Administration March 7, 2017

Growing Plan Sponsor Interest in Pension Risk Transfer

A growing number of DB plan sponsors are considering PRT products at a time when PBGC premiums have increased by more than 300%, a new study finds. 

Reported by

A growing number of DB plan sponsors are considering pension risk transfer (PRT) products at a time when Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premiums have increased by more than 300%, a new study finds.

Eight out of 10 employers are interested in PRT, and defined benefit (DB) plan sponsors have become increasingly interested in these products since 2014, according to a new study by the LIMRA Secure Retirement Institute. The same report found that four in 10 DB plan sponsors reported being “very interested” in PRT products, representing a 10% spike in interest compared to data gathered from an Institute study in 2014.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

A pension risk transfer allows an employer to transfer all or a portion of its pension liability to an insurer. The move could remove the liability from an employer’s balance sheet and reduce the volatility of the plan’s funded status. Institute research shows PRT buy-out sales totaled $13.7 billion in 2016 — the second highest annual total recorded.

Overall, 81% of employers reported feeling very interested or somewhat interested in PRT vehicles. Out of all those who reported not being interested in these products, the top driver of that decision was lack of knowledge (40%). Other employers cited alternative means to address their pension risk including liability-driven investing, which aims to reduce the risk associated with market volatility by precisely matching assets to liabilities.

LIMRA notes that while this strategy can lower investment risk, plan sponsors would still have to address other obstacles such as mortality and fiduciary risks, while also paying for Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) premiums. For every unfunded dollar in a DB plan, the employer is required to pay a premium to the PBGC. Throughout the last four years, the variable PBGC premium has increased by more than 300%, from 0.9% of unfunded liability in 2013, to 3.4% in 2017. It is projected to rise to 4.1% in 2019. According to the study, 8 in 10 employers with a DB plan are less than 90% funded. 

Meanwhile, more than a quarter of employers with DB plans say low interest rates dissuade them from considering PRT. To address these issues, plan sponsors have taken several steps. One method, which LIMRA finds is growing in popularity, is the borrow-to-fund method, in which an employer borrows the money to fund its DB plan. In today’s low-interest environment, it could be possible for a company to obtain a loan for less than the current PBGC rate.

Institute research shows that the proportion of employers with frozen DB plans has increased seven percentage points from 2014 to 57% in 2016. LIMRA notes this is a positive trend for the PRT market because freezing a plan is one of the first actions a plan sponsor must take on the path to a buy-out. The Institute finds that employers with frozen DB plans are more interested in PRT products (84%), compared with those who haven’t frozen their plans (69%).

Study results are from a survey of 258 employers that sponsor a traditional DB plan, conducted in October 2016. LIMRA members can access the full report by visiting: Heating Up Plan Sponsor Interest in Pension Risk Transfer (2017).

Investing March 7, 2017

Dynamically Managed TDFs Paired With Higher Deferrals Equals Superior Results

GMO looked at the performance of various TDF factors over a 40-year period to help guide TDF selection.
Reported by

GMO took a look at several variables retirement plan advisers and sponsors can consider when selecting a target-date fund—such as active versus passive, level of risk, dynamic versus predetermined glidepaths and custom versus off-the shelf—and how these factors would have resulted in outcomes for the 40-year period between 1975 and 2015.

Other factors that GMO looked at included: proprietary underlying funds versus open architecture, traditional versus alternative investments, “to retirement” versus “through,” and auto escalation versus not.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

In “Target Date Decisions, Decisions … Getting the Biggest Bang for the Buck,” GMO concludes that dynamic allocations paired with higher-than-typical deferral rates can result in significantly better outcomes for participants—and that these are the two most important factors that sponsors and advisers should consider when selecting a TDF and the plan design around it.

GMO also found that passively managed investments should be included in TDFs, noting in its white paper, “It is clear from the scoreboard that active management across this [40-year] time frame did not add value. The takeaway: Plan sponsors should not obsess about open-architecture active frameworks.”

NEXT: What level of risk should a TDF take?

GMO next looked at how TDFs with more conservative glidepaths would have fared compared with those with more aggressive approaches, and found a 6% disparity in performance—conservative TDFs ended up with 2% less assets and aggressive TDFs with 4% more. GMO concluded that whether a TDF has an aggressive or conservative glidepath should not be a driving force for sponsors’ and advisers’ selection of TDFs.

GMO notes that when TDFs first hit the market, they were designed with pre-determined glidepaths, which the firm believes is a faulty approach for an investment that can last 40 years or longer. GMO learned that dynamic glidepaths can increase a participant’s TDF balance by as much as 14%, making this a significant factor when choosing a TDF.

And increasing a person’s deferral rate by even a mere 1%, from 6% to 7%, can boost their balance by 11%, again, a factor that GMO believes is meaningful.

GMO concludes, “Based on our results, the two most promising levers appear to be adding a dynamic component to the glidepath and boosting deferral rates”—and if these two factors are combined, balances could increase by as much as 30%.

GMO’s white paper can be downloaded here.

«