This News Shouldn’t Shock Anyone

As reported by P&I, defined contribution plans consistently underperform defined benefit plans, most likely due to higher investment fees, said a new research brief issued Tuesday by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. The report covered the period 1990-2012.

The BC report cited investment fees, which typically account for 80% to 90% of total expenses, as the most likely reason for DC plans’ underperformance as DC plans invest mainly through more expensive mutual funds and DB plans invest through other vehicles such as separate accounts and / or less expensive commingled trusts.

We would also suggest that a big reason for the underperformance of DC plans relative to DB plans is the reliance on the individual in the DC plan to handle this responsibility relative to professional management of DB plans.

Unfortunately, the report also found that individual retirement accounts (IRAs), which now hold more assets than DB or DC plans, produced even lower returns than DB or DC plans.

The report was based on a review of Investment Company Institute data and Form 5500 filings, which found that IRAs returned an average 2.2% per year between 2000 and 2012 , compared to 3.1% for defined contribution plans and 4.7% for defined benefit plans.

A DC plan account owner would have earned an additional $85,777 (on a beginning balance of $100,000) or 42% more by achieving a 4.7% return versus the 3.1% achieved on the average DC plans during this 23 year time frame.

The research report was written by Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research; Jean-Pierre Aubry, associate director of state and local research at the center; and Caroline Crawford, a research associate at the center.

The full report is available on the center’s website.

MLPs – Are We Nearing A Bottom?

MLPs as an investment category have been whacked severely year-to-date according to the Alerian MLP Index, which has fallen 42.9% through December 4th! As a contrarian by nature, I am always looking to get into a potential investments that have gotten beaten up provided that nothing fundamentally has changed to permanently impair the investment category.

I am not close to being an expert in this area. So as I began to get more intrigued with MLPs I reached out to a friend, Jeremy Hill, Old Blackheath Companies, who is and who was kind to share his views.  Here you go:

As for MLPs, I don’t think there is much of a catalyst other than the stabilization of the price of oil. That seems odd because it assumes that pipeline capacity is a function of the price of oil. It is not. It is a function of how much oil is piped. So far, pipelines continue to be busy. Where the pipelines (MLPs) go wrong is that they have frequently become vertically integrated oil and gas companies that call themselves pipelines and they have a lot of debt. The idea that because the price of oil is down, less oil will be sucked out of the ground, therefore less oil pumped and piped and therefore less revenue/profits for the pipelines is intuitive. It is intuitive investing, not math-based investing.

Take a look at Kinder Morgan. Although they are not an MLP, they are lumped in with the MLPs. They cut their dividend severely and the stock is doing nothing but going up. For a pure reversion to the mean type of investment, I think KMI may be interesting at these levels. Their credits may be even more interesting. And, possibly selling puts could be a nice strategy for some of these companies.

The rub, of course, is that so long as investors (largely retail in MLPs) conflate the oil price/MLP equation, these stocks have a lot of embedded gamma risk. The real risk to these stocks is that banks stop financing them. I also think that there are likely to be more dividend cuts. In sum, I wouldn’t step into MLPs any time soon.

Thanks, Jeremy! We will continue to monitor MLPs for possible investment opportunities, but it looks like a 2016 event at this point.

KCS in the News

We are happy to report that the Association of Benefit Administrators, Inc. has published an article by KCS in their Fall 2015 Newsletter.  The article, titled “The Truth Will Set You Free”, addresses the need for plan sponsors to focus more attention on DB plan liabilities to drive asset allocation and investment structure decisions.

We would be happy to send you the article upon request.

KCS December 2015 Fireside Chat

“You Can’t Manage What You Don’t Monitor”

We hope that you had a wonderful Thanksgiving Holiday, and we wish for you and your family a joyous holiday season. Where has 2015 gone?

We are pleased to share with you the latest edition of the KCS Fireside Chat series. In this article we discuss the importance of managing against a DB plan’s liabilities through the use of a custom Liability Index (CLI). Furthermore, we begin an important discussion on how to use the output from the CLI to drive more informed asset allocation decisions. We hope that you find our thoughts both refreshing and useful.

Click to access KCSFCDec15.pdf

Please don’t hesitate to call on us with any questions that you might have. We always enjoy the give and take that follows our distribution of the FC.

Have a wonderful day, and we look forward to working with you in 2016 and beyond.

Sincerely,

The KCS Team

IMG_1237

Rethinking The Use of Active Fixed Income In A DB Plan

P&I just posted their performance study by Morningstar. As usual, it shows little or no value in ACTIVE bond management over most time frames. Moreover, given today’s low yields the question is: What is the value in bonds if one is striving to achieve the ROA?

Answer: CASH FLOW
Bonds are the only asset class with a known future cash flow and future value. That is why bonds have been picked as the choice for defeasement, dedication, immunization, and LDI strategies.

Instead of maintaining your current active fixed income program convert it to a Liability Beta Portfolio (LBP).  The LBP model is a cash flow matched model that provides the matching of liabilities at low cost and importantly, low risk. Versus ASC 715 discount rates (AA corporate securities)  funding costs are reduced by 8% to 12%. At a fee of only 10 bps, the LBP would be a proper replacement of active bond management, which has a 25 bps to 30 bps average fee. Given a 20% allocation to bonds, inclusive of contributions, the LBP model could possibly fund the next 7-10 years of liabilities with no change to the plan’s current asset allocation.

The true question is: Why have active bond management when you can de-risk the plan gradually with a LBP model that will reduce the cost of funding liabilities, while also reducing significantly fixed income fees?

Please don’t hesitate to reach out to Ryan ALM and KCS to discuss this concept in more detail.

Busy Month for KCS

Our regular readers have likely been wondering where we’ve been this month, as the KCS blog has been quiet.  I can assure you that it wasn’t because we spent the entire month on a beach in Florida.  We were given the opportunity to speak / present at four conferences during the month, including;

  1. November 9, Financial Research Associates, Manager Selection, Due Diligence, and Oversight – Princeton Club, NYC – “The Economy: What Impact Is It Having On Your Manager Selection?”
  2. November 17, Opal’s Endowment and Foundation Forum, Boston, MA – “A one and five year strategic investment and planning mechanism for small and mid sized foundations”
  3. IMI’s 32nd Annual Consultants Congress, Cornell Club, NYC – “Standing Out In A Crowded Marketplace”
  4. Association of Business Administrators, NY, NY – “Benefit of Knowing Your Liabilities”

We were honored to be asked to present our views at these important forums, and we would be pleased to speak with you on any of these topics should you have any questions. Presentation material is available for some of these as well.

KCS’s November 2015 Fireside Chat – Status Quo in 2016

We are pleased to provide you with the latest edition of the KCS Fireside Chat series.  In this article, Dave Murray, KCS’s DC Practice Leader updates you on some important DC information as you head into 2016.  Hopefully, his insights will help guide you through the balance of this year and into next.

Click to access KCSFCNov15.pdf

As you know, KCS is a big fan of defined benefit plans for a lot of reasons, but primarily because DC plans (401(k), 403(b) and 457s) were not designed as retirement accounts, and because of loan features act like glorified savings plans.  It is good to see that disclosure is being tightened around one’s ability to take hardship loans.  We realize that emergencies present themselves, but borrowing from a DC account should be the absolute last resort.

IMG_1237

PBGC Announces Maximum Benefit Coverage for 2016

The PBGC has just announced the maximum benefit coverage for both a single-employer plan and a multi-employer plan. The difference in coverage among the two plan types is huge!  Here is the PBGC’s release:

PBGC Maximum Insurance Benefit Level for 2016

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 28, 2015

WASHINGTON – The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation announced today that the annual maximum guaranteed benefit for a 65-year-old retiree in a single-employer plan remains at $60,136 for 2016. The guarantee for multiemployer plans also remains unchanged.

Single-Employer Plan Guarantee

The PBGC maximum guarantee for people covered by single-employer plans is linked to a cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, in Social Security law. Next year, SSA’s cost-of-living-adjustment will be zero. Accordingly, the maximum guarantee for the agency’s single-employer program will not change from the current 2015 levels.

The single-employer guarantee formula provides lower amounts for people who begin getting benefits from PBGC before age 65, reflecting the fact that they will receive more monthly pension checks over their expected lifetime. Amounts are higher for benefits starting at ages above 65.

Also, benefits are reduced for retirees who select to have payments sent to a beneficiary following their death. A table showing the 2016 single-employer guarantee amounts payable at ages other than 65 is available on PBGC’s website. Because the age 65 amount isn’t changing, the 2016 table is identical to 2015.

In most cases, the single-employer guarantee is larger than the pension earned by people in such plans. According to a 2006 study, almost 85 percent of retirees receiving PBGC benefits at that time received the full amount of their earned benefit. (For more information see the entry “Making Sense of the Maximum Insurance Benefit” in PBGC blog, Retirement Matters.)

The published maximum insurance benefit represents the cap on what PBGC guarantees, not on what PBGC pays. In some cases, PBGC pays benefits above the guaranteed amount. This depends on the retiree’s age and how much money was in the plan when it terminated.

For more information about how the single-employer guarantee works, see PBGC’s fact sheet Pension Guarantees.

Multiemployer Plan Guarantee Limit

The PBGC maximum guarantee for participants in multiemployer plans is also based on a formula prescribed by federal law. Unlike the single-employer formula, the multiemployer guarantee is not indexed (i.e., it remains the same from year to year) and does not vary based on the retiree’s age or payment form.

Instead, it varies based on the retiree’s length of service. In addition, the multiemployer guarantee structure has two tiers, providing 100 percent coverage up to a certain level, and 75 percent coverage above that level. For a retiree with 30 years of service, the current annual limit is 100 percent of the first $3,960 and 75 percent of the next $11,760 for a total guarantee of $12,870. This limit has been in place since 2001.

About PBGC

PBGC protects the pension benefits of more than 40 million of America’s workers and retirees in nearly 26,000 private-sector pension plans. The agency is directly responsible for paying the benefits of more than 1.5 million people in failed pension plans. PBGC receives no taxpayer dollars and never has. Its operations are financed by insurance premiums and with assets and recoveries from failed plans.

Bad Policy – AGAIN!

Further hikes in PBGC premiums will help pay for a federal budget bill agreed to by the White House and congressional leaders late Monday.

But, at what cost to our economy and employees?

According to P&I, the budget deal, which lays out a two-year budget and extends the federal debt limit until March 2017, raises per-person premiums paid to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. from $64 in 2016 to $68 in 2017, $73 in 2018 and $78 in 2019. The 2015 rate is $57. Variable rate premiums would increase to $38 by 2019 from the current $24.

The proposal also calls for extending pension funding stabilization rules for two more years, until 2022, to allow sponsors to use higher interest rates when calculating contribution rates. Regrettably, this is nothing more than fuzzy math, and it continues to mask the true economics for DB plans.

“Once again the employer-sponsored system is being targeted for revenue,” said Annette Guarisco Fildes, president and CEO of the ERISA Industry Committee, who predicted that the premium hike will give defined benefit plan sponsors “more reasons to consider exit strategies.” We, at KCS, absolutely agree. DB plans need to be preserved. Punishing sponsors by raising PBGC premiums is not supportive.

“It’s an incredibly bad idea and it’s going to have, in the long run, devastating consequences for the (defined benefit) system,” said Deborah Forbes, executive director of the Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets, in an interview.

According to P&I, PBGC officials had not called for additional premium increases in the single-employer program on top of ones already scheduled. “PBGC’s finances for the single-employer program have been improving steadily over the past few years, and there is really no reason to increase single-employer premiums at this time,” said Michael Kreps, a principal with Groom Law Group.

We’ve witnessed a precipitous decline in the use of DB plans during the last 30+ years. The elimination of DB plans as THE primary retirement vehicle and the move toward DC offerings to fill that gap is creating an environment in which there will be grave social and economic consequences. Enough already! Wake up Washington before the slope gets too slippery.

KCS Third Quarter 2015 Update

We are pleased to provide you with the KCS quarterly update.

Click to access KCS3Q15.pdf

The KCS team continues to support the retirement industry through our various conference appearances and our many articles.  We hope that you have found our effort beneficial.  As a reminder, KCS has an active blog at http://www.kampconsultingblog.com and our website http://www.kampconsultingsolutions.com warehouses all of our articles from the Fireside Chat series, as well as conference presentations, radio and TV appearances, etc.

Lastly, and most importantly, I’d (Russ) like to announce the birth of my first grandchild, born to my daughter-in-law, Kelly, and son, Ryan, who presented us with Vivian last week. She is a wonderful addition to our family, and has already captured my heart!