U.S.
Representatives Dave Reichert (R-Washington) and Ron Kind (D-Wisconsin)
introduced a bill to encourage the creation of S Corporation Employee Stock
Ownership Plans (S ESOPs).
The
Promotion and Expansion of Private Employee Ownership Act of 2015 (H.R. 2096) includes provisions to encourage owners of S Corporations to sell their stock
to an ESOP, expand financing opportunities for S Corporation ESOPs, provide
technical assistance for companies that may be interested in forming an S
Corporation ESOP, and ensure that small businesses that become ESOPs retain
their Small Business Association certification. Similar legislation has been
introduced in the past.
“This
legislation is critical to giving employees ownership over their work and
retirement in a time when many people are concerned about their retirement
savings,” says Reichert.
“By
making it easier for companies to become employee-owned, this legislation will
not only grow the number of employee owned businesses, it will provide
retirement security to more Americans,” Kind adds. “Employee-owned companies
perform better – not just for themselves but for every one of their employees
as well.”
A
recent report from Ernst & Young revealed S corporation ESOPs outperformed the S&P 500 total return index in terms of total return per participant by 62% from 2002 to
2012.
“We need policies to
encourage employee stock ownership, and the proposed policies in H.R. 2096,
should address core social issues such as adequate retirement security and
making sure working Americans have an ownership stake in our capitalistic
system,” said ESOP Association President, J. Michael Keeling, in a statement.
More DBs Looking for Custom Solutions from OCIO Providers
Many OCIO firms tell Cerulli they see signs of OCIO moving “up-market,” to larger institutions in corporate defined benefit (DB) and non-profit segments.
The
need for greater capabilities and more competition will likely shake up the
market for outsourced chief investment officer (OCIO) services, according to
the latest research from global analytics firm Cerulli Associates.
Smaller
pension plans, nonprofit educational endowments, and charitable foundations
frequently outsource the oversight of investment policy development, asset
allocation, investment manager selection, and other noninvestment functions to
an outside entity, Cerulli notes in the second quarter issue of “The Cerulli
Edge – Institutional Edition.”
Managers,
investment consultants, and dedicated OCIO providers responding to a recent
Cerulli survey expect outsourced assets (client assets in which they have some
discretion) to expand 33.6% on average in the next three years (or a median
growth rate of 22.5%). Many outsourced advisers tell Cerulli a number of
factors are driving more institutional clients to embrace an outsourced
solution.
According
to the survey, 69% of respondents cite a lack of internal resources as the top
reason their clients engaged an OCIO. Outside of the larger pension plans and
endowments with internal staff and investment resources, many institutions cannot
retain the personnel or afford the technological expertise to respond to the
global financial markets’ speed and complexity.
Nearly two-thirds (63%)
of Cerulli survey respondents report their clients’ desire to transfer more responsibilities
to another entity. While it is extremely rare for an institution to completely cede
fiduciary duty, an increasing number of boards feel overwhelmed by their
oversight responsibilities. Some say they don’t have the time to properly
administer plans, they lack the knowledge to address complex investment issues,
they are being pulled away from the original mission of the institution, or
some combination of these concerns.
For
these reasons, many OCIO firms tell Cerulli they see signs of OCIO moving
“up-market,” to larger institutions in corporate defined benefit (DB) and
non-profit segments, such as endowments and foundations. Traditionally, smaller
institutions (those with less than $100 million in assets) sought outsourced services,
and this is still largely the case, according to Cerulli survey data. However,
approximately 5% of managers report corporate DB and non-profit mandates (4.6%
and 6.1%, respectively) in accounts between $500 million and $1 billion, a
fairly large size for an OCIO account, Cerulli notes.
According
to the report, as boards seek to place more discretion and responsibility with
an outsourced provider, they expect OCIO managers to bring additional
capabilities and resources to the table. With more boards embracing objectives-based
measures of success (e.g., returns above a foundation’s minimum level of
spending), there is greater demand for OCIO managers with multi-asset-class capabilities,
a demonstrated record of successful asset allocation, and the ability to
deliver a total portfolio approach customized to the institution’s objectives.
Multi-asset-class capabilities require significant investment resources and
experience, including investment platforms able to offer alternative investments, according to Cerulli.
Another
trend moving OCIO up market is the demand for outsourced liability-driven
investing (LDI) services from corporate DB plans. With many corporate plans derisking
and attempting to better match assets and liabilities that are unique to each plan,
plan sponsors seek OCIO managers with specific skills, Cerulli says. These
competencies include long-duration fixed-income expertise, quantitative skills
to accurately assess plan liabilities and construct derisking glidepaths, and
management of derivatives overlay strategies to more accurately hedge
liabilities.
Many
institutions employing an OCIO today have maintained a relationship with that
provider for five, 10, or more years. Cerulli says some institutions are
re-evaluating their relationships and seeking more customized and comprehensive
services—all at lower fees.
Information about how
to purchase the Cerulli report is here.