Strategies for DC Plans to Mitigate Risks in 2019

Willis Towers Watson offers nine actions for DC plan sponsors to mitigate risks in 2019.

In a new white paper, Willis Towers Watson (WTW) outlines nine steps plan sponsors can take to mitigate risks in defined contribution (DC) plans in the coming year.

The first risk, according to WTW, is “workforce risk.” The company’s 2017 Global Benefits Attitudes Survey found that half of those age 50 and older plan to work past the typical retirement age. “Employees who want to retire but are not financially prepared can create the risk of a disengaged workforce and contribute to blocked career paths.”

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

WTW says sponsors should identify those participants who are not on track for a successful retirement at the traditional age and develop a more effective plan strategy that fosters retirement readiness.

The second major risk DC plans continue to face is “litigation risk,” WTW says. Lawsuits continue to be filed against plan fiduciaries specifically in the areas of investment offerings, plan-related participant fees and company stock.

WTW says sponsors should ensure that their fiduciary committees have the appropriate people sitting on them and that the committees are structured properly. They should also ensure that the committee is updating and following internal governance policies for evaluating investment lineups, reviewing fees and executing best practices to document their decisions. According to the firm, strong governance also relies on outside experts such as ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] attorneys and consultants for guidance on evolving regulations in an effort to minimize litigation risk.

Third, sponsors should work to minimize “talent risk.” This means, WTW says, ensuring that their DC plans are competitive enough to attract and retain key talent. The solution here, according to WTW, starts with regularly conducted benchmarks and an eye to the evolving needs of a company’s workforce. Willis Towers Watson research shows that key areas of focus among employers who have recently made benefit changes include improving personalized communication, enhancing technology to administer benefits and promoting employee wellness. 

Next up is “distraction risk.” WTW notes that most committee members can spend only 5% of their time on plan management issues, which the firm says is “not enough time for even the most basic review of a DC plan, its operations and its results.” Since making investment decisions about a plan’s lineup is so critical, WTW says sponsors should either delegate these decisions to a specialized internal subcommittee or hire an outsourced chief investment officer (OCIO).

The fifth risk is “compliance risk.” Many sponsors rely on several outsourced experts to assist them with plan documents, administration, recordkeeping and more—making it difficult for the sponsor to have a bird’s eye view of how their plan is running. WTW says the solution is for plan sponsors to hire seasoned experts to conduct periodic compliance reviews. “Both one-time and ongoing reviews are key drivers of long-term success and can save sponsors from IRS and Department of Labor penalties, unnecessary vendor expenses and negative publicity.”

The sixth area WTW calls out is “investment risk.” Many participants, left to their own devices, are challenged to select a diversified portfolio or a target-date fund. “This risk is particularly concerning when you consider how many workers today lack even a basic level of financial literacy,” WTW says. The solution is for plan sponsors to reevaluate automatic enrollment and qualified default investment alternatives (QDIA), perhaps selecting a custom target-date fund (TDF), according to the firm. 

Sponsors are, of course, very familiar with “savings risk,” whereby so many workers are unsure of how much to save—and many are not saving enough.

WTW says sponsors should strongly consider automatic enrollment, re-enrollment and auto-escalation. Although the paper does not mention the benefits of increasing the initial deferral rate, the cap on escalation and the company match, these are all obvious considerations. WTW also says that financial wellness programs and support for employees with paying down student debt are other programs to weigh.

The eighth risk that WTW underscores is “tax risk.” WTW notes that few participants take advantage of Roth 401(k), individual retirement accounts (IRAs) or health savings accounts (HSAs).

“Committees should consider adopting default options into Roth structures or promoting the use of HSAs to cover medical expenses or provide income during retirement,” WTW suggests.

Finally, WTW points to “longevity risk,” the possibility of participants outliving their savings. Sponsors should consider offering annuities, explaining retirement income strategies and/or education about how to maximize Social Security benefits.

Missing Deadline, Joint Committee Continues Work on Multiemployer Pension Crisis

Senators and co-chairmen Orrin Hatch and Sherrod Brown said they missed their stated deadline for voting on a package of solutions, but the Joint Select Committee on the Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans will continue its work during the new session of Congress.

When the bipartisan Joint Select Committee on the Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans was created early this year, it was tasked with coming up with a solution by November 30.

Senators and co-chairmen Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said they missed this deadline, but that the committee is making strong progress and will continue working on a package of potential solutions during the lame-duck session of the 115th Congress.  

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Anyone who has listened in on the committee’s various public meetings held throughout 2018 will have noticed the dire testimony given time and again by various stakeholders in the multiemployer pension space. One witness, a skilled and experienced actuary, suggested that he believes less than 1% of multiemployer plans are 100% funded when using reasonable actuarial assumptions. Another speaker pointed out that, when he started working on this issue some 10 years ago, the generally agreed upon figure was that multiemployer pension plans as a whole carried a funding gap of about $200 billion. Today, he said, it is more like a $680 billion shortfall, “and growing all the time.”

Experts called by both Democrat and Republican members have pointed out, in minute detail, the fact that millions of Americans across the country depend on multiemployer pension plans for their retirement security, and, if nothing changes, a growing number of workers face severe financial risks. They also spoke of the real and immediate risk posed by a big run of multiemployer pension plan insolvencies to the wider U.S. economy and taxpayers.

Facing this panoply of issues, Senators Hatch and Brown said their committee has made significant progress and that a bipartisan solution is attainable. They said more time is needed and the committee will continue its work.

“The problems facing our multiemployer pension system are multifaceted and over the years have proven to be incredibly difficult to address,” Hatch said. “Despite these challenges and a highly charged political environment, we have made meaningful progress toward a bipartisan proposal to address the shortcomings in the system to improve retirement security for workers and retirees while also providing certainty for small businesses that participate in multiemployer plans.”

“While it will not be possible to finalize a bipartisan agreement before November 30, we believe a bipartisan solution is attainable, and we will continue working to reach that solution,” Brown said. “We understand that the longer that these problems persist, the more burdensome and expensive for taxpayers they become to address, and we are committed to working toward a final agreement as quickly as possible.”

One potential solution already on the table

As PLANSPONSOR has reported, absent deep benefit cuts, many union-sponsored multiemployer pension plans are likely to become insolvent in the next decade. Even if they receive financial assistance from the government, many may not be able to meet their full obligations. This is according to a recent white paper published by the Pension Analytics Group, which bills itself as “a group of actuaries and economists who are concerned that the clock might run out before a viable solution for the multiemployer system’s funding problems can be designed and implemented.”

The group conducted its latest analysis in response to one commonly floated solution to the multiemployer pension funding issue—the launch of a government-backed bailout loan program, of the type included in some recent proposals from lawmakers and retirement industry professionals. Supporters suggest a long-term, low-interest-rate loan program could save the most troubled multiemployer pension plans without imposing undue hardship on participants, contributing employers, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the federal government, taxpayers or healthy plans.

As the paper explains, supporters of this approach contend that it buys time for struggling pension funds to get back on their feet. Eventually, it is hoped, a plan receiving a loan will regain its strength, pay off its loan and avoid insolvency.

For its analysis of whether this approach is likely to be effective, the Pension Analytics Group considers a relatively straightforward theoretical loan program, under which each troubled pension plan will be eligible to receive a one-time lump-sum loan equal to the plan’s funding deficit. To determine the deficit, plan liabilities will be measured at a 7% discount rate, and the loan interest rate will be fixed at 2%, which is below current Treasury yields. Among some other stipulations, the analysis assumes the term of each loan will be 20 years, at which time the entire amount of the loan must be repaid with interest.

According to the analysis, across some 500 stochastic trials, the average total number of participants in plans projected to become insolvent is 3.1 million in the baseline scenario, and 2 million if the loan program is implemented.

«

 

You’ve reached your free article limit.

  You’re out of free articles!! 

Subscribe to a free PW newsletter - get free online access!

 Don’t leave before subscribing! 

If you’re a subscriber, please login.