Tag Archives: defined benefit plans

06.30.14
by

Seeing “Double DB” in Your Future?

Seeing “Double DB” in Your Future?

The latest KCS Fireside Chat is attached for your review. This edition is the 24th Fireside Chat in our monthly series. This one addresses the development of a new hybrid plan called the Double DB. KCS is pleased to be involved in bringing this new pension plan design to the marketplace. We believe that sharing risk among both the plan sponsor and the participant is the better approach than one entity bearing all the risk. This exciting new pension plan design accomplishes this objective, while also bringing many additional attributes to the marketplace.

Please don’t hesitate to call on us if we can answer any questions that you might have about this exciting development.

06.10.14
by

Where are the Economies of Scale?

Since its founding in August 2011, KCS has tried to highlight some of the issues facing the US retirement industry in the hopes that perhaps best practices could be identified and DB plans, as a result, SAVED.  I recently came across the “Status Report on Local Government Pension Plans” for Pennsylvania.  The report was released in December 2012, and it used information through calendar year 2011.

The following paragraph jumped out at me:

“Pennsylvania’s local government pension plans comprise more than 25 percent of the public employee
pension plans in the United States. There are now more than 3,200 local government pension plans in
Pennsylvania, and the number is continuing to grow. Seventy percent of the local government pension plans
are self-insured, defined benefit plans, and 30 percent are money purchase or other type plans. The pension
plans range in size from one to more than 18,000 active members, but more than 98 percent of the pension
plans can be characterized as small (less than 100 members). While 68 percent of the local government
pension plans have ten or fewer members, 32 percent have three or fewer active members.”

I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that having more than 3,200 local government plans in PA is a good idea, especially when one considers that 98% of the plans have fewer than 100 employees. The local governments and their participants would be much better off pooling their resources into larger, more professionally managed DB plans that afford everyone the benefit or economies of scale. 

I suspect that there exist other states in the Union with a similar governance structure, but if we are to preserve the defined benefit plan as the retirement vehicle of choice, we need to reduce the cost of managing these plans.  Allowing thousands of defined benefit plans with fewer than 100 participants to exist is not sound governance.

01.09.14
by

Rethink the Use of Fixed Income in a Defined Benefit Plan

With the closure of the first quarter, we’d like to remind you of a blog post that we first published in early January.  Our thoughts are still relevant, especially given the market action within fixed income during the quarter and what is transpiring in US fixed income today.  The 10-year Treasury has rallied 2% today, and we think that it may continue to move lower.  The following paragraphs are what we originally posted.

What I’d like to highlight today is a new use for a plan’s current fixed income exposure. In day two of the conference, I attended a panel discussion titled, “Opportunities in Fixed Income and Credit Markets”.  The panel was occupied by 4 senior investment pros (plan sponsor, consultant, and investment managers).  They generally discussed the likelihood that interest rates were going to rise (I’m beginning to wonder if there is anyone out their who doesn’t think that rates will rise), and the implications of that movement on traditional fixed income portfolios.  Most of the panelists talked about various sub-sectors (mortgages, asset backs, bank loans, etc) and which ones might hold up better. There was discussion about shortening duration, etc. They also talked about fixed income’s traditional role as an anchor to windward, a risk reducer, and a provider of liquidity.

However, only one individual mentioned taking a step back to truly contemplate the “role” of fixed income.  He didn’t provide any further perspective, which is why I’m addressing the issue here and today.  I believe (as do my partners at KCS) that a plan’s liabilities should be the focal point of any pension discussion.  As such, they need to be the primary objective for the plan, the driver of asset allocation decisions and investment / portfolio structure.  The asset class most similar in characteristic to liabilities is fixed income.  As such, fixed income needs to play a prominent role in a defined benefit plan.

Instead of worrying about the implications from a rising interest rate environment on an LDI strategy that currently consists of long duration corporates, change the emphasis to matching near-term liabilities, by converting your current fixed income portfolio into a Treasury STRIP portfolio that matches cash flows with projected benefits (Beta portfolio).  First, you are improving liquidity.  Second, duration is shortened in an environment that may not be conducive to long bonds.  Third, you are lengthening the investing time horizon for the balance of the corpus, which will allow asset classes / products with a liquidity premium a chance to capture that performance increment (Alpha portfolio). Finally, the funded status and contribution costs should begin to stabilize.  As the Alpha portfolio outperforms liability growth (hopefully), siphon excess profits and extend the beta portfolio.

This is a proactive move to restructure the fixed income portfolio in an environment of uncertainty.

Lastly, I am not of the general school of thought that interest rates are definitely going to rise, and soon.  I believe that we still have slack demand in our economy, brought on by underemployment, which will keep inflation in check and provide room for stable to slightly lower rates.