Industry Ripe for Development of Retirement Income Products and Solutions

David Blanchett, QMA’s newest managing director and head of retirement research, talks about the growing importance of retirement income solutions in DC plans and other investment menu considerations for plan sponsors.

David Blanchett

QMA LLC, the quantitative equity and multi-asset solutions specialist of PGIM, announced in early June that it was bringing David Blanchett on board as a managing director and head of retirement research for defined contribution (DC) solutions. (PGIM is the $1.5 trillion global investment management business of Prudential Financial Inc.)

Blanchett is well-known in the DC plan industry for previously heading up retirement research at Morningstar Investment Management. The leadership at PGIM/QMA say his hiring reflects the fact that retirement income solutions are going to be the next big thing that will come to dominate the marketplace.

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

Shortly after the announcement, QMA Chief Executive Officer Andrew Dyson told PLANSPONSOR that Blanchett’s hiring “reflects QMA’s vision for our role in the future of retirement income,” adding that “great products will need to be founded on great research, and David will be at the forefront of that.”

Dyson argued the next 10 years will see income solutions come to dominate the DC plan marketplace. In a new interview with PLANSPONSOR, Blanchett leaned into that suggestion, echoing the growing importance of getting DC plan investors not just to, but also through, a successful retirement.

The following is a selection of highlights from the new discussion with Blanchett, now about 10 weeks into the new gig, edited and condensed for clarity:

PLANSPONSOR: We heard previously from your new colleague Andrew Dyson about your anticipated role and responsibilities at QMA. It would be great to hear your thoughts about taking on the new job at a time when the retirement plan industry is experiencing significant change.

Blanchett: As Andrew said, PGIM and QMA definitely believe that retirement income solutions are the next frontier, especially within the DC space, and I’m excited to be working on this challenge. For some time now, there has been a lot of talk about making DC plans more friendly to retirees and to efficient retirement spending, but plan sponsors are now truly starting to push this trend forward in a big way.

Increasingly, plan sponsors want to get their people not just to, but also through, a high-quality retirement, and as a result of that, this industry is ripe for the development of new products and solutions that speak to these needs.

On a personal note, why did I make this change now? I can say that there is a lot of potential within QMA and within the broader PGIM and Prudential organization to take on these big, important challenges.

PLANSPONSOR: You mentioned that plan sponsors want to get their people through retirement, not just to retirement. Do you have a sense for why that is? Presumably a big part of this is wanting to do the right thing for their people—but is it also to do the right thing for their businesses?

Blanchett: Oh, yes, there are many sides to this trend. For example, there is a growing understanding about the importance of economies of scale, and that midsized and especially larger plans can really take advantage of their scale. There is a growing understanding that the older population in a given retirement plan is going to own the bulk of the assets in that plan, meaning keeping them in the plan is important to maintaining hard-earned scale.

Yes, the plan sponsor knows it will carry marginal additional fiduciary risk by continuing to serve this person in the plan. However, the sponsor also knows that keeping people in the plan will ensure they maintain access to high-quality services and support—much more support than many people would be able to access in the private market. If you are in a DC plan, you are going to have an institutional fiduciary overseeing your assets, and you will have access to best-of-breed investments and administration services. If you go outside of the plan, there is a much wider array of possible outcomes, not all of them good.

Going way back, you might not know this, I actually started out as a financial adviser. I was doing individual personal financial planning, so I don’t mean to sound too skeptical. There are a lot of private wealth advisers who do a great job and who can build just as good of a portfolio and as good a suite of services as you will get in the DC space—but that is not universal. In a DC plan, there is just an extra level of oversight and a promotion and embracing of best practices.

 

PLANSPONSOR: What are some other ways plan sponsors can step up their game? What other points of progress are you hoping to see?

Blanchett:  There is so much to mention. For example, the core menu is not finished. After a lot of time spent refining and rationalizing investment menus in the wake of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 [PPA], I would argue there may be a need to make menus more expansive, so that they can serve new and evolving needs, including retirement income.

If you pause and think about it, the role of the core menu has shifted and evolved so dramatically over the past decade. There was all this research that came out 10 years ago to show that, if you have an overly large core menu, it will scare people away from the plan. Honestly, that was an important discovery, but it is an outdated point of discussion in 2021, given the broad adoption of automatic enrollment and the massive popularity of target-date funds [TDFs].

There has been a massive migration of assets into the default option. If you want to capture significant assets, especially for younger participants, the default investment is central. That being said, for a lot of participants, as they age, the odds of them using the default decrease dramatically. So, there is a chance for us to add other building blocks and evolve the core menu once again.

Let me also add, I am a fan of target-date funds. I think some people have a false impression that I have a negative opinion of TDFs, and I don’t. It is a fact that TDFs are a massive improvement over self-direction. On the other hand, the idea that everyone within the same five-year age band is getting the best possible portfolio is not necessarily true.

Especially as fees for advice and personalization come down, this is an area where further evolution could happen. Also, the growing focus on income and guarantees makes personalization that much more important. Simply put, the amount of assets you own will have a big impact on the recommended approach when it comes to building income guarantees, which is not a fact that is going to be addressed by a target-date fund.

 

PLANSPONSOR: Can you speak to the importance of research and analysis in this discussion? Another way to ask the question: How do we go from good ideas to good solutions?

Blanchett: I have met so many incredibly smart people in this industry, but I have also seen the challenges that come up when you have a very smart team go away and work in isolation. They can go into a room and solve a fancy equation and have an answer to a tough question, but people have to understand what you are doing and why. Successful solutions have to be accessible, and they have to cut through the intellectual biases that exist out there in the market.

Practically speaking, we need to create strategies and solutions that people understand—so that they can appreciate why they need them and why they should want to implement them. This part of the process cannot be overlooked. Even with TDFs, as popular and successful as they have been, some people still don’t totally understand them, and others misuse them.

What I’m saying is that thinking about how participants will react to what we are doing and recommending is really important. If people cannot see why they need something or why it will help them, it won’t be successful.

What DC Plan Participants Should Know About Their Own ‘Funded Status’

Plan sponsors can help participants understand how interest rates and inflation affect lifetime income disclosures to help them avoid panicking and prepare for retirement.

Defined benefit (DB) plan sponsors must keep tabs on their plans’ funded statuses for reporting purposes and to determine their required annual contributions, and they often have a very good understanding of how interest rates affect funded status.

Soon, defined contribution (DC) plan participants will see a version of their own funded status—via the lifetime income disclosures on their plan statements required by the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act. Retirement plan industry experts say helping those participants understand how interest rates affect the numbers they see might help prevent confusion and even panic.

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

An article on October Three’s website explains that as interest rates go down, participants will need more savings to produce the same amount of income. “Even if your stock portfolio has done well for the year, if interest rates go down enough, you may fall behind on your retirement income goal,” the article says.

Under the Department of Labor (DOL)’s interim final rule on lifetime income disclosures, plan administrators must calculate monthly payment illustrations as if the payments begin on the last day of the benefit statement period. They must assume that a participant is 67 years old on the assumed commencement, which is the Social Security full retirement age for most workers, or use the participant’s actual age, if older than 67.

Plan administrators must use the 10-year constant maturity Treasury rate (10-year CMT) as of the first business day of the last month of the statement period to calculate the monthly payments. The 10-year CMT approximates the rate used by the insurance industry to price immediate annuities. They must use the gender-neutral mortality table in Section 417(e)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)—the mortality table generally used to determine lump-sum cash-outs from DB plans.

John Lowell, an Atlanta-based partner and actuary for October Three, tells PLANSPONSOR that the assumptions the DOL is asking plan sponsors to use if they want to escape liability will lead to confusion among plan participants, “and it will not be a happy confusion.” The lower the interest rate, the less lifetime income their account balances can buy, and vice versa, he explains. “People might see a large account balance and the small amount [of monthly income in retirement] it will buy and that will lead to panic,” he says. Lowell adds that if some individuals see a future that looks bleak, they might reason that it’s something they can’t fix and not bother trying to improve their financial situation.

Lowell says he believes the assumptions the DOL dictates in its interim final rule are a disservice to plan sponsors and participants. He notes that plan sponsors might want to develop or contract with someone to develop a modeling tool or set of tools that use different assumptions or a range of them. “I would let people reflect on what they think their future behavior might be to see some palatable moves to an achievable future,” he says.

Lowell says the lifetime income estimate could go down—it’s not necessarily what will happen but it’s not outside the realm of possibilities. “Suppose prevailing interest rates stay where they are and also assume the stock market is currently overvalued and a correction happens,” he says. “Even if a participant continues contributing to his plan, at best, the lifetime income estimate will stay the same, but it could go down.”

Tim Kohn, head of DC services at Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA), says he breathed a sigh of relief that the interim final rule allows plan sponsors to also use other lifetime income illustrations—the DOL says it recognizes that some plan sponsors/providers are already printing lifetime income illustrations on participant statements that use different assumptions than what is prescribed in the rule. He says some illustrations that are already being provided might use more realistic assumptions.

What About Inflation?

Lowell says the purchasing power of the income participants will receive in retirement is not reflected in the lifetime income estimate on their account statement, so participants might also need more savings than the estimate shows because of inflation. “These are things that legitimately should give plan participants at least cause for pause,” he says.

Kohn sees it as a positive that lifetime income disclosures show plan participants that retirement income should be the outcome for their savings efforts. Although the assumptions might be flawed, he says, it provides a sea change in the vocabulary for DC retirement plans. However, he adds, getting participants to think about what the monthly income they see on their statements will pay for could cause them concern. DFA offers a retirement income calculator to help participants understand their buying power, and other providers have based their tools on guidance on income illustrations the DOL issued in 2013. “Some calculators take into account not only interest rates, but inflation,” Kohn says.

In its comments on the DOL’s interim final rule on lifetime income illustrations on participant statements, DFA urged the agency to require inclusion of numerical illustrations showing inflation’s impact on a portfolio to help participants understand how it diminishes the purchasing power of retirement income. “The department acknowledges the importance of inflation in the preamble accompanying the interim final rule, but strives to avoid ‘complex methodologies for what should be a simple hypothetical illustration,” the comment letter says. “In keeping with the department’s emphasis on consistency and simplicity, a single inflation rate could be used for illustrations. The Federal Reserve has an explicit inflation target of 2%, which provides a useful starting point.”

DFA says an example would help, such as explaining to participants:

“Unlike Social Security payments, the estimated monthly payment amounts in this statement do not increase each year with a cost-of-living adjustment [COLA]. Therefore, as prices increase over time, the fixed monthly payments will buy fewer goods and services. For example, with a 2% inflation rate, $1,000 would buy $820 worth of goods and services after 10 years, and $673 after 20 years.”

Mathieu Pellerin, senior researcher at DFA, says the DOL-prescribed assumptions simply tell participants how much in lifetime monthly payments they could get if they were to annuitize their savings at age 67. But he also says participants need to think also about that income’s purchasing power.

On the positive side, plan sponsors can explain to participants that the monthly income number is more meaningful than their total balance, because most of them need to think about how to replace income in retirement, Pellerin says. However, the illustrations participants will be given are in nominal dollars and there is no accounting for inflation going forward. “The illustrations are expressed as what a participant could buy at age 67 using the current balance. The purchasing power of that retirement income will be lower by the time they reach 67 and will continue to drop during retirement due to inflation,” he explains.

Avoiding Panic and Helping Participants Prepare

Lowell says the more paternalistic plan sponsors—and those that do not also sponsor a DB plan as the predominant vehicle that will give employees retirement security—might want to actively communicate more information than what the law requires about the lifetime income disclosures.

“In addition to explaining what the government-required disclosures are and what they are not, plan sponsors should explain that when thinking about retiring, employees need to consider all sources of income,” he says. “And maybe they want to offer employees some realistic modeling tools.” Kohn notes that the S&P’s “Cost of Retirement Income” dashboard, for example, can illustrate how a change in interest rates could affect investment portfolios.

Kohn adds that plan sponsors can help by providing much more detailed calculators that take into account inflation and other factors affecting expected income in retirement. “Inflation has a corrosive effect on savings,” Kohn says. “What we want is for someone entering retirement to have that same standard of living as they had in year one at year 25.”

As such, he says plan sponsors, advisers and providers need to help participants face a trinity of risks: market risk, interest rate risk and inflation risk. “The DOL’s rules are going in the right direction, but participants should have the ability to work with other provider tools that home in on their unique situations,” Kohn says. “Some participants have a DB plan and some don’t. Some retire at age 67 and some don’t. But we can’t predict what things will cost, say, 50 years from now.”

Additional education will help participants plan a retirement based on the spending behavior of the lifestyle they want to lead, Pellerin says. And participants will need help finding resources to help them achieve that goal.

“Social Security is one and now they will see a nominal annuity, but it doesn’t take into account inflation,” he says. “It will show resources in the first year of retirement, but as time goes by, that amount will lose its purchasing power. It’s like comparing apples and oranges and doesn’t give clarity about what they can expect in future years.”

But, Pellerin says, once participants are aware of their risks, they can take steps to prepare, such as investing in assets that help control inflation, saving more and using savings as a Social Security bridge so they can wait to claim.

Lowell says plan sponsors should have counsel review any communications or additional disclosures they add to their statements. For additional disclosures or modeling, he also suggests that plan sponsors get participants to sign a release saying they understand these are estimates that might or might not come true.  

“Perhaps these [lifetime income disclosures on] statements will create a call from participants for more guaranteed income, and maybe DB plans of one type or another will become more of a recruiting tool for employers again,” Lowell says.

In a recent FAQ document providing clarity on the timing of providing lifetime income illustrations, the DOL said it will issue a final rule “as soon as practicable.” So, for now, the industry waits to see if the agency will provide more flexibility on assumptions used to provide estimates and whether disclosures will take into account how inflation affects the purchasing power of estimated retirement income.

«