One retirement industry expert says the London Stock
Exchange Group’s purchase of the Frank Russell Company, also known
as Russell Investments, is a good opportunity for retirement plan fiduciaries
and investors to think a little deeper about how their portfolios are built and
measured.
The London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG)
owns the FTSE Group, the operator of indexes including the FTSE 100, which
tracks the top 100 stocks traded in London. The deal with Northwestern Mutual
brings together $5.2 trillion of assets benchmarked to Russell, according to
the firms, and an estimated $4 trillion of equities benchmarked to FTSE. LSEG
also gained control of Russell Investment Management as part of the deal, which
has $256 billion of global assets under management and $2.4 trillion of assets
under advisement through its consulting division. (See “Northwestern Mutual Sells Russell for $2.7B”)
Many retirement plans use Russell or FTSE indices, notes Jeff
Elvander, chief investment officer for NFP Retirement. He says the deal
probably will not have a major impact on the firm’s end clients in the retirement
space—i.e., participants—but financial advisers and retirement plan sponsors
may have more to discuss.
Elvander feels LSEG is a good fit
because Russell remains with a parent company that lines up with its
existing business model. “And it’s
an established company that already understands the indexing business
and already has
the popular FTSE indices,” he adds. “The success of those products shows
they get the
industry and they’re really looking to bolster and expand their
footprint. There
were many different potential outcomes, and I think this is a good fit
in terms
of where Russell ended up.”
He tells PLANSPONSOR the most significant impact may be on plans using funds or model portfolios that Russell manages directly.
“I think that these sponsors will want to ask their advisers and
consultants about what this means for their participants invested directly in
Russell funds or portfolios,” he explains. “It’s not the biggest aspect of the
deal—Russell only manages about $250 billion—but LSEG hasn’t had a direct investment
arm as part of its operations before. So I think there should be some interest
there for plan sponsors and participants just to make sure they understand how any
products or services could be impacted by the transition.”
To date,
Russell has not outlined specific plans to change that part of the business, Elvander
observes, “but it may be in play moving forward, so it’s something sponsors
should be aware of.”
Elvander predicts a muted impact for plans only using
Russell indices, but it's still important for sponsors and their advisers to pay attention.
“I don’t think they will feel much of an immediate impact,” Elvander
predicts. “However, it should probably be talked about in the ongoing
discussion between the adviser and the sponsor. This deal becomes part of the
larger benchmarking question. Plans should already be asking things like, how
are my indices constructed? What are my benchmarks comprised of and why have we
picked the benchmarks we are using today? The same thing applies whether we’re
talking about sponsors using Russell, MSCI, FTSE or any other index provider.”
As Elvander observes, Russell is actually the larger of the
two entities involved in the merger, so there is a lot of value LSEG is gaining
too. “In fact, we may see more changes to the FTSE indices than
the Russell indices, if that makes sense, just because LSEG is gaining all of
this intellectual knowledge and capability from the Russell organization that
it didn’t have before, coming from the Russell platform and the Russell
staffers,” he continues. “So, sponsors will not just want to look at the
Russell side but also at what changes could be pending for FTSE and LSEG.”
Looking
at the existing indices offered by Russell and FTSE,
Elvander notes
there is just a little overlap in the global indices space. “Perhaps
those indices will be blended in the future, or one will be chosen and
the
other will be phased out for business purpose," he speculates. Although
it’s a relatively small overlap, he says "it could result in some assets
needing to find new benchmarks at
some point. This is true whether an index is cut or if its methodology
changes
significantly.”
Elvander concludes by observing there could be additional
deals of this type in the future—given the nature of indexing as a scale
business and the wider trend of consolidation in the investment services domain.
“It’s like when a recordkeeper has a platform that is built,
and then makes acquisitions or creates partnerships to push it out faster,” Elvander
explains. “Well, these indices are built and the owners are looking to leverage
scale. I think you can draw something of a parallel across both the
recordkeeping piece of the industry and the
indexing-services side.
“In
the end it’s an opportunity to ask the larger questions in terms of how
assets
are being benchmarked and whether sponsors and participants understand
it
all,” he says. “In a merger there tends to be some gains and some
trade-offs. As I said earlier, I think this marriage between Russell and
the FTSE Indices could be promising in terms of the indexing options
that will come out in the future.”
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
The
retirement plan industry is an ever-evolving landscape, shaped each year by
growing and emerging trends, as well as prior and new legal initiatives.
Tami
Simon, managing director of the Knowledge Resource Center at Buck Consultants
at Xerox, in Washington, D.C., says retirement plan sponsors are going to
continue to focus on spending on their retirement programs, shifting from a shorter-term
reactionary point of view to a more strategic perspective. They will look at
how their plans fit with the goals of the company and try to restore
confidence and a sense of financial well-being for their employees.
Plan
sponsors will promote and offer services to help
employees manage day-to-day finances, as well as help them understand
how to save
properly based on their standard of living at different ages, according
to
Simon. “Employers are stepping up to help employees manage longer-term
finances, since employees are not saving enough for retirement,” she
says.
Rob
Austin, director of retirement research at Aon Hewitt, in Charlotte,
North
Carolina, says Aon Hewitt is seeing that financial wellness is the No. 1
initiative plan sponsors will take on in 2015. “Saving for retirement
is very
important, but for some populations, retirement is way down the road and
on the
back-burner,” he notes. “But, when we talk about how to handle student
loans or
how to save for different needs, that perks up their ears.”
Debt
management, credit score
management, credit counseling, budgeting, comparing credit cards, and
understanding the difference between stocks and bonds are all financial
wellness issues, Austin says. Plan sponsors may
provide access to financial planners or other help for employees to
create broad
financial plans that include things like saving to buy a house or car.
He says
financial wellness programs should appeal to employees at different life
stages.
“Employers
are doing this because it’s a benefit. It not only helps employees, but makes
them appreciative of the employer,” Austin observes. He says employers can
provide financial wellness services on a much bigger scale than individuals may
get on their own.
In
addition to financial wellness, plan sponsors are looking to do more with their
retirement plans beyond providing a match contribution, Austin says. “They are
asking, ‘What else can we do that isn’t necessarily putting hard dollar amounts
into the plan, but will help participants get to a good retirement income?’”
Employers
are focusing on getting money into the plan, optimizing investments and making
sure participants are taking assets out of the plan at the appropriate time,
according to Austin.
He
notes that the use of automation has been going on for almost a decade, but emerging
trends include changes in default rates used in automatic enrollment, more plan
sponsors pairing automatic enrollment with automatic deferral escalation, and increasing
auto-escalation ceilings. More employers also are relaxing eligibility
requirements—either by including union, part-time employees or other groups
previously excluded, or by eliminating waiting periods for entering the plan.
“We used to see only about 50% of plan sponsors allowing for immediate
eligibility; now about three-quarters do,” he says.
According to
Austin,
more plan sponsors are adopting Roth accounts as well, in part because
employees are unsure about what taxes will do in future, but also
because of legislative proposals for further limiting the amount of
pre-tax deferrals by
participants. “Some employers are saying, ‘If changes take place in
Washington,
our plan is primed,’” he says.
Providing investment help has shifted direction from offering
target-date funds (TDFs) in
plan investment menus to giving access to online advice, managed
accounts and financial planners or advisers, Austin notes. Now,
providing help is more the norm than the exception, with more than 50%
of plan sponsors offering some kind
of help. “I think individuals have made it abundantly known [that]
investing is not
their strong suit, or they don’t have time to get into it,” he says.
Austin
also points out collective investment trusts (CITs) are making a comeback. He
says plan sponsors are moving from mutual funds to CITs as a way to lower fees
to increase employee outcomes.
“Plan
sponsors are asking, ‘What can we do to help individuals translate this big
accumulation into sustainable income in retirement?’” Austin says. Aon Hewitt
is seeing more interest in drawdown features and in annuities following
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)'s final rules about deferred income annuities in retirement plans.
Some
companies are acting to curb retirement
account leakage, Austin says. Plans that allowed for multiple loans now
permit only one
outstanding loan at a time, he explains, or plan sponsors have added a
waiting
period to take a loan. Austin says his firm does not see the same
efforts being made to limit hardship withdrawals. “Plan sponsors think
about a hierarchy of needs;
saving for retirement is not more important than having a roof over
one’s head
or being healthy,” he says. “Plus, there are enough checks and balances
with
hardship withdrawals, but not with loans.”
Simon
adds that plan sponsors are expanding communication channels to reach workers, and
social media will come more into play. And, for defined benefit (DB) plans, in 2015,
more plan sponsors will conduct asset/liability studies to understand how
different economic scenarios can impact their plans, and will examine the pros and
cons of plan termination or risk transfer.
Legislation
On
the legislative front, Simon warns that tax reform has the potential to really
affect retirement plans. She doesn’t think the proposal put forth by U.S.
Representative Dave Camp (R-Michigan) in 2014 will be enacted, but she believes
future proposals will borrow from it. “Shifting half of the 402(g) deferral
limit to after-tax and freezing deferral limits for 10 years will be big
discussion points in Congress,” she predicts.
At
the state level, a number of states have moved to use their public retirement
systems to offer retirement plans for private-sector workers (see “States Moving to Fill Private-Sector Retirement Plan Void”). According to news reports, Illinois
is poised to be the first state to enact legislation to do so, as just last
week, the Illinois House approved the state’s Secure Choice plan proposal.
Regulations
The
Department of Labor (DOL) has been working on its re-proposal of a new
definition of "fiduciary" since 2011. Now calling it the “conflict-of-interest
rule,” the agency still has the re-proposal slated for January 2015 on its most
recent regulatory agenda.
Lisa H. Barton, a
partner with law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, says she expects the
re-proposal to be issued in 2015. She notes there is obviously a lot of
industry concern about expanding the definition of fiduciary to include all investment
advisers, as this could significantly impact the way retirement advice is given
to participants, as well as costs and who is involved. “Probably one of the things that is
going to happen if investment advisers are fiduciaries is that services will
potentially cost more. Participants may have to pay more for advice they’ve
gotten previously because advisers will be taking on more risk,” she says.
Barton
says plan sponsors can also expect guidance on self-directed brokerage accounts
in 2015: guidance about the fiduciary responsibility for reviewing certain
investment options in a self-directed brokerage account, and possible fee or
disclosure requirements. In August, the DOL issued a request for information (RFI) about the use of brokerage windows, self-directed brokerage accounts and similar features in
401(k)-type retirement plans. The comment period ended in November.
There is no anticipated date for a proposed rule in the DOL’s regulatory
agenda.
However,
the DOL lists a September 2015 date for a final rule about a guide or similar
requirement to help plan sponsors understand service provider fee disclosures.
The DOL says the guide would ask
covered service providers (CSPs) to provide a “roadmap [to identify] the
document and page [number] or other sufficiently specific locator, such as a
section, that enables the responsible plan fiduciary to quickly and easily find
the [information].” The agency has recently asked for permission to issue a request for information and establish focus
groups to get information about the effectiveness of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 408(b)(2)
service provider fee disclosures. Barton says a final rule would give more
guidance about what service providers would need to include with fee
disclosures. Specifically, she explains, the DOL has been concerned that because some of the
fee disclosure information is provided in multiple documents or complicated
formats, plan sponsors and fiduciaries may not be able to adequately understand
the fees that are being paid by the plan. Formalizing a guide to
reading the fee disclosures will help plan sponsors and fiduciaries understand
how to read and interpret the documents being provided.
Barton
also thinks plan sponsors can expect more guidance about lifetime income
illustrations on benefit statements. The DOL issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking
in 2013, which Assistant
Secretary of Labor Phyllis Borzi, with the DOL’s Employee Benefit
Security
Administration (EBSA), said is issued when the DOL thinks there is a
problem but is not sure if a regulation would be the solution. Barton
notes that a lot
of providers already have this information on participant benefit
statements,
but may be using different assumptions for calculating it. She
thinks the DOL’s guidance would help to standardize the information and
allow
the data to be more consistent across the industry.
Although
it’s not on the DOL’s latest regulatory agenda, Barton says she understands
that the DOL is evaluating the level of disclosure required for target-date
funds (TDFs). However, this does not appear to be at the top of the DOL’s priorities, so
any guidance or regulation would likely be issued late in 2015 or early 2016.
From
the IRS, Barton says there has been talk about providing relief from
nondiscrimination requirements for closed defined benefit plans.
Legislators have appealed to the Department of Treasury for relief, saying
nondiscrimination testing required to qualify a DB plan for tax-deferred status
makes it difficult for companies to enact soft freezes on pension plans—even
though soft freezes can result in better retirement outcomes for employees than
simply closing a pension plan outright. The problem is that, over time,
grandfathered employees in the old system typically build seniority and become
more highly compensated than younger workers entering into a company’s defined
contribution (DC) plan. This widens the income gap between the two groups and
inadvertently increases the likelihood that the DB plan will fail to meet
nondiscrimination standards.
According to Barton,
the IRS and DOL are also considering providing de-risking guidance for
companies looking to de-risk pension plans by annuitizing part of
benefits with an annuity provider. On October 24, 2014, members of the
United
State Senate sent a letter to the heads of various government agencies,
including the IRS, DOL and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC)
requesting guidance. The letter addressed a number of concerns, including annuitization of pension
liabilities and allowing retirees in pay status to elect to receive lump-sum distributions.
Finally,
Barton says the IRS is looking at requiring more substantiation for hardship
distributions from retirement plans. Currently, plan sponsors, fiduciaries and
service providers may vary in what is required to be provided to substantiate
hardship distributions, she explains. The concern is that participants may be
taking distributions that might not adequately support a hardship distribution.
The IRS guidance would likely more clearly explain what is required in order to
take a hardship distribution from a defined contribution plan.
The
IRS is also expanding pre-approved retirement plan document programs. The
deadline for submitting pre-approved 403(b) plan documents is April 30, 2015.
However, industry experts agree it will take at least a year for the agency to
review them and decide which documents are approved. The IRS has also been
preparing to expand its pre-approved defined benefit plan program to include plans with cash balance features. The agency said it is developing tools, which
will be available before June 30, 2015, to assist plan sponsors in drafting
these plans.
Litigation
A
number of lawsuits have been filed challenging the“church plan” status of retirement plans offered by health systems. Results of
the lawsuits could affect 30 years of legal and regulatory precedents, so their progress
will be closely watched in 2015.
As
Barton notes, the Supreme Court’s review of the Tibble v. Edison excessive fee case will also be closely followed. A
U.S. District Court held that utility company Edison International had breached
its duty of prudence by offering retail-class mutual funds as plan investments
when identical institutional funds were available at a lower cost. The case
involved mutual funds that were added to the 401(k) plan between 1999 and 2007,
when the case was filed. The court limited its holding to three mutual funds
that had first been offered to plan participants within the six-year
limitations period provided under ERISA. The ruling was appealed to the 9th
Circuit, but the appeals court upheld the District Court’s decision to limit
the plaintiff’s claims to the three mutual funds adopted within the ERISA
statute of limitations period. This led to a final appeal attempt from Tibble,
endorsed by the U.S. Solicitor General, asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether such
claims should be time-barred. According to Tibble and counsel, if the
limitations period bars claims for funds still offered by the plan, it
effectively eliminates the plan sponsor’s duty to monitor and review funds
placed on its plan’s investment lineup more than six years ago.
According
to Barton, if the Supreme Court decides a statute of limitations does not apply
in the case, the court may provide additional information regarding the
appropriate process for evaluating and determining plan investments and
reasonableness of fees in light of the steps the fiduciaries did or did not
take in this case. The impact would be to further provide reasons to formalize the
investment review process, because plan sponsors and fiduciaries will not be
relieved from their duty to monitor investments, including which asset classes
are offered. If the court decides a statute of limitations does apply, it will
not change the need for a prudent process, but it is likely these other issues
will not be addressed, Barton says.
The effect of the
Supreme Court’s decision in Fifth Third
Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer may also be revealed in 2015, Barton adds. “Next
year, we will be able to tell whether the absence of a presumption of prudence
will increase the number of stock drop cases that are filed,” she says. “Plan
sponsors need to review their process for evaluating employer stock in light of
the Dudenhoeffer decision.”