Pension Annuitization Attractiveness Hangs On

The Dietrich Pension Risk Transfer Index, which tracks the relative attractiveness of annuitizing pension liabilities, remained basically unchanged through February and into March.

As of March 1, the index sits at 95.27, falling slightly due to continued slides in interest rates. The index’s annuity discount rate proxy of 3.12% lost six basis points from the previous month. 

U.S. Treasury and corporate bond yields continue to fall, offsetting rebounds in plan funding levels that resulted from a turnaround in the equity markets in February. While interest rates continue to trend downward, group annuity discount rates are not falling at the same pace and may offer value versus similar duration bonds.  

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

Rumors of another Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premium hike and preliminary reports on the findings of the Society of Actuaries’ mortality study, both potentially increasing plan liabilities, continue to spark plan sponsor’s interest in liability-driven investing (LDI) and de-risking strategies (see “PBGC Premium Hikes Shake Up Buyout Landscape”). 

An index score of 95.27 suggests eliminating retiree pension liabilities through a group annuity purchase remains a viable alternative to maintain the liabilities. “Retiree settlements can reduce the size and expense of a pension plan while allowing the remaining plan assets to focus exclusively on generating returns needed to minimize future costs and close funding gaps,” explains Geoff Dietrich, vice president of Dietrich & Associates.

The Dietrich Pension Risk Transfer Index provides a dynamically constructed, monthly directional data-point regarding the market conditions that affect settlement costs. Higher index values indicate a reduction in the settlement cost environment. The index was designed to provide pension stakeholders a thoughtful mechanism for monitoring settlement market conditions, and to support effective plan governance and decision making.

The latest Dietrich Pension Risk Transfer Index calculations can be viewed here. Additional commentary is now available on YouTube.

Skill Matters in Active vs. Passive Debate

A skilled active manager can add notable value to investment portfolios compared with less-skilled managers and passive investments, according to a recent white paper from RidgeWorth Investments.

RidgeWorth’s research finds financial advisers don’t always consider how the individual skills of fund managers can impact investment returns for their clients—relying instead on more general fund characteristics to select investment products. While it’s clearly important to consider the merits of a fund’s general investment strategy, RidgeWorth contends that financial advisers can add to their own value proposition by identifying top fund managers and directing client assets to the active products they manage.

Understanding the role that individual manager skills play in fund performance can also better inform advisers’ decisions about pursuing active versus passive investments, the firm says. The white paper, “Large Cap Value Indexing Myth-Conceptions: Re-examining the Active versus Passive Management Debate,” suggests selecting a skilled active manager will add substantial value to portfolio returns over time—enough to make well-managed active strategies preferable to cheaper, index-based mutual funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs).

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

“Conventional wisdom often holds that the ‘average’ active manager has trouble consistently beating broad market benchmarks,” explains Mills Riddick, CIO of Ceredex Value Advisors and senior equity portfolio manager for the RidgeWorth Large Cap Value Equity strategy. “However, an effective large cap fund manager has the potential to outperform benchmarks, and to do so by a significant amount.”

Riddick observes that active managers do not need to outperform their respective benchmarks in every period to deliver stronger overall long-term performance. Rather, it is the frequency of higher returns through evolving market cycles that matters most in assessing active managers, he says.

The paper makes the argument that a skilled active manager can also provide valuable protection on the downside—protection not typically available in passive index products. So while skilled active management over the long term will drain more from net returns in fees and expenses, it should also reduce the risk of major loss in volatile periods. The important calculation, then, becomes whether the long-term expense of active management is greater or less than the protection that’s gained when markets go down.

Research compiled for the paper shows the industry is at something of a crossroads in active versus passive management. Between 2009 and 2013, nearly $37 billion flowed out of actively managed large cap value investments, while some $49 billion moved into large cap value ETFs and other indexed portfolios. The trend of moving money away from active funds slowed substantially in 2013, though, and on RidgeWorth’s analysis, could turn either way in 2014.

When choosing an active manager, the paper suggests an adviser should screen for manager tenure, performance consistency and a reasonable expense ratio. RidgeWorth also suggests investors should consider the opportunity costs associated with an indexed product, especially one is used in an important core portfolio allocation such as large cap value. When examining cost efficiency, a small savings in fund expenses may not be the best outcome if a higher-priced option delivers more than that savings provides in added return.

In assessing Morningstar’s universe of 310 actively managed large cap value funds, RidgeWorth identifies 61 funds, or about 24% of the large cap active universe, as being run by “top-performing managers.” The size of outperformance in this group is substantial, RidgeWorth says. On average, these managers delivered 5.73% more in return than the index across all rolling three-year periods and 13.74% more across all rolling five-year periods. This higher five-year return translates into an additional $1,374 in portfolio value for an initial $10,000 investment, which will likely be considered a high cost to pay for the ease of buying an index product.

The paper notes a number of useful criteria in addition to performance and information ratio that this top-performing group generally had in common:

  • Average portfolio manager tenure was 8.19 years, 31% longer than the average 6.25  years for the funds evaluated and 42% longer than the 5.79 years for the entire large cap value category;
  • Investment style was generally more consistent as measured by variance tracked by Morningstar’s Style Box analysis; and
  • Average fund expenses of 0.95% were notably lower than the 1.03% expenses of the evaluated funds.

To access this white paper, visit www.ridgeworth.com/news-insights/ridgeworth-research.

«

 

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.