Products February 26, 2015

Vanguard Adds to Low-Fee TDF Lineup

Vanguard says it is expanding its family of target-date funds, with plans to introduce a new line of low-fee Institutional Target Retirement Funds.
Reported by

A new fund series from Vanguard features an estimated expense ratio of 10 basis points and will be offered to institutional investors meeting a $100 million initial investment requirement. 

The funds are known as Vanguard’s Institutional Target Retirement Funds and are expected to launch by the end of the second quarter 2015.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

“Single-fund options have revolutionized the retirement savings landscape,” notes Vanguard CEO Bill McNabb. “Professionally managed, diversified investment options such as Target Retirement Funds have helped enhance the future financial security of investors by providing a sophisticated asset allocation and a disciplined, long-term strategy in an all-in-one-fund offering.”

McNabb says more than half of participants in 401(k) retirement plans at Vanguard invest in a target-date fund (TDF), and 86% of 401(k) and other defined contribution plans administered by Vanguard offer a TDF option. The firm hopes the products will help defined contribution plan investors improve portfolio diversification.

Vanguard also announced plans to increase the international exposure in some of its asset-allocation solutions. The international equity allocation of Vanguard’s current lineup of Target Retirement Funds and LifeStrategy Funds will increase to 40% from 30%, and the international fixed-income allocation will increase to 30% from 20%.

“International holdings are a valuable diversifier in a balanced portfolio, giving shareholders exposure to return streams that don’t move in lockstep with the U.S. markets,” adds Tim Buckley, Vanguard chief investment officer. He says Vanguard research demonstrates that non-U.S. equities can enhance the returns of U.S. equities on average over time, while the primary factors driving international bond prices are relatively uncorrelated to the same factors for U.S. bonds, also providing a diversification benefit.

The overall strategic asset allocation and glide path of the current lineup of Target Retirement Funds will not change, Vanguard says. The expense ratios of the Target Retirement Funds, ranging from 0.16% to 0.18%, are not expected to change with the added international exposure. Investment allocation changes are expected to be complete by year-end.

Compliance February 26, 2015

Definition of Participant Governs Nonqualified Plan Payments

A group of retirees should not have received a lump-sum payment from a nonqualified plan at a change in control because they were not “participants” as defined by the plan.
Reported by

A federal appellate court found three retirees of Bausch & Lomb were not “participants” as defined in its nonqualified plan for executives and, therefore, not subject to the change-in-control provisions of the plan.

The retirees sued Bausch & Lomb because their recurring payments from the plan were stopped and they were paid a lump-sum of their remaining account value, which they contended reduced their overall benefits.

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

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that since the plan defines “retired participant” separately from “participant,” and since the change-in-control provision of the plan only applies to “participants,” the retirees should not have received a lump-sum distribution upon a change in control of the company. The plan defined “participant” as “an employee of the company who has been selected to participate in the plan,” while “retired participant” was defined as “a former participant who is receiving benefits under this plan.” The court noted that retired participants are no longer “employee[s] of the company,” as is required to be a participant, and a retired participant, as a matter of logic, cannot be both a “former Participant” and a current participant.

In addition, the court pointed out that the change-in-control section of the plan provides that, for purposes of determining the participant’s accrued benefit, the date of the change of control will act as a stand-in for the date of termination of employment. The retirees already had a date of termination and did not need a stand-in date.

The 2nd Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Bausch & Lomb misinterpreted the change-in-control provision of the plan.

As a remedy, the lower court allowed for the retirees to keep their lump-sum payments but have monthly payments reinstated at a lower amount in consideration of the lump sum. The 2nd Circuit found that the district court’s remedy does not run afoul of the principle, announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, that a district court has no authority to “reform” an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan. The court said the only relief ordered by the district court—reinstatement of monthly benefit payments that Bausch & Lomb had unlawfully stopped—was explicitly called for by the plan itself. In addition, the appellate court said the district court’s practical measure of a “credit” in the amount of the lump sum is a traditional application of the remedy of contractual expectation damages—ensuring that plaintiffs are restored to the same financial position they would have been in, but for Bausch & Lomb’s breach.

The decision in Gill v. Bausch & Lomb is here.

 

«