Data and Research January 22, 2021

The Argument to Save Pensions by Saving Unions

Some sources say growing union membership to previous levels could go a long way toward solving many of the most vexing economic challenges facing Americans today, including retirement insecurity.
Reported by

Even the most cursory internet search will uncover an array of surveys and studies, conducted by all manner of stakeholders, underlining the substantial decline in U.S. union membership seen over the past several decades.  

As data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows, last year, 10.8% of workers in the United States reported being a union member, compared with 20.1% in 1983. That’s up 0.5 percentage point from 2019’s numbers, but still lower than in the past. The data shows a strong regional concentration of union membership, as well, with more than half of all U.S. union members living in either California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio or Michigan.

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

Perhaps the most informative data puts the U.S.’s union representation into global context. As of 2016, the U.S. had the fifth lowest trade union density of the 36 member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Responding to such statistics, the incoming Biden-Harris administration has pledged to address the precipitous decline in union membership, says Russell Kamp, managing director at Ryan ALM.

Kamp tells PLANSPONSOR he is firmly in the group that believes growing union membership to previous levels could go a long way toward solving some of the most vexing economic challenges facing Americans today, nearly a year into a deadly pandemic that has withered the global economy.

“Take just the example of stagnant wage growth,” Kamp says. “We haven’t had anyone effectively negotiating wages on behalf of enough workers, and so wages have remained essentially flat, despite the tremendous economic growth we have experienced. There is very little collective bargaining power in many of the industries that are the biggest engines of growth. I’m hopeful that federal actions to create stronger union representation can help to finally deliver the wage growth that we so badly need.”

To those skeptical about increasing the role and power of unions, Kamp says it is important to consider the alternative course of action—i.e., simply permitting the unchecked growth of economic inequality based on current market forces.

“The pandemic has revealed how many people in this country can’t make ends meet in the current system, even as they are working full time,” Kamp says. “It is unacceptable and it is a real policy issue. It is a measurable macroeconomic issue. If we do nothing to address income inequality, you will eventually see too few people demanding goods and services, because they are the only ones who can afford to do so. The whole economy just collapses.”

Kamp says he believes that strengthening unions will also naturally help to stabilize and improve the outlook for defined benefit (DB) pensions, both those sponsored by individual employers and those operated by multiemployer unions.

“As the unions themselves are saying, we need smart pension reform,” Kamp adds. “The previous reforms under MPRA [the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014], in my view, have ultimately harmed participants and beneficiaries. We have seen sizable reductions of promised benefits, and so, we need further reform that works in the interest of participants and beneficiaries. We need pensions, those operated by unions and individual employers, to be a healthy and stable retirement vehicle for a growing workforce.”

Kamp’s comments have been echoed in the past few weeks in various open letters and public comments made by union leaders. For example, the Teamsters are calling for the enactment of the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act or the Emergency Pension Plan Relief Act. Both of these bills would create new protections for benefits that retirees have earned, while barring cuts to their pension benefits. Union leaders say it is also critical for Congress to pass corporate bankruptcy reform, and that the new administration should rescind other Department of Labor (DOL) rules and executive orders that threaten the health of multiemployer pension plans.

Though the Biden-Harris administration is yet in its early days, there are some signs that the pro-union sentiments voiced during the campaign will be backed up with concerted policy and legislative action. One preliminary but promising sign of this is the nomination of Marty Walsh as DOL secretary. He’s considered to be one of the most progressive members of the incoming cabinet. Besides winning election as the mayor of Boston for two terms, Walsh’s background also includes having joined the Laborers’ Union Local 223 at age 21, and eventually becoming president of the union. He also led the Boston Metropolitan District Building Trades Council.

Investing January 22, 2021

Active vs. Passive Investing: Understanding the Difference

Knowing how each type of investing works, as well as their advantages and disadvantages, can help retirement plan sponsors construct appropriate investment menus.
Reported by

Before constructing a retirement plan investment menu, plan sponsors must ask themselves whether investments that use active management or those that are passive, or a mix of each, are best for their plans and participants.

Active Investing

While more plans have shifted to passive investing in recent years thanks to its long-term, lower-cost structure, experts argue there are advantages to including actively managed investment options in defined contribution (DC) plan investment lineups as well.

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

Josh Cohen, head of institutional defined contribution at PGIM, describes active management as a more hands-on approach, where an asset manager makes decisions about buying or selling a fund’s underlying holdings based on performance expectations. “[Asset managers] can use quantitative approaches to determine securities that have worse or better expected returns, and what’s called fundamental analysis, which is doing an analysis on individual securities,” he explains.

In times of extreme market volatility or substantial drawdowns, active managers are able to make changes to their portfolio at their discretion, says Sarah Abernathy, a senior investment analyst from Envestnet, a provider of integrated portfolio, practice management and reporting solutions. Additionally, incorporating active investing can also lead to excess return, she says. Active strategies are intentionally built by their managers to be different, with the intention of adding excess return or reducing risk relative to the benchmark. “This allows the potential for, but not the guarantee of, higher growth in assets over time compared to a passive strategy,” she explains.

The micro-management that comes with active investing means higher costs because it relies on the skill set of an investment manager that cannot be cheaply replicated by technology, says Abernathy. Active investing also has a higher potential for underperformance and higher volatility and lower capacity. According to Abernathy, these strategies tend to be relatively concentrated and therefore can reach capacity constraints that cause them to close to new investors. Active strategies will also have lower transparency because they rely on the skill set of the firm or management team, so their methodologies are largely kept proprietary and not published in the same manner as a passive strategy, she says.

Passive Investing

By definition, passive investing is an investment strategy to maximize returns by minimizing buying and selling. Index investing is one common passive investing strategy whereby funds purchase a representative benchmark, such as the S&P 500 index, and hold it over a long time horizon.

Passive investing is a long-term, buy-and-hold style of investing, where investors do not pay too much attention to short-term market movements and noise, says Nauman Anees, founder and CEO of ThinkMarkets, an online brokerage firm. “The main advantage of passive investing is that it does not require any micro-management and you make money if the price of the investment goes up from where you have bought,” Anees adds. Because there might be less buying and selling when investing passively, transaction and other costs will be low, he notes.

However, one of the largest disadvantages of passive investing is the potential to fall below entry and then remain low for multiple market cycles, which could tie up an investor’s capital, Anees cautions. “Worse still, is the potential to lose all your capital if the company you are investing in goes bust and you did not act quickly enough to limit the damage,” he says.

Mark Clure, a certified financial planner (CFP) and partner at Enso Wealth Management, echoes this warning, saying that while passive indexing has a lower cost structure, it can come at a higher price. “Since there is no management of the index fund, there is no adjustment during turbulent times, which can create anxiety for investors,” he contends. “Active managers attempt to produce greater returns than the index through better investment selection.”

Investors who want access to exposure in specific diversified portfolios may look to active management, says Cohen. “In some markets, particularly ones that are more illiquid and inefficient, it’s harder to access it cost-effectively in a passive manner. In private markets or private real estate, you can’t access that market passively,” he says.

Choosing Active or Passive Investments

Selecting the right types of investments for a DC plan investment lineup can be challenging. Abernathy recommends breaking down key considerations for each strategy. When evaluating passive investing, track errors relative to underlying funds. Performance differential over the long-term should be minimal, Abernathy notes. Plan sponsors should also consider costs and liquidity metrics for exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

Minimum key considerations for active strategies include reviewing the investment manager’s tenure (Abernathy recommends a period of at least a year), the investment’s risk-adjusted relative performance, length of track record (a suggested minimum of three years) and asset levels of the firm and active strategy.

Whichever strategy plan sponsors choose, it’s imperative to understand there is no right or wrong answer when deciding whether active or passive investing is right for the plan’s lineup, notes Clure. Instead, carefully consider costs, philosophy and the historical performance of each, he suggests. “Choosing an investment manager who has consistently outpaced the indexes will provide better real-world outcomes for participants,” he says. “Choosing an investment manager that has provided better outcomes than the market will make an enormous difference not only in accumulating wealth, but also during retirement when participants are drawing down their assets.”

«