Future Still Offers Incentives for Accelerating Pension Funding

DB plan sponsors were already accelerating funding to their plans before tax reform gave them a greater incentive to do so, and doing so in the future will still be a benefit.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 has already sparked acceleration of defined benefit (DB) plan funding by corporate plan sponsors.

Goldman Sachs Asset Management’s (GSAM’s) Senior Pension Strategist Mike Moran, based in New York City, previously noted that Kroger and Valvoline are two examples of companies that explicitly cited potential corporate tax reform as one of the reasons for making a voluntary contribution earlier in 2017.

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

An article posted on October Three Consulting’s website explains the ways accelerating funding now will save DB plan sponsors money. Corporate tax rates are going down, from a top marginal rate of 35% in 2017 to 21% in 2018. DB plan contributions for 2017 must be made by the tax return due date, with extensions. For a calendar year plan/tax year, that would generally be September 15, 2018. Non-calendar year plan/tax year taxpayers have longer to execute this strategy.

October Three offers a simple example of how much DB plan sponsors will save by making an accelerated contribution now, considering a corporation that pays taxes at the highest marginal rate and sponsors a defined benefit plan with $100 million in unfunded benefits. If the sponsor contributes that $100 million for the 2017 year, it reduces its 2017 taxes by $35 million; if it contributes that $100 million for a later year, it reduces its taxes for that later year by $21 million. Making that contribution for 2017 nets the sponsor $14 million in tax savings.

But, Brian Donohue, partner at October Three Consulting, based in Chicago, points out that is not the only way DB plan sponsors will save money. DB plan sponsors must pay Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation variable-rate premiums (VRPs) on the amount of their unfunded vested benefits (UVBs) for the prior plan year. As a general matter, contributions for 2017 will reduce VRPs for 2018, and fully funding plan liabilities will eliminate them. For the example plan with $100 million in unfunded benefits, a $100 million contribution this year saves the company $3.8 million in premiums—Donohue explains this is $3.0 million net of taxes because the company will get a tax deduction for premiums, so the cost for the company is a little less. And, “putting contributions in the plan now will eliminate a string of premiums for many years,” he points out.

The question for plan sponsors regarding whether they can pursue this strategy is, “What is the limit for how much they can contribute and deduct for 2017?” Donohue says the amount is generally larger than the appetite the plan sponsor has. One constraint he notes is that a plan sponsor won’t get the benefit of accelerated funding if it makes a contribution that eliminates taxable income and puts it in a carry forward provision—for a big company that would be a huge number. The more practical question, according to Donohue, is, “How much cash do we have or want to borrow to accelerate funding?” He says the law allows DB plan funding of up to 150% or more.

Accelerated DB plan funding had already begun to be a conversation, but the change in corporate tax rates makes it more valuable, Donohue says. “It is very rare in the pension world to have this opportunity.” Donohue feels the conversation isn’t getting the traction it should be, given its big benefits. “[The conversation] is not being driven by consultants, but within companies. One would think this is a huge conversation to have right up until September,” he says.

Accelerating funding in future years

Even before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, DB plan sponsors were accelerating funding. Eighty percent of defined benefit (DB) plan sponsors have accelerated funding, largely due to increasing Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) fees and the prospect of lower corporate taxes, according to results of the Mercer/CFO Research 2017 Risk Survey.

“Certainly, there is incentive to do something sooner due to tax reduction, but even before, plan sponsors were doing it due to PBGC premiums,” Moran says. He expects to see a lot of activity pulled forward to the first three quarters of this year, and afterwards there may be a slow-down, but it will still make sense to accelerate funding due to premiums, he adds.

Whether now or in the future, if DB plan contributions get plans to a higher funded level and the plan sponsor doesn’t shift the plan’s allocation to lock those gains in, then plan sponsors could lose the benefit of accelerated funding, Moran warns. As contributions lead DB plans to hit triggers on a liability-driven investing (LDI) glide path, plan sponsors need to shift allocations. “It’s not just about making higher contributions; it’s also about what plan sponsors are doing as a hedging strategy not to lose benefits,” he says.

According to Moran, the DB space has hit an inflection point; more DB plan sponsors are accelerating funding than taking funding relief that was extended in the Budget Act of 2015. “Three to five years ago plan sponsors were putting in only the minimum contribution, taking advantage of funding relief,” he says. “But as [PBGC] premiums went higher, plan sponsors saw the advantage of contributing more. Now with tax rates changing, it makes even more sense.”

Moran concludes: “We have seen a lot of activity in this area already, but tax reform just adds another log on the fire of incentives to accelerate funding. We will see more activity as the window closes on this opportunity.”

FixedFee401k Promises DC Plan Market Disruption

The firm wants to pretty much completely change the basic pricing of 401(k) plans in the small- and mid-market by establishing fixed fees for advisory services and a flat fee per participant for recordkeeping services.

Marc Wilborn is founder of Wilborn Advisors, a firm that just about a year ago launched a turnkey 401(k) plan program called FixedFee401k.

As the program’s name implies, the firm hopes to “stop the pervasive problem of escalating fees” by establishing fixed fees for advisory services and a flat fee per participant for recordkeeping services—setting all of this in stone from the very outset of the client relationship.

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

Sitting down for a broad strategy discussion with PLANSPONSOR, Wilborn said his firm wants to pretty much completely change the basic pricing of 401(k) plans in the small- and mid-market and “fully promote use of low cost funds and affordable participant support.”

“I’m an actuary by trade, and I got my start in this business with a national consulting firm, working on defined contribution plans,” Wilborn explained. “I got out of that line of work and entered the retail investing space, not working with large employers, in other words. I could immediately see very clearly that the small- to medium-sized 401(k) business is really a business that is poorly understood by the consumers of it—by the employers and the employees who are ultimately paying for and using the services in the marketplace. As a result fees are far higher than they have to be.”

The needs and pathways for disruption in the small- and mid-market defined contribution plan space, Wilborn argued, are very clear and pressing.

“Just given the blatant shortcomings of the marketplace, we felt very confident about starting this new approach from scratch and looking hard at the inefficiencies in the marketplace that we could actually do something about,” he said. “Our first target was asset-based fees. This is still a very common method for setting recordkeeping fees and administration fees in the small- and mid-market, and even advisory fees as well. It doesn’t take a background as an actuary to understand why providers have liked to charge asset based fees—or why they are not a great deal for employers and participants as plans and accounts naturally grow over time.”

To avoid asset-based fees, FixedFee401k works exclusively with recordkeeping partners willing to price their services based on headcount, “which is crucial from our perspective for creating pricing certainty,” Wilborn emphasized. “Our approach features no revenue sharing or hidden fees. It’s truly a fixed-fee 401(k) plan.”

Related to the approach taken by some of its established and emerging competitors, the FixedFee401k solution involves full delegation of investment fiduciary responsibilities, and the firm formally takes on Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) 3(38) fiduciary status. Unlike some other self-styled disruptors, however, Wilborn’s firm again is not technically acting as the plan provider.

“We work primarily with Vanguard Retirement who is responsible for the plan’s ongoing administration. They are not our partner, technically, but because of their transparent pricing methodology, we can work with them closely to ensure that the fees are held constant moving forward,” Wilborn clarified. “FixedFee401k also provides any necessary support to assist in plan administration questions or issues as they arise. We can also work with your recordkeeper or TPA if that’s best for your business.”

Wilborn emphasized the importance of Vanguard’s willingness to be clear and transparent ahead of time in terms of what it is going to charge for a given plan population.

“If I go to another recordkeeper with a new plan sponsor, particularly one who charges an asset-based fee, they will want to know all about the plan metrics and what the anticipated flows from that plan client might be in the future, and then they take this information into the back room and debate what they can charge and still win the business,” Wilborn said. “That approach, we believe, would put us on the wrong side of this business from our clients. We’re not here to maximize fees we can charge, to put it bluntly.”

The other benefit of working with Vanguard: In its role as a 3(38) fiduciary investment adviser, FixedFee401k and its clients can work in an open-architecture environment when crafting investment menus and recommendations.

“So, when we do our fiduciary screening for a given fund lineup, we are not steering anyone in one direction or another from a fund family perspective, and we don’t allow there to be any kind of revenue sharing within the plan,” he said. “So it is not just Vanguard product that we are recommending on a fiduciary basis, nor is it only index-based products, which is different from some other providers trying to act in the bolt-on 3(38) space. You may see other firms out there who are simply interested in ease of use and they do not utilize the open-architecture approach. We don’t think this would be a great approach for us to take, either.”

Wilborn went on to stress one other important difference between his firm and “some of the Internet-based providers that are emerging in this space alongside us.”

“One of the things you have to buy into with the Internet-based model is the blanket customer service approach they are bringing to the table,” he noted. “With our approach, every plan gets their own adviser and every plan gets unique support based on their needs. We feel that is very important for plan outcomes.”

«