show that they are benefiting from specific innovations in retirement plan design over the last decade.

(The tripling of the value of the stock market since 2009, itself a by-product of Federal Reserve largesse in response to the Great Recession, may also have helped Millennials’ accumulation levels relative to earlier cohorts. Time will tell.)

Americans born after 1981, aka Millennials, are on track to replace 75% of their current income in retirement, according to the survey of 4,000 working Americans ages 18 to 65 who are saving for retirement in any defined contribution workplace plan.

Generation X workers are on track to replace only 61% and Baby Boomers are on track to replace a mere 58%, the survey showed. “Millennials are the first generation to fully benefit from improvements made to retirement plans over the last decade and it shows now in their retirement savings habits and attitudes,” an Empower release said.

Empower attributed the improvements in retirement readiness to innovations made possible by the Pension Protection Act of 2006: Automatic enrollment, automatic escalation of contributions and acknowledgement of the significance of employer matches to employee accounts.

Of Millennials responding to the Empower Institute survey, 41% are automatically enrolled in a DC plan, compared to 38% percent of Gen Xers and 33% percent of Baby Boomers. Additionally, 38% of Millennials are enrolled in a plan with auto escalation features.

The survey results include a Retirement Progress Score (RPS), which is a numeric estimation of the percentage of working income that American households are on track to replace in retirement. The median replacement rate among survey participants is 64%, meaning that half of respondents are on track to replace more than 64% of their current income and half are on track to replace less than 64%.

Some key findings:

  • 24% of Millennials who responded to the survey say they have a formal retirement plan, compared with 19% of Gen X respondents and 17% of Baby Boomers.
  • Fewer Millennials than Gen Xers and Baby Boomers believe they will have to work at least part time in retirement: 48% of Boomers believe they will need to work at least part time in retirement, compared to 44% of Gen Xers and 40% of Millennials.
  • Millennials less confident than older generations about Social Security as a retirement income: 59% of Millennials expect Social Security to be a source of income in retirement, compared to 88% of Boomers and 73% of Gen Xers.
  • 61% of Millennials expect defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, to be a source of income in retirement, compared to 55% of Gen Xers and 47% of Boomers.

The Empower Institute survey findings are available in a white paper called “Scoring the Progress of Retirement Savers.” The research was conducted by Brightwork Partners LLC for the Empower Institute.

Hueler introduces stable value fund evaluation tool

Hueler Analytics has launched Stable Value Compass, a new online due diligence tool designed for discerning fiduciary advisors. The new tool combines Hueler’s stable value data with technology for analysis and client ready reporting.

Stable Value Compass will allow fiduciaries, advisors, and consultants the capability to compare multiple pooled funds and insurance company sponsored products across key standardized data elements, a Hueler release said.

Hueler Analytics provides broad market coverage of stable value alternatives including stable value pooled funds, insurance company separate accounts, and general account products.

MassMutual to offer T. Rowe Price target date funds

MassMutual will offer a series of Select T. Rowe Price Target Date Funds target date to its retirement plan customers, according to a release from the mutual insurer. The TDF series features active management and dynamic tactical asset allocation. The funds are available only in plans where MassMutual is the recordkeeper.

The “MassMutual Select T. Rowe Price Retirement Funds” are designed to address certain risks, including inflation, longevity, and market risks, which retirement savers face during their accumulation years and through retirement, a MassMutual release said.

Recent research by MassMutual indicates that many retirees and pre-retirees continue to favor active management as an investment strategy. Nearly half (47% of pre-retirees; 49% of retirees) say they have assets invested in actively managed mutual funds, according to the MassMutual Retirement Savings Risk Study. In addition, 80% of pre-retirees and 71% of retirees find active management appealing as an investment strategy.

However, some retirees and pre-retirees may be taking too much risk with their retirement savings. Eighty-eight percent of retirees and 73% of pre-retirees who rely on a financial advisor report that their advisor has recommended they invest more or somewhat more conservatively than they currently do, the MassMutual study reports.

Many expect to work in retirement: Prudential

Uncertain about Social Security and their own financial preparedness, more than half of future retirees expect to work during retirement, according to a new study from PGIM Investments, which manufactures and distributes funds for PGIM, Inc., Prudential Financial’s global investment management business.

The study, the 2018 Retirement Preparedness Study: A Generational Challenge, conducted by The Harris Poll for PGIM Investments, found that while only 6% of today’s retirees work, 52% of pre-retiree Baby Boomers, 58% of pre-retiree Gen Xers, and 43% of pre-retiree Millennials expect to work full- or part-time in retirement.

These expectations may be linked to pre-retirees’ decreased confidence about Social Security. Only 51% of Millennials expect to receive these benefits at all.

According to the study:

  • Pre-retirees are more likely to base their decision about when to retire on their wealth rather than their age. Half of Gen Xers and 62% of Millennials say they will retire when they have saved enough money. Current retirees decided when to retire largely based on their age and eligibility for Social Security and pensions.
  • Millennials are more likely to plan to start a business in retirement (20%) than Gen Xers (9%) or Boomers (4%). Nearly four in 10 pre-retirees (39%) say they want to volunteer after they retire.
  • More than half (51%) of current retirees say they’re “living the dream.” On average, these individuals started saving six years earlier than other retirees. Compared with those who aren’t living their dream retirement, these individuals are more likely to have pensions and diversified sources of income. They also are more likely to have been able to retire at their planned retirement age.
  • More than half (53%) of pre-retirees are unsure how much they need for retirement. Gen Xers have the highest estimates of the savings they need, but almost 20% aren’t saving for retirement at all.
  • Fifty-one percent of retirees say they retired earlier than expected. Of that group, half say they retired more than five years earlier than planned because of health problems (29% of the early retirees), layoffs or restructurings (14%), the need to care for a loved one (13%), or the inability to find a new job (10%).

To address growing consumer need for retirement income planning, Prudential Financial, along with 23 other leading financial services organizations, established the Alliance for Lifetime Income to help educate Americans about the value of having protected income in retirement.

Asians spend 11 fewer years saving for retirement: LIMRA

In the U.S., the average age for consumers to start saving for retirement is 35 and Americans on average expect to retire at 66. But in Asia, saving starts at age 40 on average and the expected retirement age is 60, according to a new report from the LIMRA Secure Retirement Institute.

Despite the shortened time to save for retirement, more consumers in Asia are confident they will be able to live the retirement lifestyle they want.

Consumers in Asia are more likely to be confident about maintaining their desired lifestyle in retirement than consumers in the US, according to the report. While only half of Americans expressed confidence about retirement, 69% of Asians did.

Similarly, 31% of consumers in Asia are not concerned about outliving their retirement assets, compared to 24% of US consumers, according to LIMRA SRI. But a larger fraction of US consumers has determined their expected health care costs in retirement (40% vs. 34%).

According to the study, 47% of consumers in Asia and 43% in the US have calculated the assets they will have in retirement, and 39% of Asian consumers have estimated how long those assets will last, versus 34% of Asian. More than half of consumers in both regions have not done basic retirement planning.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Provider-Sponsored 401(k): Part III

The Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act of 2018 (RESA), the subject of an ongoing series in RIJ, could enable a type of 401(k) plan where many unrelated employers could join a single “open multiple employer plan” or “pooled employer plan.”

In these “open MEPs” or PEPs, employers would cede direct plan sponsorship to teams of recordkeepers, investment advisors, asset managers and professional fiduciaries. Such a shift, it has been argued, could reduce the burden of costs, chores, complexities, and legal liabilities that employers shoulder when sponsoring tax-deferred workplace savings plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

If that burden were lighter or lifted entirely, some argue, more employers would offer plans and more Americans could save for retirement. Tens of millions of workers at small companies—including many minority and low-income workers—don’t currently have access to a retirement savings plan at work. If there is a retirement “crisis” in America today, it is concentrated among these workers (and single women).

Others see danger in excusing employers from the role of primary watchdog over employee savings. Still others see a switch in sponsorship roles from employers to large financial services companies as a potential driver of consolidation of 401(k) industry, with unforeseen winners and losers. The situation is complex, murky and still evolving.

For many large employers and plan providers, the transfer of the sponsorship role away from employers through multi-employer arrangements is a dream long deferred. “MEPs [multiple employer plans] have been around since before ERISA,” Jack Towarnicky, executive director of the Plan Sponsor Council of America, told RIJ recently.

In 2007, for instance, the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC), a group representing the employee benefit plans of America’s biggest employers, published a bold proposal for a “New Benefits Platform” that would reduce inefficiencies due to fragmentation, relieve employers of benefits burdens, and bless all employers, regardless of size, with economies of scale.

ERIC envisioned a new class of private plan sponsors, called Benefits Administrators. These all-in-one administrators would deliver “Life Security Plans” (LSPs) consisting of health, retirement and other pooled benefits or insurance products, directly to employers or individuals.

A Benefits Administrator would be, according to ERIC:

“A trusted intermediary with significant expertise in designing, delivering, and managing retirement and short-term savings benefits, and health plans. Benefit Administrators could be direct providers or assemblers of affiliated providers. The Benefit Administrator would be the individual’s point of entry to access the retirement and health care benefits system, and the entity through which any purchaser (individual or employer) could purchase benefits.”

Further, the “core structure” of Life Security Plans would contain these elements:

  • Establishment of Uniform Service Areas in the United States. The federal government would establish uniform service areas for each of the LSP’s core benefits.
  • Establishment of Uniform National Standards. To simplify administration, the federal government would establish uniform national standards for benefits included in the LSP.
  • Employer’s Role in LSP is Voluntary. The LSP system should not be wholly dependent on the employer community. Employers would have the option of establishing formal relationships with one or more Benefit Administrators for their employees and their families.
  • Assignment of Fiduciary or “Contract” Responsibility. ERISA sets forth responsibility for ensuring that plan sponsors fulfill their benefit promises and responsibly manage plan assets. Under the new structure, the competing Benefits Administrators and their affiliates would assume the appropriate “fiduciary” or contract liability associated with the benefits they provide.
  • Uniform Tax Treatment for Retirement, Health and Other Benefits. Similar to current law, the federal government would establish favorable tax treatment for retirement, health, and other benefit savings. Employers would maintain the tax treatment they have in the current system.
  • Simplified Nondiscrimination Rules. Current complicated rules would be replaced with simplified standards. This would include benefit-based, “safe-harbor” designs to encourage broad-based availability of benefits.
  • Participant Advocate: Each Benefit Administrator would maintain an independent office of participant advocacy responsible for serving as an ombudsman for individual participants.
  • Additional Benefits. Competing Benefit Administrators will be free to offer optional benefits outside of the LSP’s core benefits.
  • Administrative Efficiencies. Resulting from common benefit structures, combined retirement and health benefits and simplified communications and benefit processing.

That specific proposal, like so many other initiatives (and companies), more or less disappeared under the rubble of the Great Recession. When these ideas were raised again a few years later, they ran into resistance from the Obama administration’s Department of Labor, which believed that employers should bear direct fiduciary responsibility for plans because profit-seeking providers were potentially too conflicted.

But the spirit of ERIC’s proposal lived on among those who believe that a) getting more small employers to offer 401(k) plans will solve much of America’s retirement savings shortfall problem, and b) reducing small employers’ financial, administrative and legal burdens will make that happen.

Next week: The financial service companies, including Prudential, State Street Global Advisors, and Transamerica, that are leading the campaign for provider-sponsored 401(k) plans.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Work Longer: It’s Good for You and for the US Budget

A recent Wall Street Journal article noted how a generation of Americans is entering old age the least prepared in decades. The basic assumption is that baby boomers want to retire at age 65, but soon discover they do not have the financial resources to do so. Fair enough. But let’s ask a more basic question, why do they want to retire at 65 anyway? What is magic about that number? To that group of Americans, I have a suggestion. Work longer.

When Social Security was first passed in 1935 retirement age was 65; life expectancy was 67. You retired, received your gold watch, and died a couple of years later. But over the years retirement age has not changed. It is still about 65 but we are likely to live until 85. Living 20 years on greatly reduced income consisting of Social Security and a pension plan or 401(k) is challenging. The math simply does not work.

But let’s revisit the basic question of why do people want to retire at age 65? It has become a given that we are “supposed to” retire at age 65. But our parents and grandparents chose to work until much closer to their end of their lifetime.

What gives baby boomers the audacity to think that they can spend one­-quarter of their lifetime sitting on their butts in front of the TV? Is that truly how they envision their retirement? That strikes us as sad, but many people seem obsessed with retiring at 65.

Our guess is that, over time, that perception will change, in some cases by the financial reality that it is not going to happen. But many of these older Americans may wake up to the reality that their retirement dream is not as satisfying as they expected it to be. It is boring.

Most retirees worked 40 years at something. They identified with what they did. They were accountants, attorneys, firemen, teachers, or economists. But upon retirement they are not that anymore. So who exactly will they be for the next 20 years? That is a difficult question to answer. While some may have given thought to that while still working, most have no idea what their retirement years will look like until they get there.

Some may have a burning desire to become an artist, take up the guitar, travel extensively. Or “give back” to their community by volunteering at a local non­profit. Those are all perfectly worthwhile choices, but they will not pay the bills.

Why not consider working a bit longer? The health of a 65­-year-old today is far superior to the health of a 65-­year-old in 1935. We have the ability to work far longer if we choose to do so.

A primary benefit is that working will keep these older Americans mentally engaged. Equally important it will reduce the monthly drain on their savings.

At a national level there is a chronic shortage of skilled workers. Employers can benefit substantially from keeping older workers around to impart their knowledge and skills to younger workers. Even if not actually on the payroll they can keep working as consultants.

There can be little doubt that retiring baby boomers have been a contributing factor to the recent drop­off in productivity growth. We cannot take a skilled worker with 40 years’ experience, replace them with a 35­-year-old, and not expect productivity growth to slow.

Finally, if older workers begin to work past age 65 it will reduce the drain on the Social Security Trust Fund and extend the date when its assets will be depleted. It will also slow the upward trajectory of the budget deficit. The driving force behind those higher deficits is demographics. As more and more Americans reach age 65, they start to draw Social Security and become eligible for Medicare benefits. If Americans choose to work longer, the deterioration will be less dramatic.

A couple of other points are worth noting. First, the article in the Wall Street Journal looks only at the likelihood of reduced income in retirement. Second, given the increase in net worth, consumers do not feel the need to save as much from their income as in the past. The savings rate today is 2.8%, which is well below its long­-term average of 5.5%. Consumers do not need to save as much today as in the past because their net worth is providing a comfortable cushion.

Finally, baby boomers were born between 1946 and 1964. If they choose to retire at age 65 they will retire between 2011 and 2029. That means that they have been retiring for the past seven years and will continue to retire another decade. But, thus far, there have not been the dire consequences predicted by the WSJ. Our guess is that retirement will prove to be less of a challenge for the baby boomers than many expect for two reasons. First, many of them will choose—either from desire or economic necessity—to work longer. Second, many of them have a net worth cushion to supplement their retirement income.

We are not going to suggest that working past age 65 is an option for all, particularly those with health issues, but it is a very rational and desirable choice for many. Keep working, you may actually enjoy it.

© 2018 RIJ Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.