© 2009 Towers Perrin Fees and Funds: Five Ways to Improve Your DC Plan Defined Contribution Plan Initiatives September 15, 2009
Jan 14, 2015
© 2009 Towers Perrin
Fees and Funds:Five Ways to Improve Your DC Plan
Defined Contribution Plan Initiatives
September 15, 2009
© 2009 Towers Perrin 2
Lisa J. Alkon
Lisa Alkon, Principal, National Leader, Governanceand Compliance Advisory group — Towers PerrinBoston office
28 years of retirement consulting on complianceand design issues
Extensive experience with Fortune 1000 clientsin both for-profit and not-for-profit environments
A recognized authority on governance andcompliance issues
© 2009 Towers Perrin 3
Marina L. Edwards
Marina Edwards, Senior Consultant, Governanceand Compliance Advisory group — Towers PerrinChicago office
A national leader for vendor search and feebenchmarking projects
19 years of 401(k), 403(b) and pension planexpertise in qualified and nonqualified plans
Extensive experience with Fortune 1000 clientsand plan complexities
A recognized expert and speaker at definedcontribution conferences and widely quotedin national publications
© 2009 Towers Perrin 4
Peter D. Grant, CFA
Peter Grant, Senior Investment Consultant, InvestmentConsulting Group — Towers Perrin New York office
16 years consulting to 401(k) and pension plans,endowments and foundations
Extensive experience with Fortune 500 clientsand plan complexities
A recognized guest speaker for national definedcontribution and defined benefit conferenceson target date funds, liability-driven investingand portfolio transition issues
© 2009 Towers Perrin 5
Today’s agenda
Welcome and introductions Webcast topics
Fiduciary best practicesVendor assessments and fee reviewsTarget date fundsAnnuity optionsCompany match issues
Questions and answers Closing remarks
© 2009 Towers Perrin 6
DC Plans — Market evolution
DC plan focus has evolved rapidly and issues around plan design areexpected to grow Corporate cost containment Inadequacy of Social Security benefits for majority of population Increasing emphasis on DC plans to adequately provide retirement
income security Employee concerns over retirement assets and retirement
income security For ERISA class actions, the monetary value of the Top 10 private
plaintiff settlements entered into or paid in 2008 totaled $17.7 billion* By comparison, 2007 totaled $1.8 billion
*Source: Seyfarth Shaw’s Fifth Annual Workplace Class Action LitigationReport
© 2009 Towers Perrin 7
1. Fiduciary best practices
Important time frames to remember Collect and review DC plan investment fees (investment
fee + revenue share) at least annually As an interim step, every two to three years, obtain market pricing
on the DC plan through a “request for information” (RFI) Take the DC plan out to bid once every five to six years through
a “request for proposal” (RFP) Determine if company-driven events (layoffs, plant closings)
will create restrictions on your stable value fund or loanpayoff provisions
If DC plan has company stock Understand if your advice product includes company stock
in the analysis Consider hiring an independent third-party fiduciary/trustee
to advise on company stock (directed or discretionary) Document, document, document
© 2009 Towers Perrin 8
2. Vendor search and fee reviews
Vendor assessments — areas to consider Will there be a new plan design? Are there new services that will be added? Will the investment line-up be refreshed at that time? Ensure you have a 404(c) checklist and clarity surrounding
the vendor services
© 2009 Towers Perrin 9
2. Vendor assessments and fee reviews (cont.)
Fee reviews — areas to consider What tools is the vendor providing toward full-fee disclosure? Evaluate need for attorney-client privilege Understand various benchmark approaches and potential risks
— Large plans (assets >$500M) typically require customized RFI— “Plain vanilla” plans may be able to rely on non-RFI approaches
Assess whether the plan generates “excess revenue”— Do qualified diversified investment alternatives (QDIAs)
Generate revenue to the vendor?— Seek to lower the investment share classes— Establish an “ERISA budget account” for excess revenue
Obtain clarity on pricing associated with nonqualified plans Review equitability of fee structure to participants Create a Fee Policy Statement
© 2009 Towers Perrin 10
2. Vendor assessments and fee reviews (cont.)
Vendor contract review and negotiation — areas to consider Review notification timeline required if either party chooses to leave Are there fees associated with leaving? Understand whether there is a separate contract for the
advice/managed account product Implement vendor service guarantees with fees at risk
for nonperformance Has there been discussion or financial commitments from the
vendor about retirement readiness/replacement income?
© 2009 Towers Perrin 11
3 and 4. Investment design introduction
The next segment of this Webcast focuses on DC plan investment design Investment design, and products such as target date funds (TDFs)
and annuities, are considered with respect to four areasEvolving DC plan investment designsAchieving fundamental plan objectives, such as retirement
income securityAnalytical processes of evaluationFit within a strategic DC plan decision-making framework
© 2009 Towers Perrin 12
3 and 4. Evolution of DC plan — investment design
1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s
Past
Pres
ent
Futu
re
Issues facing sponsors are cross functional
Addressing longevity risk through TDFs,annuities, etc.
Improving behavior through effectiveeducation and communication
Containing plan costs and fees
Adequate governance/compliance procedures
Simple Structures(<10 options)
Choice Resolution (10-100+ options)
3- to 4-Tier Plan Design (15 options — unlimited)
“Personalized” RetirementToday TomorrowTDFs Investment choiceAdvice engines Index: Percent returns
Issue ResolutionPayout risk (TDFs, annuity, hybrid)Savings properties (auto escalation matches, etc.) Investment vehicles (traditional/Roth; in/out of plan
annuity)Governance/compliance audits
Savings levelTurnkey strategyAge of savings depletion Index: Standard of living
© 2009 Towers Perrin 13
3 and 4. DC plan evolution — plan sponsor actions
The actions we see today that start personalizing retirement include Savings Levels: Understanding how to improve DC plan decisions
and investment design by combining quantitative analysis of savingspatterns with investment strategy decisions (e.g., target date fundasset allocation)
Turnkey Strategies: Incorporating the plan objective (e.g., retirementincome security) in the evaluation of alternative turnkey strategies,and including in the analysis unique benefit elements (pension benefit)and corporate demographics
Age of Savings Depletion: Using a quantifiable metric in theevaluation of investment design that can be communicated toparticipants once the sponsor determines the investment structure
Standard of Living: Adding another consideration to the objective-setting and ongoing evaluation process that ties corporate benefitstrategy to plan sponsor decision making
© 2009 Towers Perrin 14
3. Target date funds — what we already know
TDFs and risk-based (life strategy or life cycle) funds help participantsby providing one plan option that adjusts investment risk based on eitherage or risk preference
Lawmakers acknowledged benefits of these funds by classifying them asQDIAs in 2008
Target Date Multi-Asset Funds(life cycle)
Age
Money MarketHigh YieldU.S. Inv. Grade Fixed Inc.EAFEDomestic Equity
Age
% A
lloca
tion
Risk-Based Multi-Asset Funds(life strategy or balanced)
% A
lloca
tion
Time
KnowledgeInterest
© 2009 Towers Perrin 15
3. Target date funds — what remains uncertain
However, variability in TDF performance in 2008 and the fairly flatslope of many TDF glide paths indicate that the market has yetto reach consensus on the age-old conundrum: How to adequatelyaddress longevity risk without increasing investment risk
Top 15 Target Date Funds
2.25
3.754
6.75
12.12
14
0
4
8
12
16
One-Year Return at 3/31/09 One-Year Return Distribution
Std. dev. Range
3.1
-38.1
-23.8
-38-35.5
-21.3
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
2010Funds
2030Funds
2050Funds
60%Equity/40%Fixed
S&P500
Bar-Agg.
Source: eVestment All iance database
© 2009 Towers Perrin 16
3. Target date funds — fiduciary responsibilities
Fiduciary responsibilities can vary depending upon whether the TDFsare customized or off the shelf (see table below) Addressing longevity risk is not on the list of responsibilities
Sponsors are starting to improve the TDF selection process usingquantitative analysis and incorporating the savings program objective.Key issues being added to the analysis include Does the company sponsor a DB plan? What is the combined participant and employer savings profile? How are participants’ assets currently invested, and what is their
demographic profile? What is the targeted probability of retirement income security?
NoYesRebalance/monitor portfolio allocations
NoYesSelect/monitor investment managers
NoYesDesign/monitor the TDF “glide path”
YesNoSelect/monitor the TDF manager
Off the ShelfCustomizedFiduciary Responsibilities
Primary Fiduciary Responsibilities: Customized vs. Off-the-Shelf TDFs
© 2009 Towers Perrin 17
3. Target date funds — connecting the planobjective and investment strategy evaluation
Connecting the fundamental objective of retirement income securitywith the TDF scenario analysis helps to resolve key issues Implications of the current benefit design and its adequacy
in providing long-term investment security How to connect the investment decision-making process
to the investment program’s underlying objective The shortcomings of common participant savings practices
Sample Scenario Analysis Illustration
113 95 114 94 116 98 85 85No pension, 12% savings
81 76 83 76 82 76 76 75No pension, 6% savings
119 109 119 109 119 114104 91Pension, plus 6%savings
Passive TDF50% Worst 10%
Active TDF50% Worst 10%
60% Equity/40% Fixed50% Worst 10%
100% Fixed50% Worst 10%Percentile Outcome
Projected Age for Savings Depletion for 60 Year Olds*
*Assumes retirement at 65, 70% income replacement, $60k salary and Social Security benefits.
© 2009 Towers Perrin 18
4. Why add annuity options to a 401(k)?
Employers are shifting away from offering defined benefit plans to defined contributionplans
Employees are increasinglyresponsible for ensuring they do not outlive theirretirement funds…And they are expected tolive longer
Employees need access totools and products to helpthem meet their retirementincome needs
Employers have several alternatives when considering annuities
© 2009 Towers Perrin 19
4. Annuities — update on common considerations
To help address longevity risk for participants, several annuityproducts today are designed to provide 401(k) participantswith lifetime income upon retirement
While common annuity structures can lessen longevity risks,plan sponsors are just starting to evaluate how to utilize theinvestment option either in plan or out of plan
Recent surveys indicate that only a few sponsors have added annuities.Limited usage most likely is due to: Additional legal requirements (especially for in-plan options) despite
recent DOL safe harbor addressing annuity provider selection Benefit portability Participant usage Complexity in communication and participant education Less attractive annuity benefit due to low interest-rate environment Credit risk
© 2009 Towers Perrin 20
4. Annuities – what are the choices?
Provide annuity distribution option from Plan at retirement Plan purchases annuity, and then distribute at retirement or hold in plan
Both purchase and holding of annuity subject to ERISA fiduciarystandards and joint and survivor requirements can apply
Benefits include more favorable rates and featuresFacilitate annuity payment at retirement Plan distributes lump sum that is rolled into IRA annuity; also can
facilitate out of plan product usage for appropriateness Out of plan option reduces, and can remove ERISA fiduciary exposureProvide annuities as in-plan investment option Provides ability to average annuity rates over career, potentially offers
minimum returns and equity exposure, and facilitates guaranteedincome
ERISA requirements, usage, structure, and cost are obstacles toaddress
© 2009 Towers Perrin 21
4. Annuities — the change afoot
A recent DC plan survey by PIMCO of 32 investment consultingfirms indicated Only 22% of respondents indicated they were “unlikely to add
a guaranteed income product” (53% “somewhat likely” and25% “likely” to “very likely” to add guaranteed income product)
Lifetime income (guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit) was themost appealing product with 84% interest; fixed annuities were secondat 65%
Primary concerns for not including a guaranteed product included— Insurance company default risk (84%)— Cost (72%)— Transparency (68%)
© 2009 Towers Perrin 22
4. Annuities — the change afoot (cont.)
Insurance industry products under review by interestedclients include Lifetime income (guaranteed withdrawal benefit) Fixed annuity Longevity insurance Variable annuity
© 2009 Towers Perrin 23
3 and 4. Next steps to develop strategic game plan
The future of retirement income security depends upon severalkey factors Understanding the cost in terms of required savings and contributions Offering simple solutions that participants can easily understand Education that addresses prudent investment and saving behavior
Assuming DC plans are the preferred savings vehicle going forward, keyaction steps include Quantifying the plan’s basic objectives (e.g., what is the target age
of savings depletion and level of retirement income security) Measuring how saving practices and investment strategies
combine to support objective attainment Having a strategic game plan that connects the decision-making
process and action steps to a plan objective, such asretirement income security
© 2009 Towers Perrin 24
5. Is reinstating the 401(k) match the rightsolution in a recovering business environment?
Many employers changing/suspending the 401(k) match expectthe change to be temporary
For most, the basic expectation is that the suspended matchwill be restored in its pre-suspension form once businessconditions improve
A number of employers are taking a second look at that suppositionwith an eye toward three areas of considerationLink to profitabilityTotal retirement adequacyTotal rewards allocation and health/wealth linkages
© 2009 Towers Perrin 25
5. Finding the right retirement solution:The role of the workforce
Focus on reducingtotal labor costs
Focus on employeeengagement andperformance —
unleashingdiscretionary effort
Employees AreOur Most Important
Investors
Employees AreOur Greatest Asset
Employees Are Our Highest Cost Focus on maximizing
human capital ROI
Wor
kfor
ce C
onsi
dera
tions
Design Perspective
© 2009 Towers Perrin 26
5. Can programs be redesigned to revise incentives,and improve tax efficiency and retirement adequacy?
401(k)match
Cash 401(k)eecontrib.
Current Consumption Future Consumption
Capped orno ret.med.
HealthInsurance
Healthcare
Cash 401(k)match
Current Consumption Future Consumption
HSA
Match
Fundedret. HRA
Healthinsurance
Today’s Employee Compensation Future Employee Compensation
Suspended
401(k)eecontrib.
Cash balance Pension
Match
© 2009 Towers Perrin 27
5. Other defined contribution design considerations
Enhancement to include Roth 401(k) contributions Allow employees window during 2010 for in-service withdrawals
for conversion to Roth IRA Limitations on in-service withdrawals Unused vacation/sick time as contributions Investment advice versus investment education
© 2009 Towers Perrin 28
For more information
Lisa [email protected]
Marina [email protected]
Peter [email protected]