Upcoming Trends in Plan Design: From the Perspective of a Retiring Plan Sponsor

Carl Gagnon, assistant vice president of global financial well-being and retirement programs at Unum Group, reflects on his tenure and provides insight into the future of plan design.

Known for innovative plan design ideas and offering a wide swath of benefits to his employees, Carl Gagnon, assistant vice president of global financial well-being and retirement programs at Unum Group, is retiring and stepping down from his plan sponsor role after nearly 20 years at the company.

Gagnon will now pass the torch to Ben Roberge, previously the director of financial and retirement programs at the insurance company, who will continue to carry out many of the plan initiatives that Gagnon spearheaded.

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

Reflecting on his time in the industry and looking ahead to the future, Gagnon predicts that upcoming trends in plan design will include more innovation with in-plan retirement income options, increased focus on emergency savings, creating more equitable match formulas and more.

In-Plan Guaranteed Income

Instead of encouraging participants to withdraw money from the plan and pursue retirement income options in the retail market, Gagnon believes the “tide has turned significantly” and that recordkeepers and other firms are developing more in-plan solutions.

In May, Unum launched an in-plan immediate annuity with Fidelity on the 401(k) side, and Gagnon says there has been a lot of interest in it from participants. By next spring, Gagnon says the company intends to change the plan’s target-date lineup and move away from Vanguard and work instead with State Street to provide a qualified longevity annuity contract.

State Street offers target-date funds that are built to prepare for annuitization, and Gagnon says they are less expensive than the Vanguard passive funds, which Unum offers currently.

He says this will then provide Unum’s participants with “all three pieces” of deaccumulation. This includes a regular drawdown solution where people can withdraw income either every two weeks, mimicking Unum’s typical pay cycle, monthly or annually, as well as the QLAC option and the immediate annuity.

“I honestly think employees are better served in retirement from staying in plans that are professionally managed [and] have fiduciary oversight,” Gagnon says. “When I leave Unum, I’m eating my own cooking. When I’m retiring, I’m keeping my assets in the Unum 401(k) plan because they’re low cost, institutionally managed, great governance and oversight. Why would I go to the retail market where I’m going to spend multiples of five and 10 times more?”

Shelly-Ann Eweka, senior director of the TIAA Institute, says in addition to plan design features like automatic enrollment and automatic escalation, including an annuity option within a defined contribution plan is particularly important when looking to improve retirement outcomes, especially for women, who face greater longevity risk than men.

“Women have been living longer [and] having access to lifetime income is crucial for them because Social Security is never enough for anybody to live off by itself, [and] it wasn’t designed for that,” Eweka says.

She adds that plan sponsors should focus on embedding a lifetime income component into the default investment in their plans so that they can offer participants the option to easily annuitize at retirement.

Equitable Plan Design

As recent Vanguard data revealed that employer contributions in two-thirds of plans exacerbate pay inequity, with 44% of dollars accruing to the top 20% of earners, Gagnon predicts there will continue to be discussion around this issue.

He says companies, including Unum, have begun discussing with their recordkeepers ways in which match formulas can be adjusted to make it more equitable for lower-paid employees.

Vanguard suggested strategies like offering a dollar-cap formula, which is only used in 4% of plans, to allow for employer contributions subject to a dollar cap that is below the maximum contribution limits per statute. For example, a plan could offer a 10% match on 6% of pay, subject to a dollar cap of $6,000. This way, the $6,000 is not based on income, but rather something anyone in the plan could obtain.

David O’Meara, head of defined contribution investment strategy at Willis Towers Watson, says a lot of employers are looking at this issue now and realizing that they are not just serving one homogenous group of employees.

He says he has seen some companies move away from a match and implement non-elective employer contributions. He has also seen others implement a multi-tiered match where they might match 100% on the first few percentage points of employee contributions and then might match 50% on the next two percentage points This approach takes into account that lower-compensated employees tend to have a harder time saving for retirement, and a tiered approach might incentive them, he says.

“We’re finding more of our clients are looking deeply into those different pockets of individuals, trying to understand where they’re at,” O’Meara says. “And this is bigger than the defined contribution plan. It has to do with all of the benefits being delivered to them and how [employers] can best meet their needs.”

Gagnon expects that in order to get more people into their retirement plans and ensure that those participants are investing properly, more plans will look into using re-enrollment and rebalancing.

However, Gagnon says re-enrollment is tough because if participants cannot afford to contribute but are re-enrolled at 5%, for example, it might frustrate them and make them go back to contributing nothing.

“There are a lot of employees that still live paycheck to paycheck, and you’ve got to take that into account,” Gagnon says. “I think rebalancing their accounts is a much better approach. If they’re in target-dates, that’s fine, but if they’re inappropriately investing for their age, we may look at them and rebalance … I think more companies will look at rebalancing on a regular basis, like every couple of years.”

Emergency Savings, Auto-Portability

For some plans, O’Meara says creating more equity in plan design means offering an emergency savings program.

Unum launched its emergency savings program a little over a year ago, allowing participants to contribute any amount up to $10,000 to an account that can be used to pay for any unforeseen expenses. New employees are auto-enrolled into the 401(k) at a 5% deferral rate, with 1% of post-tax savings going into the emergency savings account.

Gagnon says first-year employee turnover rates for those that were automatically enrolled into the emergency savings plan were significantly lower, almost 40%, than turnover rates for first-year employees who were not auto-enrolled into the emergency savings plan.

“[Participants] who take the time to automate and build in that emergency savings are [40%] as likely to leave the company compared to those people who don’t because they’re building financial well-being; they’re building some comfort level,” Gagnon says.

Unum also recently joined the Portability Services Network, which Gagnon suggests may also become a trend with other plans. In the network, Unum in June started to automate rollovers for people entering the company with balances of under $7,000 that they are rolling into the Unum plan funds accumulated in a former employer’s plan.

“We think that’s going to be extremely attractive to our new hires,” Gagnon says. “We’re trying to make it easier for our employees to consolidate their assets into one plan and into one company so they can manage it all.”

Gagnon says while his retirement was effective July 1, he will still be available to Roberge to help with the transition. Roberge is also in the process of hiring someone to backfill his old position. After some time off, Gagnon plans to stay active in the industry, by writing articles, speaking and consulting.

 

Reading Between the Lines of the IB 95-1 Report

Experts react to the DOL’s report, which might mean more than first appearances show about the future of PRT rulemaking.

The Department of Labor’s report on Interpretative Bulletin 95-1, issued early this week, did not make any definitive recommendations or conclusions. However, some experts say the report still contains insight into where the DOL might engage in rulemaking on pension risk transfers in the future.

The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 required the DOL, in consultation with the ERISA Advisory Council, a volunteer body of 15 subject matter experts that advise the DOL, to publish a report on possible updates to IB 95-1 by the end of 2023. That bulletin provides regulatory guidance from the DOL outlining the factors fiduciaries should consider when selecting a PRT provider to be sure it is a prudent choice.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

The report noted that certain issues within the PRT marketplace were brought to the council’s attention, such as the role of private equity ownership, offshore re-insurance, administrative capacity, and riskier investment profiles, among other items, as deserving of further research and analysis. The report did not recommend any policy changes or designate any issues as being particularly concerning.

What the Report Didn’t Say

James Walton, a managing director at Agilis, agrees that “there weren’t a lot of conclusions” in the report, which primarily summarized a two-day public hearing hosted by the council in July 2023.

Walton explains that “the DOL recognized the complexity of the issues” in choosing to not reach any conclusions, apart from that further study would be helpful. He adds that if the report had made any clear recommendations, it would have likely influenced fiduciary PRT decisions even though neither it nor IB 95-1 itself have the force of law: “small nudges could shift the market towards seeing one provider as safe or not safe, and that can impact a large number of transactions.”

Despite this, the report did “open the door to future changes,” and pointed to some “issues that warrant further attention,” Walton says.

Kendra Isaacson, a principal at Mindset, and a former Senate staffer who worked on SECURE 2.0, agrees with that sentiment of future rulemaking, and says industry watchers should “read between the lines” of the report, which does “hint at areas they want to study further.”

Joe Anzalone, a managing director at Agilis, says that administrative capacity should be considered by fiduciaries when selecting a PRT provider, and that this factor is “hard to shoe it into one of the six criteria and is probably something worth considering” in a potential update to IB 95-1.

When an insurance company takes over a pension in a PRT, it is essential that they have the ability to take on monthly checks and customer service functions; so a later update in this area may be possible.

Not everyone thinks further study should lead to any shifts, however.

Little if anything has to be changed in IB 95-1, says Preston Rutledge, former Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration and consultant to the American Council of Life Insurers: “The DOL was thoughtful, methodical, and made the correct decision to not modify the current risk transfer guidance which, because it is principles-based, continues to work well. The department also got it right when they indicated that any future guidance would remain principles-based and would only be issued following notice and public comment.”

Why the ERISA Advisory Council?

The inclusion of the advisory council likely influenced the DOL’s thinking and response, but its participation was not a foregone conclusion.

Mindset’s Isaacson explains that Section 321 of SECURE 2.0, the section that required this report, was primarily in response to concern about the role of private equity ownership in the life insurance industry. She says that Republicans in Congress supported a study to explore an update to IB 95-1 “as long as the advisory council could participate.”

The council is staffed by members of different parties and viewpoints serving on a volunteer basis, and always has one member on it representing the interests of the insurance industry.

“Some members of the industry felt targeted by the study,” and required the council to participate, the first time ever that Congress has required it to do a specific task. This was a compromise to get the report into the legislation at all, Isaacson recalls.

Rutledge says that “consultation with the advisory council was entirely appropriate given that the statutory duties of the council are to advise the Secretary and submit recommendations regarding the Secretary’s functions under ERISA.”

Currently, the insurance representative is Alice Palmer of Lincoln Financial Group. Lincoln Financial Group declined to comment.

Impact on PRT Litigation

Jerry Schlichter, founding and managing partner at the Schlichter Bogard law firm, which has recently brought several PRT-related lawsuits in federal courts, says that the report “certainly reflects the concerns of annuitants.”

He argues that the report is a sign that private equity ownership of PRT providers “is a concern at DOL” because of the conflicts of interest that can arise in the opaque world of private assets, as well as in business models that often invest with shorter time horizons than the retirement investors they are charged with insuring.

Schlichter also notes that the report cites a study from Aon which says “plan fiduciaries chose the lowest cost annuity in 78% of transactions,” which could suggest that “the chief driver of annuity selections is cost, rather than a rigorous process aimed at choosing the safest available annuity.”

While the report might not have an immediate impact on PRT litigation, “it shows the continuing serious concern that DOL has to these transactions,” Schlichter says.

«