Report Suggests Reform of Military Retirement Benefits

November 2, 2012 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – A new report supports the Department of Defense's (DOD) proposal to overhaul the Pentagon's retirement system. 

The Center for American Progress suggests military personnel with more than a decade of service could choose to stay in the current system or switch to a 401(k)-like plan; those with less than 10 years of service could enroll in the new system or a modified version of the current pension setup, which would vest at 10 years but “provide slightly less retired pay—40% of base pay at 20 years, rather than 50% permitted under the current system.”

The Pentagon now has a 20-year cliff-vesting retirement system, which some would like to replace with one that provides benefits to all service members regardless of their tenure. Personnel who serve less than 20 years (about 83%) do not receive a retirement benefit, which some say is unfair given their multiple deployments during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those who do spend a career in the military can hit the 20-year mark relatively early, retire from service in their 40s or 50s, draw a pension and work elsewhere. About 17% serve 20 years or more in the military.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Last year, the DOD proposed a retirement system that would give some benefits to all troops and phase out the 20-year cliff vesting system. (see “DoD Panel Proposes Retirement Benefit Change for Troops”). 

“Military pay and health reform will allow the Pentagon to achieve substantial savings in the near term,” the report said. “Retirement reform, however, presents the greatest opportunity for savings.”

The report is here.

Paper Addresses LDI Misconceptions

November 1, 2012 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – Misconceptions about liability-driven investing (LDI) prevent many investors from implementing this strategy. 

According to a white paper by Standish Mellon Asset Management Company LLC, the fixed income specialist for BNY Mellon, LDI strategies mitigate interest rate risk and it may not be advisable for pension funds to wait for rates to rise before implementing the strategy. 

The paper addresses 10 common questions regarding pensions and LDI, including whether pensions should implement LDI in a low interest rate environment. Standish believes there are sensible ways to incorporate this interest rate uncertainty into LDI approaches, such as to establish a glide path in which interest rate risk is diminished over time. Regarding whether a plan that implements LDI should invest 100% of assets in fixed income, Standish said plan assets can be categorized as either return-seeking or hedging. The amount allocated to fixed income should be based on plan status, plan type, funded status, interest rate outlook, liability duration, plan objectives and the sponsor’s ability and willingness to take risk. 

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

The paper also favored pensions selecting active management for long duration bonds despite the lower fees associated with an index fund. It said there are sufficient inefficiencies in the corporate bond market to warrant an active approach to selecting the appropriate long-duration exposure. Standish also addressed appropriate benchmarks for a plan’s fixed-income allocation in an LDI strategy, whether the pension should invest only in high-quality bonds to best match the discount curves, how it analyzes a plan’s liabilities, how a glide path is structured, and how it evaluates the level of interest rates and forecasts future direction. 

Standish contends that derivatives can play an important role in the management of an LDI strategy from both a strategic and tactical perspective, and outlines different options. Furthermore, the paper addresses the minimum level of tracking error that can be achieved in an LDI strategy.

The white paper, “The Case for LDI in Any Interest Rate Environment: Clarifying LDI Misconceptions,” is available here.

«