Tag Archives: DC plans

04.23.25
by

Housing: A Major Impediment to Saving for Retirement

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

The demise of defined benefit (DB) pensions is putting great financial pressure on individuals to save for retirement through a defined contribution (DC) program. I’ve often railed about asking untrained individuals to take on the responsibility to fund, manage, and then disburse a “benefit” through a DC plan, arguing that most Americans don’t have the necessary disposable income, investment acumen, or a crystal ball to help with longevity issues.

Many (most)Americans are financially strapped and there are many contributors to this crisis, including student loan debt, monthly childcare expenses, food, medical insurance, car/home insurance, and housing costs to name but a few. I could address each of these and the impact that they have on the average American worker, but let’s focus on housing today. The cost of buying and maintaining a residence is suffocating. Property taxes often add the equivalence of a monthly “mortgage” on top of one’s monthly mortgage, especially if you live in high tax states such as New Jersey.

Here are some startling facts when comparing the impact of housing costs on families from the 1950s to today’s circumstances. It wasn’t unusual to have only one member of a couple (mostly the male) working outside the home in the 1950s. That ability has nearly vanished today. Why? Well for one, the average home was <$7,400 in the early ’50s and the average family income was roughly $3,300. So, for slightly more than 2Xs one’s family income you could own your roughly 1,000 square foot home.

Today, the median home is priced at $431k according to Redfin, while the median household income is <$80k. Maryland leads that way at just over $94,000, while Mississippi trails all states at $44k. It now costs more than 5Xs one’s family income to purchase a home in the U.S. By the way, the “average” home in the ’50s would be worth about $98k in today’s $s so about 23% of what it actually costs to buy today. Oh, my! The housing market has dramatically outpaced inflation during the last 7 decades, and there doesn’t seem to be an end to the escalation despite the greater home prices and today’s interest rate environment.

Just the housing costs alone are a great burden of the American worker. Add to this expenditure all that was mentioned above and then some, and you shouldn’t be surprised that median 401(k) balances are as anemic as they are. Let’s work together to bring back traditional DB plans so that most Americans will have a decent opportunity to retire before their 80th birthday!

03.31.25
by

DC Participants: “Just Say No”

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Most everyone who lived through the ’80s will remember the slogan “Just Say No”. The slogan was created and championed by Nancy Reagan during her husband’s presidency. As you’ll recall, the slogan was part of the U.S.-led war on drugs.

I’d like to reuse the slogan of JUST SAY NO as it relates to using alternatives, especially private equity and credit in defined contribution (DC) plans. DC plans are proving to be a failed model for the vast majority of participants given the anemic median balances, as asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “retirement” benefit with little to no disposable income, investment acumen, or a crystal ball to help with longevity is just silly policy. Trying to push alternatives onto these folks is maddening! They don’t need more offerings providing complicated structures, little transparency, high fees, and poor liquidity.

Importantly, what happened to being a “qualified or accredited” investor? As you may recall, private investments are restricted in most cases to individuals who meet certain financial thresholds that have been established by regulatory authorities. These considerations included minimum income levels (>$200k for some period of time and sustainable), net worth considerations at >$1 million not including your primary residence, and finally, investment knowledge, in which individuals need to demonstrate sufficient knowledge and experience in financial and business matters to evaluate the risks and merits of a prospective investment. Do you honestly think that the average 401(k) participant qualifies under any of these considerations?

The alternative suite of product offerings is proving to be challenging for many institutional investors/boards, often requiring the retention of a specialist consultant to support the plan’s generalist advisor. Given that reality, does it really make sense that an untrained individual will truly understand the potential risk and reward characteristics? Furthermore, these investments are NOT the magic elixir that they are made out to be. Performance results range far and wide and liquidity (capital distributions) is proving illusive. Do providers of these products really believe that more assets are needed at this time given how difficult it is to invest the current dry powder?

I put a similar comment to this post on LinkedIn.com earlier today. Somebody commented that a simple NO without exploration perhaps would violate my fiduciary responsibility. My answer: Someone needs to be the grown up in the room trying to keep our industry’s greedy hands off DC plans. I believe that I am acting very much in a fiduciary capacity.

I could apply the “Just Say No” slogan to so many practices within our pension industry, but for now I’ll restrict it to this one area of concern. This one rant!

11.13.24
by

The Joke’s On Us!

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

According to a P&I article, the ECB has undertaken an “exploratory review of bank exposures to private equity and private credit funds in order to better understand these channels and to assess banks’ risk management approaches.” According to P&I, the overarching message was that “complex exposures to private equity and credit funds require sophisticated risk management.”

Yesterday, there was a FundFire article that questioned the effectiveness of the “Yale Model” given the heavy dependence on alternatives and the weak performance associated with those products in recent periods. According to the article, the greater the alts exposure the likely weaker fiscal performance.

In a recent article by Richard Ennis, founder and former chairman of investment consultant EnnisKnupp, he estimates that Harvard University, with about 80% of its endowment assets in alternative investments, spends roughly 3% of endowment value on money management fees annually, including the operation of its investment office.

Given the concerns noted above with respect to fees, risk management, and the overall success of investing in alternative strategies, one would believe that a cautionary tone would be delivered at this time. But alas that isn’t the case when it comes to forging ahead with plans to introduce alternatives into DC plans where the individual participant lacks the necessary sophistication to undertake a review of such investments. According to yet another FundFire article in recent days, Apollo and Franklin are plowing forward with plans to make available alternative investments to the DC participant through a new CIT. Shameful!

I’ve commented numerous times that it is pure madness to believe that the average American worker has the disposable income, investment acumen, and/or the necessary crystal ball to effectively manage distributions upon retirement through a DC offering. Given this lack of investment knowledge, I find it so distasteful that “Wall Street” continues to look at these plans as just another source of high fees and revenue. Where are the FIDUCIARIES?

If the ECB doesn’t believe that their banks have the necessary tools in place to handle these complex investments, how on Earth will my neighbor, family member, former teacher, etc.? Can we please stop this madness!

10.15.24
by

We Are # 29 – WOW!

By: Russ Kamp, Managing Director, Ryan ALM, Inc.

The  16th annual Mercer/CFA Institute Global Pension Index report was released on Oct. 15. I want to extend a big thank you to Mercer and the CFA for their collective effort to elevate retirement issues, while celebrating those countries who are getting it right. According to the survey, “the overall index value is based on three weighted sub-indices—adequacy (40%), sustainability (35%) and integrity (25%)—to measure each retirement income system. Adequacy looked at areas such as benefits, system design, savings and government support. Sustainability examined pension coverage, total assets, demography and other areas. Integrity encompassed regulation, governance and protection.” There are more than 50 indicators that support these three broad categories.

The United States was given a score of 60.4 (63 in 2023’s study), which placed our retirement readiness at 29 of 48 countries that were evaluated. That 29 is 7 spots lower than 2023’s rank. According to the Mercer CFA study, a score of 60.4 places us slightly below the average score (63.4) among those ranked and we were given a letter grade of C+. I don’t know about you but if I had scored a 60 (scale of 0-100) during my school days, my letter grade would have likely been an F. Based on how I feel that we are prepared as a nation, I think that an F is much more appropriate than a C+. What about you?

I’m not trying to pick on the U.S. retirement system, which scored 63.9 on adequacy, 58.4 on sustainability and 57.5 on integrity, with Integrity being the poorest ranking as it trailed the worldwide average score by >16 points at 74.1. Our retirement system was evaluated based on the Social Security system and voluntary private pensions, which may be job-related (DB or DC) or personal, such as an IRA. Other systems with comparable overall index values to the U.S. (60-65) included Colombia (63), Saudi Arabia (60.5) and Kazakhstan (64.0). I don’t know about you but being ranked among those countries doesn’t make me feel warm and fuzzy about our effort or achievement. Systems scoring the highest were the Netherlands (84.8), Iceland (83.4), Denmark (81.6), and Israel (80.2) – they were given an ‘A’ grade.

Anyone participating in our industry knows that can AND MUST do better. The loss of DB pension plans within the private sector is a very harmful trend. Leakage within DC plans makes them more like glorified savings accounts rather than retirement vehicles, and Social Security provides small relief for a majority of recipients. As I’ve uttered on many occasions, asking untrained individuals to fund, manage, and then disburse a “retirement benefit” without the financial means, investment skill, and a crystal ball to forecast longevity is just silly policy.

Mercer and the CFA institute recommended a series of potential reforms to improve the long-term success of the US retirement system. I just loved this one:

“Promoting higher labor force participation at older ages, which will increase the savings available for retirement and limit the continuing increase in the length of retirement;“

A truly amazing suggestion – if you never retire then you don’t have to worry about whether or not your system will provide an adequate benefit! Problem solved! Many Americans would welcome the opportunity to extend their careers/employment opportunities, but some jobs require physical labor not easily done at more mature ages, while many American companies are anxious to rid themselves of higher priced and experienced talent in favor of younger workers (ageism?).

When I wrote about this survey last year, I’d hoped that the higher US interest rate environment would begin to improve outcomes for our workers whether their plans are a defined benefit or defined contribution offering. Unfortunately, current trends have US rates falling again. That just puts more pressure on DB plans and individual participants in DC plans and encourages (forces) everyone to take more risk. That development isn’t going to help next year’s score!

10.28.15
by

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.

09.23.15
by

Housing Rental Expense killing DC contributions?

Despite the fact that inflation, as measured by the CPI, seems to be contained, rental expense for housing has jumped significantly in the US during the last decade.  As a country we are moving away from being a home ownership society to one that rents housing, as home ownership is now at its lowest since 1967! Furthermore, the only reason the home ownership rate is as “high” as it is, is due to homeowners in the 65 and over age group. For everyone else, home ownership rates are now the lowest recorded.

Compounding this problem is the fact that US household incomes are 7.2% less than they were in 1999. The lower incomes are being crushed by rising housing costs, medical expenses / insurance and education. Is it no wonder that folks don’t have any additional resources to fund their DC plans? What percentage of the US population really has discretionary income at this time?

According to the “State of the Nation’s Housing” report released by the Center for Housing Studies at Harvard, which showed that while inflation among most products and services may indeed be roughly as the Fed and BLS represent it, when it comes to rent things have never been worse.

According to the report, 2013 marked another year with a record-high number of cost burdened households – those paying more than 30 percent of income for housing. In the United States, 20.7 million renter households (49.0 percent) were cost burdened in 2013.  Alarmingly, 11.2 million (25%) all renter households, had “severe cost burdens, paying more than half of income for housing.” The median US renter household earned $32,700 in 2013 and spent $900 per month on housing costs.

So, do you still believe that the failure to fund defined contribution plans is because we have a population hellbent on consumption? The demise of the DB plan means that a significant percentage of our population will never be able to make adequate contributions (if any) into their retirement plan. The social and economic consequences for our country will be grave.

08.03.15
by

KCS August 2015 Fireside Chat – “Targeting Future Changes”

We are pleased to share with you the latest edition in the KCS Fireside Chat series.  This article touches on the burgeoning use of target date funds (TDFs).  However, all TDFs aren’t the same, and plan sponsors have an important responsibility to make sure that they stay on top of these funds from both an investment and fiduciary standpoint.  My colleague, Dave Murray, shares his expertise on these important investment vehicles.  Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us if we can provide any assistance.  Enjoy!

Click to access KCSFCAUG15.pdf

IMG_1237

08.19.14
by

Delayed Gratification – Just How Important Is It?

The following Tweet was posted by Vanguard this morning – “Delaying gratification, avoiding debt, & saving are all central to a financial literacy program for student”. We all know that we are more responsible for funding our retirement than at any time in the last 60 years, but just because we know doesn’t mean we have the ability to do so.

Defined Contribution plans are the vehicles of choice for most private sector employers, if not their employees. However, funding these plans, even to meet the company match, is not easy for many (most) low to middle income households. At KCS, we’ve discussed the benefits of participating in a DB plan versus a DC plan since our founding.

But, if you have a job, don’t have substantial student loan our housing debt, and can afford to make sizable contributions into your retirement program, it is better to delay gratification and make those contributions as early and often as possible. Why? Because the math of compounding truly works.

For instance, if a 22 year old can make a monthly contribution of $833 for 10 years, the $99,960 in contributions growing at 4% / year will become $438,393.12 upon reaching age 65. Again, that is with making contributions for only the first 10 years. At that point, you’ve basically funded your retirement and now you can begin acquire some of the other assets that you’ve been deferring.

However, if you can’t fund your retirement upfront with sizable monthly contributions, but can only put in $194 / month for the next 43 years growing at 4% until age 65, your balance upon retirement would only be $256,648.87, or roughly $182,000 less in total assets. WOW!

Finally, just think about how little you’ll be able to accumulate in your account if you delay making contributions until the age of 32. For instance, if you can only make that $194 / month for the next 33 years your account balance at age 65 is only $154,500, more than $100,000 less than you would have had if you began contributing the $194 / mo for the prior 10 years.

So, DC plans need funding often and early to be successful, but having the financial wherewithal is not a given, and having the discipline is not easy.

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!

01.31.14
by

ETPs, ETFs – WTH?! KCS’s February Fireside Chat

ETPs, ETFs – WTH?! KCS’s February Fireside Chat

We are pleased to share with you KCS’s February 2014 Fireside Chat.  This article is related to “ETFs”.

…What’s the Hype?!

 

As philosopher Jose Marti once said, “Like stones rolling down hills, fair ideas reach their objectives despite all obstacles and barriers.  It may be possible to speed or hinder them, but impossible to stop them.” So goes the growth in Exchange Traded Products (ETPs)! Although ETPs have been around since 1993, the growth in these investment products has been startling during the last decade, and especially in the last five years.  On a global basis, it is estimated that there exist more than 4,700 ETPs from more than 200 providers with assets exceeding $2.1 trillion and traded on 56 exchanges. Wow! 

 

Please click onto the link to gain access to the entire article.