Importance of Setting Funded Status Goals for DB Plans

March 27, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – Setting specific funded status goals for defined benefit (DB) plans can help sponsors and investment committees improve performance, says a new research paper from Russell Investments.

The paper, “What Is Your Funded Status Goal?” points out that given the number of different funded status measures that can be calculated for a DB pension plan, sponsors may not be totally clear about what their funded status goal is or what funded level they should try to achieve. But clarity on these points can help sponsors and investment committees make better funding and investment policy decisions that are critical to effectively managing a pension plan, says the paper’s author, James Gannon, who is director of asset allocation and risk management for Russell Investments.

Given the differences in dollar values for the various possible liability measures, Gannon says, it is important for plan sponsors to take a close look at how they are measuring their plan’s projected liabilities. The method should be well documented and sponsors should be able to clearly explain the economic rationale underlying the liability measure they choose. Once a sponsor is confident it has chosen the appropriate liability measure, it can use the benchmark to better inform asset-allocation strategies. 

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

According to Gannon, having a clearly justified and documented funded status goal will make other plan management decisions much easier, both before and after the funded status goal has been reached.

The paper explains that the measure of liability on which a sponsor should base a pension plan’s funded status goal is related to the value of its accumulated benefit obligations, projected growth in benefit obligations, present value of future benefits, and economic or buyout liability. In addition, the paper looks at what can keep plans from wanting to be even better funded, how the funded status goal interacts with major policies of the plan, and what short-term thresholds related to funded status would create sensible intermediate funded status goals.

To convince more plan sponsors they need to clearly formulate these goals, Gannon tells PLANSPONSOR, “Plans need to think about the present value of future benefits. In other words, how much more in plan assets will be needed to achieve those funding status goals in the future. While this is not necessarily needed for government requirements or corporate financial statements, nonetheless, it is still important.”

Gannon adds, “Having goals also helps plan sponsors to know not only the amount needed to fund the plan right now, but the amount that may be needed in the future. It shows plan sponsors how much work there is still left to do to reach that future amount.”

Goals allow plan sponsors to “start planning for what their plan will look like” in the future and to consider what investment strategies may be best suited for achieving their goals, Gannon says. For example, a company that has a solid funded status that is strong enough to match both present and projected liabilities may decide that the best route is to get more involved in liability-driven investing (LDI).

Gannon says plan sponsors need to consider what benefits have been promised to participants, as well as what benefits have and have not been earned by participants, in setting funded status goals. Plan sponsors also need to consider how much to invest in certain asset classes to reach their “ultimate” funding goal (i.e., factoring in funding amounts that will be needed in the future).

“Not a lot of plans have scoped out their ultimate funding goal,” Gannon explains. He adds that establishing these goals can be helpful in working through various “what-if scenarios” and in determining what next steps can be taken to achieve the sponsor and investment committee objectives.

“The goals say, my portfolio is supposed to look like this, and then gives you steps for how to achieve that,” Gannon says.

A copy of Gannon’s research paper can be downloaded here.

The New Diversification: Adding Alternatives

March 27, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – In prior decades, international and emerging market stocks were good investments to get diversification for a retirement plan portfolio, but things have changed.

According to Mark Peterson, director of investment education at BlackRock, speaking for a webinar hosted by Envestnet, traditional diversification vehicles underperformed when the return environment changed. Traditional stocks and bonds worked well until the 2000s. While bonds have done well since, equities have been volatile. And, now bonds will become a challenge with rising interest rates.

Peterson adds that for equity investments, correlations (the tendency for investment vehicles to move similarly in the market) have been increasing over time. Equities, including international and emerging markets, tend to cluster in the same return neighborhood with increased correlation; all equities fell during the financial crisis.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

How to Diversify Better

Risk is more than just about volatility, and alternative investments can help mitigate the different risk factors, Peterson contends.

“In a higher inflation world, floating rate or bank loan funds are a tremendous inflation hedge,” Peterson said. “Commodities are second best, and inflation-protected bonds, high-yield municipal bonds, natural resources investments, and energy investments all correlate well in higher inflation environments.”

For interest rate risk, Peterson suggests, investors consider floating rate loans or high-yield bonds. For currency risk, use global or currency investments or commodities.

“Adding alternatives widens out clustering; you get all types of returns in a bear market,” he adds.

Adding Alternatives

Peterson explains there is no standard definition of an alternative investment. “They are simply ‘alternatives’ to traditional debt and equity.” BlackRock thinks of alternative investing on two levels: via asset classes, such as commodities, currency, direct real estate, direct infrastructure, real assets and renewable energy; and via strategies—for equities, long, short or private, and for bonds, arbitrage or distressed.

Instead of just having alternative investments included in an “other” piece in a portfolio, plan sponsors should have an “alternatives” piece for different alternative asset classes, and they should split the strategies for traditional asset classes between traditional strategies and alternative strategies, Peterson suggests. He says the alternatives portion of the portfolio should be in the 15% to 20% range to make a difference, noting that adding alternatives in the last 12 to 15 years would have lowered risk and improved returns.

Manager skill is vital when selecting alternative investments and strategies—in 2012, the return difference between top and bottom managers was 13.50% versus -3.34%, Peterson says. Plan sponsors need alternatives managers with a lot of experience that can execute strategies well. Plan sponsors may spend more on due diligence when looking for the right manager, but it will pay off, he adds.

According to Peterson, the most common mistake investors make when adding alternatives to a portfolio is with the source of assets to invest. “After the financial crisis, folks were sourcing their entire alternatives allocation from equities, since equities did poorly, but equities were a buy at the bottom of market, buying alternatives at that time only reduced risk, it didn’t boost returns,” he notes. Plan sponsors should make sure their investment sourcing matches what they’re trying to do—to just reduce risk or both reduce risk and increase returns. “They may be trying to reduce risk in fixed income and boost returns for equities.”

«