Participants Need to Understand Market Cycles

The record bull market may cause retirement plan participants to be overly confident, but they need to understand market cycles and volatility so they can resist making the wrong investment and retirement savings decisions.

Surpassing the established 1990 record, the current U.S. bull market, previously commenced on March 9, 2009, earned its longest-standing title on August 22.

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

Contrary to a bear market, a bullish market symbolizes upticks in earnings along with added participant spending, an action already credited to nine in 10 Americans. As the record stands with potential for further growth in coming years, how can plan sponsors and advisers speak to participants about these habits, along with the effects of risk and return?

Katherine Roy, chief retirement strategist at J.P. Morgan, says it’s imperative for defined contribution (DC) plan sponsors to refocus participants on their retirement savings, and encourage them to act wisely. Often, participants will tense up at language and terms they don’t understand—especially when it’s about the market and concerns their retirement.

“It’s always important for people to understand the big picture of where we might be in a market cycle,” Roy says. “[But] participants get so focused on where we currently are in a cycle and get away from the basics of long-term investing and saving, which is really what it takes to be successful for retirement.”

It’s common to see participants upset over a bad market day, yet rarely do employees understand how a market cycle can shift in days. Over the past 20 years, six of the best market days occurred within 10 of the worst days, says Roy. In 2015, the best day was only two days after the worst day of the year.

“Most investors get out as things are going badly or if the market is declining, and that is an emotional reaction,” she says. “They often don’t recognize just how close in time frame the best day and worst day can be.”

DC plan participants may pull money out of their investments to evade loss of earnings, but this in turn causes the very damage they attempting to avoid. Similar effects occur in an opposite scenario, when the market performs well. If investors see an upturn, they assume the market will continue on that stream of steadiness, and will pull funds from their plans for other priorities such as a child’s education or vacation, says Daniel Steele, national sales manager at Columbia Threadneedle.

“The thing you want to focus on is long-term saving. Because you have a 10-year bull market, you want to avoid folks pulling out money in your plan for other reasons,” he says. “You don’t want folks to be overconfident over the assets they have in their DC plan.”

What plan sponsors can do to mitigate participants’ bad actions

Plan sponsors can take steps to ensure that despite the market’s ups and downs, participants are prepared for their retirement, whether that’s in the upcoming or distant future. Asking employees whether they are well-diversified is a great first step, Roy says, as this helps shape a participant’s understanding of their own investments.

“If they can’t answer whether they’re well-diversified or not, or haven’t looked into their investments in a long time, step back and consider whether a professionally managed target-date fund [TDF], a target-risk fund or managed account might solve that for them,” she says. “Then, they’re not having to be that cook in the kitchen and having to be that expert in asset classes.”

Additionally, utilizing income projection tools offer insight to potential retirement futures. For example, a participant can see the difference in retirement income if he avoids taking that vacation, or using plan assets to pay for a child’s education.

“It’ll show them not only their balance, but, if they live to a certain amount of time and their assets grew a certain percentage, [it will show] what they’re stream of income would look like,” Steele says.

Aside from ensuring diversification, plan sponsors can refocus participants on respective time horizons, whether that’s a Millennial looking at retirement 30 years down the line, or a Baby Boomer hoping to retire in five years. How can these groups of participants use their years to benefit their retirement?

Market volatility during a bull market probably wouldn’t be a participant—or a sponsor’s—first answer, but Roy believes the rockiness can advance younger workers. “It can allow you, if you are in a systematic savings program, to put your savings to work, to buy more shares when markets are low and build a greater nest egg over time. So volatility can be beneficial if you are 20 to 30 years away from retirement, because of that dollar-cost averaging and systematic flow into the market,” she says.

Steele says Millennial investors can afford to assume risk given their larger time frame. He also adds how Millennials have a higher risk-averse nature, as most grew up during the credit card crisis of 2008. It’s why TDFs, while volatile, are a successful solution for the younger workforce.

“They have such a long-time horizon so they can afford to ride out that volatility,” he says.

For those approaching retirement in the upcoming two to three years, Roy notes these prospective retirees should have already derisked to protect wealth, and advises participants to allocate a ‘cash cushion,’ or emergency savings fund. Whereas volatility can serve Millennials well, this is less so for those retiring in the near future. 

“It’s also equally important to people getting closer to retirement, so that they have the liquidity or cash they need for their income gap,” Roy says. “When they retire, they’re not pulling money out of a declining market from a sequence of return risk perspective.”

Participants stuck in the middle—meaning a solid 10 to 15 years before retiring—should ask themselves if they are derisking appropriately given their time left, Roy says. If participants are either unsure or lack suitable derisking, then it’s crucial for them to invest in a product based on their specific time horizon, like TDFs and managed accounts.

“When you start looking at TDFs and thinking about risk and return, most TDFs, even the ones that are geared towards older participants, drive about 90% of their risk from the equity market,” says Steele.

Ultimately, understanding the importance of derisking and appropriately investing strengthens retirement savings, whether during a bull market, bear market or even throughout periods of volatility. While plan sponsors and participants are powerless in regulating the market’s every move, implementing supplementary steps for added savings is the fundamental goal, especially during this period, Roy says.

“You obviously can’t control what’s in the market, but you can control how much you’re saving and how you’re investing,” she notes. “Now is as good a time as ever to get people refocused on that savings element.”

Will Strong Support for RESA Remain After Mid-Terms?

Although Senator Orrin Hatch, champion of the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act, is retiring in January, there is still much hope that many of his retirement plan proposals will move forward after the mid-term elections.

In 2007, Utah’s senior Republican Senator Orrin Hatch became the longest-serving U.S. Senator in that state’s history, surpassing the previous record holder Reed Smoot.

By the time he retires in January 2019, Hatch will have served more than 40 years in Congress, finishing his career as the seventh-longest serving Senate member in U.S. history.

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

During his decades in office, Senator Hatch has often been called on both to craft and articulate the GOP’s positions on such complex topics as health care reform, entitlement programs, pensions and more. Back in January 2015 for example, from his position as majority chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Hatch delivered a detailed policy rebuttal in anticipation of then-President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, which was to include substantial discussion of the Affordable Care Act and the national expansion of Medicaid.

Though he reiterated his distaste for Obamacare and bemoaned a lack of common ground with Congressional Democrats on entitlement reforms, Hatch at that point still pledged firmly to work in a bipartisan fashion to improve the financial outlook of the United States. He also expressed willingness to work with any president or Congressional colleague on U.S. financial policy—and said it will be critical for the lasting health of the U.S. economy to maintain the bipartisan and cooperative character of the Senate Finance Committee. 

Since that speech, the senator has in fact worked in an earnest bipartisan manner—at least on retirement issues. As a prime example, Hatch in the last year helped to establish the bipartisan Joint Select Committee on the Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 set aside funding for the committee and required that it hold regular public hearings, and vote on its findings and legislative recommendations no later than November 30, 2018. If approved, those recommendations will be submitted for consideration by the House and Senate. The committee is to be dissolved no later than December 31, 2018.

Other recent examples of bipartisanship include the March 2018 reintroduction by Senators Hatch and Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, of the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act, known fondly by the industry as “RESA.” RESA includes a proposal for pooled employer plans (PEPs), also called open multiple employer plans (MEPs). The sweeping legislation would treat open MEPs as one plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and take care of the “one bad apple” rule to prevent one participating employer from disqualifying the whole plan.

In a word, the RESA legislation is ambitious, covering a laundry list of proposals that are broadly supported by retirement industry stakeholders. These include a proposal to require lifetime income estimates at least annually on participants’ retirement plan statements; a fiduciary safe harbor for the selection of lifetime income providers for retirement plans; a proposal to allow more time for participants who terminate with an outstanding loan to rollover the loan and pay it off without it being a deemed distribution; as well as other proposals that would affect nondiscrimination rules, the automatic enrollment safe harbor default rate and the treatment of 403(b) custodial accounts upon plan termination. In advocating for RESA, Senator Hatch has stressed the proposal is the result of “rare bipartisan cooperation by members from both sides of the aisle that will assist employers, beneficiaries and hard-working Americans.”

Hatch’s impeding retirement raises the question of whether RESA can succeed without the direct backing of the chair of the Senate Finance Committee. What is clear is that many of the proposals in RESA would represent a big step in addressing the retirement planning challenges cited by both employers and employees.

Need for Congressional action is clear

As highlighted in a recent survey report published by the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies, “Striking Similarities and Disconcerting Disconnects: Employers, Workers and Retirement Security,” only 16% of employers are very confident their employees will achieve a financially secure retirement, and just 18% of workers share the same view. Overall just 65% of employers offer a workplace retirement plan, such as a 401(k), the survey shows.

Asked why they do not offer a plan, 58% say they are not big enough to do it alone, 41% say they are worried about the cost, and 22% say their employees are not interested. Among those not offering a plan, 25% say they would seriously consider joining an open multiple employer plan offered by a reputable vendor that handles the fiduciary and administrative duties at a reasonable cost. This last figure shows the need for legislation like RESA, experts agree.

Among the many advocates of RESA is Rich Rausser, senior vice president, Pentegra Retirement Services.

“There are various reasons why MEPs are not more widespread, but for our purposes here one of the most important ones is that commonality requirement,” Rausser observes. “RESA contains a multitude of provisions, but one particular component caught my eye. If passed, it would reintroduce the pooled employer plan, or PEP, also known as an open MEP, to the conversation.”

Rausser offers a little history lesson about Senators Hatch’s push for RESA. As he explains, a previous version of the bill was reported out of the Finance Committee in September 2016 “with an unprecedented, unanimous vote of 26 to 0.” However, in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, legislative priorities were significantly reshuffled and RESA ended up somewhere towards the bottom of the deck. Rausser notes that a House version of RESA was introduced this year by Representatives Ron Kind, D-Wisconsin, and Mike Kelly, R-Pennsylvania.

“What are the chances of RESA being passed this time around, as opposed to when it first surfaced in 2016? Pretty good, from what we hear from industry insiders,” Rausser suggests. “Such groups as the Insured Retirement Institute, the American Council of Life Insurers, and the American Association of Retired Persons have all expressed support for its passage. But we will have to see how it all unfolds.”

Other members have their own proposals

While the next Congress will lose in Hatch a prominent voice on retirement issues, there are other members of the House and Senate making their own policy pushes outside the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act.

Among the retirement reform proposals submitted during the current session by House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, is the Retirement Plan Simplification and Enhancement Act. The bill is tied to another published this term by the Democrat from Massachusetts, the “Automatic Retirement Plan Act,” which also garnered the support of retirement plan industry lobbying groups. Very broadly speaking, the Simplification and Enhancement Act includes provisions aimed at expanding retirement plan coverage and increasing savings levels, preserving lifetime retirement income, simplifying and clarifying qualified retirement plan rules, and implementing a more limited set of defined benefit (DB) plan reforms.

The bills seek to eliminate the current 10% cap on automatically-increased deferral rates of employees who are automatically enrolled in a plan. Related to this, the bills would require the Treasury Department to issue regulations or guidance “simplifying the timing for providing notices to automatically-enrolled employees; in particular, in plans that permit immediate participation, or that have multiple payroll systems.”

Neal’s bills would require employers to expand retirement coverage in a variety of ways. Perhaps most significantly, employees who work for three consecutive years with at least 500 hours of service each year would have to be made eligible to participate in an employer’s plan, but would be excluded from coverage, top-heavy, and nondiscrimination testing. Further, when determining the top-heavy status of any of its plans, an employer “may exclude participants who have not yet met the minimum age and service requirements (age 21 and 1 year of service) if the employer satisfies the top-heavy minimum contribution separately for those participants.”

Beyond these bills, Representatives Kind and Dave Reichert, R-Washington, senior members of the House Ways & Means Committee, reintroduced their Small Businesses Add Value for Employees (SAVE) Act. Among other things, the SAVE Act would make changes to existing SIMPLE IRA and SIMPLE 401(k) retirement plans, allow for open multiple employer plans and ease other requirements to make it easier for small businesses to offer plans to their employees.

Thoughts about an uncertain future from policy pros

Asked for his broad thoughts about U.S. retirement policy at the federal level, Ed Farrington, the head of retirement at Natixis, says the U.S. has basically been treading water for a decade—since the passage of the Pension Protection Act. He is strongly in the camp supporting Senator Hatch’s proposals, and many aspects of the various House bills aforementioned.

“There is no question that we can do better on a policy level,” Farrington says. “We have been thinking about and talking about the same challenges for 10 years, and there is actually quite a lot of consensus on some next steps. Everyone seems to like the idea of open multiple employer plans, as a prime example.”

Farrington recalls being invited by Senator Hatch some five or six years ago to speak on a panel at a retirement policy summit.

“He got a bunch of industry folks together in a very open and bipartisan way to share all these ideas [in RESA]. At the time we all felt great about the possibility for near-term action, but here we are years later in the same position. It feels like politics is stopping policy, frankly, even in areas where there is strong bipartisan consensus. If we don’t address these problems now they will come home to roost.”

Christopher Spence, leader of retirement industry advocacy for TIAA, also stands firmly in the camp supporting RESA. Asked for his thoughts about the impact Senator Hatch has had on the retirement industry, Spence says the influential senator’s voice on retirement reforms will certainly be missed.

“I don’t think it is overselling RESA to say that it would be the biggest change to retirement policy in many years, certainly since the Pension Protection Act,” Spence observes. “From my perspective as an industry lobbyist it is our North Star right now. There is strong consensus that the bill would really build on what the Pension Protection Act accomplished. I can’t name a single person I interact with in the retirement industry that is opposed to passage.”

In fact, it’s not just the retirement industry advocating for RESA, Spence suggests.

“There is a coalition that obviously includes the retirement companies and the asset management companies, but we also are joined by church groups, by the Boy and Girl Scouts of America, and by groups like the National Rural Electrical Co-op Association,” he explains. “There are a lot of different factors in the bill that would be helpful to a lot of different groups.”

Overall, Spence is still optimistic about RESA, even with Senator Hatch’s looming retirement.

“Before the House left for the current recess, we were hearing more and more discussion of Tax Reform 2.0,” he notes. “Part of the framework that House leadership has put out has to do with ‘family savings.’ We are tentatively expecting that, if and when this bill takes shape, a lot of RESA may be incorporated.”

«