(b)lines Ask the Experts – Different Investment Policies for DB and DC Plans
September 2, 2014
(PLANSPONSOR (b)lines) – “I serve as chair of the investment committee
for a large health care entity, and we oversee the defined benefit (DB) pension and
defined contribution (DC) 403(b) plans that we sponsor.
“The investment
policies and due diligence monitoring processes for each plan are quite
different. Since both are retirement plans to which the hospital contributes,
shouldn’t the policies and procedures be uniform?”
Michael A. Webb, vice
president, Cammack Retirement Group, answers:
At
first glance, one would think all retirement plans, whether defined benefit or
defined contribution in nature, would have a similar policy for selection and
monitoring of investments. However, there are some key differences between the
plan types from an investment perspective that contravene a uniform
policy/process including, but not limited to, the following:
Direction
of investments – In defined benefit plans, investments are directed by the
employer. In defined contribution plans, such as your 403(b) plan, investments
are generally directed by employees. Thus, investment changes can be made to
the defined benefit plan can be made with little employee relation impact,
whereas changes to investment options in defined contribution plans create
employee disruption issues which must be addresses via communication. For
example, if you change investments in a defined benefit plan every quarter, it
would likely be a non-event for employees, but if you did this in your 403(b)
plan every quarter, it would likely be a major issue! Thus, in many defined
contribution plans, plan sponsors may time investment changes to they can be
grouped together for communication purposes, rather than frequently changing
single investments.
Investment
modeling – In defined benefit plans,
investment allocations are modeled based on the concept of the efficient
frontier, which is a set of optimal portfolios that offers the highest expected
return for a defined level of risk or the lowest risk for a given level of
expected return. In defined contribution plans the employer is not making the
investment allocation, but merely choosing investments from which participants
will determine allocations. Thus, the focus shifts from an efficient frontier
concept to assembling an investment array which provides participants the maximum opportunity to accumulate
sufficient retirement savings given the varying degrees of investment knowledge
of participants (e.g. by making target-date funds available to participants
with limited or zero investment knowledge so they do not need to make an
allocation decision).
Thus,
investing defined benefit pension assets can be quite different than choosing
investments for a 403(b) defined contribution plan. It is for this reason that
the Experts advise training for all 403(b) plan fiduciaries, even if they have
background in pension or endowment investing.
NOTE:
This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute
legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice.
Staying Flexible: American Football and the Future of Employee Benefits
August 29, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - For four decades, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) has provided a durable federal framework for employers that sponsor health and retirement benefit plans for workers.
After considering what has and has not worked
well over ERISA’s 40 years, the American Benefits Council—a public policy
organization representing plan sponsors and providers of benefit services—has
looked forward. Soon the council will unveil “A 2020 Vision: Flexibility and
the Future of Employee Benefits,” a long-term strategic plan that describes how
greater flexibility will be necessary for the future health and financial
well-being of employees and their families.
Even in an increasingly global and competitive
economy, the council remains confident that with the right public policies in
place, employer-sponsored plans will continue to be ideally positioned to
provide an efficient path to health and financial well-being. Through group
purchasing power, fiduciary protections and the ease of payroll deduction,
employer plans commonly offer numerous advantages for individuals.
But, the continued success of the
employer-sponsored system depends on greater flexibility for companies to pursue
a range of benefit approaches along the continuum of plan sponsorship, from “traditional
sponsor” to “facilitator” of retirement and health benefits. To meet this vision,
the council has identified five goals and 46 specific policy recommendations to
help reach those goals.
ERISA’s 40th anniversary coincides with the
start of the professional football season, and the sport provides an apt
metaphor for examining how the health and retirement benefits game is changing.
Fourteen years before ERISA’s enactment, Tom
Landry began coaching the National Football League’s Dallas Cowboys. He quickly
gained a reputation as an innovator with development of the “4-3 Defense,” now
considered the default defensive alignment. Landry also devised the “Flex
Defense,” a variation on the 4-3 in which defensive linemen were able to vary
their attack depending on the action of the offense. This notion—that defensive
players need not be fixed statues, reacting belatedly to unpredictable offenses—challenged
orthodoxy and breathed new life into the sport.
The global economy is similarly unforgiving of
entities that simply stay in one place, and—like defensive linemen—U.S. companies
do not have the luxury of waiting until the time is right to adapt. While most
of the central elements of ERISA remain unchanged, the fundamental nature of
the employer-employee relationship has evolved significantly over the past forty
years. Because no plan can fulfill all the needs of every family, employees
must assume certain responsibilities: retirement planning, health care spending
and physical fitness, for example. And because one size cannot possibly fit all,
plan sponsors need the freedom to tailor programs to their own workforce—and
often to provide variation within their workforce. The need to recruit, retain and motivate talent
will continue to serve the companies’ core business imperatives.
Therefore, some employers may choose to assume
a more traditional, even paternalistic, plan sponsor role, while others may
choose to facilitate workers’ ability to take more direct ownership of their
benefits. Therefore, ERISA and other governing laws must allow for a variety of
approaches to employee benefits all along this spectrum.
ERISA’s federal standard is what makes
broad-based sponsorship possible. In this way, ERISA is much like a football
field: identical for all teams, constrained by clear borders, but designed with
interior guidelines for organization and efficiency. Only on a level playing
field can a wide variety of strategic and innovative approaches be fully explored.
Landry’s Cowboys, along with the similarly
built Pittsburgh Steelers and Miami Dolphins, came to dominate the NFL in the
1970s with a brutish efficiency predicated on stout defense and a conservative
power running game. It wasn’t until the early 1980’s that offenses began
evolving in response to new realities of the game.
Legendary San Francisco 49ers head coach Bill
Walsh perfected the “West Coast Offense,” which de-emphasized traditional
running plays in favor of precise passing routes that stretched the field
horizontally rather than vertically. Lumbering defenders, unaccustomed to
moving laterally rather than forward, were more easily neutralized. Walsh
brought three championships to San Francisco with this system as the Cowboys
and Steelers temporarily faded into mediocrity. Once derided as “finesse” football,
sophisticated offenses eventually became the new status quo—continuing to this
day—and made the sport a lot easier to watch. In this way, the league evolved
not only to meet its own needs, but the desires of its consumers as well.
The NFL’s offensive revolution was
contemporaneous with a similar revolution in employee benefits policy. The adoption
of traditional defined benefit pension plans peaked in the early 1980s—though
it was never universal—and then relinquished ground to defined contribution
plans as the predominant employer-sponsored retirement savings vehicle.
What will be the next big shift? The Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) established a completely new playing field for employer-sponsored
health coverage. Coupled with a growing bi-partisan interest in comprehensive
tax reform—and attendant scrutiny of the tax incentives that constitute the
foundation of employee benefit plans—the health care reform law could
fundamentally alter the value proposition of plan sponsorship.
Football is now the nation’s most popular
sport, but is nevertheless beset by existential threats on multiple fronts:
depressed actual game attendance, off-field embarrassments, and the epidemic of
concussive head trauma. Despite extraordinary on-field innovations and
financial success, the business of football itself will need to evolve to meet
changing American values.
The future of employee benefits faces parallel
challenges and opportunities. Given the tenuous financial status of federal
entitlement programs, the employer-sponsored system is as vitally important as ever
for American’s health and financial well-being. .
Foresight is not 20-20, but just like flexibility
and innovations revolutionized football, a clear vision of where the employee
benefits system must go—and flexible and innovative public policies to clear
the path to getting there—is essential to developing the game plan that will remain
viable for future generations of American workers.
By Jason
Hammersla, senior director of communications at the American Benefits Council
in Washington, D.C.
NOTE:
This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal
advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice. Any opinions
of the author(s) do not necessarily reflect the stance of Asset International
or its affiliates.