White Labeling DC Plan Investments May Offer Advantages

September 2, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – Among approximately 75 large employers, nearly one-quarter (24%) are currently using a white label approach to naming defined contribution (DC) plan investment options, Aon Hewitt finds.

Nearly half (46%) are using this approach for their entire fund lineup, while the remainder white label only some of their funds.

Rob Austin, director of Retirement Research at Aon Hewitt, in Charlotte, North Carolina, tells PLANSPONSOR there are two main strategies for white labeling. The first is to take a singular fund and make the name generic. “For example, instead of listing the BlackRock U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, the fund would be presented to participants as the U.S. Bond Index fund,” he explains. This lets participants know the goals of fund and what it invests in, but makes it simpler for participants, he says.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

The second strategy is like a fund-of-funds approach, when a plan sponsor offers a single fund option to participants called the Large-Cap Equity fund, for example, but assets in the fund are directed to several underlying funds. Even with funds-of-funds, such as target-date funds, Austin explains, some plan sponsors are white labeling them. “For example, instead of listing the J.P. Morgan SmartRetirement 2015 fund, a plan sponsor may call it the 2015 Retirement fund.”

Aon Hewitt found 71% of employers choose to white label in order to combine multiple managers under one fund. Austin says this is, in part, to improve returns and, in part, to streamline the fund lineup and make it easier for participants to invest effectively. “Companies ask, ‘Do we need four large-cap funds or can we just use one to get the same result?’” Austin explains. 

He points to the example of a DC plan sponsor that wants to diversify investment vehicle types without adding more complexity for participants. In this case, the sponsor could include more alternative investment vehicles within a white labeled fund-of-funds strategy—thereby bringing better diversification to the fund lineup. 

Sixty-four percent of companies that white label DC plan investments told Aon Hewitt they opt for this approach to make it easier to change fund managers, if needed. “It’s more visible to change a singular fund, but if it’s all under large-cap, it may not even be noticed,” Austin says. It is also easier to switch out an underlying fund in a fund-of-funds approach because there doesn’t need to be a blackout period or time when participants have to make new elections, and participants do not have to be mapped to a new fund.

Among the companies in Aon Hewitt’s poll, 57% indicated they white label to simplify communication to participants. “It certainly makes it easier and takes away some of the jargon for participants,” Austin notes. “Participants still may not know the difference between small-cap and large-cap, but it still makes it a little more digestible.” Plan sponsors that choose to white label DC plan investments can simplify fund names even further if they want.

Aon Hewitt also found 43% of companies that white label select this approach to lower total fund fees. Austin explains that in a fund-of-funds approach, each fund would be charging the same fee as if it were offered as a standalone fund, but since it is part of a broader fund, it may get more assets than if offered as a standalone, and plan sponsors can get a different, cheaper share class.

For those companies that do not use a white label approach, more than half (52%) stated they have not adopted this because they have not considered it. “Definitely plan sponsors should consider [white labeling their DC investments],” Austin contends. “It may not be for everyone—there may be valid reasons not to—but plan sponsors should at least look at it. It can make investing more palatable to the novice investor.”

Thirty-seven percent of firms that are not white labeling indicated they prefer to keep the retail provider’s name in the fund. Another 23% are concerned about negative reactions from employees, and the same percentage is concerned about related communications challenges. “They may want the fund company name there because employees trust the brand,” Austin explains.

Aon Hewitt thinks the trend of white labeling DC plan investment options will grow, and it has grown over time, according to Austin. “There are valid reasons to consider it, so as they do, more companies will take this approach,” he says.

Executive Retirement Benefits Switched from DB to DC Too

September 2, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – As companies froze or closed their qualified defined benefit (DB) plans, they often did the same with their DB plans for executives.

Towers Watson looked at Fortune 200 companies that froze or closed their qualified DBs and found most companies switched from DB to defined contribution (DC) nonqualified retirement benefits for newly hired executives and used the same transition approaches for both executive and qualified DB plans. Most of the Fortune 200 companies that closed or froze their qualified DB plans now provide DC-style retirement benefits to executives in the form of restoration plans.

According to Towers Watson, since 1998, 82 companies included in the 2013 Fortune 200 list have frozen or closed their qualified DB plans and now offer only DC plans to newly hired workers. Many of these companies continue to accrue pensions for workers who were already in the DB plans, while others have stopped all accruals. These changes have been accompanied by comparable transformations in the companies’ executive retirement offerings.

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

Of the 76 companies in the Towers Watson analysis, 34 closed their qualified pension plans and 42 froze them. Before closing or freezing their qualified plans, 73 of these companies had employer-paid executive retirement plans. After the sponsor froze or closed the qualified plan, that number dropped to 67. Six of the nine organizations that do not contribute to their executive DB or DC plans provide elective deferral opportunities for their executives.

Mirroring the shift away from qualified DB plans to DC plans, only eight of these organizations provide an executive DB plan today, and 59 provide an executive DC plan as the main executive retirement plan vehicle.

In addition to the shifting structure of executive retirement programs, there has also been a major transformation in the types of arrangements being offered. A majority of these companies now provide executive benefits through restoration plans rather than supplemental executive retirement plans (SERPs).

When the 71 qualified DB plans were still open, 44 companies sponsored both executive DB and DC plans, but DB SERPs provided most of the realized benefits. The executive DC plans primarily provided restoration benefits on 401(k) plan matching contributions, Towers Watson says. Since changing their qualified plans, 55 companies now offer only an executive restoration DC plan based on the revised, generally enhanced, broad-based DC program. Thus, the majority of executive benefit value now resides in DC restoration plans. After the closing or freezing their qualified DB plans, the number of companies sponsoring a DB or DC SERP for newly hired executives dropped from 38 to 12.

Employers that eliminate DB pension accruals typically compensate by contributing more to the DC plan, Towers Watson notes, and the same seems to hold true for restoration plans. Most organizations that eliminated their DB restoration plans replaced them with DC restoration plans that mirrored the enhancements to the underlying qualified DC plans. Before freezing or closing the qualified DB plans, 46 of the 76 companies provided executives with an executive DC arrangement to which the employer contributed.

Nearly two-thirds of all companies that closed (30 of 34) or froze (32 of 42) their plans now have DC restoration plans, either through changing the existing program or by establishing a new one. Only two companies added a DC SERP that did not replicate provisions of the underlying DC program, and seven companies made no changes to their qualified or executive DC programs after the DB plan closure or freeze. Eleven companies do not sponsor executive DC plans (10 had never sponsored one).

After freezing or closing the qualified DB plan, the vast majority of sponsors that provide benefits for new executives do so in the DC space. Fifty-five companies provide only a DC restoration benefit, and seven offer a DC restoration plan coupled with a SERP. Of the 11 companies that do not offer an executive DC plan, two still provide a DB SERP.

Towers Watson’s article about its findings is here.

«