Tag Archives: DB plans

06.11.15
by

The latest Iteration of the “High School Dance”

It has been a very long time since I was in high school, and as a result, things may be different today.  But, what I remember about my high school days and the dances at Palisades Park, NJ, were that the boys stood on one side of the gym and the girls stood on the other.  Occasionally a couple of girls would dance, but there was little fraternizing among the boys and girls.

Well, I get the same sense about the management of DB pension plans today, as I did at those dances a very long time ago.  It seems to me that we have on one side of the “gym” assets and on the other side is liabilities, and never the twain shall meet.  As a result, DB plans haven’t found their rhythm and there is no dancing!

We get periodic updates from a number of industry sources highlighting how the funded status is improving or deteriorating.  But we don’t seem to get a lot of direction on how we should mitigate the volatility in the funding of these extremely important retirement vehicles.  I can say with certainty that it isn’t striving to achieve the ROA.  That’s been tried, and DB plans continue to see deterioration in their funded ratios.

For too long, the asset side of the pension equation has dominated everyone’s focus, and as a result, a plan’s specific liabilities are usually only discussed when the latest actuarial report is presented, which is on a one or two year cycle.  This isn’t nearly often enough. We suggest that the primary objective for the assets should be the plan’s liabilities, and that every performance review start off with this comparison.  However, in order to get an accurate accounting of the liabilities one needs a custom liability index (CLI).

In order to preserve DB plans we need assets and liabilities dancing as one. Without this, DB plans face a very uncertain future. Are you ready to bring both parties to the dance floor?

06.04.15
by

Let Kamp Consulting Solutions Be Your DB Plan Advocate

Since KCS’s founding in August 2011, we have worked tirelessly to preserve defined benefit plans as the retirement vehicle of choice for both employees and employers.  Now, more than ever, our effort is needed.  With each passing day, week, month and year, it is becoming increasingly obvious that defined contribution plans are nothing more than glorified savings accounts, at best!

The Federal Reserve’s Household survey, released earlier this week, highlights the challenges facing or employees in trying to save and manage their retirements, as a significant portion of our labor force have accumulated nothing for retirement.  As we’ve stated on numerous occasions, there will be profound social and economic consequences for the US if we can’t manage its workforce through a dignified retirement.

The US economy is still only muddling through 6+ years following the great financial crisis. Much of the “credit” for the muted recovery and lower demand for goods and services can be attributable to weak wage growth.  Importantly, the modest growth in wages doesn’t just impact demand today, but it makes saving for tomorrow that much more challenging.

We need to secure our employee’s retirements through a monthly annuity structure that is best achieved through a DB plan or DB-like structure, such as Double DB. Unfortunately, the elimination of DB plans has been on an accelerated path, and according to the DOL, there are fewer than 25,000 active DB plans today (down from roughly 150,000 in ’86). We’ve seen estimates that the median DC account balance is <$15,000.  An account balance of that size will hardly get one through a year, let alone a retirement.

Furthermore, we shouldn’t be vilifying those employees who are fortunate to be in DB plans, but we should explore opportunities to extend their reach for those that aren’t.  Despite the fact that there are many plans that appear to be dramatically (and maybe unsustainably) underfunded, there are new approaches to the management of DB plans that can be implemented, which will set a plan on a glide path to financial wellness.  We sincerely appreciate that funding volatility can create havoc for both corporate and public entities, but that funding volatility can be mitigated, too.

The last thing that we want to witness is the further erosion in the use of DB plans in favor of DC offerings.  No one is going to win if that occurs. The impact on the employee is obvious, but has corporate America truly assessed the impact from a failed retirement system on the ability of US citizens to remain active members of the economy? KCS has the tools to stabilize and improve the funded status of your DB plans to truly make them viable offerings for the long-term. Let us be your advocate, especially if there is an attempt to freeze or terminate your plan at this time.

05.20.15
by

Double DB® – Answers To Your Questions

Earlier this week we shared with you the virtues of Double DB® and encouraged you to reach out with any questions.  I am very pleased with the response that we’ve gotten.

As a reminder, a group of us have confronted two important pension issues: pension cost volatility and resultant perilous pension indebtedness due to prior underfunding (see Illinois, NJ, and a host of other plans).

We have developed an over-arching, patent pending answer to all of it – Double DB®, which;
(1) Provides pensions, not “employee accessible” cash.
(2) Is “percentage of payroll” financed.
(3) Easily “manages” debt from past underfunding.

Here are some of your questions.

Q: How do you manage debt from past underfunding of a traditional DB plan?

Have the plan actuary determine the percentage of payroll expected to finance the plan debt in 30 years based on the actuary’s estimate of the rate of growth in the underlying payroll and the estimate of the rate of growth of the debt. Plan to allocate this percentage of payroll to debt financing every year. If it turns out that more or less than 30 years is required, simply accept the longer or shorter term or adjust the allocated percentage of payroll along the way.

Q: How do you fund and manage Double DB®?

Have the actuary determine the percentage of payroll needed to finance future service benefits of the plan. Plan to pay this percentage of payroll in every future year. In the first year, plan to place one half into a trust fund identified as DB1 and the other half into a trust fund identified as DB2. In the second and each future year, place the then actuarial cost of half of the future service benefit cost into DB1 and the remainder into DB2. Accordingly, one half of the future costs of the plan will always be financed on an actuarially sound basis within DB1, while DB2 will have assets reflecting the extent that experience is more favorable or less favorable than expected at the outset.

Q: What benefit can the employee expect to receive?

In each year of retirement a pensioner will receive one half the scheduled plan benefit from DB1 and an experience modified variation of the scheduled plan benefit from DB2. If an entering plan participant would prefer to have a level benefit rather than the two-part benefit as described, he/she may elect an option to receive, say, 90% of DB1 benefits from DB2 and thereby receiving 95% of the benefit value to which he/she is entitled in retirement. Accordingly, the DB2 component of the plan will be provided a 10% “fee” for taking the risk of paying a larger benefit than the benefit to which the pensioner was entitled over the years of retirement. The 90% component can be more than 90% if the actuary for the plan is satisfied that a higher percentage is justified based on his/her appraisal of the risk.

We thank you for your continued interest.  Please don’t hesitate to bring additional questions to our attention.

05.18.15
by

Double DB® – The Answer to a DB Plan’s Funding Volatility and More

Level cost, as a percentage of payroll, is the preferred basis for financing any retirement plan obligation, which is why 401(k) type defined contribution systems have become the nation’s most prevalent retirement vehicle.

Aware of this development and concerned about pre-retirement spending of accumulating funds by participating employees (loans, premature withdrawals), a group of us have confronted the culprit issues: pension cost volatility and resultant perilous pension indebtedness due to prior underfunding (see Illinois, NJ, and a host of other plans).

We have developed an over-arching, patent pending answer to all of it – Double DB®, which;
(1) Provides pensions, not “employee accessible” cash.
(2) Is “percentage of payroll” financed.
(3) Easily “manages” debt from past underfunding.

While accomplishing the above tasks, Double DB also removes the individual from having to manage these retirement assets.

If you would like to have a conversation about how a conversion of a current defined benefit plan to a Double DB® plan might work, please ask and we can send illustrative language or provide contact with our attorney / actuary.

Finally, It may be of interest to note that Chief Counsel’s Office of IRS regards the Double DB® concept favorably.

05.01.15
by

KCS May 2015 Fireside Chat – Do You Know The Answer?

We are pleased to share with you the latest edition of the KCS Fireside Chat series.

Click to access KCSFCMay2015.pdf

This article is the 34th in our series.  In this piece we explore whether or not the US Federal Reserve is likely to raise interest rates in the near-term – the $64,000 question.

The uncertainty surrounding this action continues to challenge DB plan asset allocation decisions.  Level to falling US rates will continue to harm DB plan funded ratios.

We hope that you find our insights thought provoking.  Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us with any comments and / or questions, or if we can be of any assistance to you.

04.22.15
by

What is Consulting PLUS?

During the last decade or so, the rage within fixed income investing has been for plan sponsors to seek or investment managers to offer Core Plus fixed income capability. The investment thesis put forward is that a fixed income manager with multiple capabilities can enhance the risk / reward behavior of a single core capability.  The enhancements may be in the form of exposure to such instruments as high yield, international / emerging debt, bank loans, secured debt, etc.  One of the thoughts supporting this concept is that managers should be able to do a better job, on average, than committees in timing exposures and implementing asset shifts.  We agree that by providing a manager with greater investment freedom and breadth the investment process should see an improvement in its risk / return characteristics.

Given the troubles that continue to plague traditional defined benefit plans, especially as it relates to funding them, we, at KCS, feel that this idea should be expanded to other aspects of pension management, including asset consulting.  It seems to us that the asset consulting industry needs to rethink its approach from one focused exclusively on the asset side of the equation to one that rightly focuses on the plan’s liabilities, too.

We’ve written numerous times on the benefits of measuring a plan’s liabilities through the creation of a custom liability index.  Importantly, the output from this exercise helps one better understand their plan’s liability growth rate, term structure and interest rate sensitivity.  Without this insight, how does one allocate assets?  Since every plan’s liabilities are unique, it doesn’t make sense that a generic 8% return (ROA) target could adequately and effectively guide one’s asset allocation.

The seven senior members of KCS’s team have well over 200 years of combined, relevant investment experience. In addition, our senior talent have worked with and consulted to many of our industry’s largest plan sponsors. We understand the asset side of the equation as well as any other firm, while also understanding its limitations, especially in the short-term. Importantly, with KCS you get the PLUS. We are unique in our ability to measure and monitor liabilities, and to use the output to drive asset allocation and our risk-reducing glide path toward full funding.

Why settle for just asset consulting when you can have Consulting PLUS through a firm that knows both ASSETS and LIABILITIES!  If providing greater breadth in fixed income enhances the risk / reward characteristics just wait until you see how adding liability insights enhances your traditional consulting relationship.

03.19.15
by

My plan was up 10% in 2014 – Was that Good?

We frequently receive updates in our email in-boxes about various pension funds and their returns in 2014, and not surprisingly the numbers vary quite a bit.  According to Wilshire’s TUCS comparisons, the average public pension plan was up 6.76% in 2014. However, we’ve seen some funds reporting returns closer to 10%.  It seems to us that a plan did better the more traditional the plan’s asset allocation, meaning more equities and fixed income, and less in alternatives, particularly hedge funds.

In most cases the announcement of a total return was hailed as good or bad depending on how it did relative to the plan’s return on asset assumption (ROA).  However, is that really the true objective? If a plan generated a 10% return and its ROA was 8% (49% of public plans have 8% as their ROA) it was reported as a great year.  However, what did the plan’s liabilities do in 2014? Since most sponsors and consultants assume that liabilities grow at the ROA, they would likely assess that 2014 was good on both the return and liability front.  Unfortunately, they would be wrong.

With the precipitous decline in US interest rates continuing through much of 2014, the average defined benefit plan had its liabilities grow more than 15% in 2014.  Given this fact, I’d say that any return that didn’t exceed liability growth was a poor year, with the average public pension (6.8%) doing quite poorly versus liability growth.

Can you imagine if you were playing a football game without a scoreboard? Let’s assume you are in the fourth quarter and you’ve scored 27 points.  How do you play your offense or defense? Do you get more conservative or aggressive? You don’t know, do you? Exactly! Well, this is how Pension America is playing the game.

A significant majority of DB plans only get a look at their liabilities every 1-2 years, and the results are usually presented with a 3-6 month lag.  It is quite difficult to have a responsive asset allocation when you don’t know whether or not you are winning the pension game versus your liabilities, just as it is impossible to play football if you don’t know how your opponent is performing.

At KCS we place liabilities and the management of plan assets versus those liabilities at the forefront of our approach to managing DB plans. Pension America has seen a significant demise in the use of DB plans, and we would suggest it has to do with how they’ve been managed. Focusing exclusively on the asset side of the equation with little or no regard to the plan’s  liabilities has created an asset allocation that is completely mismatched versus liabilities.  It is time to adopt a new approach before the remaining 23,000+ DB plans are all gone!

09.18.14
by

Maintain Your Asset / Liability Mismatch At Your Own Peril!!

Recent news from around the world indicates that growth is slowing in nearly every region. Japan and China are pumping liquidity into their systems to encourage more growth. Europe, an unmitigated disaster, will need to continue to provide stimulus, and not austerity, in order to get their citizens working and consuming. The US continues to plod along, but given our trading partners’ struggles, it would be naive of us to think that our ability to export goods won’t be negatively impacted.

With that said, US interest rates remain significantly above those of our partners in Europe and elsewhere, particularly in the 5- and 10-year space. The US rates provide real value relative to these other countries, and so it is likely that the value will be captured as investors seek those higher yields.

In the US pension arena, most plans continue to be dramatically underweight fixed income, as they fear higher rates and yields that are well below the ROA. Stop! The ROA isn’t the objective, and rates aren’t necessarily going higher. The only asset that moves in lock step with a pension plan’s liabilities is fixed income. We have a major funding issue in the US that will be exacerbated should rates continue to fall.

A new direction is needed in the day-to-day management of DB plans. Call us if you want to receive our insights.

07.24.14
by

Of Course They Are Going To Pick Above Average Managers!!

I had the pleasure of attending the Opal Conference in Newport, RI the last few days. Opal’s “Public Funds Summit East: Navigating the Future” was well attended by public fund trustees, asset consultants and investment management professionals. I will provide a general overview in a later blog post, but I want to dedicate this text to an issue related to investment management fees.

I was particularly disturbed by a comment by an asset consultant when the issue of performance fees was raised. This consultant was troubled by the notion of paying performance fees to managers of any ilk because managers are chosen by his firm who can and will add value, so why pay more for their services? How naive!

Just prior to this panel’s discussion, we were implored by a plan sponsor to seek economies of scale, while also being cognizant of fees (all fees, and not just investment manager fees), as they can be destructive to a plan’s long-term health. I absolutely agree.

Even if a consultant thought that a manager had the above average ability to provide an excess return on a fairly consistent basis, why would they or their clients be willing to pay a manager their full fee without the promise of delivery? As a reminder, the “average” manager will return the performance of the market minus transaction costs and fees.

It is fairly easy to calibrate the performance fee with the asset-based fee based on the expected excess return objective. If the manager achieves the return target, the fees paid should be roughly equivalent, with perhaps the performance fee relationship paying slightly more as compensation for the manager assuming more risk. However, in no case should the performance fee reward a manager to a much greater extent than the asset based fee would have generated.

If the manager truly has the ability to add consistent value, they should be comfortable assuming a performance fee. Importantly, the plan sponsor shouldn’t fear the injection of more risk into the strategy, as the manager is not likely interested in jeopardizing their reputation for a few more basis points. In addition, there are easy ways to track whether this is happening.

Lastly, paying flat asset-based fees in lieu of creating a more incentive based compensation structure is just wrong. Plans should be happy to pay fees based on value-add, but should be infuriated when forced to pay an asset-based fee for the usual less than index return.

KCS has a white paper on this topic that can be accessed on the KCS website. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us if you’d like to discuss this issue in greater detail. Asset consultants are kidding themselves (and their plan sponsor clients) if they think that they will only pick above average managers!

05.03.14
by

What are you paying for?

A reflection:

I was very fortunate to be hired into the investment industry in 1981. Two gentlemen, Larry Zielinski and Ted Swedock, took a huge leap hiring a not very qualified candidate out of undergraduate business school to fill a role as an analyst in a small consulting group.  I was the first-non consultant or assistant to be hired.  The role’s responsibilities were vast, and the experience that I gained was immeasurable.

But, the most important knowledge that was shared with me was a comment that Larry made on the first day that I began working at Janney Montgomery Scott’s Investment Management Controls division.  Larry told me that anyone or any company can produce vast quantities of paper and/or fancy reports.  A consultant is only worth their salt if they have the ability to interpret the information that they are passing on and at the same time are willing to make recommendations based on their interpretation.

As I sit back today and reflect on my nearly 33 years in this business, I can’t help but remember how important those words were that Larry uttered to me in October 1981.  I’ve tried to follow his lead since day one.  Initially, I didn’t have a clue about how most things truly worked in the investment industry. Today, as we build KCS, we continue to live by Larry’s example.  We can produce all the fancy reports in the world, but they aren’t worth the paper they are printed on if we also don’t share with our clients and prospects our recommendations as to a course that they should follow.  We are Fiduciaries, and we take that responsibility seriously.

As you may know, every month we produce at least one article on an investment subject. We don’t pull any punches.  If you want to know how we feel on a subject, just go to our website and look under the heading “Publications.”  Everything that we’ve produced is there.  I don’t know how many other consultants/consulting firms are regularly producing articles, but they should at least be willing to take a stand on those subjects most important to their clients.

At KCS, we are concerned about retirement security for most Americans.  We do believe that the demise of the defined benefit plan will produce negative economic and social consequences for a large segment of our population.   We don’t think that the status quo approach to managing DB plans is working.  We believe that our clients and their beneficiaries need new thinking and approaches on a variety of retirement subjects.  We’ve articulated those.  Has your consultant? So, I ask again, are you getting what you are paying for?