Confluence of Events Might Affect Plan Size

Retirement plan sponsors should keep an eye on asset flows to maintain purchasing power and understand participant needs.

Retirement plan sponsors are navigating several coalesced challenges that are related and might impact their plans—spiking inflation, market volatility, the potential for large portions of assets leaving the plan due to the so-called “Great Resignation,” as well as the growing number of Baby Boomers entering retirement.

Participants’ swelling account balances from stock market gains in previous years might have masked the urgency for plan sponsors to fortify their plans against the potential for asset losses. The time to act is now, an industry expert says.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

“While not well publicized, there is now, and has been for several years, more money being distributed from plans than being contributed to plans,” says Fred Reish, a partner and chairman of the Financial Services ERISA Team at Faegre Drinker. “That is not obvious because of the significant stock market gains over the past decade. But someday the market will go down, and that dynamic will be exposed.”

Bracing for Exodus

There are other consequences beyond the plan getting smaller when assets exit, explains Katie Hockenmaier, U.S. defined contribution research director, at Mercer. Larger plans have greater buying power and can negotiate lower costs with asset managers and recordkeepers.

“If you see really significant outflows, you could cease qualifying for certain share classes or fee arrangements or vehicles,” Hockenmaier says. “It may also impact their recordkeeping relationship—if they see a certain number of participants or a certain amount of assets pull out of the plan— that could impact the overall fees that they may be paying or passing on to participants.”

Plan size can impact services as “some recordkeepers have tranches of servicing for certain sized clients and that may effectively demote them to a lower group,” she explains.

It’s too early to arrive at any grand conclusions on plan asset impacts from historic COVID-19 workforce and economic dislocations, and the more recent inflation and stock market declines, says Hockenmaier. However, she notes that some manufacturing and technology sector plan sponsors are in a position of asset outflow.

“There is a portion of the industry that is in that position. I would not say quite yet the majority of defined contribution plans, but there are a number of plan sponsors in that situation,” Hockenmaier says. “They tend to be concentrated in certain industries that may be starting to downsize.”

Hockenmaier, who adds that she has not seen significant impacts to plans from the Great Resignation, says she will track several data points to study the trends of assets leaving plans, including any change in the number of participants in a plan quarter over quarter, asset flows, and rollover activity. “When we get to the end of ‘22 it will really be much easier—even midway through this year—to see what impact is being made to plans,” she says.

Futureproofing

Tracking asset flows can inform retirement plan sponsors of any challenges they might have, says Alexa Nerdrum, managing director, retirement, at Willis Towers Watson. “One thing we are seeing is that the pandemic really didn’t lead to some of the mass distributions plan sponsors and others were expecting,” she says.

An estimated 2% to 4% of participants made retirement account withdrawals after passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security—or CARES—Act provided for special distribution and loan rules for retirement plans and individual retirement accounts, according to Nerdrum. Meanwhile, savings rates and plan balances have continued to grow, she says.

To keep assets in plan, encourage savings and attract talent, plan sponsors have bolstered plan design features—adding lifetime income options and the ability to repay student loans and save for emergencies. Plan sponsors are shifting their focus, as “attraction and retention has become a significant issue of late for a lot of plan sponsors, [and] a lot of our clients,” Nerdrum explains.

Plan sponsors can use data on what groups of individuals take loans and hardship withdrawals, and who is maximizing or not maximizing their deferrals, to know what plan design features will meet participants’ needs, Nerdrum says.

Plan Sponsor Sued Over ‘Untested’ TDFs

The lawsuit alleges Molina Healthcare offered target-date funds in its 401(k) plan that employed a management style that had never been used before, among other things.

A group of former employees who participated in Molina Healthcare’s 401(k) plan have sued the organization and various John Doe defendants for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The lawsuit says defendants caused plan participants “to invest in flexPATH’s untested target-date funds, which replaced established and well-performing target-date funds used by participants to meet their retirement needs.” The defendants are also accused of failing to use the plan’s bargaining power to obtain reasonable investment management fees.

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

According to the complaint, the flexPATH Index TDFs are collective investment trusts maintained by Wilmington Trust. It says that when the full suite of TDFs launched in January 2016, their management style had never been used in any TDF solution offered in the marketplace.

“The novel and untested target date fund management style combined index or passive management strategies with multiple glidepaths,” the complaint explains. “flexPATH did not actually invest the flexPATH target date funds’ underlying assets. Rather, flexPATH utilized a ‘fund of funds’ structure for the target date funds, whereby it allocated fund assets among various underlying funds managed by an unaffiliated investment manager.”

The complaint further explains that, for example, the flexPATH Index Aggressive 2025 Fund invests in the BlackRock LifePath Index 2030 and 2035 funds (F shares).

The lawsuit alleges that because flexPATH invested the underlying assets of the TDFs in BlackRock TDFs, additional fees were charged compared to the fees that would have been charged to investors had they invested directly in BlackRock’s funds. The BlackRock LifePath Index TDFs charge 8 basis points, or bps, while flexPATH charged plan participants 26 bps.

When Molina added the flexPATH Index TDFs to the plan around May  2016, the funds replaced the Vanguard Target Retirement TDFs, which the complaint says “were established and well-performing target date funds in the marketplace.” More than $210 million of the plan’s assets (or 45% of the plan’s total assets) were transferred to the flexPATH Index TDFs during 2016, and the amount of plan assets in the funds increased to more than $360 million (or 57% of the plan’s assets) as of December 31, 2019.

According to the complaint, the management style of the TDFs had never been used in any TDF offered in a 401(k) plan. It says this “novel and untested management style” was “magnified by the inexperience of the funds’ investment manager (flexPATH), which had no established track record as an investment manager, had only managed assets for investors since June 2015, and only recently completed the launch of the flexPATH Index target date funds in January 2016.” The lawsuit notes that there were not even two quarters of actual performance history for Molina to consider when evaluating how the flexPATH Index TDFs performed under actual market conditions.

The plaintiffs claim that when making investment decisions, prudent fiduciaries of defined contribution plans consider the performance history, portfolio manager experience, and manager tenure of available investment alternatives. They allege that a prudent and loyal fiduciary would not have recommended or selected the flexPATH Index TDFs “without a five-year performance history to assess the investment manager’s ability to provide superior long-term investment returns relative to prudent alternatives available to the plan.”

In addition, the lawsuit accuses Molina of not prudently monitoring the performance of the flexPATH Index TDFs after their inclusion in the plan. It alleges that the fund underperformed other established TDFs available in the marketplace, yet Molina maintained these funds in the plan until late 2020, when they were replaced with the Fidelity Freedom Index TDF series.

The plaintiffs also call out the share classes of the TDFs and other investments offered in Molina’s 401(k) plan. They say that given the plan’s size, plan fiduciaries “had tremendous bargaining power to obtain share classes with far lower costs than that of higher-cost shares.” According to the complaint, Molina provided I1 shares of the flexPATH Index TDFs, which included charges of 24 to 25 bps, while R shares for the funds included charges of 19 to 20 bps. It says the plan also included other mutual fund investments in higher-cost shares than were otherwise available to the plan for the identical investment.

“By providing plan participants the more expensive share classes of investment options, Molina caused participants to lose in excess of $1 million of their retirement savings,” the lawsuit alleges.

Molina Healthcare has not yet responded to a request for comment about the lawsuit.

«