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.
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.
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
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).
“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.