Adviser Sees a Favorable Landscape for PRT Advice

A confluence of factors has combined to make this a compelling time to enter the pension risk transfer advice business, says Steve Keating, principal at Penbridge Advisors LLC.

Keating tells PLANADVISER his firm, launched in January 2013, was specifically formed to serve in an advisory capacity to retirement plan sponsors considering or implementing a pension risk transfer (PRT). Penbridge has since established several formal alliances, one with the London-based P-Solve and another with Deloitte Consulting, to build out its service offerings for pension plan sponsors and employers looking to offload defined benefit (DB) liabilities.

“We established our business model specifically to bring an approach where the collaboration of advisers and other firms providing PRT settlor and fiduciary services could be brought together, addressing all of the areas of specialty that are required to achieve a successful PRT outcome for employers and pension plan participants,” Keating explains. “Overall we’re very optimistic about the future for this type of pension risk transfer advice and support.”

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

Keating points to a variety of factors making late 2014 and 2015 a great time to enter the PRT advice market—from pending hikes in Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) benefit insurance premiums to higher funded statuses for most pension plans following recent stock market growth. These factors and others make PRT look more and more attractive, he says. 

“A lot of things have really come to a head right now in terms of plan sponsor decisions regarding their pension plan liability,” Keating notes. “There’s also the fact that the latest PBGC numbers, which are from year-end 2011, show about one-third of all remaining DB plans in the United States are hard frozen.”

As Keating observes, the only means for a hard-frozen plan to be completely removed from a plan sponsor’s balance sheet is through a combination of lump-sum cash out offers and annuity purchases. Important for the advisory community, Keating says, is the fact that very few employers, if any, have the internal expertise to execute a PRT transaction entirely on their own. And even for those pension plans that are not frozen, Keating suggests many plan sponsors are considering or have already gone through a reallocation of assets from primarily return-seeking portfolios towards better liability matching, which means many plan sponsors are positioning themselves to get serious about risk transfers.

“The way we think about it is—it’s not a matter of if a pension plan sponsor will take de-risking or PRT action, it’s a matter of when,” Keating says. “So in this sense it's clearly a compelling market for advisers to consider. The adviser’s job is to step in here and provide the key information that helps sponsors determine when is the right time, and what is the right approach.”

Keating says the sheer complexity of PRT transactions means there are many areas where advisers can apply their expertise to improve de-risking outcomes for DB clients.

“The sponsor decides the scope and design of the de-risking strategy and the plan fiduciary manages the implementation. From the fiduciary perspective, there is the creation of the fiduciary structure, including whether to retain an independent fiduciary,” he notes. “There are numerous notices and filings that are required by the IRS and the PBGC, just to name a few of the regulators that can be involved. There is also the annuity selection and placement process, which involves cleaning participant data, requesting price quotes from insurers and considering the factors under DOL-95-1, amongst other things.”

These are all areas in which a skilled adviser can distinguish himself and help improve outcomes for plan sponsors, Keating says. But, even Penbridge can’t deliver all of these services by itself, he explains; for that reason Penbridge has established strategic alliances with advisory firms that can. “We believe this coordinated approach provides the plan sponsor the comprehensive information needed to decide rationally how to de-risk and whether to pursue a PRT transaction,” he adds.

“Larger firms may be able to deliver many of these services under one roof, but may not be well positioned to engage and integrate their services with other firms that will inevitably be involved in the PRT transaction process,” Keating says. “Especially in larger transactions, there is a lot of business case analysis and implementation work involved—from both settlor and fiduciary perspectives. We believe that no one firm has all of these advisory capabilities internally.”

Keating suggests one of the main areas where pension plan sponsors can use help in preparing for a PRT transaction is around the timing of the actual transaction. The relative attractiveness of purchasing annuities to offset pension liabilities fluctuates on a weekly and even daily basis, he notes, making the timing extremely challenging. 

“As the adviser, you are in a unique position to sit down with the sponsor to determine what are the factors and conditions that would allow a plan sponsor to move forward with confidence,” Keating says. “In that context, price discovery and monitoring is crucial. So is setting up the legal framework that will allow the transfer to move ahead quickly when the time is right. The adviser’s role can be to educate the plan sponsor and business owners on what the different de-risking options are. It’s generally going to be a combination of lump sums and annuity purchases.”

This is not an easy task, Keating warns, even for a skilled adviser with sound knowledge of pension plan operations, as different approaches are often possible.  

“Some cases have come to market pursuing a ‘spin-off termination,’” Keating says. “Here GM’s move comes to mind, and Motorola Solutions also took this approach. Others, Verizon for example, pursued an annuity buyout without plan termination, which is usually referred to as a ‘pension lift-out.’ So there are clearly a lot of steps involved in deciding not only when to pursue PRT, but how to pursue it. The adviser is there to help the plan sponsor answer questions like, ‘Do I want to offer lump sums or not?’ And then on the annuity purchase, what’s going to be the preferred approach?”

Keating says Penbridge has established a database that collects information from PRT insurance providers each month about annuity pricing. The data is compiled and made available to registered users of the database, currently 144 plan sponsors. “We also currently have more than 200 advisory firms that access the database,” he notes. “To us, this indicates there is a growing interest among both the sponsor and adviser communities around pension risk transfer.”

Fine-Tuning Needed on the 4% Rule

While most use pre-retirement spending, the 4% “rule” or a bucket strategy, some advisers apply more math and science to avoid commonplace mistakes in retirement account withdrawals, Russell Investments finds.

No clear consensus exists among advisers about how to create a retirement spending plan, according to the Financial Professional Outlook (FPO), a quarterly survey of U.S. financial advisers from Russell Investments.

Advisers say their top challenges in serving clients near or in retirement are “setting reasonable spending expectations” (52%), “maintaining sustainable plans” (44%), and “determining sustainable spending policy” (33%), the survey finds. 

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

Although more than 60% of survey participants said that more than half of their clients are in or near retirement, there is still no clear consensus about how to create a sustainable retirement spending plan that accounts for market volatility and other unpredictable financial shocks.

“While generating sustainable retirement income for their clients is already a challenge for advisers, the eventual rise in interest rates could certainly further impact the financial security of those in or near retirement,” says Rod Greenshields, consulting director for Russell’s adviser-sold business. “With the Fed’s quantitative easing measures drawing to a close and the American economy back on line, there could be momentous implications for retirees once interest rates rise.”

In the face of challenging marketing conditions, advisers continue to struggle to find strategies that are simple for their clients to understand and yet sophisticated enough to meet an investor’s individual needs. In designing a retirement spending plan, 16% of advisers consider a client’s funded ratio, or the actuarial net present value of assets divided by expected lifetime liabilities. Most take a less scientific approach.

Among survey respondents, 25% said that they based the retirement spending plan on pre-retirement spending patterns, followed by 22% who chose a rule of thumb like the “4% rule,” and 19% who used some type of time-segmented bucket strategy.

“Common approaches like the ‘4% rule’ are easy to understand, but do not account for a client’s individual circumstances and can lead to unintended mistakes,” Greenshields says. He feels advisers would do well to follow the lead taken by defined benefit plans and calculate a funded ratio.

“By determining the cost of a client’s liabilities compared to the value of their assets, the funded ratio offers a superior method of evaluating retirement readiness,” Greenshields contends. “The math behind the ratio is sophisticated, but the outcome is a simple yet powerful percentage that most clients understand immediately. This individualized approach gives advisers the opportunity to engage with clients in a meaningful conversation about their progress toward retirement goals and the amount of risk they may need to take in order to meet them.”

In determining their approach to asset allocation for clients near or in retirement, 38% of advisers said that they rely on a risk profile questionnaire to determine the asset allocation of portfolios. These questionnaires tend to define how much risk clients think they can tolerate. This is very useful during the accumulation phase, but as clients approach retirement it becomes critically important to understand how much risk their assets can handle while also funding retirement expenses—in other words, their true risk capacity.

The investor’s funded ratio incorporates risk capacity, Russell Investments maintains. The ratio represents the surplus or deficit of assets necessary to fund lifetime retirement liabilities. This yardstick helps measure the feasibility of a spending plan and it can be used to monitor and adapt a portfolio’s allocation through time. The funded ratio, and any asset allocation based on it, relies on the capacity for risk as determined by the client’s real assets rather than the client’s self-reported tolerance for investment risk.

Despite the current low yields, a majority of advisers (66%) believe yield-focused strategies are a good option because they protect the client’s initial investment, are sustainable, and are simple for investors to understand. But not all advisers see it this way. Thirty percent don’t like yield-focused strategies because they feel current yields are not attractive enough to meet clients’ retirement income needs. This group also suggests that, because yields change over time, a yield-focused strategy presents too many challenges to support consistent income; and the risk/return trade-off is too great.

“We understand why clients ask for yield-seeking strategies—they are simple and clients like the idea of preserving principal while living off dividends and interest. It seems like a safe plan to eat the eggs but spare the chicken,” Greenshields says. “However, in this low-yield environment, what seems simple may end up increasing risk. If income isn’t sufficient, clients have to cut back expense or chase yield.”

The survey was fielded between September 24 and October 8, 2014. Russell Investments reached 234 financial advisers working for nearly 145 investment firms nationwide to explore how they deal with volatility and low interest rates, and what kinds of risks they are taking on for their clients, among other challenges.

The Financial Professional Outlook (FPO) survey from Russell Investments can be downloaded here.

«