Breaking Free From Interest Rate Bind on DB Funding

The long-running low interest rate environment has created DB plan funding challenges, but plan sponsors can take steps to mitigate them.

Defined benefit (DB) plans are facing funding challenges, but there are actions that they can take to mitigate them.

The main problem is that the equity markets have been volatile and interest rates declined sharply in the late summer, says Gordon Young, senior director, retirement, at Willis Towers Watson in Milwaukee. Through the end of July, interest rates for both Treasury and high-quality corporate bond yields decreased to their lowest levels since the global financial crisis of 2008, Young notes. Then, in August, the 30-year Treasury yield dropped below 2% and the Merrill Lynch AA-AAA 10+ index dropped below 3%—both historically low levels.

Both public and corporate DB plan funding has suffered as a result. Goldman Sachs Asset Management estimates that the aggregate funded status of the U.S. corporate defined benefit (DB) system fell to 86% at the end of August, from 87% at the beginning of the year and a recent high of 91% in the second half of 2018. And while pension plans returned, on average, more than 15% through the end of August, actuarial losses due to the fall in interest rates reduced funded levels by a similar amount, says Mike Moran, senior pension strategist at Goldman Sachs Asset Management, based in New York.

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

Extrapolating forward rates from the current environment, Willis Towers Watson expects “rates will remain low for a while, and the yield curve might flatten even further,” Young says.

In addition, “with the aging population in the U.S. and around the world, this is causing an insatiable demand for fixed income,” which is pressuring interest rates, according to Moran. This is going to cause challenges for pension plans, he says.

“Of course, it depends on how well a plan is funded and the degree of liability hedging in the portfolio, but for most pension plan sponsors, lower interest rates are bad news,” Young says. “As interest rates continue to decrease, their liabilities are going to increase and they will face higher profit and loss and cash funding costs. For pensions that are open, the liabilities are greater because they are more exposed to volatility in the markets. For plans that are frozen and gradually shrinking their liabilities,” the exposure is less.

Mitigating funding challenges

The first thing a pension plan sponsor should do in this environment is to revise their forecast of costs to their plan, Young says. “Then they should reevaluate management policies that oversee their risks and costs, their settlement and valuation policies, to see whether or not they should change these in light of continued low interest rates.”

Goldman Sachs believes that plans with deficits “should earn their way out. Even though rates are low, we think they should continue to buy fixed income because they are under hedged,” Moran says. “Also, in an environment where many asset classes are at high levels, they should diversify their portfolios into alternative, non-core fixed income, hedge funds and liquid alternatives that are more defensive. We view rebalancing to your appropriate strategic targets as a prudent risk management exercise. Whether it is done quarterly, monthly or when there is a deviation from your targets doesn’t matter as long as you do something.”

DB plan sponsors will inevitably also have to increase their contributions, Moran adds. “On the corporate DB side, many plans have enjoyed funding relief from Congress, enabling them to contribute less than they otherwise would have had to,” he notes. “Many of these rules sunset in 2021, and if interest rates are still low then, their contributions will need to go up.”

Alternatively, pension plan sponsors could decrease benefits to other plans, such as a 401(k), Young says. If they have multiple pension plans, some overfunded and some underfunded, they could also combine them, he adds.

Pension plans can also better manage their Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premiums, Moran says. “There are two such premiums: a flat rate based on the number of participants in their plan and a variable rate of 4.3% based on a plan’s deficit,” he says. “With interest rates going down, the cost to borrow is below that 4.3%. Plans could use that money to pay the premium. That is effective arbitrage. Caterpillar, UPS and FedEx have done this, and we expect more plans to do the same.

“And on the flat rate side, we see a number of organizations looking for ways to get out of the plan through a lump-sum payment to participants or by buying an annuity through an insurance company,” Moran continues. “In fact, many large-scale organizations, including FedEx and Bristol Meyers have done just that.”

Finally, Moran says, interest rate impacts don’t “hit” plans until their measurement date: “In other words, for a company that operates on a calendar year basis, any adjustment to the discount rate from the fall in interest rates would not occur until the end of December of this year, [meaning that] any balance sheet adjustment due to a change in funded status would not occur until that time, and any potential increase in recognized pension expense from an increase in the projected benefit obligation would not occur until 2020.”

When Choosing Passive or Active Funds, Consider the End Result

Data shows passive U.S. equity assets have passed active U.S. equity assets, but there are pros for each and retirement plan sponsors should have the right goal in mind when making a decision.

Preliminary numbers show that passive U.S. equity assets passed active U.S. equity assets by about $25 billion, according to Morningstar’s August Fund Flows report. At the time of publication, it was still waiting for 70 or so funds to report their total net assets as of month-end.

If this result holds, passive’s share of U.S. equity open-end and exchange-traded fund (ETF) assets would be 50.15% versus 49.85% for active funds. Morningstar says this milestone has been a long time coming as the trend toward low-cost fund investing has gained momentum.

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

Active U.S. equity funds have had outflows every year since 2006, with roughly equivalent inflows into passive funds during that time. Over the past 10 years, active U.S. equity funds have had $1.3 trillion in outflows and their passive counterparts nearly $1.4 trillion in inflows.

Nick Nefouse, head of DC investment strategy and co-head of LifePath at BlackRock in NYC says, “Many plan sponsors are saying now they want to own an index. It gives transparency into what they own. If an investment benchmarks the Russell 2000, it’s pretty straightforward what participants are getting. Explaining underperformance of active funds is difficult; explaining it for passive funds is easier.”

But, Steve Deschenes, research and development director of Capital Group in Los Angeles, says the fact that index funds expose participants to the full brunt of market downturns is important to emphasize. This characteristic, he says, can make what should be a “safe” investment an “enormously risky one.” According to Deschenes, “Strong active managers can provide less volatility and a smoother ride.”

Nefouse agrees that plan sponsors are paying active managers to smooth out volatility, but he says some plan sponsors are moving to passive investments because an active manager may not be able to perform so consistently over time.

Capital Group has done a lot of research over five or six years about what works in active management and selecting active managers, Deschenes says. If plan sponsors choose a low-cost active manager, it will perform better. In addition, manager ownership in their funds has been proven to produce value over and above the fees it’s charging.

Deschenes also points to research from Capital Group that looked at 60-year case studies and analyzed how participants fared using an index strategy versus using Capital Group’s active funds. The study covered 20 years of retirement plan participation, 20 years of transition and 20 years in retirement. “Our funds resulted in $120,000 per year in retirement income versus $85,000 from using an index strategy—even if a participant had a higher lifestyle and more withdrawals. Our funds also resulted in $2.5 million in ending wealth at age 85 versus $1.5 million using an index strategy,” he says.

On the passive side, Nefouse points out that if a client wants a lower volatility portfolio, BlackRock can build an index that provides that. He adds that fund performance comes up a lot in conversations. “Comparing our indexes to other active manager strategies, we are line.”

The Bottom Line

The active versus passive debate has been going on for decades and will continue. However, Deschenes and Nefouse both agree that investor outcome is the important factor when deciding which funds to offer retirement plan participants.

“Neither active nor passive is monolithic; no one provides all passive or all active investments,” Deschenes says. “Good plan sponsors that have developed an investment policy statement (IPS) are looking for things that are proven, things that consistently add value and things that can improve participant outcomes.”

He points out that in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and related guidance, nothing says plan sponsors have to always choose the lowest-cost funds; it says fees should be reasonable. “Fees must be taken in context with the value created for participants,” Deschenes says.

Nefouse says plan sponsors should look at client outcome, transparency and value for service. “If a fund can offer the desired outcome, with transparency and at a lower cost, plan sponsors should choose it. Start with the desired outcome then weigh active versus passive choices,” he says.

The investment conversation within the industry has been “myopically focused on fees,” according to Deschenes. “Fees are important, and investors should seek out low-cost funds if they help their chances of achieving greater than average outcomes. And those outcomes—sending a child to college, having a secure retirement—are actually what people care about,” he concludes.

«